Sitting of 25 May 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Malcolm MacPherson, Esq., M.B.E., Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
NEW WRIT
For Hayes and Harlington, in the room of Arthur Massey Skeffington, Esq., deceased. [Mr. Mellish.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown signified]
  Read the Third time and passed.

  ALDRIDGE-BROWNHILLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  As amended, considered.
  Bills to be read the Third time.

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Bill to be considered tomorrow.

  GREAT SOUTHERN CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM BILL [Lords]
  Bill read a Second time and committed.

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I beg to move,
  That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:—

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

    SCHEDULE
    Standing Order 22, line 22, leave out 'Postmaster General' and insert 'Post Office'.
    Standing Order 27, line 57, leave out 'a' and insert 'one' leave out from 'Office' in line 59 to end of line 61 and insert 'and two copies at the Department of the Environment'.
    Standing Order 29, line 3, after 'system', insert 'two copies of'.
    Line 8, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
    Line 9, leave out 'ministry' and insert 'department, and one copy'.
    Line 9, leave out 'at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and'.
    Standing Order 30, line 5, leave out 'Ministry of Power' and insert 'Department of Trade and Industry'.
    Line 6, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
    Standing Order 30A, line 5, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
    Standing Order 31, line 6, leave out 'Board of Trade' and insert 'Department of Trade and Industry'.
    Standing Order 34, line 9, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and add "Department of the Environment'.
    Standing Order 37, line 15, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
    Standing Order 39, line 1, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 14 and insert 'On or before the fourth day of December printed copies shall be deposited (1) of every bill, three at the Department of the Environment; two at the Department of Social Services and at the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications and one at the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Civil Service Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Employment, the Office of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Office of the Duchy of Lancaster'.
    Standing Order 45, line 32, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
    Standing Order 46, lines 4, and 5, leave out 'Board of Trade or Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of Trade and Industry or Department of the Environment'.
    Line 5, leave out 'offices' and insert 'Departments'.
    Standing Order 47, lines 10 and 11, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
    Standing Order 144, line 13, leave out 'and the Board of Trade'.
    Standing Order 146, line 5, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
    Line 7, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
    Standing Order 147, line 7, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
    Line 9, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
    Standing Order 154, line 11, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
    Line 23, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
    Standing Order 155, leave out lines 4 and 5, and insert 'Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State for the Environment'.
    Line 8, leave out 'Board or Minister' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
    Standing Order 156B, line 16, leave out 'Minister of Housing and Local Government or'.
    Standing Orders page 98, leave out Table of Fees and insert new Table of Fees as follows:

    A TABLE OF FEES TO BE CHARGED AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
    I. FEES TO BE PAID BY THE PROMOTERS OF A PRIVATE BILL

    For the deposit of the Petition, Bill, Plan and other Documents required to be deposited in the Private Bill Office

    £5

    For each day on which the Examiner shall inquire into compliance with the Standing Orders

    £5

    FOR PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE

    On the First Reading of the Bill

    £15

    On the Second Reading of the Bill

    £15

    On the Report from the Committee on the Bill

    £15

    On the Third Reading of the Bill

    £15

    Additional fee on a Debate at Seven o'clock on one or more evenings on any one stage of the Bill

    £25

    The promoters of Bills relating to charitable, religious, educational, literary or scientific purposes whereby no private profit or advantage
    202
    is derived, and Personal Bills brought from the Lords, may be charged one-half of the preceding fees.
    Except for such Bills as are mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, the preceding Fees on First, Second and Third Readings, and on Report, shall be increased, according to the total sum of moneys which it is proposed to raise or expend under the authority of the Bill, in accordance with the following scale:—
    If the sum be two hundred thousand pounds or more, and less than one million pounds, twice the amount of these Fees;
    If the sum be one million pounds or more, and lessthan two million pounds, three times the amount of these Fees;
    If the sum be two million pounds or more, and less than three million pounds, four times the amount of these Fees;
    If the sum be three million pounds or more, and less than five million pounds, five times the amount of these Fees;
    If the sum be five million pounds or more, six times the amount of these Fees.

    FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A COMMITTEE OR THE COURT OF REFEREES

    For each of the first three days on which a Committee on an opposed Bill shall sit

    £10

    For each subsequent day

    £15

    For each day on which a Committee on an unopposed Bill shall sit

    £3

    For each day on which the Court of Referees shall sit

    £10

    For proceedings before a Joint Committee one-half of the preceding fees shall be charged.

    II. FEES TO BE PAID BY PETITIONERS AND MEMORIALISTS

    On the deposit of any Memorial complaining that the Standing Orders have not been complied with

    £1

    On the presentation of any Petition in favour of or against a Private Bill

    £2

    For each day on which the Examiner inquires into any Memorial complaining of noncompliance with the Standing Orders

    £2

    For each clay on which a Petitioner appears before any Committee or or before the Court of Referees

    £2

    For each clay on which a Petitioner appears before a Joint Committee

    £1

    III. FEES TO BE PAID BY THE APPLICANTS FOR A PROVISIONAL ORDER
    On the Second Reading of a Bill to confirm one or more Provisional Orders, other than a Bill to confirm an Order or Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, the applicants for each Provisional Order included in the Bill shall be charged a fee of £15.
    For proceedings before the Court of Referees of any Committee, the fees charged to applicants and opponents shall be the same rates as those charged for similar proceedings on a Private Bill.

    IV. FEES TO BE PAID FOR PROCEEDINGS ON A SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDER

    For each day on which an applicant (other than a Minister) appears before

    (a) the Chairmen

    £1·50

    (b) a Joint Committee

    £5

    On the deposit of each Petition or Counter-Petition, a copy of either

    £1

    For each day on which a Petitioner in either House appears before the Chairmen or before a Joint Committee

    £1

    For each day on which a Counter-Petitioner in either House appears before a Joint Committee

    £1

    V. GENERAL FEES

    On each Motion, Order or Proceeding in the House upon a Private Bill, Petition, or matter not otherwise charged

    £1

    For a copy of any Paper or Document, per folio of 72 words—

    If five folios or under

    19p

    If above five folios, per folio

    4p

    For a copy of a Plan, made by the parties

    £1·50

    For the inspection of a Plan or other Document

    37½p

    For each day on which any parties shall be heard by Counsel at the Bar, from each side

    £10

    For each day on which a Committee of the whole House shall sit on a Private Bill or matter

    £6

    For serving any Summons or Order on a Private Bill or matter

    £1

    For each Order for the commitment or discharge of any person

    £1

    For taking any person into custody for a Breach of Privilege or Contempt

    £5

    For taking any person into custody for any other cause

    £2

    For each day on which any person shall be in custody

    £1

    For Riding Charges per mile

    5p

    VI. FEES TO BE PAID ON THE TAXATION OF COSTS ON PRIVATE BILLS

    For each application or reference to the Taxing Officer of the House of Commons for the Taxation of a Bill of Costs

    £1

    For each £100 of any Bill of Costs allowed by the Taxing Officer

    £1

    On the deposit of a Memorial complaining of a Report of the Taxing Officer

    £1

    For any Certificate which shall be signed by the Speaker

    £1

    For a copy of any Document in the Office of the Taxing Officer, per folio of 72 words

    5p

    VII. FEES TO BE TAKEN BY THE SHORTHAND WRITER

    For each day he shall attend

    Home

    £7·82½

    Distance of more than 60 miles from Charing Cross

    £9·27½

    For the transcript of his notes, per folio of 72 words—

    where carbon copies of transcript are supplied

    13½p

    where no carbons of transcript are supplied

    19p

    carbon copy, per folio of 72 words

    1p

    where evidence is sound recorded

    25p

    The preceding fees shall be charged, paid, and received at such times, in such manner and under such regulations as the Speaker shall from time to time direct.
    All these Amendments are of a formal nature, making no change of substance in Standing Orders. They are necessary either because of recent changes in the responsibilities of Government Departments or following the introduction of decimal currency. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to ask the Chairman of Ways and Means for an explanation of any or all of these Amendments? How does one proceed?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that would constitute an objection, and, if the hon. Member persists in his objection, I must say, "Objection taken. Debate resumed what day?"
    Mr. Lewis: No, I do not persist.
    Mr. Speaker: The Question is——
    Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I shouted "No" earlier, and I object to this for a technical reason.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    National Health Service and Local Government Reform
    Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure that there is adequate consultation with local health authorities to achieve harmonisation of proposals for the reform of the National Health Service with proposals for local government reform; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I have sent copies of the consultative document "National Health Service Reorganisation" to the main local authority associations asking for their comments on my proposals. The document proposes a working party, representative of local government and other interests concerned, to study detailed arrangements for close co-ordination between the health services and related local authority services.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that that reply will give considerable satisfaction to enlightened and thoughtful local authorities like the Hertfordshire County Council? Does he also appreciate that there is a problem here of integrating the pattern of these two allied forms of legislation on the health side and the local government side so as to ensure that no step is taken under either head without full co-ordination with the requirements of the other?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is no more important ingredient of the coming health service reorganisation than the closest collaboration, to which my right hon. and learned Friend rightly refers, between the new health authorities and the new local authorities.
    Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that there is criticism concerning the circulation of the document, particularly in regard to numbers, and that some authorities have received only one copy of it and have had to resort to photocopying in order that the members may consider it? Is he aware that this is a very unsatisfactory procedure?
    Sir K. Joseph: No. I was not aware of those matters. I will inquire into the situation. If the document has had to be photocopied, which I regret, it is at least a short document.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain proposals in the document which are disturbing to us on this side of the House, in particular the absence of any direct local representation at regional level, the absence of any clear statement about the future of the school medical service and the fact that general practitioners are to remain under a separate structure? In view of our concern on these points, could he make sure that the document is available to members of the general public as well as to local authorities, so that a major discussion can take place before he issues his White Paper?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

    Younger Chronic Sick Persons
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations contained in the memorandum on the care of the younger chronic sick, issued by his Department in June, 1968.
    Sir K. Joseph: Six more special units have been provided to bring the total up to 28. A further 21 are planned to start this year; 18 of these are being financed from the extra £3 million I am setting aside for this purpose over the next four years.
    Mr. Farr: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Is he satisfied with the replies from hospital boards following the inquiry which was set up by his predecessor asking what progress they had made in this connection?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am satisfied that the boards are trying to make, and are now being enabled to make, considerable progress. The job is not quite in sight of being finished, but I hope it will be completed very soon.

    Supplementary Benefit Tribunals
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will establish an inquiry into the operation of supplementary benefit tribunals.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): The constitution and working of these tribunals are kept under review by the Council on Tribunals under the provisions of Section 1 of the Tribunal and Inquiries Act, 1958.
    Mr. Davis: Does the hon. Gentleman hope that, by reason of the instructions recently given to the Supplementary Benefits Commission about evidence given to tribunals involving cases of cohabitation, there will be an end to the unpleasant snooping and prying which has taken place in such cases? Hearsay evidence has been admitted, to the detriment of women applicants, and many women have been deprived of benefits on the say-so of other people in circumstances where there has been no substantial evidence that the woman is receiving any help from the man with whom she is alleged to be cohabiting. Does he not consider this matter to be worthy of further inquiry?
    Mr. Dean: This is a difficult and delicate area in which officials have to draw a balance between providing prompt help for those who are entitled to it and, at the same time, seeing that the arrangements are not abused.

    National Health Service (Lower-paid Workers)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking in the light of the report of the Prices and Incomes Board on the lower-paid workers employed in the National Health Service.
    Sir K. Joseph: The Board's report No. 166 is being urgently considered in consultation with representatives of hospital management.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is it not a terrible thing that the answer given the Secretary of State deals only with management although workers also are affected by this matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman have urgent discussions with the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees with a view to instituting some efficient arrangements in view of the wide discrepancy between the lowest
    208
    of the lowest paid and the highest of the highest paid?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am very concerned to raise productivity and earnings in the hospital service, and I take the hon. Gentleman's point. First of all, I must examine with the boards the possibility of expanding the skilled staffs necessary to carry out either the incentive schemes which are now in operation or those recommended by the Board.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this problem has proved intractable over the years and that in the past it has been no easier of solution by reason of the relatively low ranking of Ministers of Health in the governmental hierarchy? Would he, therefore, appreciate that he now has a great opportunity to make some progress in the solution of the problem of the remuneration of those who are doing this socially useful work and whose contribution cannot be precisely measured by market considerations or indices of productivity?
    Sir K. Joseph: I fear that Ministerial energy and willpower are not enough, though I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has both at his disposal to an incomparable degree. There are difficulties of mobilising and managing men and women to increase their output, as has been found by Governments in the past.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of lower-paid workers in the National Health Service are highly skilled and that this almost intractable problem requires immediate action by the Government? Is he also aware that the pilot scheme for bonus payments has operated in only one area of the country, and does he not agree that the scheme should be extended throughout the whole country to get to grips with the problem? Is it not essential that the commendable spirit of the workers, who have remained loyal to this service when they could have found work elsewhere, should not be exploited?
    Sir K. Joseph: I cannot take up the hon. Gentleman's reference to skills without knowing what he has in mind. The Board points out that the trade unions have not universally interested themselves

    209
    enormously in productivity and the relations between productivity and earnings among some of the workers concerned.

    Disability Pension
    Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now take steps to introduce a disability pension for the registered disabled, in the light of recent representations.
    Mr. Dean: I would refer my hon. Friend to the National Insurance Bill now before the House which includes a substantial package of selective improvements for the chronic sick. I am writing to my hon. Friend on the individual case which I believe concerns him.
    Mr. Hannam: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for that answer. Would he not accept that, in view of the reports showing that 1,250,000 disabled adults living in private households face disproportionate increases in costs of special diets, equipment and clothing, he should give careful attention to the recommendations of the Disablement Income Group for a national disability pension or income?
    Mr. Dean: Yes, that is one of the reasons for the substantial increase in the cash benefits under the National Insurance Bill, and why my right hon. Friend has already assured the House that this is only the first step among other measures which will be taken, both in cash and care, to help this section of the community.
    Dr. Summerskill: Could the hon. Gentleman say why the Government felt unable to accept the Amendment of the Opposition which sought to cover disabled married women who have opted out of the National Insurance scheme?
    Mr. Dean: Because some of them will be covered already under the Bill. We have made a good start and cannot be expected to do everything at once, but other steps will be taken as soon as possible.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would my hon. Friend give particularly favourable consideration to the representations of the Disablement Income Group in regard to a disability income, which would not only bring this country into line with other countries but encourage the long-
    210
    term unemployed among the disabled to re-enter work and make themselves independent?
    Mr. Dean: I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we are urgently considering what other steps to take.

    Health Service Ombudsman
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is yet able to announce the appointment of a Health Service ombudsman.
    Sir K. Joseph: I cannot yet go beyond what I said in reply to Questions on this matter on 4th May.—[Vol. 816, c. 1163.]
    Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us believe that the proposals in the consultative document are undemocratic and, if implemented, will strengthen the case for the appointment of a Health Service ombudsman?
    Sir K. Joseph: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not agree with him.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that we have a very good ombudsman as it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Would he consider not duplicating this work but giving the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is very skilled in this matter, the work in regard to hospitals under the Government's direct control?
    Sir K. Joseph: I note what my hon. and learned Friend says.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the views which have been expressed on this matter by the Select Committee of this House to which the ombudsman reports?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have noted very carefully the views of the Select Committee.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would my right hon. Friend try to give a swift answer on this matter? There are many hon. Members on this side of the House who desperately want to see such an appointment, and we hope that he will not take as long in making up his mind as his predecessor did.
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes. I have said before that I am bound to meet the medical profession before making up my mind.

    211
    I hope that the meeting with the consultants and the B.M.A. will take place soon.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: In considering the appointment of an ombudsman—besides that of the Select Committee, there is the view of at least one of the committees of inquiry into a major difficulty at a mental subnormality hospital to be taken into account—will the right hon. Gentleman consider making it possible for the Health Service Advisory Committee in certain circumstances to bring situations to the attention of that person, because many hon. Members are concerned that the ombudsman should not merely be an appeal court?
    Sir K. Joseph: I take it that the hon. Lady is referring to the Hospital Advisory Service?
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Yes.
    Sir K. Joseph: That goes much further than what I have in mind at the moment, but I will ponder what the hon. Lady has said.

    Terminal Cancer (Treatment)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will initiate an inquiry into the treatment of patients suffering from terminal cancer.
    Sir K. Joseph: I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the replies to his Questions on 6th and 22nd April. The terminal care studies referred to include cancer cases.—[Vol. 815, c. 67, 450.]
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that about a fifth of all the people in this country will in due course die of this disease? Is he further aware that when the doctors returned from investigating Dr. Issels' clinic in Bavaria they said that people found it necessary to go to Germany for treatment of terminal cancer because our treatment is so woefully inadequate in general? In view of the sense of outrage of people suffering from this illness and that of their families and friends, will he at least give some hope of an immediate, full and comprehensive inquiry into the entire problem?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am very sympathetic to the hon. and learned Gentleman's approach. I shall be visiting one of the
    212
    places concerned this week. I cannot undertake to promise a comprehensive inquiry, but I shall study further what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said and the various studies which are going on.

    Drugs
    Mr. Kenneth Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to increase the information and advice given to general practitioners on prescribing costs and on the comparative costs of drugs.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I think that the information services we now provide for doctors are sufficient in quantity; but I shall neglect no opportunity of improving their quality.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is still some concern in this sphere about waste of prescribing charges in the National Health Service? In particular, whilst considering the possibility of graduated prescription charges as one way of increasing the awareness of prescribing costs, will he consider whether there are possibilities in other directions for achieving the same aim—for example, by increasing the number of staff in his Department working in this sphere and the frequency of their visits to general practitioners?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. I doubt whether a further expansion of visits to doctors will be productive, but I will consider what my hon. Friend has suggested.
    Mr. Dalyell: What does the Secretary of State mean by "neglecting no opportunity"? Does he intend to extend, or try to extend, the Ipswich experiment on amphetamines?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has bowled me out there. I am not sure that I know the reference.
    Dr. Summerskill: The amphetamines.
    Sir K. Joseph: That is off the point of the Question. I am interested in spreading the voluntarly amphetamine ban imposed on themselves by the G.Ps in Ipswich. I am interested in presenting to doctors even more vividly, if I can improve the quality, information about clinically

    213
    equivalent alternatives at differential prices.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's reply means that he has now abandoned the ludicrous scheme to bring in cost-related prescriptions. If not, he will have to think hard again about his reply, because it will be crucial to give advice of this kind unless the disaster is to be even greater than we suppose it is likely to be.
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that the hon. Lady knows that I am in the midst of the rational dialogues to which I had looked forward.

    National Pensions Plan
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish his Department's new National Pensions plan.
    Mr. Dean: We are pressing on with our plans, but I cannot at this stage give a date for their publication.
    Mr. Dykes: I appreciate my hon. Friend's difficulty. Is he aware that there has been a widespread welcome, both inside and outside this House, for an early plan which would make clear the relationship of private to national pensions and the differences between graduated national pensions and the flat-rate State pensions?
    Mr. Dean: Yes, Sir. I think the House knows that it is the Government's firm intention to encourage occupational pension schemes to develop still further.
    Mr. Marks: As inflation has made nonsense of the idea that we need to review pensions only every two years, will there be provision for an annual review in the new plan?
    Mr. Dean: My right hon. Friend's proposals now before the House involve bringing forward this year's increase by about six weeks. I cannot add to that.

    Pensioners (Supplementary Benefit)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what publicity he proposes to give to explain to retired pensioners, who are in receipt of supplementary benefits, the effect on such benefits when the increase in State pensions takes place in September.
    Mr. Dean: All supplementary pensioners will receive a short leaflet explaining how the changes will affect their incomes.
    Mr. Cox: I note the reply. Is it not a fact that when the pension increases take place in September there will be a reduction in the State supplementary pension now payable? This will mean to millions of people that the actual increase which they will receive in September will be only a few shillings above what they are now receiving? This will in no way cover the continued increase in the cost of living which they face. This is certain to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction and confusion in the minds of many pensioners. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore get his Department to look at the whole question of supplementary pensions?
    Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is certainly correct, but he forgets that there was an increase in supplementary pensions last November when there was no increase in National Insurance pensions. The increase over the two years will be exactly the same as the increase in National Insurance pensions. Over and above that, if pensioners have had increases in rent, for example, they will be fully covered for those increases.
    Mr. William Price: Why do not all Governments tell old people the truth? Whatever the rights and wrongs of this academic argument in this House, which we understand, millions of old folk do not understand it, and many of them, for reasons apparent to both Front Benches, will be expecting a rise which they will not get.
    Mr. Dean: It is for that reason that they will all get a leaflet explaining the situation. One of the great distinguishing features between this Government and the last Government is that we do tell people the truth.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Common Market and all that!
    Mr. William Price: Nobody believes them—that is the trouble.

    Post-Graduate Medical Training
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he

    215
    has read the evidence in the British Journal of Medical Education, which is in his possession, on post-graduate medical training facilities being made available to immigrant doctors who, in relation to conditions in their own countries, derive little benefit from them; and if he will use his influence in the interests alike of developing countries and of British medical students deprived of places of which they could make use, to ameliorate this situation.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am aware of the article to which my hon. Friend refers. I have no evidence that British doctors are unable to obtain the post-graduate training they need because of the facilities afforded to overseas doctors.
    Mr. King: Would it not be selfish if Great Britain, with a ratio of about one doctor to 800 patients, were to make a special effort to attract doctors from developing countries where the ratio may be 1 to 7,000? Whilst there is a desperate need for doctors at grass roots level in developing countries, the sophisticated postgraduate techniques which some of them are taking up scarce medical facilities here to learn can, when they return to their own countries, often be applied only to a small gaggle of wealthy people. Is not this a waste of medical resources and perhaps of medical education?
    Sir K. Joseph: But in a free world people tend to move where their services are needed and paid for. We must be grateful, while recognising the damage and loss to the developing countries, for the services of many of their doctors in this country, remembering that some of our doctors go to other markets.
    Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although we are grateful to immigrant doctors for keeping our hospitals going, we should be educating more medical students who have the qualifications to go to medical school but cannot obtain the places, and thus increasing our output of doctors?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. We are increasing the number and size of medical schools, and, therefore, the output of doctors. However, it takes some years to raise the output of doctors, as we all know.

    Means-Tested Welfare Services (Advertisements)
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will withdraw poster reference number; Dd 820925 3/71 issued by his Departent, in view of the misleading nature of the statistics contained therein.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the fact that some of the figures used in his advertisements about means-tested welfare services are misleading and causing concern, he will withdraw such advertisements and replace them with more accurate versions.
    Mr. Dean: I do not agree that the advertisements were misleading. The object was to encourage as many people as possible to claim. For this reason, as the advertisements clearly state, gross; income figures were used, and approximations were used for the scales for children and for rent, even though this inevitably meant that a small number of people would be disappointed when, on making a claim, they gave exact details.
    Mr. Clark: I very much regret what the Minister has said. Does he realise that thousands of people are earning £2 or £3 a week less than the figures quoted in the document? Does he not accept that it is extremely callous to build up people's hopes and then dash them in the way that he has done?
    Mr. Dean: No, Sir. The figures prove quite the contrary. For example, the average awards for welfare foods and milk before the take-up campaign started were 29 a week. They are now averaging over 11,000 a week.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many have applied and been rejected, which is the meaningful figure? Does he not realise that the figures in the advertisement were so misleading as to qualify for a Tory Party Central Office hand-out? It was very fortuitous that it was issued just before the local elections, with calamitous results for the Tory Party.
    Mr. Dean: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. The figures I have given show the substantial success of the take-up campaign. It is certainly

    217
    the case that not everyone who applies is granted an award. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise proportion, because some of the applications are still being processed, but it is substantially over 50 per cent.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I recognise the genuine desire to encourage the maximum number of people to make the claim, but does not the hon. Gentleman think the position needs to be reviewed, especially leaflet FB/11, in which the section dealing with free optical and dental treatment has a discrepancy of about 30 to 40 per cent., which is too high a margin even to achieve the Government's objectives?
    Mr. Dean: We are always prepared to look at leaflets in the light of experience, but I think I can still fairly claim that the results of the take-up campaign so far have been immensely encouraging.

    Welfare Milk (Children Under Five)
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children under the age of five he now estimates will cease to receive welfare milk as a result of Government action.
    Sir K. Joseph: Just over three million in England, all of whom are, however, still entitled to National Dried Milk at 20p per pack, which is the equivalent of less than 3p per daily pint of liquid milk. Entitlement to free milk is extended by an estimated 25 per cent.
    Miss Lestor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some confusion in the country among those concerned with the under-fives as to why children attending any registered pre-school establishment will automatically receive free milk and yet most of those at home with their mothers will have to pay the full price for their milk? Will he explain the nutritional and dietary arguments that led to such a ridiculous stituation?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not think it is ridiculous. Our reasoning was that when children under five are away from their mother for several hours, as are the children with whom we are here concerned, there should be milk available, but when they are at home we can rely in practically every case on the mother providing the necessary nutrition there.

    Geriatric and General Medicine (Consultants)
    Mrs. Shirley Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional appointments of consultants in geriatric medicine and general medicine he is proposing to authorise following the report of the South-East Metropolitan Hospitals Board.
    Sir K. Joseph: The initiative for proposing new posts lies with hospital boards. My Department last month approved a proposal by the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board for one consultant post in geriatric medicine. No proposals from it are currently awaiting a decision.
    Mrs. Williams: Might the right hon. Gentleman consider encouraging metropolitan regional hospital boards to put forward such proposals? In the report geriatric wards are described as human warehouses. One of the points the board made most strongly was that this was the most desperately under-staffed section of the Health Service.
    Sir K. Joseph: I wrote on 13th April to all regional hospital boards and boards of governors inviting proposals for additional senior registrar posts in the specialities where there were many vacancies. I realise that, despite the Government's extra injection of money into the geriatric services, there is still an immense amount to be done.

    Optical and Dental Charges (Exemption)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received in connection with the issue of leaflet F11 to dentists and opticians on how to claim exemption from optical and dental charges; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Dean: The British Dental Association wrote to my right hon. Friend about delay in receiving copies of form F11—which were sent to it for information—and pointed out an omission from the form. In his reply my right hon. Friend gave the reasons for the late deliveries and also said what was done about the omission.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the form is bureaucracy run mad, and that many people will have great difficulty in understanding it? What estimate has he made of the number of additional civil servants required to process these incredible application forms?
    Mr. Dean: We have done our utmost to make the forms a great deal simpler, and we have received many appreciative comments. If the hon. Gentleman would like to try his hand at simplifying it, I should be very glad to see his version.

    Mental Illness
    Mrs. Kellettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has considered the report by the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association on Mental Illness in City and Suburb, a copy of which has been sent to him, saying that certain areas have pockets of high concentration of mentally ill; and if he will sponsor similar studies in each local authority area when planning community care.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have studied this report and am aware of its conclusions. Hospital admission and discharge figures provide some planning guidance about the need for community care, and it is for local and hospital authorities in each area to consider together whether any supplementary studies are needed.
    Mrs. Kellett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I hope he will accept that these studies are vital if we are to help everyone who is capable of doing so to return to normal life by every means in our power, including, in particular, hostels. Will my right hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see whether a scheme can be worked out whereby people willing to look after mentally-disturbed relatives can do so at home, helped by improvement grants to cover flatlet extensions to their homes?
    Sir K. Joseph: I will certainly do that. We have a long way to go in improving the co-ordination between the health services and social services and the homes and individuals.
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what studies have been made, and their results
    220
    communicated to him of mental illness in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow; and how the position in those cities compares with London.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am not aware of any recent or specific studies of mental illness in these cities which I could compare with what is known of the position in London.
    Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful for that reply, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that East London has a much higher than national average as regards mental illness? Could he give an explanation for that?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, I am unable to give one, but I am sure that there is a higher proportion of mentally ill persons in some parts of the country who have no help available to them other than institutional help, and that may be the explanation.

    Homelessness (London)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further representations he has received about homelessness in London since his announcement of a working party to study this problem.
    Mr. Dean: None, Sir.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever its merits or demerits in other spheres, greater competition can only add to the problem of homelessness in London? Can he comment on the point that if we enter the Common Market the staff of European firms wishing to set up in London will further exacerbate the problem?
    Mr. Dean: I do not think that on this Question I can be invited to comment on the Common Market. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the working party studying the matter is proceeding with all speed, and that we hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of London are sick and tired of all the investigations, working parties and reports, and that the housing situation in London is worse than it has been since 1945? Will he stop the investigating and get on with the job of providing houses?
    Mr. Dean: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but I hope he does not feel that the report recently received is not of some value to us in finding a solution to the problem.

    N.H.S. Dentists (Forms)
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many forms a dentist in the National Health Service has to complete before he is able to treat a patient.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): Two for every course of treatment provided for general dental service patients. They are the dental estimate form and the record card, the latter of which, of course, serves a clinical need. In addition, an official receipt has to be given where a statutory charge is payable.
    Mr. Costain: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that that is only for standard dental treatment, and that dentists are getting fed up with the number of supplementary forms which he described in the letter he sent to me today? Does he appreciate that I have a great deal of confidence that he will get rid of this lot of statistics and let the detists get on with curing people's toothache?
    Mr. Alison: There are a number of other dental forms that may be needed, but they represent a tiny percentage in relation to all courses of dental treatment.

    Arthritis
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many working days are lost per year as a result of arthritis.
    Mr. Dean: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. WatkinsWould I be correct in assuming that the figure is high? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is un-acceptably high? Is his Department engaged in research into the causes of arthritis and its relation to working conditions? If not, does it propose to engage in such research?
    Mr. Dean: While I in no way want to minimise the seriousness of the complaint
    222
    and the disabilities caused by it, I should say that, although it is rising slightly, it is still a very small percentage of total sickness.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, particularly in view of the disclosures about the extent of disability through arthritis, that prevention is cheaper than care and that much might be gained by additional Government help for research into the causes of this crippling disease?
    Mr. Dean: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with what he says. I assure him that a good deal of research is at present taking place into this matter.
    Following is the information:

    Days of National Insurance Sickness benefit due to arthritis

    Statistical year beginning on the first Monday in June

    Million of Days

    1965–66

    …

    …

    …

    13¼

    1966–67

    …

    …

    …

    13½

    1967–68

    …

    …

    …

    15

    1968–69

    …

    …

    …

    15¼

    1969–70

    …

    …

    …

    15

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what margin he will allow above the supplementary benefit scale within which free prescription charges will be granted; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: A person whose net weekly income exceeds supplementary benefit levels by less than the sum of the prescription charges payable plus a margin of 30p is entitled to exemption or refund.
    Mr. Dempsey: Would the Minister make it absolutely clear that retirement pensioners with small non-contributory pensions, who will inevitably receive social security supplementary benefits, will be entitled, by a fixed amount of 25p, 50p or 75p, to free prescriptions in view of the increase in prescription charges?
    Mr. Alison: I am not clear from the hon. Gentleman's question whether he was referring to pensioners, but he will know that pensioners will be exempt from prescription charges.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does not the hon. Gentleman's reply indicate what nonsense it is

    223
    to try to cope with our sick people in this fashion? Would he revert to the provisions of the Hinchcliffe Report? Is he aware that every time we seek to have fairness in prescription charges, the drug bill rises and makes nonsense of things?
    Mr. Alison: No, Sir. It has been generally accepted for a long time that prescription charges have a valuable part to play in financing the health services, and the measures we take to help people on the margin are thoroughly desirable.

    Resources
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what he estimates will be the percentage increase in resources devoted to the social services in 1972–73 compared with 1969–70.
    Sir K. Joseph: For the health and personal social services, about 13 per cent. in real terms.
    The answer on social security benefits depends upon price movements up to September.
    Mr. Lane: Does not that answer show how hollow is the charge of the Labour Party that my right hon. Friends are cutting the social services? Is not the truth that, while much still remains to be done, the Government have at least made a start in tackling certain urgent problems which were scarcely touched by the Labour Government in all of those six dreary years?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. It is undeniably true that as well as raising universal benefits we have been able to start filling some of the gaps in the social services.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his entire policy depends upon the take-up of means-tested benefits, which, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, follows through a very complicated system of forms? We recently had an indication that he is very unlikely to get the amount of take-up upon which his whole argument is bound to have to depend.
    Sir K. Joseph: That is a wrong conclusion. So far the results of the take-up campaign have been encouraging.

    Geriatric Patients
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the planned provision for geriatric patients in England and Wales for 1981; and how far this meets the need based on the latest population projection figures.
    Sir K. Joseph: Detailed plans are not available as far ahead as 1981, but development plans now being made by boards for the provision of hospital geriatric services are generally based on the projected 1981 elderly population.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is a growing need for community services to be expanded and for wider publicity for the success, in certain mental hospitals, of separating the old from the mentally ill, thereby enabling both of them to be better looked after?
    Sir K. Joseph: I agree abundantly with both of my hon. Friend's points.
    Mr. Greville Janner: When planning for the future of the geriatric services, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the needs of the domiciliary services, which enable more elderly people to be looked after and treated properly in their own homes so that they do not then have to be sent off to inadequate hospitals, as happens now?
    Sir K. Joseph: It is because the Government agree so strongly with this that we have provided differentially large increases in the domiciliary services, and we are concentrating all the time on improving these as well as hospitals.

    Old Persons' Home, Manchester
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services why he will not use his powers under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, to provide financial assistance to the Little Sisters of the Poor for the rebuilding of St. Joseph's Home for old people, Plymouth Grove, Manchester.
    Mr. Alison: Because we consider that a grant towards a local project of this kind is a matter for the responsible local authority and not for central Government.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that reply will be a bitter disappointment to the people of Manchester? Is he not aware that his Department's inspectors have been to St. Joseph's Home and have seen the superb work carried out by these dedicated and saintly women in giving a decent home to more than 100 old people, without any pay for themselves or help from the Government, and with only the most minute assistance from Manchester?
    Mr. Alison: Manchester Corporation is well aware of the admirable work carried on at St. Joseph's Home, as are many of us. It has already taken steps to help the home with its revenue.
    Later—
    Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order. I did not wish to take the time of the House by raising this point earlier, Mr. Speaker, particularly during Questions to the Prime Minister. I wish to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer given to my Question No. 30, I shall seek to raise this subject on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (TALKS)
    Mr. Huntasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent official meeting with President Pompidou.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his official conversations with President Pompidou.
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his official talks with President Pompidou.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I did so yesterday, Sir.
    Mr. Hunt: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he drew President Pompidou's attention to the very widespread anxiety existing in the House and in the Commonwealth regarding the Community's recent statement on sugar? Following his talks with the French President, does he feel that there is any
    226
    prospect of that statement now being strengthened to allay the understandable fears of the sugar producers?
    The Prime Minister: The question of sugar was specifically mentioned in the communiqué which was issued after the meeting between the President of France and myself, which emphasised the importance that we both attach to it. At the same time, it should be recognised that the two countries in the new Community, if it is enlarged, with the greatest interests in the developing world will be France and ourselves. This is a joint interest because the present associates also want to maintain in an enlarged Community their existing rights for their products, which are as important to them as the products of the Caribbean, Mauritius and Fiji are to us. So this is now a joint interest between the two countries.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the most significant achievement of the summit meeting the transformation of Anglo-French relations, which now have a warmth that they have not had since the time of Sir Winston Churchill, and to the creation of which my right hon. Friend's integrity and consistency on the European issue has made a notable contribution?
    The Prime Minister: I hope the whole House and the country welcome the improvement in relations between France and ourselves and will feel that they are now on a better basis and that the mutual suspicions of the last 20 years can be forgotten.
    Mr. Marten: May I return to the question which I asked my right hon. Friend yesterday? Is he now saying that he is against the control of the European Commission by a directly-elected European Parliament, and that it should be left to the Council of Ministers? If so, this is in direct contradiction to what the Germans, the Dutch and the Italians are saying. with this dichotomy of view, is it not important that this matter should be cleared up before we see the terms for entry?
    The Prime Minister: The position is quite clearly laid down in the Treaty of Rome, that the Council of Ministers has the responsibility for taking all major decisions. At the same time, the European Parliament, as it at present exists, also

    227
    has powers, and those have recently been increased in so far as finance is concerned. Our position is that that should be maintained—that the Ministers should take the major decisions. I also agree with the President of France—and this is a view shared by many other European leaders—that no major interest of any nation should be overruled by the other members. This position is quite clear. If there is to be an enlarged Community, and as it develops, it may well be that the European Parliament itself will grow in its power and influence. This has been a democratic process throughout the ages. I repeat that we can make a considerable contribution towards that.
    Mr. Orme: Has the Prime Minister had any second thoughts on the exchanges which took place yesterday about the problems of consulting not only the House but the British people? Is he now prepared to assure us that there will be no rush vote this summer and that time will be given both for the House and for our constituents to be consulted? Has he noted the anti-democratic attitude of such newspapers as The Times this morning on this issue, and, if so, will he repudiate it?
    The Prime Minister: I thought I made it plain yesterday that the Government have reached no conclusion on this matter. The negotiations have not yet finished; conclusions have not yet been reached on the major items; the White Paper has not yet been published; and it is not yet possible for either the Leader of the Opposition or myself to form a judgment as to how this matter can best be handled.
    Mr. Walters: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people who viewed with anxiety and some misgivings the beginning of the negotiations in case Britain should be rebuffed for a third time have been immensely encouraged by the success of his meeting with President Pompidou? Is he further aware that he can look forward to increased support from the country in the negotiations?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I believe it to be the case that many people have been worried about whether Britain would face a third rebuff. That is not now the situation, and they want to get on to
    228
    the next stage, which is for the major problems to be dealt with so that a judgment upon them can be formed.
    Mr. John Mendelson: Dealing with the problem facing the sugar producers, and as the Prime Minister's talks with President Pompidou were advertised as "plain speaking", may I ask whether he pointed out to the President that the Chancellor of the Duchy is committed, if the sugar-producing countries do not find his agreement acceptable, to return to the negotiating table to say that Britain cannot accept the proposals made at the discussions in Brussels?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter which will be discussed between my right hon. Friend and the leaders of the sugar-producing countries, probably next week, when they meet in London for discussions. My right hon. and learned Friend and the Government will decide what, if any, further action ought to be taken. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, who devotes a considerable amount of time and study to these matters, to recognise that there are existing associates which are also developing countries and have anxieties about the impact of former British developing countries coming into the association because they are more numerous, larger and much wealthier. We have also to consider in the joint arrangements made that the rights of their producers should be recognised. This was the arrangement to which the President of France and myself came.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Do I understand from the Prime Minister's reply yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) that there is now no question of the future of sterling—although I think there are advantages from the point of view of this country in a change here—being involved in the negotiations as such.
    The Prime Minister: We have never regarded it as being involved in the negotiations. The discussion which took place was between representatives of the Six and ourselves outside the negotiations. That was the position I maintained in Paris, and it remains the position now.
    Mr. Jenkins: Was that accepted by President Pompidou?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it was. It was not part of the negotiations.

    PLAY GROUPS
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate a study by the Departments of the Environment, Education and Social Services to ensure that accommodation for play/groups is provided near their homes for families with young children, and, in particular, that outline schemes should be prepared for the conversion on suitable council estates of one ground-floor flat with access to outdoor play space for this purpose.
    The Prime Minister: The Department of the Environment has in preparation a design bulletin about play space and other facilities which should be provided for children in new and existing housing areas. This has been prepared as a resuit of the close liaison already existing between all Departments concerned with the needs of young children, and will deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Allaun: Does the Prime Minister realise that many bolcks of flats have no nursery school and no playground nearby? Does he further appreciate that where there is a playground it is usually impossible for a mother to keep her eye on her child 15 storeys down? Is he further aware that as a result thousands of children are kept in flats throughout the day, with serious mental effects on themselves and their mothers, which could be avoided through the conversion of one of these flats?
    The Prime Minister: We recognise these problems, and that is why a considerable amount of social research has now been done into them. It is now almost completed and the design bulletin is in preparation. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion has been examined in the course of this research and will be considered carefully. I do not know whether he is particularly attached to this means of dealing with the problem, but in itself it raises certain problems. We think it may be more expensive than certain other solutions and might also create more disturbance for those living around
    230
    the converted flat than if other means are provided for helping children in their play.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much more important than co-ordinating any further study is the need to co-ordinate support for the many voluntary organisations which help provide playgroup services? Will he satisfy himself that these various voluntary organisations are receiving the support that they need to provide an increasing number of playgroups?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly try to see that this is done. Local authorities have certain legal obligations in this area, and it is to these in particular that the bulletin will be addressed. It is also true that certain organisations, for example the National Playing Fields Association, have made valuable suggestions. We will do our best to coordinate them.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to provide more money for the urban programme under which at the moment, by a 75 per cent. grant, local authorities are enabled to provide grants to voluntary play groups to do this job in certain parts of downtown areas in our great cities?
    The Prime Minister: I have no announcement to make today about an increase in finance but the Home Office has been closely involved in the social research and in the proposals we are putting out in the design bulletin affecting play.

    DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION (SECURITY)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement about the confidentiality and security of information stored by Government Departments in the light of the information now supplied to him.
    The Prime Minister: Police inquiries are continuing into allegations of criminal conduct made in The Guardian, and I will make a statement to the House as soon as possible.
    Mr. Huckfield: While I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that information, may I ask him if he is aware there

    231
    is a great deal of concern about the confidentiality of the information? Is he aware that there will be even more concern once such information is stored on a computer? Can he tell the House whether this inquiry will include the activities of the staff of the Registrar-General and the Census Office?
    The Prime Minister: It would be inappropriate for me to try to say with what sphere police inquiries into allegations of criminal conduct are concerned. As to the inquiry which I instituted at once into the standing orders and instructions in Government Departments, that involves all Government Departments and associated organisations.
    Mr. Pardoe: While welcoming the Prime Minister's reaction to The Guardian allegations, may I ask whether he can say how far the investigation now being carried out by Scotland Yard cuts across the work of the Younger Committee? Does he think, in the light of the information now available, that the terms of reference of that Committee should be changed?
    The Prime Minister: Any police investigation into an allegation of criminal conduct does not in any way cut across the work of the Younger Committee. That is entirely separate. The Younger Committee has been asked to take into account the reports which appeared in the Press and the statement that I made to the House immediately afterwards.

    PRICES (MINISTER'S BROADCAST)
    Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if the broadcast statement by the Secretary of State for Employment on 5th May on prices represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Barnett: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State spoke only of wage restraint? If that policy is succeeding, as the Prime Minister has said, with prices continuing to rise, does that not mean, effectively, a real cut in living standards? Despite this, would he confirm, perhaps before Thursday's by-elections, that he is not prepared to do anything about price restraint?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will realise that there is a delay between wage increases and price increases. The fact that there has been a de-escalation of wage awards will be reflected in prices later. As for the effect on the real cost of living, that has to take into account tax reductions and the action taken to ameliorate the position of those who benefit from the social services, such as pensioners, the disabled and those who qualify for the F.I.S.
    Mr. Rost: If hon. Members opposite are really concerned about price increases, as they pretend to be, why did they support a Government that increased taxation by no less than £3,000 million a year, a Government that devalued the £ and a Government that allowed the most inflationary wage increases to be let loose on this country that we have ever seen?
    The Prime Minister: The Labour Party must be responsible for that, but the facts as my hon. Friend has stated them are absolutely clear. What is also clear is that the Labour Party began with guidelines, went to a voluntary policy, went on to a compulsory policy and then abandoned all three; and today they have no policy at all.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give attention to the problems of the present and not to the party diatribe which we have just heard from his back benches? If he accepts, which the figures show, that real wages have been falling slightly in the last month or so, does he intend this to continue, for it certainly will if his policy for de-escalation continues, considering what is happening over price increases and so on? What effect does he think a fall in real wages over the remainder of this year would have on the already totally unacceptable levels of unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must take into account not only the movement of wages and prices but also the movement of taxes and social service benefits. This cannot be done over the period of one month to which he referred. Indeed, when he was in office he constantly emphasised that one had to look at these movements

    233
    over a considerable period of time—and he was, of course, quite right.
    Mr. Jenkins: What is perfectly clear is that reductions in taxation for the great majority of the population up to at least £3,000 a year are balanced by increased charges. Will the right hon. Gentleman face the issue as to whether he intends real wages to fall during the remainder of this year, and will he say what effect he expects this to have on the level of demand, and, therefore, on unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: It is no desire of this Government that the real standard of living of the people should fall, whereas it was the firmly expressed intention of the right hon. Gentleman when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, following devaluation, that it should fall. That is not our purpose. Our purpose is that by a change of policies which affect taxation and social service benefits, as well as by a de-escalation of wage settlements, there should be an improvement, and a genuine improvement, in the real standard of living of the people.
    Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of anything which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has done to assist the Government in their fight against inflation?
    The Prime Minister: However long one's memory, one could not remember anything like that.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us think that some of my hon. Friends are being rather unfair to him by constantly harrying him about prices? For example, does he realise that if we go into the Common Market he will not be able to do anything at all about rising prices? Is he aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made it absolutely clear that we shall be facing 6 per cent. price increases over the next five years—that is, once we have signed the Treaty—and that this process will go on for the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Clinton Davis: And the right hon. Gentleman will have one of his strokes.
    The Prime Minister: When the Labour Party was in power and decided to apply for admission to the E.E.C., it was the present Leader of the Opposition who said most strongly that, although there might be short-term disadvantages, the long-term advantages for this country were very great, and that they included an improvement in the real standard of living of the people of this country.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

HISTORIC CHURCHES PRESERVATION
3.35 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to further the preservation of churches and other religious buildings of historic and architectural importance in England and Wales.
It is currently the fashion to talk of the importance of conservation, preservation and the need to enhance the beauties and advantages of our environment. However, too frequently we merely pay lip service to these things without considering the nature of the problems they present.
I wish today to draw attention to some of the issues we must face if we truly wish to preserve our great heritage of religious buildings—the churches, chapels and cathedrals which contribute so much to the beauty of the landscape, and to the dignity of our towns and which are admired and enjoyed by those of all faiths and of none. Included in the provisions of my Bill would be places of worship of all denominations, wherever they are of architectural distinction or historic importance.
Of necessity, the great medieval treasures of the Established Church are at the centre of the problem. They constitute the finest group of historic buildings in the country. They are a priceless part of the nation's heritage and, because of this, they deserve to be jealously guarded and meticulously maintained, whatever the cost.
Although they are nearly always lovingly cared for, no congregation, however devoted, can control the ravages of industrial pollution and the encroachment of the avaricious and philistine developer. Nor can the dwindling group of worshippers in a changing countryside or an uninhabited town centre always be expected to meet the enormous cost of repairs which inevitably fall due after the wear and use of centuries. My Bill would seek to give these buildings better legislative protection and to help those who struggle to maintain them.
First, it would extend the provisions of the Civic Amenities Act, 1967—the Measure for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)
236
was responsible—by requiring local authorities to designate conservation areas for the purpose of ensuring the protection of the environs of every cathedral and Grade A church building. It would also require local authorities to consider requests to designate conservation areas in the vicinity of all places of worship of intrinsic architectural and historic importance, particularly where the building was the focal point of town or country scene. By these provisions, it would seek to combat the unthinking and destructive acts of those planners, developers and industrialists who have no regard for architectural beauty or harmony and no sense of history.
But the Bill would attempt to meet the problem of finance as well. I wish that it could place a statutory obligation on the Government to contribute towards the upkeep of some of the nation's greatest assets. After all, the principle of giving aid to historic buildings, even to churches, if they are redundant, has been established; and it is only the continuance of the ecclesiastical exemption of 1913, and reluctance on the part of Church and State to make the first move to end it, that has prevented the extension of this principle. However, there seems something rather quaint in an Established Church and its secular guardian being unwilling to contemplate such a development.
As a private Member, I cannot move the disposal of Government funds, but only those of local authorities. Thus, the Bill would oblige local authorities to use the powers they already have under the Local Authorities Historic Buildings Act, 1962, to make grants to any important religious buildings within their areas; that is, if—and this is an important proviso—the Historic Buildings Council and Historic Churches Preservation Trust judge that repairs or restoration are essential and that the sum involved is manifestly beyond the means of the congregation to raise.
This condition is crucial, for it is no part of my intention to suggest that we should provide a cushion for negligent incumbents or careless congregations or that we should seek to stifle the voluntary appeal. Still less am I casting doubt on the enormous value of the work done in the last 19 years by the Historic Churches

237
Preservation Trust and, for even longer, by the Anglican Church's Council for the Care of Churches.
But the stark fact remains that while most of our important religious buildings are well cared for and our great cathedrals can generally succeed in raising vast sums through public appeal, hundreds of our finest churches stand in danger because population movements away from small villages and town centres have left them without large congregations to support their absolute needs. The problem is nationwide, although the churches which cause most immediate concern are possibly those in counties like Norfolk and Lincolnshire and in cities like Norwich and York, and we should not forget Parliament's own church of St. Margaret's, Westminster.
These churches are in peril, and it is a scandal that so many should be reduced to selling their movables to keep on their roofs, for tourists as well as for worshippers. Do not let us forget that they are among our foremost tourist attractions and that they are therefore in no small degree responsible for the £450 million which tourism now earns for the country annually.
Again, the need for the sums that they have to find is often in part the result of atmospheric pollution and the vibration of the traffic which thunders past their walls. Here is another factor which the Bill recognises, for it requires the rating authority to accept some degree of responsibility for damage caused in this way.
I realise that the latter provisions will be slightly controversial and that, in any event, a Private Member's Bill is unlikely to pass into law at this stage of the Session. But I hope at least that the publication of the Bill will help bring the problem into focus. There is general agreement that something must be done, and my Bill has support from hon. Members
238
on both sides of the House and from almost all religious persuasions, including, I might add, two Church Commissioners.
For too long, our heritage has been the Cinderella of the public purse, with architecture the Cinderella of the arts. It is a sobering thought, for example, that the Government contribute substantially less to maintaining our great secular historic buildings than they do to subsidising Covent Garden.
If we can stimulate further thought on the matters that I have raised, the sponsors of the Bill will be well pleased. For my own part, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to introduce a Bill in the new Session containing no financial provisions, because the churches had proclaimed their need publicly and enlisted the sympathy and support of a willing and generous Government.
I trust that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill as an indication of its recognition of a serious problem and of its will to acknowledge our national obligations to those who built these glories in the past, and to those who will enjoy them in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cormack, Mr. Marcus Worsley, Mr. Edward Bishop, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Alexander Lyon, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, Mr. David Steel, Dr. Tom Stuttaford, and Mr. Ernie Money.

HISTORIC CHURCHES PRESERVATION
  HISTORIC CHURCHES PRESERVATION
  Bill to further the preservation of churches and other religious buildings of historic and architectural importance in England and Wales, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th June, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.42 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill provides for a far-reaching and overdue reform. It sets out to put on an equitable footing the arrangements for adjusting, after retirement, the occupational pensions of people for whom the Government, central and local, have a particular responsibility: their own ex-employees. This new footing is, in a phrase, the regular restoration of original purchasing power.
  Hon. Members on both sides have advocated radical reform, and hon. Members on both sides have seen Pensions (Increase) Bills come and go without that reform being carried out. I do not mean to belittle the achievements of any of our predecessors when I say that the treatment meted out to many public service pensioners after they have retired has been inadequate and has verged on the shabby. The practice whereby this naturally unvocal section of the community should in effect be compelled to lobby Parliament into producing a Bill every few years is a thoroughly unsatisfactory one. We should stop it. This Bill does just that.
  Before I come on to remind the House how this state of affairs arose and to explain the new principles in the Bill which will sweep it away and replace it by a new and fitting system, I should like to define some of the main areas which the Bill does not attempt to cover and to which indeed it is, intentionally, wholly irrelevant. The need for this is all the greater at the present time because there is undoubtedly an unprecedented spate of activity in pensions of one kind and another.
  First, the pensions which are the subject of today's Bill are of course entirely separate and quite different from those which are the subject of the National Insurance Bill now before a Committee of this House. That Bill is
  240
  concerned, admittedly, with increasing pensions after retirement, but those pensions are social security benefits for which virtually all citizens, including retired public servants, are eligible. There have been misleading comparisons made outside this House between these two Bills. I think it is right to establish here and now that these are quite separate Bills. If further points are raised on these aspects, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will deal with them.
  Second, today's Bill does not affect in any way the terms of the pension schemes of the public services—for example, preservation and transferability, the proportion of a husband's pension at which a widow's pension should be fixed, and so on—matters in which many hon. Members have, I know, a close and active interest.
  As the House may recall, the schemes themselves are at the moment under separate review jointly between management and staff representatives. The Government have already undertaken, when Parliamentary time is available, to introduce a Bill to alter and simplify the legislative basis of the public service pension schemes and so, among other things, to facilitate such changes as may be agreed in the course of these reviews.
  Third, today's Bill applies, as I have said, to the pensioners of what we call the public services. In the main, this means the Civil Service, local government employees, teachers, the National Health Service, the police and fire services, and, in a rather special way to which I shall return, certain overseas services. A glance at Schedule 2 will show that there are many smaller groups ranging from past Prime Ministers to certain London tram-waymen who are also covered by the Bill's provisions. Except in one or two instances where the rights of ex-public servants who are now regarded as the pensioners of the nationalised industries have had to be preserved, the Bill is in no way concerned with the pensions awarded by nationalised industries. These industries already have the power to pay and, when necessary, to increase pensions, and thus, following their own commercial and managerial judgment, either to follow Government practice or not, as the case may be. This is precisely the variety of practice that we find.

  241
  Then there are the pensioners of the Armed Forces. They are not covered by the Bill, though, as my statement of 17th November last undertook, comparable provision will be made for the Armed Forces by the appropriate Instruments under the Royal Prerogative. As my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence further explained in answer to a Question on 10th May, the same principles will apply, although necessarily there have to be certain differences in their practical application arising from the special characteristics of Service pensions. So it is correct to say—and I know this is always a matter of particular interest to many hon. Members—that, in discussing the principles of the Bill, we are in fact also discussing the principles that will apply to the Armed Forces.
  I now return to those principles and the reform which is founded upon them. I start with the background and the situation in the pensions increase field as we find it.
  The Explanatory Memorandum goes into this at some length, and I will not detain the House by repeating it all, very relevant though it is. The point is that Governments in the past have never accepted any precisely defined obligation towards their existing pensioners.
  Over 50 years ago the first Pensions (Increase) Act was passed for the purpose of relieving extreme hardship. At the same time it provided a scale of percentage increases, varying according to the size of pension and whether the pensioner was married or single. It gave nothing on pensions over £200. Its increases were further limited so as not to raise the total annual income of any married pensioner above £200 or of any single pensioner above £150. In other words, as well as a stringent criterion of hardship, there was also a means test and a test of family circumstances.
  As the White Paper explains, this principle of the relief of hardship remained the common strand through the subsequent 10 Acts up to and including that of 1969. Although hardship has been interpreted with progressively less severity, there has been no objective standard by which increases have been determined and no certainty about the frequency of reviews and thus of increases. So pensioners have never really
  242
  known when their next increase would be and on what basis it would be assessed and, therefore, roughly how large it would be likely to be. The defect of the present system lies in some ways almost as much in this total uncertainty as in the scale of increases hitherto provided. There have also been other consequences of this piecemeal and ad hoc approach to the business of increasing pensions which have affected both the pensioners themselves, and the efficiency of administration of the system.
  The earlier Acts were heavily biased in favour of the smallest pensions, though without much consistency in the degree and manner of the bias. The last four Acts substituted a bias in favour of the pensions of longest standing. The cumulative effect of all this has been one of some confusion. In particular, those who retired on the larger pensions up to about 1961—though very few would be regarded as large by the standard of present-day incomes—and those who retired in the middle of the 1960s have in general been least compensated for inflation and have thus seen the real value of their pensions drop the furthest.
  Into this situation of anomaly and inequity, we now plan to introduce simple principles. Even so, I concede, it remains a complex subject. Indeed, it is a subject which is far more amenable to visual aids than to the type of presentation that is traditional at this Dispatch Box. I am not proposing to seek permission to introduce a blackboard into the Standing Committee, but I am exploring the possibility of producing one or two diagrams which may illustrate some of the more elusive details of the Bill. What makes it an even more formidable-looking task is that we are determined in this, the last Pensions Bill—we hope—to repeal and consolidate the past 11 Acts. This clears up the Statute Book and will simplify administration, but at the price now of a rather more complicated Bill. We therefore decided to offer the House a very full Explanatory Memorandum as well as the Bill.
  I should also tell the House that in this whole operation we have been able to consult the representatives of the local authorities and secure their agreement. This is extremely important because they are the other main employer and, as the

  243
  Financial Memorandum shows, they bear a significant proportion of the relevant cost.
  Many hon. Members will see in this reform features which their parties or they as individuals have advocated from one side of the House or the other in years past. The Conservative Party, in its Election Manifesto, promised two-yearly reviews to maintain purchasing power, but perhaps our particular contribution has been the undertaking to reduce the qualifying age for increases during the lifetime of this Parliament, about which I will say a little more later on. Overdue the House may agree the reform to be, but I believe it to have benefited from the debates over the years in this Chamber and in particular from the public debate which followed my statement of intention to the House on 17th November last year.
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal and I have had the benefit of two meetings with the Public Service Pensioners' Council, and another with the T.U.C., speaking for pensioners of local authorities; and of course as Ministers concerned with the Civil Service, we have taken into account the views expressed to us by our own National Staff Side. We have also paid careful heed to the dozens of letters which hon. Members on both sides of the House have written to us, often as a result of some approach to them by pensioners in their constituencies acting singly or in groups, and also to letters the Department has received direct from the public. I can fairly claim that we have changed our original plans in one very significant respect as well as one or two lesser ones as a result of all these exchanges of views as I shall explain.
  That is the background. Now I come to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The Bill has five main features, summarised in paragraph 5 of the White Paper. I will follow this division without repeating all that is said in that document.
  The first objective is to make good the deficiencies of the past. I have already described the legacy of the eleven Pensions (Increase) Acts. It would be quite inadequate merely to undertake from now on to pay increases in step with any increases in the cost of living,
  244
  since that would ossify present relativities and perpetuate the inequities. All pensioners need to be placed on an even footing first, and, since the system of regular reviews really starts from 1st April, 1969, we begin by providing that as at that date all pensions then in payment shall first be restored to their original purchasing power—in all cases, that is, in which the previous Acts had left them below that level.
  In the case of the oldest pensions beginning before 1946, we shall adopt the nearest approximation to this approach which is compatible with our objectives of over all fairness and reasonable simplicity of approach. This is a once-for-all operation and the once-for-all increases that will be payable from 1st September are likely in general to range from 1 per cent. to 17 per cent. It is impossible to say exactly how many pensioners will benefit, but the total cost will be about £21 million in a full year, when account is taken of the Armed Forces. There will be quite a number of increases larger than this range and a few which will be much larger in percentage terms.
  It follows as a matter of simple mathematics that those who will benefit most in percentage terms from these increases must be those who have suffered most in relation to inflation under the existing Acts. Since, as I have already explained, some of those who suffered most were those who retired on the then larger pensions at the earliest dates, it follows that they will now collect some of the largest increases both proportionately and in absolute terms. To that extent—and I make no apology for it—the Bill is a measure of the degree to which public service pensioners have fallen behind. The restoration of original purchasing power is a completely fair criterion which puts everyone back to their original position in real terms and to their original realativity.
  The second main feature brings me on to the system of two-yearly reviews, with the arrangements for this year's review. This is being held following the undertaking subscribed to by both main parties during the passage of the 1969 Act. The promise was to announce the rise in the cost of living between the operative date of the last Act, 1st April, 1969, and 1st April, 1971, and then to say what action would in consequence be taken.

  245
  In the event, we did not wait for April but announced our plans last November. We had, of course, to wait for April to learn that the cost of living over this two years had risen by 14·4 per cent. It would accord with my statement of 17th November last if pensions were accordingly increased by that percentage on 1st September. But it is on this point in particular that our proposals have benefited from the representations of the Public Service Pensioners' Council and the other representative bodies I mentioned earlier, as well as the views conveyed to us by hon. Members.
  In present circumstances, the Government accept that if no more than this were done the new rates of pension might already be excessively out-of-date when they came into force on 1st September, and on that date we might not be able to claim that we had fully maintained original purchasing power. The Government has accordingly decided that the increase to be payable on 1st September on all pensions which began on or before 1st April, 1969—that is, which have been in payment and thus exposed to inflation throughout the first review period—should be 18 per cent. This is not a forecast and it is not a product of mathematics. It is a judgment based on all the relevant factors of what we believe will be a fair increase, having regard to the objectives of the Bill. If it turns out in the end to be too much or too little, it will be automatically evened out over subsequent years.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I must shortly leave to take the chair at a meeting of a Select Committee. The Bill does not apply to the nationalised industries but in fact many of them have always followed the terms of Pensions (Increase) Acts. If an application comes from nationalised industries to make comparable increases consistent with the provisions of the Bill, will such applications be favourably considered by the Government?
  Mr. Howell: The Government will not disapprove of any applications to develop pension schemes up to the levels proposed here. But in terms of policy these are matters entirely for the boards of the nationalised industries.
  Mr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the schemes of the nationalised industries are statutory schemes and are subject to Ministerial approval.
  Mr. Howell: I appreciate that, and if the level and the scope of these schemes do not exceed the levels proposed here there would be no disapproval by the Government.
  All those who retired within the review period 1st April, 1969, to 31st March, 1971, will also receive increases. There has been some confusion about this. These increases will be smaller than the 18 per cent. for bringing earlier pensions up to the 1971 levels, through inflation proofing, and will be graded according to the date of retirement and the rise in the cost of living between retirement and the end of the review period. They will include the same kind of uplift as the 18 per cent. to make them appropriate increases to pay on 1st September.
  Many pensioners are now writing to hon. Members and to the Department complaining that those who retire just before the review period starts get 18 per cent. and those who retire just after it has begun get nothing. This is quite mistaken. May I emphasise again that in this first review all those who retire within the review period do get increases. They are spelled out in Clause 1 of the Bill. Those retiring in the six months beginning on 1st April, 1969, get 16 per cent., those retiring in the six months beginning 1st October, 1969, get 14 per cent., those retiring in the six months beginning 1st April, 1970, get 10 per cent., and those retiring in the six months beginning 1st October, 1970, get 6 per cent. So, for all those pensions which began on or before 1st April, 1971, the five-month gap between 1st April and the payment date on 1st September can fairly be claimed to be closed.
  Future reviews constitute the third main feature. They will be held every other year, starting in April, 1973, and they will lead to increases in the ensuing September, provided that a cost of living increase of at least 4 per cent. has been registered in the two-year review period before that.
  Should the cost of living in a review period not have risen by 4 per cent., there will be a further review one year later.

  247
  But as soon as a 4 per cent. increase has accumulated and justified increases, the reviews would again become two-yearly. The objective here is to give to pensioners a certainty to which we believe they are entitled, and in the process to provide a more orderly system. The increases this year will, I am sure, be very welcome. But, taking the longer perspective, the heart of the matter is the new assurance, which has been so conspicuously lacking in the past, of when the next review will be, and how the increase will be assessed.
  In future, pensioners will be able to watch the movements in the cost of living and to form an accurate view themselves of what they are likely to qualify for at the next review. The essence of the method is simplicity and automaticity. We are asking Parliament to dispense with the need for primary legislation every time there is to be a review. We are asking, instead, for the power to prescribe increases by Order on very clearly defined principles.
  Fourthly, I come to the change which is one of those to which my own party has attached particular importance, and for which we can claim special credit for bringing to the forefront. This is the promise we made in our Manifesto—our programme for the whole term of office for which we were elected—to reduce the qualifying age at which increases may first be paid on pensions, from 60 to 55. This step is designed to benefit pensioners who already retire on pension before 60. In other words, for the most part, policemen, firemen, prison officers, as well as, of course, though not directly under the Bill, members of the Armed Forces. The Government fully accept the principle that this change should be made and only regret that they cannot afford to make it immediately. It has been solely a matter of priorities and cost within the overall budget.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is a good thins that local government, Civil Service and Armed Forces pensioners are to be covered by these provisions, but can the hon. Gentleman say why it is proposed to exclude Members of Parliament, who have given perhaps 40 or 50 years service? Why should they not
  248
  be treated, not better than, but in the say way as these other people?
  Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will deal with that matter. The short answer is that Members of Parliament' are not covered because they have their own pension scheme.
  Perhaps this would be the moment to talk about cost generally. The cost of £79 million is a very substantial sum for the Government to have put aside so promptly, even for so worthy a cause as this, at a time when reductions in Government activity and savings in public expenditure have been sought hard. We do not feel that we could raise it to the £90 million that would be involved by reducing the qualifying age immediately. It is an important change, but we regard the firm establishment of inflation-proofing as priority number one.
  The fifth and final feature of the Bill is its element of repeal and consolidation. I shall not occupy the House for long at this stage on this somewhat technical aspect. Its background and implications and the method that we are adopting are explained at some length in the White Paper. But briefly, we are offering the House a measure that will be self-contained when taken with its associated subordinate legislation.
  We are aiming to tidy up the Statute Book a great deal, as Schedules 7 and 8 reveal, and we shall simplify administration. A way has been found of repealing all the Acts and saving their many unspent provisions, including particularly those authorising increases, which are still today the legal basis of a large element in the pensions of many existing pensioners, and under which many future pensioners will have contingent rights. This is being done in such a way that the task of paying authorities will be simplified, and administration will become much more efficient.
  So much for the main principles of the Bill. There is not time now, in this short debate, to look separately at all the various groups of pensions affected. But there is one group which has always occupied a rather special position, namely, the overseas pensioners, as they have come to be known, covered by Part II of the Bill. First, the India, Pakistan and Burma civil pensioners, and, second,

  249
  broadly speaking, the former officers of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service and British pensioners of the Sudan and Egypt Governments and their dependants.
  This is one of the groups to which the Bill cannot be applied direct, because their circumstances and needs are complex. Special regulations under the Bill, as under previous Acts, will be required. The categories of overseas pensioners eligible to benefit under the Regulations, which will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, have been widely enough drawn to embrace all those whose pensions fall within the Government's policy of reimbursing to overseas Governments the cost of expatriate pensions arising from pre-independence service.
  We have therefore ensured that, for the first time, every overseas pensioner in respect of whom the British Government have a special obligation is covered by pensions (increase) legislation. Subject to the normal qualifying conditions only, all such pensioners will have their pensions brought up to the same level as they would have reached had they been British Government pensioners.
  Mr. John Tilney: I, too, have to leave to attend a Select Committee. Is my hon. Friend aware that former overseas service pensioners are grateful for and welcome the Bill, but that a number of those who served in quasi-Government institutions, such as the Nigerian Coal Corporation, were told at the time that they would not suffer by changing over from Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service to that corporation? Will my hon. Friend assure them that they will not be precluded from consideration should they subsequently be able to make their case?
  Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of what he said. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will deal with the second part of my hon. Friend's intervention, but the assurance can be given that all Crown service is pensionable and will be treated as such under the Bill. The terms of the Bill have been drawn in such a way that things can be considered, but I shall ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to deal with this in detail later on.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: It is the case that, broadly speaking, these are the people who at the request of Her Majesty's Government transferred to successor Governments who, almost without exception, have let them down. They are now landed, for various reasons, and one hopes that Her Majesty's Government, having induced them to make the change, will stand by them.
  Mr. Howell: I appreciate the hon. and learned Member's concern. This is a slightly different point. We were talking just now of those who were public sector employees in former colonial territories but were not in the Crown service. I was able to say that all who had done Crown service of any kind would be fully pensionable and covered by the Bill. Subject only to the normal qualifying conditions, all these pensioners will have their pension brought up to the same level as they would have reached had they been British Government pensioners.
  The arrangements by which this will be achieved will be set out in the Regulations. They will take account of the different overseas currencies in which these pensions were awarded and the fluctuations in the rates of exchange between these currencies and sterling which occur from time to time. The proposed method of calculation has been fully explained to the President of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development whose Administration is responsible to Parliament.
  Now may I spend a little time on some possible reactions to the Bill. There may be those who think that we are doing too much for retired public servants and there will be those who still think we are doing too little; to those whose first reaction is that we are doing too much, I would at this stage say that the Government believes in being a good employer. In superannuation the Government have perhaps been a pioneer, when one looks back over the more distant past; and it has always been very well up in the league table of good employer practice in this particular field. A good pension system is one of the compensations of public service.
  Again, in some quarters the misleading impression has been given that what is being proposed is somehow putting the

  251
  civil servant in front of the old-age pensioner in the queue for fair treatment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Viewed across the perspective of the postwar years, this Bill raises public service pensions—in most cases for the first time—up to the standard of inflation-proofing. But over the same period the original national insurance or "old-age" pension has already been raised well above this standard. The same relationship is to be found in this year's increases. This is surely as it should be. Any share in growing national prosperity that is available accrues first to all the retired through the national insurance system.
  Finally, I hope that I have made it clear that we could not go on on the basis of the previous Acts. I believe that it was inevitable that we should find some objective and defensible criterion on which pensions should be increased, given the cumulative effect of a somewhat ad hoc approach over the last 50 years. The protection of purchasing power seemed to us to be the only serious candidate that would be fair to all concerned, including the community at large who foot the bill. It is incumbent on anyone who feels that we are doing too much to explain what we should have done instead, and how we should have defended it.
  As to those who may say we are doing too little, I suppose that they would agree with what I have just said about a defensible criterion, but would presumably argue for parity or perhaps some halfway house to parity, such as matching increases to a hybrid of cost and wage indices. With such a tremendous advance on offer to pensioners I would rather hope that we shall hear rather less about parity in the forthcoming weeks than my predecessors on both sides of the House heard during the passage of recent Pensions (Increase) Acts. In any event, the House will recall that even in 1969, when inflation-proofing was not on offer, spokesmen on both sides of the House acknowledged the difficulties over parity.
  It is not only its much greater cost, it is the highly questionable nature of its inherent assumption that when a man retires you should guarantee him, indirectly through adjustment to his pension, the full benefit that his successors in office have achieved in pay for a great
  252
  variety of reasons. I would come back to outside practice. If we were to adopt parity we would be setting the pace in this country and at a hot rate. I believe there are one or two employers here and there who may do something like moving towards parity, but they really are the exception. I do not see how we could defend such preferential treatment for one sector of the community at the expense of the other, which would be precluded almost entirely from comparable treatment.
  We must, of course, be philosophic about this. However proud and satisfied a Government may be of a reform of this kind, it will always be asked by some to do better. Nevertheless, this reform is the product of extensive experience and of thought and discussion, in general over the years, and in particular over recent months. We have weighed the views of leading organisations which can claim to be representative for this purpose, and we believe that we have met the only criticism that they have made that could fairly have been claimed to point up a permanent weakness in the scheme, that is the five months' gap between the end of the review period and the date of payment, 1st September.
  The Bill that emerges is a major development in the field of public pensions legislation. I hope it will, if passed, spare hon. Members on both sides the burden of constant pensions (increase) legislation and public pensioners the crueller burden of the need for constant lobbying to preserve their living standards. What has been so heartbreaking, as many hon. Members know full well, is to see public service pensioners, having adjusted to more modest standards in retirement, then have to adjust again, and even a third time, downwards into old age. This is the downward escalator we are determined to halt. I believe that this Bill achieves our aim.
  4.16 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: This is the first Bill introduced into this House by the hon. Gentleman, and it will be welcomed on that account alone; furthermore, it is doubly welcome because this is a Bill which will obviously receive wholehearted approval in principle. I would like to give that unqualified approval. It is important also because this is the last Bill of this

  253
  kind and it follows a fairly dreary pattern to which we have become used over the years. As such, it ends the requirements for parliamentary approval for pension changes.
  In moving the Bill and in accepting the need to hive off this kind of activity, the hon. Gentleman made his case quite strongly. It is, by and large, one which those on this side of the House would also wish to accept. Clearly, the whole method by which Civil Service pensioners had to come to this House in order to get what was obviously a justified increase because of the decline in the value of money is a matter of purely managerial concern which really had no place in the day to day work and operations of this House. These are modest Regulations and they should be seen as something for management and not something over which this House should or ought to have direct administrative control.
  The whole principle here was outlined quite well in appendix H of the Fulton Report, at paragraph 30, where it said:
  "The details of Civil Service superannuation are embodied in Acts of Parliament and in statutory regulations made under the Acts. This means that all changes in the scheme require legislation and that many quite small changes involve not subordinate legislation but a separate Bill. As a result, these changes have to wait for parliamentary time. In consequence, it may be several years before an agreed change can be introduced. We think this to be an unnecessary complication, besides wasting parliamentary time. We do not dispute that Parliament should exercise a proper control over this large element of staff expenditure. But it seems to us that ways could be found of ensuring this that would yet enable changes in the pension scheme to be made more promptly and with less fuss. We recommend that they should be looked for."
  It is the achievement of the hon. Gentleman—and nobody would like to detract from it—that he has found a way to meet this recommendation. The Bill is non-partisan and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, it is an example of good employment practice which we hope will be copied by many in private industry, just as Government legislation in this field has so often been copied in the past. To echo what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), I hope it will be copied by the nationalised industries and, in particular, by the Ministers concerned with the nationalised industries as an
  254
  example of the way in which public service pensions might be run by those industries themselves. Of course, there will have to be an end to the nuisance of having to produce the Bill each time when we are regularly adjusting to inflation.
  Schedule 1 is the crucial part of the Bill, where figures are put on the levels of inflation. This is one of the most interesting aspects of the way in which Governments will in future have to adjust for an inflationary situation to which we are just beginning to become accustomed and will have to fit into in many other ways, particularly if the situation is to be stabilised——
  Mr. J, C. Jennings: The figures are given to three decimal places.
  Mr. Sheldon: One must remember that to the receiver of one of these pensions that third decimal place can be a pound or two. Someone in that situation would not welcome being docked by only a second decimal place.
  So we are now committed to the principle of biennial reviews to take account of inflation.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not getting too embarrassed by my congratulations, but I found the Explanatory Memorandum most useful. I hope that we shall see just such a Memorandum on all these technical Bills when they can be produced for the benefit of those concerned. Paragraph 8 shows that the cost of living increased by 14·4 per cent. from 1st April, 1969, to 31st March, 1971—an average increase of 06 per cent. per month. The general index of retail prices just published shows an increase on April over March—that is the latest figure—of 2·1 per cent. So we are seeing a graphic escalation of inflation.
  Under Clause 1, the pensions are being increased by 18 per cent. from 1st April, 1969, to 1st September, 1971. Since the 14·4 per cent. is for 24 months, allowance is made for an increase in the cost of living of 18 less 14·4–3·6 per cent. That is the level of inflation expected over these five months. Out of that 3·6 per cent., 2·1 per cent. is already spoken for.
  Mr. David Howell: The hon. Gentleman said that this is an estimate of the

  255
  amount of inflation over the five months. That is not so. This is simply an allowance which may be too little or too much. At the next review, in April, 1973, which will cover the 24 months back to April, 1971, this will be corrected for and taken into account.
  Mr. Sheldon: Yes, I understand that it will be taken into account at the next review, but obviously an estimate was made to produce what was thought to be a reasonable level of inflation. I am not making too much of this. Clearly, in a delicate political and economic situation one would hardly expect the Government to make a precise forecast for this five months; and they would tend to produce a rather lower figure.
  But out of that 3·6 per cent., 2·1 per cent. is already spoken for in one of the five months, with four months still to go. This shows how much greater the level of inflation is than the figure allowed for in that five months. But we have only 1½ per cent. allowed for over the remaining four months. Because of this inflation, what might have been regarded as a reasonable figure—in certain circumstances almost a generous figure—now becomes rather less than that.
  Clause 2 provides that if the rise in the cost of living is less than 4 per cent. over the 2 years the actual review will be postponed for a year. This is unlikely for some considerable time. Inflation seems to be permanently with industrialised countries. Although one hopes for a new Keynes to find some solution to this, that solution will not come very soon.
  As a result, so far from the problem being one of having to postpone the biennial review because the cost of living happens to be less than 4 per cent., it is rather more likely that the variations in inflation might impose severe hardships on those pensioners waiting for their biennial review. At present the rate is 9½ per cent., and who knows what it will be next year if the Government's policies are not successful?
  To have to wait for increases of nearly 20 per cent. at one go is a substantial jump, and annual reviews might be necessary. How difficult might this be to provide for, if inflation is more akin to the recent past rather than a number of years
  256
  ago? This matter might need further consideration in the light of the success or otherwise of the Government's economic policies.
  I said that this reform is one of the consequences of Fulton. Another is transferability. Under the heading "The Civil Service as a Career", Fulton said something which has not received much attention in the House:
  "We have recommended a greater flexibility of movement between the Civil Service and other employments. We think, however, it should remain a career service, in the sense that most civil servants should enter at young ages with the expectation, but not the guarantee, of a lifetime's employment."
  This is of course perfectly in accord with the situation over large sections of industry and other forms of public service.
  Prospects are more open. The possibilities of achievement are greater, but the necessary corollary of that is that security, marginally—I hope not much more than marginally—is bound to be a little less. With movement into and out of the Civil Service, cross-fertilising many of its methods of operation, we shall also see, not large numbers but rather important kinds, of people bringing a breath of fresh air to the Civil Service. I hope that people entering the Civil Service will take back into private industry some useful knowledge of the working of Government service.
  The consequence of any reorganisation, however beneficial, and however efficient and humane, is bound to be individual problems, which will be the responsibility of the Civil Service Department. As a result, there will be difficulties concerning the necessity for premature retirement and a question of amending what has been called the "old divorce laws—the great difficulties in dismissing civil servants who, through no fault of their own, have frequently become worn out in the public service, possibly by over-application of their energies or because not everyone is fitted for the severe testing which is frequently part of the work of the Civil Service. There should be no stigma to this, but fair treatment is necessary in carrying out the reorganisation if human and social problems are not to occupy too prominent a position and so affect the morale and work of civil servants.
  I was pleased to see the paper produced this month on premature retirement by the Department. I think the hon.

  257
  Gentleman has seized this point and that action is being taken to provide humane and reasonable conditions for those who retire at an early age. I am also pleased to see that the Government have accepted so many of the arguments for transferability. I am not sure to what extent they accept that certain provisions of the pension scheme restrict movement in and out of the Civil Service. Changes are necessary to allow greater flexibility of movement.
  Paragraph 138 of Volume 1 of the Fulton Report points out that the Service needs:
  "… to offer improved pension arrangements where these are needed to attract into the Service individual late entrants with special ability, qualifications or experience, who are unable because of the shortness of their prospective period of service to earn a good pension by the time they reach the retiring age."
  This will become increasingly important as individuals in the public service and industry recognise the necessity for acquiring pension rights over a term of service less than the whole of their working life span in any one organisation.
  I draw attention to the advantages of the contributory scheme which in 1931 was advocated by the Tomlin Commission. A contributory scheme would get away from the paternalistic attitude which is an inevitable accompaniment of a non-contributory scheme. For the employer to be seen giving money, with no contribution coming from the employees, mitigates against the right kind of relationship in discussions about the rules and method of operation of the scheme. When employees are discussing a scheme to which they contribute, they get away from this paternalistic attitude and become more personally involved in discussions. It is also easier to have a pension scheme that fits in with those in outside industry.
  I refer to one aspect of the qualifying period which is referred to in paragraph 10 of Appendix H of the Fulton Report:
  "We think that in a number of cases the optimum length of a man's employment in the Civil Service may well fall between five and ten years, and that if periods of this length remain unpensionable they will not be attractive. We recommend accordingly that five years should be substituted as the qualifying period both for a frozen pension and (because they are inseparable) for a pension on final retirement."
  258
  This will become of increasing concern to specialists moving in and out of the Civil Service. What provision will be made for such people?
  We are approaching the stage when more people working in industry and in the Civil Service will require a contribution from each of their employers for that part of the eventual pension which is attributable to service with each employer. For example, if an employee works for 20 years with each of two employers each employer should contribute towards half of his eventual pension, so that at the end of his working life he is no worse off than if he had worked for a single employer. What is the attitude of the Civil Service Department on this?
  Section 2 of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1965 introduced for the first time necessarily complicated provisions for pensions for people who had been employed in the Civil Service at different levels of responsibility, and for those who stepped from higher responsibilities down to lower ones. This operation, which was rare some years ago, will obviously increase. There will be greater need to employ people over 60. These people are often suitable for service in a different capacity. People must be made to feel that they are not held in any less esteem because they accept less responsible jobs when they have passed the peak of their abilities. Stepping down is not now readily acceptable. This is a pity, since many people retain their energies into their 60s and 70s, and for them to go from the extremely busy life of the Civil Service into complete retirement is a waste of their energies and abilities. We need to give increasing attention to providing opportunities for people who wish to do something less strenuous and less time-consuming. I know civil servants of over 60 who have a lot of energy—far more than is frequently to be found among employees in industry. Society must find better ways of utilising the energies of these people who are often willing and anxious to do a less responsible job.
  I wish to draw attention to the provisions for certain categories of pensions, particularly the overseas pensioners, who are dealt with in Clause 10. We welcome this long-overdue reform and we wish the idea well. There are difficulties in

  259
  providing exact comparisons, but we can discuss these matters in Committee. We also welcome the principle of the reduction in qualifying age from which pension increases may be paid. We look forward to seeing the Order that will one day be laid before the House.
  I turn to the concept of establishment, which has not received a great deal of attention in the House since it was first put forward in the Fulton Report. I quote from paragraph 142 which, dealing with the concept of establishment, says:
  ".it should be abolished. The term 'establishment' has acquired overtones of comfort and complacency, and damages the reputation of the Service More important, the concept of established status has engendered an atmosphere within the Service that in practice, though not in theory, offers too much protection. It is not true that a civil servant once established, is completely secure in his job. however lazy or inefficient he may be. But establishment has come to imply a presumption of security until retirement, which goes beyond what is genuinely needed and, we believe, hampers the elimination of the small minority who do not earn their keep."
  The language there might be a little over-strong, but the point about establishment and the need to replace it by a contract of indefinite period of employment after a probationary period and consequent pensionability is obviously a step in the right direction.
  I note that it is said in paragraph 104 of the document "The Reshaping of the Civil Service":
  "The Official Side have accepted the Staff Side's claim that unestablished staff with ten years' service or more should automatically be established at 60 and so qualify for pension."
  It is a pity that this was never carried out before,
  I regret that the wider question of pensionability of temporary staff is still only under consideration. This is something which is so obviously needed, and I am sure that, given the great need for pensionability of these temporary staff, any problem lying in the way of its solution could be overcome. Why are there still so many temporary staff? Very few industries employ so many thousands of temporaries. If the need for them exists, why can they not be put on a proper pensionable footing? There is a need for a proper review of the situation to examine why temporaries seem to be temporary year after year after year. Perhaps
  260
  it is due to the problems of establishment, and that what is required is a simple contract of service with a pension.
  In the last few years we have seen many reforms and some people were rather sceptical of the ability and will in the Civil Service to undertake its own reforms. We seem to have been very fortunate with the personalities involved, who have included Sir William Armstrong, a dedicated reformer, to whom I wish to pay a particular tribute. There are difficulties, but even the strongest sceptic would have difficulty in proving that the will does not exist. I hope that this attitude will continue, and I look forward to seeing in future the kind of Civil Service which the country needs and upon which it can depend.
  4.46 p.m.
  Mr. J. C. Jennings: It is with great pleasure that I support the Bill. I give it the warmest welcome I could ever give to a public service pensions Bill; I regard it as the best Bill we have ever had in this sphere. Public service pension increases have had a long and dismal history in this House. As I look around the House today, I see right hon. and hon. Gentlemen—fewer in number now than they were—who over the years, irrespective of the side of the House on which they sat, have fought for a group of people who were forced to provide a lobby for themselves, inadequate as it was. The Bill puts right certain matters which were neglected in the past.
  I remember that the immediate predecessor of the present Mr. Speaker, with others, including myself and the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), played a great part in this sphere of activity. In the old days we sought parity as the ideal, but we realised many years ago that we would never achieve it. When I first started talking about this type of pension in 1956 the figure then given to achieve parity was £11 million, which seemed to be within the compass of Treasury thinking at that time. However, within a few months the estimate had risen to £22 million, and over the years whenever we dared mention parity the figure became at the time of the last pensions increase Bill over £120 million. We realise that the matter had become impossible.

  261
  We tried to achieve some semblance of parity in whatever we could squeeze from the Government concerned and we did not get much out of it. We had "estimated clauses", compensatory benefits and all sorts of other things. However, in this Bill we at least put right one grave injustice. This is the once-and-for-all payment which brings the basic pension of those who retired in years gone by up to the 1969 standard.
  I would draw attention to Schedule 1 of the Bill, which is a remarkable document and contains the "crunch" of the provisions. Since it deals with the effect of inflation, it marks a tremendous step forward. One of the prime principles embodied in the Schedule is the fact that before any calculation of any increases under the Bill take place there shall be a multiplier to compensate for the inflationary processes of past years. For example, someone who retired in 1950 would have his or her pension doubled before the 18 per cent. increase is added The 18 per cent. increase is based on the new pension. Am I wrong?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I would not wish my hon. Friend to be misled. One has to take into account any increases which that pensioner may have had under previous Bills. Applying the multiplier provides the target or the ceiling. If any increases awarded in the past take that pensioner part of the way towards the ceiling, it is only the balance which is made up by the operation of the Bill. That takes one to 1969. The 18 per cent. is added afterwards.
  Mr. Jennings: I am glad of the correction. I was taking it at its face value, which is not as handsome as I thought. I admit to mistakes in this House—and even when I am in the Chair in Committee. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was probably quite correct to shake his head. Nevertheless, it is a tremendous step forward. The multiplier is one of the cardinal principles of the Bill.
  We then come to the second basic principle—the increase of 18 per cent. in all pensions before 1st April, 1969, and thereafter—I will not go into the details; they are all in the Bill—a kind of sliding scale downwards. It is a kind of escalator
  262
  in reverse. Nevertheless, the basic increase is 18 per cent. and it compensates up to next September for the rise in the cost of living.
  In Committee my hon. Friend will probably have to face one or two important Amendments. I think that one will be based on the view that the Government have taken in basing the increase on the cost of living index. We must remember that other factors have to be taken into account. One is the rise in wages. Rises in wages and in the cost of living are parallel movements. In assessing compensatory payments for inflation no Government can afford to take notice of one of the ingredients without looking at the other. Therefore, I suggest that one way of approaching the problem—this is an excellent Bill which does more than any other Bill has done in this regard—is to look at the cost of living index and the wages index rise, to take a mean or average of the two and apply that to the consideration of the rise. I do not know what the extra cost would be, but it would not be all that much. I gather that, broadly speaking, it would mean an increase of 24 per cent. instead of 18 per cent. If the cost is £65 million, as the Financial Memorandum states, then it would be reasonably easy to work out what the extra cost would be. As I said, I think that the Government will probably have to face an Amendment or Amendments along these lines in Committee.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: Do I take it that if such Amendments are moved the hon. Gentleman will support them?
  Mr. Jennings: That is a straight question deserving a straight answer. The hon. Gentleman knows me quite well from long experience. Whenever I have advocated anything in this House I have not hesitated to go into whichever Lobby I wished. In order to nail the point, what gives me so much pleasure this afternoon in welcoming the Bill is that compared with events of the past few days it is a change for me. I welcome it as such. I shall not go into that subject further, because I should be out of order. I merely wish the hon. Gentleman to know that if I put down an Amendment or put my name to one my vote will follow my voice, as it always

  263
  has in this House. Therefore, there is no need to question anything like that.
  My last point concerns the biennial review. This is a tremendous step forward. We had to lobby and lobby, pressurise and pressurise, table question after question year after year, month in, month out, until finally a Minister of either Government would say, "Yes, we will produce something." Now we know something definite. The biennial review is a great step forward. But some of us will probably be putting down Amendments to reduce the two years period. As so many industries automatically now get annual wage increases—some even at shorter periods—it is unfair that pensioners should be placed at a disadvantage compared with the rest of the community.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government argue against having an annual increase they ought at least to make sure that they project the increases for the first twelve months and try to estimate at the end of that period that the cost of living is about equal to the allowance to be made?
  Mr. Jennings: That would mean looking into the crystal ball and, depending on which side of the House one is, how clear or how muddy the crystal ball is. Therefore, I shall not attempt to do that or even to answer the intervention. Nevertheless, in fairness to pensioners, it would be a good thing if the Government would consider reducing the biennial review to an annual review.
  I am grateful to the Government for producing the Bill. It is a landmark in public service pensions history and will be appreciated by many people who in the past have lobbied us to support them. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.57 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I join with the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) in thanking the Government for introducing the Bill. From this Government it is a Bill for which we should be grateful.
  I remain a believer in the principle of parity. Armed Services pensioners are in some degree in a special case because they retire so much earlier on
  264
  average than most other pensioners. Concerning the Armed Services, parity was the official policy of my party when last in Opposition. I had the unhappy job of giving that pledge on their behalf from that Dispatch Box during that period. It was one of the unhappiest things I ever did in view of the result.
  The same pension for the same work is a principle of justice. It is also, from a Government, a principle of honesty. Pensions, after all, are part of wages, and to pay those pensions in money which has been made bad by one's own policy is not something which, Governments apart, could be regarded as honest behaviour. Yet that is what we have done. At present pensions for men who served in the 1914–18 war are, in the case of officers, about one-quarter and, in the case of other ranks, about one-third of the pensions being paid today. When we compare the terrible conditions and dangers in which First World War pensions were earned with the conditions of comfort and relative safety in which the later ones were earned, we find a terrible injustice in the difference.
  The Bill goes some way to closing that gap, and I congratulate the Government upon it. But why do the inflation figures in Schedule 1 stop at 1944? We are dealing with many pensioners, particularly widows, whose pensions go back a good deal further than that. I appreciate that the multiplier is a multiplication of the basic figure, and not of subsequent increases. If the multiplier of the old pensions is more than three, that brings them up to something over one-half of the pensions paid to their contemporaries today. It is not awfully good, but it is a good deal better.
  My only other point is concerned with the Colonial Service. Here is a position which ought to be very much on our conscience. We have wound up an empire. We have given independence to one country after another, and at the independence ceremonies the new Governments have expressed their intense gratitude to the civil servants that worked for them. Those same civil servants have been urged to continue in service, and promises have been made to them. I do not think that there is a single instance in which these new Governments have not ratted on the promises they gave to expatriates. Yet, we urged

  265
  those men to carry on. It is very important, in decency and self-respect as well as humanity, that we should stand by the promises to those people which were broken by our successors. The Bill goes some way in some instances to fulfil those obligations. It could go a great deal further, and I hope that it will be in order in Committee to move Amendments to that effect.
  I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your having enabled me to take part in the debate. I explained to Mr. Speaker that I have another urgent appointment, and I hope that the Minister who is to reply will not consider it discourteous of me if I cannot be here when he replies. I have almost never spoken in a debate without being present for the reply in the years I have been in the House, and I am extremely sorry to find myself in this position today.
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. Rafton Pounder: I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), because in his concluding remarks he referred to a case parallel to one which was brought to my notice at lunchtime today. I have not had an opportunity to check the facts, but I accept without question the integrity and accuracy of my informant. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to those colonial Governments which since independence have not wholly honoured their obligations. I wish to raise just one case which falls within that category, and which, if my facts are correct, strikes me as appalling.
  I understand that the pensions of those accredited civil servants who have served abroad are drawn from the territories in which they served, and depend on the integrity of the local government. In many cases these obligations have been honoured, but at a rate that does not take account of inflation. The case about which I was told today mystified me. The person concerned is dead. He originally ran away from school, joined the Royal Navy in World War I, served thereafter in the Royal Irish Constabulary until 1921—though so far as I know he was not an Irishman but a Scot, then returned to Scotland, where he joined the local police, subsequently he went to Malaya as a senior police officer, was captured during World War II and spent
  266
  two or three years in Changi Gaol. He then went on to Hong Kong, and was subsequently nominated by the Foreign Office to advise two overseas Governments in police matters. At the end of the day, he received a pension. Since he died his widow receives a pension of £500 a year, which seems to me a fairly poor reward for a lifetime of service abroad by a senior officer, albeit in various territories.
  It was put to me at lunchtime that there cannot be all that many persons in that category, so what is the argument against the United Kingdom's accepting responsibility for such persons? The note I made on the back of my aeroplane ticket was, "Why not take under our wing?" I do not know the answer, nor how many people are involved in that kind of category, but I should very much like to know the answer.
  I make no pretensions to having been in the House as long as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) or to have been involved in the subject for as long. When he talks about 1956, it makes me feel rather junior. But I, too, give an unreserved welcome to the Bill, not out of a sense of loyalty to the Government but as a statement of genuine pleasure at its contents.
  Like the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, I still have hankerings after the concept of parity. I am not prepared to go to the wall for it, but I feel that the Bill goes such a long way that it is only one relatively short further step to the attainment of parity. I accept the arguments about the cost that would be involved, which are obviously somewhat daunting.
  Mr. Paget: That cost is the measure of the injustice. As the cost goes up, that precisely measures the extent of the injustice which is being inflicted.
  Mr. Pounder: I was coming on to this point, that those who receive a pension as a result of contributions during their working life are in a somewhat different category from those whose pension is a form of deferred salary, as in non-contributory schemes and Civil Service schemes. That is why I fall back on the parity concept, because in a sense we have not overpaid our civil servants, but we expect them to do a difficult job. At the same time, we have tended to quibble

  267
  about the concept of parity. I cannot understand why a person who holds a job at a given rank after a certain length of service should either benefit if he retires now or be penalised if he retired 20 years ago, merely because circumstances have changed, because inflation has resulted in higher salaries and therefore a higher pension when the person has retired.
  Unfortunately, pensions legislation by its nature, whether in the public service sector or any other, is absolutely riddled with anomalies. I do not say that by way of criticism. The Bill goes a long way towards eliminating anomalies. But when I was reading the Explanatory Memorandum—one of the finest documents of its kind that I have ever read—I was nevertheless a little confused by the actuarial complexities which I thought were inherent in the implementation of the Bill. I hope that we can avoid the creation of a further set of anomalies, because it seems unfortunate that, try as one does, pensions legislation seems to be bedevilled with unfortunate examples of people who seem to be left out for no good reason, and this can only be described as an anomalous situation.
  I particularly welcome the fact that a two-yearly review is now written into the Bill and that we shall move from this ghastly situation which we have had for so long that public service pensioners, and pensioners generally, are to a large extent dependent on the whim of the Administration of the day for any increase they may receive.
  On the subject of widows, if I may be personal about it, I think inevitably of my mother-in-law, who is the widow of a civil servant. I notice that under Clause 3(4) there is a reference to the
  "… services of the pensioner's deceased husband …"
  and the pension payable will not be increased unless the pensioner meets certain requirements. Do I assume that any increase in pension for the widow is related to the original pension which the husband would have received and thus to the widow's pension she is currently receiving as a widow? There must be considerable difference between the pension rate which was originally granted and the pension rate at the date of death
  268
  of the husband. I am assuming that in this case the widow receives an increase on the original pension rather than at the rate appertaining at the date of her husband's death. I hope I am wrong in this assumption, because it seems unfair, but nevertheless I should be glad if my assumption were correct.
  Following up the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), who referred to quasi Government civil servants, or, as a document produced by the Overseas Service Pensioners Asociation refers to them, the "forgotten men", though that is a somewhat emotive description of those persons, I am inclined to agree that it is manifestly unfair that those persons who are engaged through the Crown Agents or some similar organisation should go to overseas territories to all intents and purposes on the same basis, with the same rank, doing the same kind of jobs and bound by the same rules as colonial civil servants were and are, and be in this separated category.
  Judging again by the document sent to me, there do not appear to be all that many persons involved in this case. I am open to correction but, as I understand it, it is those who, once upon a time, worked for the Achimota College, Ghana, the Nigerian Coal Corporation and the Lagos Town Council—all in West Africa. There cannot be that many. Therefore, I should have thought that in the interests of equity and justice, there is a strong case for bringing those people in under the umbrella of the Bill. Indeed, they should have been brought in a very long time ago. It seems that even if one uses the economic and not the moral argument, it cannot cost all that much to bring these people under the net.
  Arising out of the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister when he introduced the Bill and when he said that those who have done Crown service at any time will be covered—I hope that I wrote down his words correctly—do I assume that if a person has done Crown service at any time and has subsequently been involved in other things, his pension will merely relate to that very small portion of the time he spent on Crown service and that presumably the factor calculation will take into account that figure? What happens to the person who did Crown service at one stage and

  269
  then moved into this quasi field? Does he just get the benefit for the period of Crown service or is the quasi period taken into account where at some stage he has been a fully accredited Crown servant?
  I conclude by expressing my wholehearted delight, pleasure and agreement with the Bill. I hope that my observations and questions are not deemed to be highly critical. They are really seeking information. I wish the Bill a very speedy passage to the Statute Book.
  5.16 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: Perhaps I ought to declare an interest in the Bill. Before I came to the House I paid contributions to the teachers' superannuation fund. Whilst I did not pay enough to qualify for pension, the vicissitudes of political life being what they are, I may well qualify at some time in the future.
  The Bill is very important and the Minister has rightly stressed that. It is because of its importance that we ought to get it right this time. It is a complicated Bill. Any Bill which sets out to get rid of anomalies arising from a number of Bills in the past must be complicated.
  I noticed that when the Minister referred to visual aids he regretted that he could not take a blackboard into the Committee room. I, too, regret that. At present, borough and district councils are putting into their committee rooms not only blackboards but screens so that they can put to members of committees the details and features of what is to be done. It is a pity that we are so out of date.
  The Bill is wrong in principle on two points. One is on basing increases in pensions on increases in the cost of living. I criticised my Government for making this part of its national superannuation Bill on national insurance pensions, and I make the same criticism of this Bill. I have no doubt that I shall be making the criticism of the Pensions Bill which will be introduced by the Government in the next Session.
  I do not think that there is a case for basing increases on the cost of living. Inflation-proofing pensions, as it is called, is not enough. Whichever Government
  270
  has been in power, we have had a steadily rising standard of living for the people who are employed, and the same rise in standard of living ought to apply to those on pension. Indeed, in the debate on the Crossman Bill I moved an Amendment on those lines, and one of the points made by the Minister then was that the national insurance pension had, under both Governments, risen not only at a greater rate than the cost of living but at a greater rate than the rise in wages. But that is not true for public service pensions, which have lagged a great deal behind. After a fashion they have kept pace with the cost of living, but usually after considerable delays and a great deal of lobbying.
  If we are to have an increasing standard of living, pensioners ought to share it, and public service pensioners, especially—who are not the highest paid people in the world—ought to have their share. I heard the Minister's objection that this would be hotting up the pace too much for the other occupational pensions. The Government ought to hot up the pace for occupational pensions, some of which are inadequate. It is no use the Minister taking credit for the leadership which Governments have been given in the past on superannuation schemes and not taking that lead in the future.
  Another reason why it should be tied to incomes is that it has been said that there is no fund and that the payments are made from the contributions of those working at the time. There will be an increase in pension over two years if the cost of living is over 4 per cent. in that time. No doubt over the next six years the rise in the cost of living will be more than 2 per cent. a year. Without going into the subject which the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) did not want to mention, there is no doubt that it could happen that there was a steady but small increase in the cost of living without these pensioners getting an increase.
  My other criticism is of the two-year period for review. This is another matter about which I moved an Amendment to my Government's National Insurance Bill. The last year of inflation should have taught us that two years is too

  271
  long a period for pensioners to wait before having their pensions reviewed. In emergencies, trade unions do not wait for two years before putting in a claim. The teachers, one of the groups affected, did not wait two years when there was inflation; they put in for an interim award and got it. The same thing ought to apply to pensioners.
  Manufacturers and shopkeepers do not wait for two years before putting up prices. Local authorities do not raise their rates every two years—they do it every year. The Chancellor does not have a Budget every two years—he has one every year, sometimes even more than one a year if there has been an election in the summer. Why pick on the pensioners for the two-year wait?
  I urge the Government to consider this seriously. An annual review is not administratively impossible. With the machinery and methods that we now have, the work entailed is nothing like the work that would have been involved a few years ago. While I welcome the increase in pensions which will result from the Bill, and the rationalisation of the system, I urge the Government to consider these points carefully.
  5.22 p.m.
  Captain Walter Elliot: This Bill brings such manifest benefits that I am certain it is welcomed on all sides regardless of party. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) mentioned some back-benchers—of whom he is certainly one—including the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who over the years have taken part in these debates. While I congratulate my hon. Friend upon bringing this Bill forward I believe that it is a triumph for back-benchers. We sometimes wonder whether what we say has much effect on Government, whichever party is in power. I believe that the driving force for this Bill has come from the back benches of both sides of this House.
  One word which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton did not mention in his speech and which we have now demolished is the word which I know the right hon. Member for Sowerby will remember—he may well have used it at
  272
  the Dispatch Box—and that is the word "immutability". We were told that pensions were immutable, nothing could be done about them. That has gone, the word has been buried by the Bill.
  Having praised the introduction of the Bill, it may seem churlish to criticise. I want to make one point and hope that such criticisms as I make are constructive. There is a body of opinion—we have heard it today—which advocates parity of pensions—so that a person's retirement pension is kept up-to-date. I have never advocated that and I do not think that my party has. I appreciate the difficulties about recruitment, the change in character of the jobs and so on. Although as the hon. and learned Member said, his party at one stage seemed committed to this when it was in office, it did not bring it in, for good reasons, I think.
  One feature of these public service pensions which has worried both sides of the House and provided the driving force resulting in the Bill is the fact that those who have retired in earlier years fall further and further behind those who retire today. That is partly due to rising prices eroding the value of their pensions but it is also due to the fact that, having got rid of the expression "immutability of pensions", the pension provisions for those still working have greatly improved. I presume that that process will continue.
  The proposals for a percentage increase to compensate for the rise in the cost of living are excellent. If the cost of living goes up 10 per cent. then the pension goes up 10 per cent. That is fair enough but it means that of two persons who have retired, while both will get an increase in pension, the person who has retired most recently will in all probability get the biggest increase, in some cases very much greater than someone who retired a few years earlier.
  I believe that the needs of the person who has been retired longest are probably greatest. Under the Bill that person will fall further behind in his pension. That is basically unfair. It is reasonable to say that such standards as we enjoy in this country are due at least as much to the efforts of those who retired in earlier years as to the efforts of those who are working or retiring today. While we may not accept parity in pensions within the meaning of the expression, we should aim at—and here I would like to

  273
  coin a phrase—parity in increases, at least for persons of similar status. That is the principle on which the national retirement pension is given. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this, or else we shall be back to the old problem of the gap getting wider and wider. Methods could be devised and it would not be too expensive.
  I welcome the Bill. It marks a great step forward and it will bring much-needed help to many devoted ex-public servants. They cannot, by the nature of their work, be vocal politically. That is all the more reason why we should protect their interests.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Roper: I got the impression from the opening remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) that, like certain pension schemes, there was a certain qualifying period during which one had to be a Member of this place before being allowed to speak on Measures of this kind. I therefore feel somewhat hesitant in speaking, in my first Parliament, on this subject.
  Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. It makes proper recompense to those who have served the community in many ways. As the Minister said, one need only read the Schedule to realise the wide range of public servants for whom we are making proper provision in the Bill.
  I am more enthusiastic than the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton about the idea of parity, and it seems that the Bill goes a long way towards introducing the principle of a dynamic pension relating to cost-of-living increases. However, I hope that it will be found possible to incorporate increases in the standard of living in our arrangements in this sphere so that higher standards are reflected in the pensions we pay to our retired public servants. We could then hope that that practice would spread to all occupational schemes.
  I wish to direct most of my remarks to the powers which the Minister is taking in Clause 12(2), which gives him discretionary power to make regulations conferring on, for example, those who
  "are or were subject to a superannuation scheme operated under the Federated Superannuation System for Universities"
  274
  the benefits which
  "appear to the Minister to be appropriate having regard to the benefits provided"
  under earlier parts of the Bill.
  Perhaps I should, at this point, declare an erstwhile interest as one who was superannuated under the F.S.S.U. until entering this House. I am at present not a member of that scheme, and as far as I can see I am unlikely ever to receive any benefit from the provisions of this Measure. I am sure that retired university teachers and other pensioners who have been members of the F.S.S.U. will welcome Clause 12 and the powers given under it to the Minister.
  It is not always realised that the F.S.S.U. extends in scope beyond the universities. A number of people in Government research establishments as well as a significant number of civil servants in the Treasury, and perhaps in the Civil Service Department, enjoy both its benefits and its disadvantages.
  In previous Pensions (Increase) Acts, Ministers have taken power to increase supplementation for retired members of the F.S.S.U. to ensure that they do not suffer from inflation any more than other public sector pensioners suffer. The F.S.S.U. scheme has many advantages, particularly because of its flexibility, and in the past the scheme has been found particularly appropriate for university life.
  One of its disadvantages, and a particularly serious one until 1960, was that a bad selection of insurance policies taken up early in one's working career, or alternatively a rapid rate of inflation towards the end of a university teacher's life, could result in considerable hardship during retirement. Now, thanks to supplementation, the F.S.S.U. has certain attractive elements of a gamble, and one cannot lose too badly. University teachers have been grateful that since the Hale Report, supplementation has ensured that any pension under the F.S.S.U. is at a reasonable level and that, subject to the passage of Pensions (Increase) Acts, the increases in those Measures have subsequently taken account of inflation.
  Clause 12 merely gives the Minister power to make further post-retirement increases to F.S.S.U. pensioners, unlike earlier Clauses which approve specific increases to other public sector pensioners. May we have an assurance that

  275
  the powers under Clause 12 will be exercised in such a way that F.S.S.U. pensioners receive increases comparable with those given elsewhere in the public service?
  Many people feel that a variety of factors, including last year's and this year's Finance Bills, have substantially changed the reasons for the special situation of F.S.S.U. and have created a rather new situation for university teachers' superannuation. They have provided strong arguments for those who would advocate the setting up of a scheme more comparable to other schemes in the public sector. A change of this sort would ensure that it would be possible in future to assimilate increases given to other pensioners in the regular two-year review to those under the F.S.S.U., and a university superannuation scheme might make this possible.
  May we have an assurance that it would be possible to introduce a university superannuation scheme that would technically qualify for the regular two-year review provided for in earlier parts of the Bill? Or would it be necessary to make a further amendment to the Bill to ensure that such a scheme would qualify for the regular two-year review?
  As the Financial Secretary suggested to me on Second Reading of the Finance Bill, the present system of supplementation imposes a considerable burden on the Treasury. I am delighted to say that this Bill will, if the Minister exercises his powers, increase that burden of supplementation on the Treasury. However, there are in the long run strong arguments for a change in the form of university teachers' superannuation.
  I understand that the F.S.S.U. Council has worked out detailed proposals for a university superannuation scheme and that they have been discussed with the Civil Service Department. May we have an assurance that a decision about this new scheme will be made in the very near future, in order to remove the uncertainty which has surrounded university superannuation in recent years? I hope that, elsewhere, it may be possible to persuade the Government to honour the assurances that were given last year about the position of existing members of the F.S.S.U.
  276
  How wide are the powers given under Schedule 6, part of which seems to refer back to Clause 12? We are told that people in
  "any other employment specified for this purpose by regulations of the Minister for the Civil Service"
  may have extended to them increases in superannuation by the Minister. It seems that that might even allow him to make regulations along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and to increase the pensions of Members of this House. However, I am not certain that Schedule 6 would permit him such discretion.
  This is a generous Measure to the public sector and I hope that the Minister will assure us that present and former university teachers will benefit in the same way as members of other parts of the public sector.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Golding: I ought to begin by apologising for my absence during part of the debate, which was due to the Government's insistence on pushing their Immigration Bill through Committee before the Whitsun Recess. However, I came into the Chamber in time to hear the Minister say that the nationalised industries would be free to act according to their commercial judgment, the implication being that this Measure did not cover the nationalised industries and that they were free to formulate schemes of their own. However, that is not so, as we have seen in recent weeks in the case of the Post Office.
  I have to declare an interest at this point. I am an official of the Post Office Engineering Union, and I have followed that union's negotiations very carefully. In common with other nationalised industries, the superannuation schemes of the Post Office are controlled by the Government. The Post Office Act, 1970, makes it clear that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has to give his approval to any superannuation scheme negotiated between the unions and the Post Office.
  A scheme was negotiated between the unions and the Post Office and submitted to the Minister in the autumn of 1970. Far from the Post Office and the unions

  277
  being free to adopt the scheme that they wanted, the Minister delayed approval of the scheme for several months and, although it had been agreed that it should come into operation on 1st April, it has not been possible yet to implement it. There are four points which the Minister does not accept. Unless he changes his mind, it will be impossible to implement the agreement.
  The four points, one of which is of particular importance in this debate, were first that the Minister refused in the Post Office superannuation scheme to allow the provision which is in the Civil Service scheme whereby members retiring on grounds of ill health could have their pensions based on 20 years' service when they have served at least 10 years but not 20 years. Another point that the Minister could not approve was that where a Post Office pensioner who had drawn his gratuity and was drawing a pension was re-employed by the Post Office, he should not suffer any pension abatement. The Minister would not approve the agreement between the unions and the Post Office that there should be a five-year guaranteed pension Fourthly, what is probably most important from the point of view of the debate, the Minister could not approve the provision for yearly adjustments of pensions in line with increases in the index of retail prices. However, he has agreed to the biennial adjustments which are provided for in the Bill.
  Far from the nationalised industries having freedom in their choice of superannuation schemes, they are closely supervised and controlled by Ministers. The content of the Bill has at least one important implication for the nationalised industries. It is that an agreement between the Post Office and the Post Office unions whereby pensions should be adjusted annually has been overridden by the Minister. I shall return to that point later.
  I am very pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in his place, because I wish to refer to a claim that the Civil Service National Whitley Council has been making for many years for the reckoning in full for pension purposes any unestablished service followed by established service. My right hon. Friend has had a
  278
  long and distinguished connection with this claim, and civil servants of all ages and in all departments have cause to be grateful for the work put in by him.
  This is a long-standing claim. When this Increase Bill was announced, I asked whether the reckoning in full for pension purposes of unestablished service would be included. I am disappointed that it has not been. I recall that, at the time of the 1949 Superannuation Act, the then Conservative Opposition carried against the Labour Government of the day an Amendment enabling all Civil Service unestablished service since 1919 to reckon in full for pension purposes. At the subsequent Report stage, the Labour Government succeeded in deleting the Amendment, but they allowed a concession to enable unestablished service to count in full from the date of the Act. There have been many distinguished Conservative exponents of this point of view, and, in 1953, the Conservative Government appointed a Royal Commission on the Civil Service and included in its terms of reference:
  "Whether any changes are desirable within the framework of the existing superannuation scheme."
  The Royal Commission reported:
  "It seems to us that there is no question of merit or principle outstanding. It is, in fact, now common ground that it is right that unestablished service should reckon in full: the 1946 decision certainly affords a precedent for retrospection of the kind claimed and supports the argument that if a certain treatment is right at one point in time it is also right at others. It is our view that the sole consideration is that of cost."
  I do not wish to enumerate all the people who had been drawing and will draw lower pensions because of the failure of successive Governments to implement the reckoning in full of unestablished service. They include ex-Service men of the 1914–18 war who entered as temporaries after that war. They include junior postmen who volunteered for service and became known as the "rebel" volunteers. They include civilians who entered the service as temporaries either during the 1939–45 war or between 1945 and 1949. They include ex-Service men and women of the 1939–45 war who entered the permanent Civil Service either direct or after a period of temporary service. They also include many members of the Post Office Engineering Union such as factory staff who until 1948 were

  279
  graded as unestablisihed although they were permanently employed. Successive Governments have examined the problem and, on ground of cost, have decided not to behave in a moral way.
  We are waiting to hear what the present Government's attitude is towards the problem. The Civil Service unions have had a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe. They have been moderate in their claims They have not asked that this principle be applied at a stroke. They have accepted that implementation would be gradual. They have been told that the cost would be £180 million, but I make it clear that this gives a false impression. That would not be the cost in one year. It is the cost calculated over many years. It is believed that it would not be until the 1980s that the major part of the cost would arise. Those of us who have represented men and women in the Civil Service who have been receiving smaller pensions than they should are anxious to hear the Government's attitude towards reckonability of unestablished service.
  I have said that, before the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications intervened, the Post Office and the Post Office unions had reached an agreement whereby pensions should be reassessed annually. That is very important at the present time, given the rate of inflation. An inflationary rate of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. is bad enough if one has a high salary, but if one is living on a small pension—and many ex-servants of the Post Office are living on a very small pension indeed—such a rate hits one very hard. Given the extent of the increase in prices, it is imperative that we abandon the two-yearly rule and have an annual review instead.
  The pensioners are also right to ask that their pensions should be related not just to the cost of living but to the standard of living. Many of them did the spade work on which later increases in production and productivity have been built. Looking around them, they who have worked so hard think it unreasonable that they should be receiving pensions so much below those of people retiring in later years. It is time we accepted that pensioners are entitled to increases in their standard of living comparable
  280
  with those of industrial and professional workers.
  I shall say no more about that now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I see that you are looking at the clock and I know that in Committee we shall have adequate time to discuss these aspects. My final point is that the ex-civil servants and ex-Post Office servants covered by the Bill think that they should have had an April increase. They are dissatisfied at having to wait for it. They thought that they were going to have an increase in April, and an increase in April is what they want. If it is not possible for administrative reasons to pay the increase until later in the year, the Government should adopt the same principles as for increased pay in the Civil Service—six months' back dating.
  I welcome the Bill. It will mean an improvement in the situation of public service pensioners. But I have qualified my welcome with certain reservations and I am disappointed not to see in the Bill any provision for the reckonability of unestablished service.
  5.55 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): This has of necessity been a short debate and it may end by being even shorter than expected. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department and I are immensely grateful for the wide measure of support which the Bill has gained on both sides of the House. We particularly appreciate the welcome given by those who have campaigned for so long and so honourably for the welfare of public service pensioners. Speaking as a Treasury Minister, and perhaps straying a little beyond the normal path, I express my appreciation of the work done in the Civil Service Department to enable the Bill to be brought forward in this form. It was I who, from the Opposition Front Bench two years ago, gave the Conservative Party's pledge which is fully, and indeed more than fully, honoured in the Bill, and I am very appreciative of the efforts made to carry out that pledge so thoroughly and so early in the new Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), in welcoming the Bill, raised a number of interesting and

  281
  in many ways relevant points, based on his distinguished membership of the Fulton Committee and the great knowledge which he derived from his participation. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down all the roads he travelled, because most of the matters arising out of Fulton which he raised are at present the subject of a major review by the Civil Service Department, which includes a review of the terms of the pension schemes of which various categories of public servant are members.
  The Bill is concerned with up-rating—with inflation-proofing, as it has been described. We are not here concerned with the details of the individual pension schemes. These, as we have promised, are being reviewed, and, as my hon. Friend said, are being reviewed in consultation with the appropriate staff associations. No doubt, at the appropriate moment, it will be possible to announce the results. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, many of the matters he raised, including the problems of establishment which were also referred to by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) are not within the purview of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that I will be forgiven if I do not deal with them.
  I want to deal with points of principle and detail which have been raised. But first I want to describe two features of the Bill which are of interest and which my hon. Friend was not able to touch upon in his opening speech for want of time. The first is the problem of frozen lump sums. This has been a source of considerable irritation for many years, and I think that I can describe how the Bill deals with it. This problem arises where a man retires early with a pension preserved or frozen to come into payment on his ultimate retirement date. The pension awarded will consist partly of an annual payment, and partly of a lump sum. In the past, Pensions (Increase) Acts have always applied to the annual payment part of a pension, but not to a lump sum, the frozen lump sum as it is called.
  We have accepted that that is wrong, and the Bill provides for all lump sums that were frozen before 1st April, 1971, but which came into payment after that date, and for all that are frozen on and and after that date, to receive increases
  282
  to compensate for any rise in the cost of living in the interval between freezing and payment. The Bill, however, adheres firmly to the principle that a pensioner can never expect any increase on a lump sum in respect of any period after it has been paid over to him. When it is paid it becomes his responsibility to spend or invest as he thinks appropriate.
  The second feature that I should like to mention is the new arrangement for cut-off dates, and what are called graded increases. One of the sources of complaint under previous Acts has been the inflexible working of the cut-off date. Under recent Acts this has been set about 21 months before the operative date of the Act, and anyone who retired in what might be described as this "close season" received no increase under that Act. He has had to wait until the next Pensions (Increase) Act before getting any increase in his pension, which could be three, four or even five years later.
  We have made a great improvement on that, but, as I am sure the House will recognise, there still must be some cutoff, otherwise we get to the ridiculous position when a pensioner who retires perhaps only a matter of months, or even weeks, before the operative date of an increase becomes entitled to receive some quite derisory increase. I get the impression that this causes more irritation that pleasure, and it would be hopelessly uneconomic to administer.
  Mr. Marks: A teacher who starts in September commences at a certain rate, and then gets an increase in September. At this level of pension, no increase can be regarded as derisory.
  Mr. Jenkin: All I can say is that there is a sense of irritation that what has been a complex administrative matter ends up with a payment of what may be not more than a few new pence, or a shilling, a week.
  We are talking about derisory increases, and it is right, in those circumstances, that there should be some sort of cut-off date. The test that we have written into the Bill is the same 4 per cent. test which applies for the purposes of increases generally. In other words, no increase will be made if it is less than 4 per cent., but the pensioner does not

  283
  lose because, if he has suffered some loss of purchasing power before the operative date of the order in one year, it is made up when he gets an increase under a subsequent order two years later.
  That would be all right, were it not for the fact that about 75,000 people will retire in the course of any review period, and it will be impossible to work out the individual entitlement of each of those 75,000 pensioners for this broken period before the beginning of the subsequent review period. Therefore, what the Bill proposes is that we should divide the review period into four six-month periods, that an average level of the cost of living should be worked out for each of those periods, and that should be applicable to all those who retire within any six-month period. I recognise that that will be a little generous to some, and a little less generous to others but, overall, it is a fair and reasonably simple operation.
  May I here emphasise again, because there has been widespread misunderstanding about it outside the House, the point made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The provisions in the Bill mean that all those who retired within the review period—that is to say between April, 1969, and 31st March, 1971, and are otherwise qualified—will get some increase this September. It is right that they should know that. It may be asked what is to happen to the man who retires in the later part of a review period, who may be excluded from any increase by this 4 per cent. cut-off? The answer is that he does not lose in the long run. He picks it up later, and it is added to his pension.
  I now come to the main issues of principle raised during the debate by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The first is the question of parity, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings)—who has perhaps done more than almost any other hon. Member to fight the cause of the public service pensioners—and by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and by others.
  Parity means that a man who retired from the Home Civil Service 20 years ago, having earned the maximum pension possible in that grade, should now have his pension raised regularly to what is the
  284
  going rate of new pension for newly retiring civil servants in the same class and grade who have comparable records of service. I put it on record, and it is well known, that both parties when in Government have always rejected parity, whatever they may have said when in Opposition, and I must reject it again.
  First, we are against it on its merits. Many factors, apart from changing prices, can account for the differences in the pay of a man who retired 20 years ago, and the man who is retiring to-day from the same grade. There is no obvious reason why the man who retired 20 years ago should have his pension tied to what might be the relatively happy, or could be the relatively unhappy, pay experience of his successors in office. Some categories of staff will inevitably do better than others over the years, for reasons related to the market demand for staff, the nature of a job, and so on. Civil Service pay is based on comparability with the nearest equivalent work outside the Service, and it follows, of necessity, that the pay of different grades will not move in step with each other, but will vary from time to time, and that argument of principle seems to me to be very powerful.
  Some people have advanced arguments based on the practice of other countries. All I say is that one has to take the whole spectrum of employment policies in the public service together. Many of the other countries do not have the same relationship as we have between the National Insurance pension and the public service pension. The whole—or virtually the whole—of the National Insurance pension is paid on top of the public service pension.
  Third, there is the administrative problem. It may sound a simple enough proposition to level pensions up regularly to the going rate for the same record of service, but I assure the House that it would be a highly complicated operation. Most public service pensions are settled by reference to length of service and average salary earned over the last three years. For every grade with its own salary scale there would be a huge number of parity rates, depending on the length of service and the salary experience over the final three years. Moreover, many grades change or disappear altogether, and to the extent that one

  285
  cut through all these complications by producing some average parity figure, one would create new and substantial anomalies. By comparison, although the Bill is complicated, once our inflation-proofing system gets under way, the straightforward addition of a standard percentage every two years is administratively about as simple as it could be.
  Finally, as a number of my hon. Friends acknowledged, parity would be very expensive. It would raise by another £25 million the already large annual cost that we are incurring if we were to restrict it only to those who now qualify for increase, and by about another £50 million if, as its champions sometimes argue, it were to apply to all pensions without regard to the present qualifying conditions for increases. I hope the House will agree that the restoration and maintenance of purchasing power as embodied in the Bill is on the generous side of fairness, and that we should not give further serious thought to parity at this time.
  Another hon. Member who had to depart to participate in the proceedings on the Immigration Bill, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme raised a question why pensioners had to wait five months for payment; if April were to be the end of the review period, why could not the pensions be paid then? This has sometimes been called the five months' gap. We start from the position where we, like our predecessors, were committed to a two-year review in April this year. Since the purpose was to protect purchasing power, we had to wait until we had the latest cost-of-living figures up to 1st April, and we could not assess the increases until then. Thereafter—and I must make this perfectly clear to the House—1st September is the earliest practical date on which the actual payment can be made.
  I have no doubt the House would be fascinated if I were to describe the complex administration that is necessary before increases can be paid but perhaps I can leave it by saying that I was convinced, as was my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows a good deal more about this than I do, that they could not be paid earlier. An hon. Member asked why we cannot make the payment retrospective to 1st April when
  286
  we make it in September; and he gave the example of other fields of life where this happens. It may well be that there are some settlements which can properly be made retrospective. But it is a fact that governments of both parties have avoided retrospective adjustments of public service pensions.
  Of course, retrospective payment is not technically impossible. It could be done, but here again it is mainly a matter of cost; and we believe that we have produced the best scheme within the cost limits. If we were to pay this year's increase backdated from September to April we should add another £27½ million to the Bill, so that on top of what we are spending already the total cost would be about £85 million to £86 million. I believe that that is too much, and I think that the House will recognise that that is the case.
  What have we done? Instead of retrospection, we have dealt with the five months' gap, as my hon. Friend described it, in a different way. For existing pensioners we have taken account of the gap in fixing the standard increase payable in September at 18 per cent. rather than 14·4 per cent. which would exactly correspond with the rise in the cost of living in a review period. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne recognised that this was not a forecast. Obviously, it is not a projection. It is not arrived at by any arithmetical calculation. It is, by and large, the margin by which we feel it will be right to compensate for the five months' gap, and which I believe is acceptable as such.
  More complicated measures are necessary to deal with future pensioners. They are prescribed in some detail in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the White Paper. I doubt my ability to try to describe them to the House this afternoon because those particular paragraphs have not been my most enlivened bedside reading. But I hope the House will agree that we have taken reasonable steps to deal with this, in a sense, on a once-for-all basis.
  After this we have a situation where review periods and payment periods occur every two years—from April to April for the review periods and from September to September for the payment periods—so that each pensioner will get a cost

  287
  of living increase measured over a two-year period and he will get it at two-yearly intervals, in September. I believe that this will turn out to be a very convenient and acceptable administrative arrangement for meeting this longstanding grievance of pensions failing to keep pace with the cost of living.
  The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made the particular point that most of the margin we have built into this 18 per cent. has already been used up, as he put it; that the cost of living in fact went up by 2·1 per cent. last month and that there is not, therefore, much left of the difference between 14·4 and 18 per cent. There was, therefore, some suggestion that 18 per cent. was too low. I am prepared, as I am almost always prepared, to accept the hon. Gentleman's mathematics, but I do not accept his conclusions, and for two reasons. First, none of us can confidently say how the cost of living will move in the next two or three months. I agree that the last monthly increase was a heavy one, but those who study the way the index moves through the months of the year over the last decade will have seen that it is not uncommon to have a sharp rise in the spring followed by a relatively stable period throughout the summer. We must wait and see—and here again I am not making a forecast but saying one is not entitled to assume the rate will continue at the April rate for the rest of the summer.
  The second and perhaps more important point which I have already emphasised is that this is not a forecast or projection but a margin; and any difference will automatically be taken into account when the next review is made for the period April, 1971–April, 1973, for payment in September, 1973.
  Another point of substance made by a number of hon. Members, again on both sides of the House—because just as the Bill has had a bipartisan welcome, so improvements which are suggested have had bipartisan support—is the problem of annual review. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) raised this, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. It is simply a question of where one stops. One has to draw a line somewhere, and I suppose it can be said that one year as opposed to two
  288
  has a certain seasonal logic—what one might describe as cyclical tidiness. It would be significantly more expensive if we were to upgrade these pensions every year, and it would also result in a significant increase in the staff necessary to administer them.
  There was some suggestion that the development of mechanisation and computers should make all this very much easier. I can assure the House that, given the complications of the enormous variety of circumstances that affect pensioners and the problems of getting increased pensions actually into their hands, this should represent a very significant addition to administration. Our belief is that two years, which is also the interval at which social security pensions are reviewed, is reasonable, and that the demand for more frequent review is based on altogether too pessimistic an assumption about the course of inflation which, I would reiterate, the Government are determined to master.
  Another point made on both sides of the House was the problem of overseas pensioners. These fell into two classes and, in the course of the debate, this was not always kept entirely clear. There are those who have been called the quasi public service pensioners, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), who described them as the "forgotten men"; and there are the expatriate civil servants, those who served in the overseas Civil Service and may have transferred and in many cases did transfer to the service of newly independent Governments.
  The House will remember in relation to the latter group that in 1962 the former Conservative Government accepted the obligation to top up the pensions of those overseas civil servants to the extent that the overseas Governments failed to do so; and that position has continued until last year. We made up the pensions to the level they would have reached had they been United Kingdom pensions paid in the ordinary way under the Pensions (Increase) Acts.
  Then in March of last year the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) announced that the United Kingdom was prepared, if so requested by an overseas Government, to reimburse to the overseas Government that proportion of an expatriate's pension attributable to service

  289
  before independence. I can tell the House that negotiations on this are still taking place and it is envisaged that eventually the United Kingdom will assume the responsibility for the direct payment of that proportion of an expatriate's pension, including any increases attributed to that proportion, and if necessary topped up. This is all taken into account, of course, when the total aid programme to that overseas country is calculated—as is quite right—but when it takes effect legislation will be brought forward—it would not be appropriate to deal with it in this Bill; this should give much more assurance to these people about whom the hon. and learned Member for Northampton spoke so feelingly.
  The more difficult question is that of the so-called quasi-public service pensioners. These are the employees of the Nigeria Coal Corporation, Achimota College, the Lagos Town Council and many others. We estimate that there are up to 5,000 or more. I must confirm that these people are excluded from the scope of the Bill. In Committee on the 1969 Bill I personally gave a pledge that we would once again review this cate gory of public service if we were returned to office.
  But both parties have hitherto always maintained that the line should be drawn between those who remained in the service of the Crown and those who did not. Nevertheless my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development, who heard the first part of this debate and who also has a long standing interest in this problem, and whose Department is responsible for overseas pension matters, undertook a thorough review of the question, taking fully into account the views of the Overseas Pensioners Association and others who have made representations on this subject. But in the light of this review, the Government reluctantly came to the conclusion that our predecessors were right and that there was no justification for abandoning that clear dividing line between service under the Crown and other public sector employment overseas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) suggested that assurances had been given to these people when they transferred from the service of the Crown to public sector
  290
  service in these overseas countries. I am assured that any assurances given related to the current terms of service and had nothing whatever to do with possible increases of pension paid after they retired. The assurances did not cover that. However, I can assure the House that those quasi-Government pensioners who have served the Crown at some time during their careers continue to be entitled to pension increases in respect of that part of their pension which relates to their Crown service.
  The hon. and learned Member for Northampton asked Why the multiplier stopped short at 1944. The answer is that a different system is used for pre-1946 uprating than for post-1946, because to apply a cost of living factor to the former would give wildly anomalous results. Therefore, for those pre-1946 pensions a survey was done both of salaries and pensions paid in that period—of people who were in work and those who had retired—and there was a broad general impression—I acknowledge that this is a broad brush approach—that to uprate the pensions of those who retired in 1944 and earlier by 30 per cent. and in 1945 by 10 per cent. would bring them up to the 1946 starting point, from which cost of living adjustments could subsequently be made.
  Where I believe the hon. and learned Member was misled was that that separate exercise has been rolled into one and comprehended in those two figures for 1944 and 1945 which appear in Schedule 1. One then applies the multiplier to bring the pensions up to the 1969 level, after which the 18 per cent. is added on.
  The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) mentioned the problem of the F.S.S.U. I have a suspicion that we shall be hearing more about this matter in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill. Clause 12 of this Bill does not apply to the universities except to an extent which I shall mention in a moment, nor would it apply to a terminal salary scheme if the universities introduced one. The only people who are covered by the Bill are those public servants who transferred from the Civil Service or some other pensionable employment to which the Bill applies into the F.S.S.U. But we would accept, as with other autonomous corporations and bodies in

  291
  the public service that just as the nationalised industries are free so they would be free to uprate their pensions broadly in line with the Bill's proposals.
  Mr. Roper: In the case of the F.S.S.U., this burden is borne by the Exchequer, whereas for the nationalised industries it is on their accounts. Can I assume that the Exchequer would be prepared to finance such an uprating of F.S.S.U. pensions?
  Mr. Jenkin: The universities have always done this in the past. Whether it is improved by supplementation or by an increase in the recurrent grant must be one of the things which is taken into account. Of course, the hope that some people have that supplementation might be increased in future as a means of preserving the benefits of F.S.S.U. is one which it would be wrong to encourage, but perhaps that is more a matter for Committee.
  The references which have been made to Members of Parliament were quite right. We must be about the only class of public servant who are not comprehended within the Bill. When the Members contributory pension scheme was set up. Section 15 of the relevant Act provided for periodic reviews in the light of the Government Actuary's valuation of the operation. It was only on 8th April this year that the House approved an Order increasing the pension of retired Members by 20 per cent.—the first increase since the scheme was set up in 1965.
  Clause 5(2) of this Bill enables additional categories of pension to be added to the Schedule of the Bill if this seems appropriate. It would obviously be a matter for the Top Salaries Review Body to consider whether Members' pensions should be restructured and transferred to this Bill.
  The Bill has had a warm welcome, but neither my hon. Friend nor I were so naive as to believe that whatever we put forward no one would be tempted to ask for more. We did not expect the pensioners' organisations to go out of business upon the publication of the Bill. Some hon. Members may have seen the recent circular on this subject. I did not anticipate the wildly optimistic Amendments which apparently the Public Service
  292
  Pensioners Council would like to see made to the Bill.
  They want a 2 per cent. minimum instead of a 4 per cent.—that is to say, paid up to a much more recent period. They want annual reviews rather than two-yearly reviews. They want a once-for-all exercise to restore pensions—not to their original purchasing power but to some much higher figure based on something between the prices index and the wages index. They want to see the pensions regularly maintained at these annual reviews by reference to this hybrid index.
  Although they say that they welcome the Bill, the impression given by all this is that the Government have produced the least generous of the Pensions Increase Bills instead of by far the most generous.
  Mr. Jennings: I would not like my hon. Friend to give the impression that bodies like the Public Service Pensioners Council are ungrateful to the Government for the Bill. They are very grateful and have acknowledged this. I have had a lot to do with the Council and I have expressed its feelings today as well as my own. Of course, the Council ask us to put down Amendments, and we try to get away with it, but we know what the result will be.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting me right on this. In a sense "gratitude" is the wrong word. This is justice which has been long delayed. If one were to add up all the proposals for improvements, they would cost another £30 million or thereabouts. If costs continue to rise, while the retail price index continues to rise, the annual cost will be much greater than we expect. It is not only a matter of cost. We are told that parity still remains the council's long-term aim, as my hon. Friend made clear. If we accepted the suggested amendments, the pensions would be increased wildly in excess of parity. For example, a clerical officer, depending on the date of his retirement, would get between £100 and £330 a year more than the current pension paid to a clerical officer. An assistant secretary would receive more than £1,000 above parity. I cannot believe that it is seriously suggested by the Public Service Pensioners Council that increases of that order could conceivably be justified. If I may respectfully say so to my hon. Friend, they are utterly ridiculous.

  293
  I hope that perhaps more moderate counsels will prevail, and that there will be greater recognition that these suggestions imply that the Bill gives pensioners a fair deal. Indeed, it is more than fair; it is generous; generous by the standards of past Bills, generous by the standards of private industry, and certainly no less generous than the proposals put forward by the Labour Party before the election, indeed in one or two respects a little more so. Our citizens will gladly shoulder the cost of meeting this obligation to those whose lives have been given to the public service. Justice, long delayed, is now round the corner. The Bill represents a major milestone in the long and chequered history of public service pensions, and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  PENSIONS (INCREASE) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to pensions payable in respect of government and other official or related service, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by government departments, and of any addition to the sums so payable under any other enactment, where the expenditure or addition results from provisions included in the Act with respect to any pensions other than Service pensions for the purpose—

  (a) of adjusting pensions to any altered circumstances after the end of the relevant employment: or

  (b) of securing that in the event of a person's re-employment after a pension has or may become payable in respect of his earlier employment, any pension payable by reason of the employment and re-employment, when taken with any increases under the Act, either exceeds or is not less than it would have been without the re-employment.

  'Pension' for this purpose comprises all forms of pension benefit in respect of service in any office or employment, including lump sums, and including benefits in the nature of compensation for loss of office or diminuation of emoluments.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

  PURCHASE TAX (YOGHURT)
  6.33 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,
  That the Purchase Tax (No. 2) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 731), dated 4th May, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.
  We go from the sublime to the "gorblimey". The effect of the Order is to introduce a minor adjustment to the purchase tax coverage to correct an anomaly which has become apparent in recent months. It is our intention to charge purchase tax on frozen yoghurt. Since 1962, Group 28 of the purchase tax Schedule has comprised "ice cream, ice lollies, water ices and similar frozen products, and prepared mixes and powders for making such products". Recently, a new product, frozen yoghurt, has come on to the market and Customs and Excise felt that it should be within the charge. In a court action in March of this year, when Customs and Excise contended that frozen yoghurt, which is usually put up in small tubs just like ice cream was chargeable because it was a "similar frozen product", we lost, and judgment was given, that it should not be so classified.
  The product has subsequently been marketed on a stick. I have an example here. It is called, in small print, an "ice lolly". It appeared that we were faced with what could be a significant and widening loophole in the tax. It is confidently expected that this new product will sell beside other ice lollies, being offered as having a different flavour and a different texture. It will be sold through exactly the same retail channels, probably at much the same price, as many other frozen products which are within the range of the purchase tax.
  The Act, fortunately, makes provision for dealing with exactly this situation. It is clearly unfair to the producers of existing taxed products that this new product, closely resembling the others, should be available free of tax for no other reason than that it was not invented when the relevant class was defined. Furthermore there could be a significant loss of revenue, and for that reason I have brought the Order to the House this evening.

  295
  The Order came into operation on 10th May, and simply inserts the words "frozen yoghurt" after the words "ice lollies" in the statutory heading to the group. It will bring the new product within the field of the tax. There is no intention of taxing conventional liquid yoghurt. The Order does not touch that product at all. We are concerned only with frozen yoghurt. This is a very short point. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel justified in making the Order, and I ask the House to approve it.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: I am sure the House will agree with the Financial Secretary that we should eliminate anomalies, but I wonder whether he is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, or a piece of frozen yoghurt. He did not make clear the extent of the avoidance. He seemed to imply a whacking great loophole in the law, with masses of frozen yoghurt being sold all over the country and escaping purchase tax.
  I made a small inquiry about the extent of this, and I find that Walls Ice Cream Co. tried this idea last year and did some tests in the South of England, but discontinued the idea. Midland Counties Dairies, a subsidiary of Unigate, make frozen yoghurt. It is actually made by another subsidiary, Cheshire Sterilised Milk Co. of Stockport, and transported to Midland Counties for the deep-freeze processing. This does not seem to be done on the scale implied by the Financial Secretary.
  I am sure that none of us wish to encourage the flouting of the law, but if the loophole is small, and since the Government plan to bring in value-added tax which would remedy all the anomalies, why is it necessary to bring in the Order for this comparatively trifling matter?
  It is possible that the Order might not even catch the frozen yoghurt, or might catch genuine yoghurt which is a food and exempt from tax. The Financial Secretary said that it would not catch ordinary yoghurt but only frozen yoghurt, but I understand that yoghurt is kept in the freezing compartment in most retail establishments, and I am not sure
  296
  how one would distinguish when yoghurt is frozen and when it is not frozen. On the other hand, it is easy for avoidance to occur by a customer buying ordinary yoghurt and then deep-freezing it.
  The Government are perhaps going to somewhat unusual lengths for a comparatively short time on a comparatively minor matter. However, if this is what they want, and they think there is a major, momentous avoidance of our tax system, I am sure the House will wish to remedy this.
  Mr. Jenkin: With the leave of the House, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not put this matter forward as a major momentous change in the system. Indeed, my first sentence indicated that it was a matter of somewhat minor importance. If it were to be held by the courts not to be within the scope of the provision as drawn but we felt that the provision ought to be included, it seems right that we should let the manufacturers know where they stand so that they can plan ahead. I have not tried the product myself, but it may have a big public appeal. If we were to take no action on this matter, it would of course mean a loss of revenue. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I hope that the Order will now be agreed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Purchase Tax (No. 2) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 731), dated 4th May, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES (SPECIAL ADVANCES)
  6.42 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,
  That the Building Societies (Special Advances) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.
  This seems to be one of those days when the Financial Secretary is the bat, the ball and everything else, but that is in the nature of the job.
  This Order, if approved, will increase from £10,000 to £13,000 the maximum amount which a building society can advance to an individual without the

  297
  advance having to become a "special advance" for the purposes of the Building Societies Act 1967. I shall explain briefly what this means. Traditionally, the function of building societies has been to lend money on mortgage to owner-occupiers. In the Building Societies Act, 1960, which was later consolidated, Parliament sought to limit them in the main to this kind of business. The method adopted was to create a class of advances called "special advances", and then to limit the amount of special advances which a society could make in any year. Special advances, are broadly those which fall outside the building societies' traditional rôle. They were denned in the Acts as all advances to companies and advances above a specified limit to individuals.
  The limit was originally fixed by the 1960 Act at £5,000, which was then regarded as the normal maximum level advance for an owner-occupier. However, the Act recognised that the limit might need to be revised from time to time, and it included a provision to do this by Order. In 1963 the limit was raised to £7,000, and in 1967 it was put up to its present level of £10,000. The purpose of the present Order is to raise the limit by a further £3,000 to £13,000.
  This increase is needed because house prices have continued to rise since 1967. Speaking generally, if £10,000 was the right level in 1967, a figure below £13,000 would probably be right today. In 1967 the House thought it right to make some allowance for further increases so that it would not be necessary to come back for a fresh Order at too frequent intervals.
  The Building Societies Association has suggested that we ought to raise the figure to £15,000, but the Government have concluded that £13,000 would be the more appropriate figure. If we go too high, we could be appearing to encourage building societies to go beyond their traditional rôle as envisaged in 1960, and this could be to the disadvantage of the smaller borrower. For this reason we feel that £13,000 is the correct figure. I invite the House to approve the Order.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: Again, I do not think we need to detain the House long. Clearly, there
  298
  is need for some increase because of the inflation which has occurred since 1967. I note what was said by the Financial Secretary about the fact that £13,000 is slightly more than the total inflation on a £10,000 house since 1967. It would be interesting to know how much below the £13,000 is the true figure of inflation since 1967. It would also be interesting to know how long he expects the present trend envisaging a figure of £13,000 to continue. However, I do not expect a precise answer tonight. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would consider the matter. It would be interesting to know where the £13,000 stands in the scale of house purchase; in other words, what percentage of total house sales it would represent. I agree that it is vital that the majority of building society funds should be available for the lower-priced houses and for the smaller owner-occupier.
  I am always interested, as I am sure are my constituents in the North-West, to read in the newspapers about the average price of houses for sale being in the region of £5,000 to £6,000. In the North-West the average selling price of a house is more like £4.000. Although there is no problem at the moment since building societies have plenty of funds, I can foresee possible difficulties, perhaps in the not too distant future, if the recent Bank of England proposals are implemented and there is growing competition for funds, with the possibility of building societies finding themselves in a slightly less happy position than is the case today. In those circumstances, it may well be necessary to look at the matter again. It would be bad if the building societies were to lend too high a proportion of their funds for the more expensive houses at around the £13,000 mark, leaving insufficient funds available for those at the lower end of the house purchase scale.
  I ask the Financial Secretary to bear in mind that there may well be a need to restrict building society lending, both under the new special advances rate and at the higher level, if the competition which may now take place in banking leads to a shortage of funds in the hands of the building societies. A close watch also should be kept on the percentage of funds lent by building societies in special advances. According to one noble Lord

  299
  when this matter was debated in another place, in 1968 just over 2 per cent. of building society funds were in that category. To raise the limit now might mean a higher proportion of special advances and this may apply to a greater proportion of the funds in the hands of the smaller building societies. This may not have quite such a marked effect on the large building societies, but it could certainly have an effect on the smaller ones. Therefore, it may be necessary at some time to consider a differential between the smaller and the large building societies.
  I have no objection to the raising of the limit since it is necessary because of inflation, but I hope that the Government will keep this matter under close review. If in future there is a shortage of building society funds, I hope that the Government will be sure to come back to the House quickly to ensure that there is no shortage of funds for the people at the lower end of the scale whom we wish to see helped.
  6.49 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If I may be allowed to reply to the hon. Member, I am reluctant to become involved in a detailed discussion about the level of house prices. There are a number of indices which vary widely in their application to different parts of the country. What may seem appropriate in Heywood and Royton would seem to be a prize beyond the wildest dreams in my constituency, where houses change hands at what a few years ago would have been regarded as ridiculously high prices. I am advised that the right level to be set would be somewhere below £13,000. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement that this is a reasonable figure.
  The lending policy of the building societies must be for them. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to keep a watch on the availability of funds for the traditional type of lending for the small buyer.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Bank of England paper, "Competition and Credit Control", and suggested that it might have some effect on limiting the flow of funds to the building societies. I draw his attention, although I feel sure
  300
  that he is aware of it, to what was said in that paper:
  "The impact of such competition on. building societies would need careful consideration and the Bank of England would wish to discuss this matter with the banks. It might be that a need would be recognised, for example, to observe some limits on the terms offered for savings deposits."
  I hope that that will indicate that the authorities are aware of and will bear in mind the point which he made.
  I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the latest figures on the amount of special advances. Most of the major building societies have a natural reluctance to make special advances and recognise the duty imposed upon them by Parliament in the 1962 Act to engage primarily in their traditional lending. We shall certainly keep this point under review. If a change is necessary we shall no doubt make proposals to the House.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the Order, and I hope that it may be approved.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. McCrindle: This brief contribution is, first, to approve the Order and, secondly, to question whether the figure of £13,000 is adequate in 1971.
  I speak with some professional experience as a mortgage broker. I should point out to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) that my experience as a mortgage broker is not only in the South-East but in his part of the country as well.
  I accept that the average price of houses both in his part of the country and in London is considerably below £13,000, but I hope that he will accept that there are many applications for mortgages well in advance of that figure. While £13,000 is, on balance, a reasonably adequate figure at the moment, I question whether this continuing approach is necessary.
  The requirement for this type of Order to be placed before the House springs from the Building Societies Act, 1961. It was perfectly proper, in the aftermath of some difficulties attending one building society in particular, that the public should be reassured. However, I quesion whether the usefulness of this practice has not started to outlive itself, to some extent, and that this should be the last

  301
  such Order to be placed before the House and the practice abolished. In many ways, by having to approve such Orders in Parliament, we are interfering with the commercial judgment of building societies. We shall constantly have to come back and present Orders for ever rising figures unless we are supreme optimists and feel that inflation of house prices will suddenly stop.
  I felt that I should make this brief intervention because only the building societies have this restriction placed on their commercial judgment. I accept that this may be proper, because they are traditionally the lenders to low-price house purchasers. If an application is made to a building society at the moment for an advance of £13,000, special approval is required. But a man has only to go to an insurance company and no particular requirement or approval has to be obtained.
  Mr. Barnett: It is not only the fact that they are lending to house purchasers, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree; it is also the fact that they are borrowing from small borrowers who have to be protected, as we have seen in the past.
  Mr. McCrindle: I accept that that was largely what led to the requirements being introduced. But I suppose that small shareholders in insurance companies could be brought into the same category.
  My point is that, even accepting what the hon. Gentleman said, we are interfering with the commercial judgment of the building societies, and only the building societies. If, as I think the hon. Gentleman predicted, we are going to move into a period where possibly house purchase lending will be forthcoming from finance houses, and even the banks., I wonder where the interference with commercial judgment will stop.
  I felt that I should make this intervention because, while I approve of the uplifting of the limit to £13,000, I wondered whether the Government would be well advised to consider the correctness of changing the necessity to continue presenting such Orders to Parliament.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Building Societies (Special Advances) Order 1971, a draft of which was
  302
  laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.
  Sitting suspended at 6.56 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I support the Second Reading of the Bill. As the House will be aware, this is the second Private Bill which the G.L.C. presents to the House in the course of a year. The first was the General Powers Bill, which was debated two months ago. The powers which the G.L.C. was taking then were relatively minor. This Bill is entirely different. It is important for the G'L.C. because, without it it would not be able to fulfil a large part of its functions.
  The Bill gives the G.L.C. two particular powers. First, it confers upon it the power to spend money on capital account in 1971 and 1972. Second, it empowers it to lend money, for mortgages or housing associations. The House is not being asked to provide this money; the G.L.C. provides it from rates revenue or borrowings from the Public Works Loan Board and borrowings on the London Stock Exchange. But it has always been considered that the capital expenditure of London is so important that it should receive the particular sanction of this House rather than just go through the normal procedure of local authority loan sanctions from the Ministry.
  The amount of money involved is very substantial.. The total funds covered by the Bill amount to £217 million, £115 million of which is for capital expenditure in the current year, £85 million being for loans that the Council will make to housing associations and for mortgages, and £17 million being held in reserve for contingency.
  It is interesting to reflect how much this sum has increased over the past five years. When the Labour Party last controlled the G.L.C. in 1966–67 the equivalent figure was £112 million, so in the course of the past five years the

  303
  capital expenditure programme within the Greater London area has more than doubled. This demonstrates, as I think is accepted on both sides of the House, however concerned the Conservative Party and the Conservative Government are about restraining the rise in public expenditure, how important it is to spend sums of this sort in the centre of our cities to maintain and improve the basic public services.
  I should like to deal with the four major items of expenditure, because I do not think that the House will expect me to go into elaborate detail on every last pound of the £217 million. The four major items this year are flood defences, amenities, London Transport and housing. There is also an item of £17 million for the Inner London Education Authority for its capital programme for this year. I do not intend to comment on that, because I.L.E.A. has a unique position with the G.L.C.; it can submit its requirements to the G.L.C, which simply has to meet them.
  I deal first with flood defences. The G.L.C. has decided, because of the danger at any time of a tidal surge up the Thames, to undertake two major programmes, one involving the flood barrier and the other the interim measures before it is built. Those interim measures will involve raising the walls in the low-lying areas along the Thames by some 18 inches. This work has already started. The total cost will be £5½ million, and £3 million will be covered in this financial year. The G.L.C. is concerned because of the disturbing fact that the whole of the south-eastern part of England is slowly sinking, at the rate of about a foot per century. That is sufficient to cause concern to the riparian authorities, of which the G.L.C. is the major, that more flood defences should be available.
  The longer-term solution is the barrier, which will be built at Silvertown near Woolwich. Its total cost will be £75 million. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Government for making such a generous grant towards the cost of 65 per cent.—about £50 million—to the building of the barrier. The G.L.C. is very grateful for that contribution. The work is only in its early stages in this financial year, consisting
  304
  mainly of the acquisition of land and items like that. The G.L.C. has decided on a rising sector type of barrier, which can be most simply explained by saying that in normal conditions the gates that will hold back the surge will be under the waters of the Thames, but if there is a threat of a surge from the mouth of the river they will swing up like saucers, rather like a radar scanner, to hold back the surge.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) has decided to oppose the two G.L.C. Bills tonight, largely to debate the flood barrier, and, particularly the fact that the decision to go for the rising sector gate was made before the publication of technical details—I stress "before publication" and not, of course, before the consideration of technical details. I was rather surprised to know that that was his objection, because there have been ample opportunities, both in the committees of the G.L.C. and in the Council Chamber, for those who favour the drop gate system, which is more like an arch with gates coming down, to put their point of view. On 19th March this year, the Public Services Committee agreed to go for the rising sector type of barrier. That decision was communicated to the Chairman of the Environmental Planning Committee, of which I believe the hon. Gentleman is a co-opted member. As is the usual procedure, the views of the opposition leader on that Committee were sought, and no objections were made. When the Council was asked to approve the scheme on 18th May, the Chairman of the Public Services Committee specifically asked for questions and comments so that there could be a debate in the Chamber, but there were none from opposition members. Therefore, I do not think that the G.L.C. can be faulted on the question of providing ample opportunity for those members and the public to comment.
  I am glad to report that next month the G.L.C. will put in the Library of the House the second Report of Studies, a substantial document, just as it did the first Report of Studies.
  I turn to the second item of expenditure—amenity expenditure.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves

  305
  the important question of Thames flooding, could he help us with a point of information on item 14,
  "River Thames flood prevention works",
  which I take not to be the barrier but the interim scheme. It says that the Government is to put up 65 per cent. of certain expenditure. It is the word "certain" that I am puzzled about. What does it mean? Can we have the assurance that none of the cost of the interim flood protection will fall on riparian owners?
  Mr. Baker: The 65 per cent. is 65 per cent. of the barrier scheme in its entirety, which amounts to about £76 million altogether, of which roughly £40 million is not for the barrier and £36 million is. The £40 million is for various land works on the bank associated with the barrier. The amount that will be spent on the barrier this year under the Bill is about £3 million, which is mainly for the acquisition of land.
  Mr. Mayhew: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am honestly seeking information. I do not think that item 14 refers to the barrier. I think that it is the interim flood prevention measures. That is what worries me.
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman, I think, is referring to item 14 of the Financial Memorandum on page ii. I am fairly certain—as certain as anyone can be—that the 65 per cent. refers to the barrier scheme and not the interim flood measures. The interim flood measures scheme will cost £5½ million and the G.L.C. is meeting all of that.
  I turn now to the second group, amenity expenditure. The G.L.C. still has responsibility for many parks in London that are not being transferred, and there are many items in the Bill for such things as the Alexandra Palace grounds, children's playgrounds, a club for pre-school children, and extension of the children's zoo at Crystal Palace. One item that I am especially glad to see, as I once fought a seat in East London, is the provision for substantial areas of open space. The G.L.C. is making a contribution towards the National Theatre, which is getting under way at last. The G.L.C. gave the site and is paying 50 per cent. of the building cost. There are
  306
  substantial sums for sewerage and drainage—£5 million and £7 million respectively.
  On the amenities for its staff, the G.L.C. is spending a considerable amount on capital account, including its office accommodation. The office block at the southern end of Westminster Bridge is a G.L.C. block and when that is completed, when the in-filling at County Hall is finished and when the new telephone exchange is operating, the G.L.C. will be able to dispose of a large number of its outlying small offices and leases. Estimates have been made of the total saving benefit as a result, and when it is capitalised this will reach some £4 million. This is a very good example of good cost saving in the public sector.
  The third major item is that of London Transport. The G.L.C. does not, in fact, have to provide any of the capital expenditure of London Transport if it does not want to, but since it assumed overall responsibility for London Transport, it decided in its first year to provide £2 million as a grant. I am glad to say that this year that figure has been increased to £8 million. I am sure that that is welcomed on both sides of the House. We all agree that if more money is not spent upon the basic public transportation system in London—the tubes and bus system basically—life will become less tolerable for the great mass of people who live in our capital.
  Another item this year is the Heathrow extension, which has started. This will be an extension of the Piccadilly line out to the airport and will cost some £15 million, of which the G.L.C. will contribute a quarter. Then there is the £1 million for the extension of the Victoria Line beyond Pimlico to Brixton.
  There will be another £1½ million for new underground trains and another £1 million for new buses. But the biggest item of all is the projected Fleet Line, which will start from my constituency—just—go down through central London, along the line of Fleet Street, down through the docks, under the river and end up at Lewisham. In this decade this will be the largest single item of major public transport improvement in London. It has been on the drawing boards for a very considerable time. I press the Government about whether a

  307
  statement could be made this evening as to the grant which the Government have been asked by the G.L.C. to make towards the cost of this line. The total cost will be some £90 million. I hope that a decision will be forthcoming soon, because this line, apart from improving the overall flow of traffic in London, has a very important task of revitalising those dead dock areas of Lower Stepney and Poplar, and the dock areas just south of the river, where transportation to and fro is not very good.
  There is also continuing expenditure upon highways. The Labour Party in London have suffered a complete volte face of their attitude to road development in London. When they controlled the G.L.C. in 1965, with a tremendous fanfare of trumpets they introduced the Ringway 1 and Ringway 2 schemes. This was the dynamism and forward-looking plan which they presented. Having given it birth, they subjected it to abandonment and, this year, infanticide, since they have completely reversed their policy and are now totally opposed to Ringway 1 and Ringway 2.
  I have a Press release from the Labour Party, Herbert Morrison House, Walworth Road, London S.E.17, during the recent elections. There are impeccable credentials on the notepaper. The chairman is that celebrated Housing Minister who is now the Opposition Chief Whip. He summed up six years of Labour housing policy by saying that the housing policy of the last six years should be stood on its head. That is what he is doing with the Labour policy on transport in London, because they have abandoned their support of motorways in London and in this Press release they have laid down their policy, which is a very obscure one. They state that increases should be paid for out of rates—which is being done; that these could be paid out of central Government grants—which I hope very much will be done; and they propose a
  "… new tax on traffic generators".
  I do not know what the Labour Party have in mind here. It is unfortunate that there is no Front Bench Opposition spokesman available for the debate. I should like to know what this new tax on traffic generators would mean. Who will pay it? I am surprised that we did
  308
  not hear more about it in the Labour Party's campaign during the local elections.
  The last major item of capital expenditure in the Bill is that for housing. As all of us who represent London constituencies know, this is undoubtedly the greatest problem facing London. I shall certainly not be satisfied while there are so many Londoners living in substandard homes. But regrettably, all the estimates made for the next decade—however we do the sums—predict a deficiency. There will not be enough homes built in London during the next ten years. Everyone will agree that, deplorable as the problem is, the G.L.C. has tried to tackle it on as many grounds as possible. It is hoped that its own building programme this year, covered by sums in the Bill, will amount to about 6,000 completions, and this will be the highest figure, if it is reached, since the G.L.C. came into being.
  The G.L.C. is also increasing the turnover in the number of lettings per year. The lettings in the current year show an increase to 16,000, very nearly one-third more than when the Conservatives came to power at County Hall. In the next three years lettings will increase to about 19,000 a year. That will be nearly a 100 per cent. increase over the number of lettings available each year during the period when the Labour Party had control.
  An important item in the housing programme is Thamesmead. There is provision in the Bill for some £8 million for continuation of building houses at Thamesmead. I draw the attention of the House to the important job which the G.L.C. does in rehousing Londoners outside London. In 1970 some 7,000 families were moved out by the G.L.C. to expanding and new towns, and many of them were people who had serious housing needs. The G.L.C. is to be congratulated for continuing this excellent scheme, and I wish that we could give it more publicity.
  The G.L.C. also has a seaside scheme under which its elderly tenants retire to seaside bungalows so that the G.L.C. can release in London larger units of accommodation for families. The G.L.C. is pushing ahead on that scheme as well. It is also giving considerable support to

  309
  housing associations, and there is provision in the Bill for lending £15 million this year to housing associations. This is part of a three-year programme amounting to some £75 million. We hope and expect that by the end of this programme some 16,000 houses will have been provided by housing associations, and the G.L.C. has nomination rights to those associations.
  If the Opposition has a policy towards housing associations in those councils where they now have control, I should like to know what it is. I understand that councils which went Socialist ten days ago are not prepared to provide land for housing associations. That is very regrettable and retrogressive.
  The G.L.C. has a substantial programme of lending money for mortgages in the year ahead. It hopes to provide just over £50 million in mortgages for people living in London. I would point out the tremendous increase that there has been since 1968, when the Labour Government had to stop providing money for this purpose. In that year the G.L.C. loaned only £3 million for mortgages. I ask the House to reflect upon what that means. It means that in 1968 many people had their dream of buying their own home postponed if not abandoned. Now there has been this great increase with the Tory-controlled G.L.C, and it must be borne in mind that the G.L.C. is basically a borrower of last resort. It now provides 250 loans a week, concentrating particularly upon older and smaller houses.
  Let me say a word now about how the money is to be found. This is a substantial capital programme. There are few cities in the world which can match it and it is substantially larger than the capital expenditure of many countries. It is basically provided from borrowings which have to be financed from rate revenue at the end of the year. This Bill provides for the first time a sum of £10 million to be placed into capital reserves from rate revenue. The Labour Opposition on the G.L.C. opposed that, but I do not know why because it must be sensible to build up reserves rather than deplete them.
  This raises the whole problem of financing London. The G.L.C. looks forward to the Green Paper which the
  310
  Government are to publish soon on rating reform, because we cannot escape from this unhappy combination of facts—last year the rateable value of the G.L.C. increased by only 1¼ per cent., whereas the costs of running the G.L.C. increased by 10 per cent. We have to find a new and more equitable source of revenue than our present rating system for the needs of London. One thing that is evident from the annual money Bills is that unless sums of this sort continue to be spent in London then the services which Londoners enjoy and which make London a much more attractive city than almost any other city will slowly deteriorate. I am glad that the Tory-controlled G.L.C. is playing its part in maintaining these services.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to follow the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) for the second time. I should like to take up at once a point that he made about the available information on the Thames Barrier, for that is what I want to speak about this evening. He said that the Public Services Committee of the G.L.C. had the study before it and that it had been debated in the G.L.C. Here I make a personal point because as a co-opted member of one of the G.L.C. committees I can say that none of the documents was, quite properly, available to me. The documents have not been made available to the general public or interested bodies, other than those taking part in the study. I hope to show in detail that this is a fact, and one of the facts to which I take some objection. I also speak as a vice-chairman of the River Thames Society, which is the amenity society for the Thames, which looks at all aspects of the river, particularly planning matters.
  It is important that we get this question of flooding right. The hon. Member said that when the matter came before the council last Tuesday none of the members of my party on that council raised any objection. I do not speak tonight on the basis of party politics, and that is why the subject was not raised a week ago.
  We are debating a Private Bill, and the procedure on such a Bill, as I understand it, has been historically one of

  311
  checking the democratic processes and the expenditure of public monies for which this House is partly responsible. Unfortunately, in the history of Thames flooding and protection we have a history of delays, confusions and, until fairly recently, one official body blocking another.
  I may have to delve into technical details and to go at some length into these matters, because there are principles at stake which are of some importance—indeed, the success of flood defences in London which in the next 50 years will be vital not only to the life of the capital but to the economy of the nation as a whole which is at issue here.
  There have been a number of debates on this matter. There was an Adjournment debate initiated by the then hon. Member for Twickenham in 1968; the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who is here tonight, raised this on the Consolidated Fund debate in 1968. Last year, on 9th November, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) raised it in a second Adjournment debate.
  In 1968, the G.L.C. undertook the first comprehensive investigation of this very complex matter. In October, 1969, with commendable speed, it produced a large volume called the First Report of Studies. It went at great length into many matters involved in this difficult problem. There was one issue which was not then taken to a conclusion because the studies were not complete, and that was the design of the flood barrier itself. This is the crux of the matter, because whatever we do about flood banks or flood warning procedures, it is the success of the flood barrier mechanism which will determine the success of our flood prevention measures in London.
  Contrary to what the hon. Member for St. Marylebone said, we have not been able to get any public information from the G.L.C. of the conclusions arrived at after the first Report of Studies, published in October, 1969. I pay a tribute to the courtesy which I have received from all G.L.C. officials, from the chairman of the Public Service Committee and all those who have been helping in this matter. The principle which I wish to establish is that matters of this sort should be made
  312
  public, at a time when public comment can make a difference. It is no use publications coming out after the effective decisions have been made, when they cannot be changed or modified. If that happens, public confidence in the democratic procedures is loosened, justice is not seen to be done and right decisions are not seen to be taken at the correct time.
  This is where I begin to delve into technicalities. The design of a flood barrier in the Thames incorporates many important factors. First, it must be reliable. That is a sine qua non, and that is the first and most important factor. Secondly, the effect on navigation, both during construction and when it is completed—and at the time of any threatened flood surge—must be considered. There are a number of inter-related factors, because if the barrier is to be entirely successful, it must be closed at some time before the surge is due; and if we are to avoid reflected waves downstream, with the threatening of land downstream of the barrier—particularly areas in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford—it should be closed as soon as possible with a detrimental effect on navigation. Then there is the timing of construction of the barrier in the river. The sooner it is constructed, the sooner we shall be secure. There is also the cost and, finally, the amenity considerations. These may include considerations of half-tide working, which would make the upper river very much more attractive for amenity purposes.
  The history of the controversy over the barrier design is a long one. In 1960 a report of the technical possibilities of the Thames flood barrier, Cmd. 965, started the ball rolling. It discounted a rising type barrier, which has been adopted, and went for two other designs, which the G.L.C. has dropped. In 1969 the G.L.C. received a number of technical reports from its consultants, and at that stage they came to some quite clear conclusions. Paragraph 7.4 of (the G.L.C. "First Report of Studies" stated:
  "It is imperative that the barrier should be reliable in operation…. In this context the objective of reliability must be obtained by careful design, model testing, prototype testing of parts and provision for proper maintenance. The joint consultants have expressed the opinion that the drop gate type of structure allows provision of a high degree of

  313
  reliability where this cannot be guaranteed with any other type".
  That was the view of the G.L.C. in September, 1969. Their consultants commented on another barrier, known as the rising drum type, and, at that stage, they said that in their view it was not as reliable; they said in their Fourth Report:
  "the search for reliability has confirmed that where a span of 500 ft. or less is envisaged, a drop gate provides the most satisfactory solution".
  Their comment on the rising drum barrier was:
  "We … are unable to put forward any proposal for such a barrier which entirely eliminates all disadvantages and offers a reliability of the same order as barriers of some other types".
  In other words, although they said that a rising type of barrier was feasible at that stage, they could not say, and they did not say, that it was of greater reliability; and reliability is, of course, the most important factor.
  The only type of rising barrier they could suggest was a remarkable structure which would have involved excavating the river bed to a depth of 90 feet and producing chambers 90 feet deep, each having to be dry. Out of them would rise drum barriers, above the surface, when a surge threatened. Not unnaturally, they were not all that enthusiastic about that type of barrier, though in a letter the G.L.C. urged them to produce details for a barrier of that sort to overcome the technical difficulties inherent in the rising barrier design.
  There was then a blackout of information. It may have been intended; whether or not it was, there was certainly a complete blackout. After the reports in October, 1969, there were no further publications and all we had on which to rely were Press statements from the Department of the Environment and the G.L.C, interspersed with Questions which some of my hon. Friends and I put to the Minister in Parliament. Most of them were tabled in the form of Written Questions.
  I disagree strongly with the hon. Member for St. Marylebone when he says that there has been opportunity for the various designs to be discussed. There has not. Moreover, there have been a number of apparent anomalies in what has been
  314
  published. It is important that these anomalies are known because, unless they are, we cannot clear them up—and in the matter of flood prevention it is vital that they are cleared up.
  On 22nd December last the Secretary of State for the Environment announced in a Press release that there had been a recommendation from the G.L.C., which he had accepted, of a design for a rising sector barrier. That was not a rising drum barrier. It seemed that there might have been another design, of which there was no published record, superseding the last design which the consultants had decided to reject. In any event, the announcement stated that it was the recommendation of the G.L.C. However, the hon. Member for St. Marylebone mentioned that it was not until a date in March that the Public Services Committee had decided to adopt this particular design.
  We therefore have a situation in which the Secretary of State makes a Press announcement on 22nd December, and we hear in March, 1971, of a committee of the G.L.C. having taken a decision. More remarkable still, the Council itself met last week, and it is clear that the council had not been invited to take a decision until 18th May. A number of recommendations must have been going from one department to another, but it is clear from the announcement made by the Secretary of State that a recommendation was not finally passed to the council until several months later.
  We come to the question of reliability. In their last published report the consultants said that any rising type of design was less reliable than a drop gate barrier—though there may be another design of which we have not heard. The G.L.C. stressed in its Press release of 31st March that the sector gate type of design was most reliable. Indeed, in a letter sent to me by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, dated 27th April, I was told that nowhere else in the world had this type of sector barrier been installed—except in Holland, where it did not cover a navigable waterway. I assume, therefore, that this barrier is unique and novel. How unique and novel it is we do not know because we have not seen the design. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) may applaud the design—indeed, I may

  315
  applaud it—if we are given an opportunity to see the plans.
  Mr. Mayhew: I am following my hon. Friend's comments with the greatest interest and agreement. Does he agree that the barrier should not be in my constituency at all? It should be at Crayfordness. The one reason that was constantly given for not having the barrier at Crayfordness was that that site would require a rising sector or rising drum type of barrier, and that was technically impossible. This very much reinforces my hon. Friend's desire to hear from the G.L.C and the Government what type of rising sector gate they are proposing for my constituency.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point because it raises yet another anomaly, one which I confess I had not until this moment seen. It was clear in September, 1969, that the G.L.C. was pressing the consultants to advise whether a rising type of barrier was mechanically reliable for the purpose of being able to place it at Crayfordness, where the drop gate type of barrier would have been difficult, if not impossible, to construct. To complicate matters further, it appears that a site was chosen in Woolwich Reach at Silvertown and that now they have designed a barrier for that site which was intended for a lower site, which has now been abandoned.
  I come to the question of cost. On 22nd December the Secretary of State stated in his Press statement, which was the first intimation we had had of this matter, that this rising sector barrier would cost £23 million. In its Press statement of 31st March of this year the G.L.C. said that it would cost £36 million—another £13 million. On the G.L.C. agenda for last week's meeting no cost was quoted, which seems rather remarkable.
  The cost of the drop gate barrier, which was the alternative design and which has a span of 450 ft.—the rising sector gate had a number of spans of 200 ft. only—was given by the Secretary of State as £35 million. The G.L.C, on the other hand, said indirectly that it would cost £39 million. The consultants, in what was called "Design WR 9"—I take that to mean Woolwich Reach 9—quoted £22 million. There are, therefore,
  316
  considerable differences in the published estimates of building such a barrier.
  I will not weary the House by giving more figures, but I must mention the anomalies that exist about the cost of the lock that will not be provided if the G.L.C.'s recommendation and the Minister's decision is accepted. In its agenda, the G.L.C. says that a lock will cost £8 million more. However, the consultants' studies show two schemes, WR.9 and WR.10. The difference between the two schemes, which are shown in fair detail, is only £2 million. In other words, compared with the consultants' report of two years ago, according to the G.L.C. the provision of a lock involves four times the amount. We are in a period of inflation. It may be that one lock is bigger than the other. It may be that one lock has a different style gate The provision of a lock must be looked at specially in relation to the needs of navigation.
  A great deal has been made about the time that it would take to construct one type of gate or another. It has been claimed that the rising type of gate will take less time. The consultants reckoned that a drop gate barrier would take three years to build and possibly two years to design. In his Press release, the Secretary of State said six years. The Secretary of State says that a rising sector gate will take five years. In a Written Reply to me on 28th April, the Minister for Local Government and Development said that it would take six years. So we have a difference of a few years. However, in the end, perhaps the difference in building times for these two types of barrier is not as much as has been suggested.
  I come next to the important point about navigation. Although we know that the Port of London is moving downstream, London is still a very important port. Although the upper part of the river is not as busy as it was, it is still London's greatest highway. As the G.L.C. has recommended this scheme, it is without a lock. Whichever design is chosen, if the barrier is across the river, there is no way round it. It is true that the barrier will be closed only when a surge threatens. However, all the technical papers tell us that in many cases it is impossible to tell how high a tide will be and that, in any case, the barrier is best closed to avoid flooding downstream

  317
  when the tide is low or at half-time. In other words, the barrier will be closed before the peak of the surge reaches the Woolwich area.
  Moreover, as time goes on the land sinks. The report says that in 50 years the barrier may have to be closed on 20 or more occasions each year. Perhaps by then a lock will have been built. But the psychological effect of an iron curtain across the river upon ship owners and others trying to decide whether to use this part of London river, or whether the river is to maintain its pre-eminent position as a highway, will be considerable. If a lock were put in at a cost at the moment of £2 million or £3 million, even when the barrier was closed for practice, repair, or whatever it might be, there would always be a way round. In no report can we read why this has not been done. This is the major highway in London, yet here we are planning to cut it off for an unknown period of time, and that will be that.
  Another aspect of navigation concerns the spans. I have said that the drop gate barrier was designed with a 450-feet span but that, as the Minister has said and as the G.L.C. has confirmed, the rising sector gate involves 200-feet spans. I remind hon. Members that 200 feet is the span of Tower Bridge. That is not very great in Woolwich Reach.
  In the Evening News of 7th January this year we have the headline:
  " 'Crash danger' in Thames barrier."
  We read:
  "… Trinity House, backed by the P.L.A. and the river pilots, has written to Mr. Walker urging him to consider a 'drop gate' type barrier with a 450 feet opening … Mr. Daniel McMillan, chairman of the River Pilots' Committee, said of navigating a ship through the 200 feet openings: 'It can be done in most circumstances. But in bad weather such as a northerly or southerly gale it is going to be particularly difficult to get a ship through there … We can see the danger of ships striking the barrier and getting damaged. And if a ship does hit the barrier perhaps the gates could not be closed. Then you could get the danger of a flood.'"
  It may be that the river pilots are being ultra careful. But the point is not necessarily damage to a ship, important though that may be. What is even more important is damage to the barrier. We are told that the G.L.C. has been advised that the organisations responsible for
  318
  navigation have said that 200 feet is all right, yet, as I have said, the people actually on the job have apparently written to the Secretary of State for the Environment objecting.
  As I say, it may be that they are being ultra cautious. However, a letter to me from the Under-Secretary dated 18th January states that it has been agreed that tugs will be standing by, I presume that that means that they will be standing by 24 hours a day on every day of the year round this barrier proposed by the G.L.C. If that is so, it means not only that it will it cost more but that the danger of collision with the piers will be there all the time. If we have the danger of collision, it means that the reliability of the barrier, however inherently good it may be in itself, will again be suspect. I have mentioned the psychological effect on shippers and the fact that a permanent barrier across the river might be detrimental to the interests of river navigation and the prosperity of the Port of London.
  So we have all these anomalies, and I think that it is right, before this matter is finally agreed, to have the answers to a number of questions. I do not ask for them to be answered tonight. However, I hope that note will be taken of what I say, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East will add to the points that I have raised.
  My first question asks why there has been a blackout on information about the barrier. It may be a good design, but we do not know what it is. It is clear that, while the site for the barrier was in question, there were property interests, and one can understand why matters of this sort might be kept confidential. But is there any reason why matters have been kept confidential since Christmas? Why could not we have known the technical details?
  Secondly, why has there been a discrepancy in quoted costs? I have no doubt that there is a simple explanation. But when we are dealing with matters of this importance, in which we have Secretaries of State making statements, and a great county authority like the G.L.C. also making statements, we do not expect a £12 million difference between the quoted figures.

  319
  Thirdly, who recommended the new design, when was it recommended, and when was it accepted? We have seen that there are anomalies in statements about who recommended what to whom. In this sort of public matter, the House of Commons cannot rest until it knows the answer to that.
  Fourthly, how is it that this rising sector gate overcomes all the inherent disadvantages of design, which were stressed by consultants, two very eminent firms of consulting engineers, as late as 1969? They may have come up with some alternative. Has it been published in the technical Press? Have other people had an opportunity to comment on it? We know that it has not been built elsewhere in the world. Is it too late to modify it or make it better than the G.L.C. thinks that it is?
  My fifth question is about navigation. The G.L.C. said in its letter to the consultants in September, 1969, that it would like a rising barrier as long as it was acceptable to navigation interests. Certainly one navigation interest—the pilots and Trinity House—apparently is not satisfied. Who has said that 200-foot spans are all right? If the pilots say "No," who is right? Incidentally, if tugs are to be standing by, who is to pay for them? Will they be a burden on the ratepayers of London, or the Government?
  Finally, why is there no provision for a lock? A lock would not only give added advantage to navigation. It would mean that the barrier could be closed earlier, so avoiding the risks to the (downstream areas, which are risks which greatly concern the Metropolitan authorities to the east of London. As I have pointed out, we have had a history of difficulty and controversy on this matter. That was finished in 1969 with a magnificent report from the G.L.C. But since then we seem to have plunged back into anomalies and difficulties, and the answers must be given. There is no need for secrecy. I have no knowledge, and cannot think of any reason, why the information has not been available and why it cannot be made immediately available. I hope that, before the Bill reaches its Third Reading, these matters will be cleared up. If they are not, I and many others, possibly on
  320
  both sides of the House, will have to reconsider their decision not to oppose the Bill. I hope that these matters will be cleared up because they are important not only for London but, possibly, for the economy of the country.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I begin by paying tribute to the way in which the Greater London Council has been conducting its affairs since it came into office last year. We are all aware that, by its excellent management and work study procedures, it has shown considerable savings. Indeed, I understand it is saving up to £3 million a year simply by work study procedures which are resulting in staff savings. Looking through the various sums of money proposed for expenditure this year, one of the figures which attracted my notice was the amount to be spent on road improvements. Roads in London are always a pertinent subject to any hon. Member representing a London constituency and at the back of our minds must surely be the whole concept of the ringways, which were once the motorway box programme. As we know, by the time the programme is completed—I believe that the projected date at the moment is 1998—it is likely to cost £1,800 million a vast sum of money. At the same time, one must consider the enormous growth in the number of motor vehicles in the country over the past decade. I believe that the present figure for the United Kingdom is 15 million. By that token, what sort of numbers shall we be dealing with in the next 20 to 30 years? How can we be satisfied that London's roads in the foreseeable future, will be able to carry the volume of traffic then existing when they find difficulty in carrying today's traffic?
  My plea to the G.L.C. is that it will consider whether the re-phasing of the programme that it was forced to bring in last year, mainly through the central Government's economic policies, could not now be re-phased yet again in order to bring forward the ringway programme. I believe that if we do not have the ring-way programme sooner rather than later there is a fair chance of London Transport and traffic grinding to a halt.
  I totally agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) who

  321
  said that the policy of the Labour Party simply did not make sense on how to cope with the problems of London traffic. In 1965, the Labour Party in London announced with glee the ringway programme, but now one does not know what its policy is. It talks vaguely about orbital routes but has not spelt out what it has in mind. I would like to hear from it exactly what it wants to do.
  Meanwhile, while we wait for the 1990s—for even a re-phasing of the ringway programme will not bring these roads before then—how are we to meet the needs of London traffic? In particular, how are we to meet the requirements of London Transport and its bus services? One cannot help wondering why we seem so unwilling to use the Thames to carry people and freight. I do not know whether it is an eight-lane highway, but it must be something like that. It runs through the middle of a city of 10 million people, yet we have little use for it, except for pleasure steamers and for ships coming in to dock. I am therefore glad to see that the G.L.C. has decided to initiate a study into whether the river could take more passengers than hitherto, and I suggest that the study be extended to cover freight services.
  We talk of studies, but these take a great deal of time. I ask—and this is pertinent to the amount that the G.L.C. has spent—how we can do something now to relieve the roads in the city centre from some of the traffic they are carrying. We have to decide whether we think all the roads in the centre should be open to all types of traffic, or whether we should not be slightly more selective about which roads carry which traffic. I have sometimes advocated, and do so again, that heavy lorries at least be taken out of the city centre. I believe that Paris has made a start with such an experiment and I do not see any reason why an attempt should not be made by the G.L.C. to create a network of lorry routes which would take heavy lorries out of the centre of London and out of residential areas. I suspect we have all sat in our cars behind heavy lorries going around Parliament Square, and one wonders why they have to come this way in order to get wherever they are going.
  One residents' association in London turned to the G.L.C. in desperation to
  322
  ask whether lorries could not be routed out of their road, which is near to where I live. The association had counted an average daily flow of 1,500 heavy lorries travelling along that residential street. Quite apart from the loss of amenity from noise and exhaust smoke, there is the considerable damage done by vibration. I understand that the borough of Islington has also approached the G.L.C. about removing heavy lorry traffic from the borough's residential areas. My constituents in Walthamstow, East would wish me tonight to express their dislike of the same sort of problem which they have with lorries coming from the North Circular Road through the constituency to Lea Bridge Road without any thought for the people in these residential areas and creating the considerable problem of noise nuisance and lack of amenity.
  I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man or the G.L.C. to think of some way of taking these heavy lorries away from residential areas. In the light of the millions of pounds to be spent this year on road improvements, I suggest that some at least could be spent on a road traffic survey to see the extent of the problem and decide whether there is not some cure, albeit temporary, which can be brought in to relieve the plight of those who have to suffer this inconvenience.
  Lorry parking is another problem. I know that the G.L.C. has this problem close to its heart, since I am sure that it has as many complaints as I have about it from residents. The figure could grow to 5,000 very large lorries parking in London every night. Where are they to be parked if parks are not provided for them? The short answer is, "Outside your front door and mine". I make a further plea that the ringway programme should be looked at again and brought forward and, if I may bring an advocate to my side, may I quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, the Chairman of the British Road Federation, who, talking about the proposed dates for the ringway programme, said:
  "Twenty years is bad enough. London cannot wait for as much as thirty years."
  I totally and absolutely endorse that, view.

  323
  Heavy vehicles moving through the city centre must, of necessity, slow down public transport, and when so much effort is being put into trying to speed up and improve public transport, surely keeping them out is one way in which we can help.
  We have seen the advent of the one-man bus. It looks as though its use will be extended in London, and I suspect in all our major cities. The G.L.C. is providing London Transport with £951,000 to purchase about 600 buses in all. Unfortunately the one-man bus is experiencing an enormous number of breakdowns, and thereby reducing the service to the public.
  I wrote to the Chairman of London Transport, recently, and he kindly made it possible for me to visit one of London Transport's garages at Victoria to see the sort of problem that London Transport is up against with this type of bus. I was shown no fewer than 29 major parts—both mechanical and electrical—of the engine that are breaking down fairly consistently. I gather that the trouble lies in the design of the engine. A bus operating in London is worked harder than a bus operating almost anywhere else in the country, and I gather that the design of the one-man buses is having difficulty in standing up to the heavy work that is being imposed on it.
  These buses are manufactured by British Leyland, which also designed them. London Transport, which usually designs its own buses, is aware of the problem. The tragedy is that not only will the buses which break down have to be repaired, but that these buses will have to be modified which will mean they have to be taken out of service. This in turn will mean reducing the service to the public while the work is being done. Added to that there is the problem of strikes and go-slows in the motor industry which have meant that essential spares for these buses have not been forthcoming.
  I am sure that London Transport will be grateful for the extra money to be provided by the G.L.C, but we must recognise that there is a problem here, and I should like to think that the G.L.C. will lend its powerful voice to that of
  324
  London Transport's in an effort to persuade British Leyland that this is a matter of the greatest priority and urgency, because nothing will drive people away from public transport quicker than having to wait in the rain, as some of my constituents do, for up to three-quarters of an hour on several days a week only to find, when the bus comes, it is full.
  Mr. Spearing: I understand that this is the first series of bus that London Transport has not designed itself. The fact that the buses come from one firm need not necessarily reflect upon the adequacy of the engineering, but may be due to the great strain imposed by London conditions, which I think are unique, on the mechanical parts of buses. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that the fact that London Transport—for some reason with which we are not concerned today—has not been able to develop its own design of bus might have something to do with this, and that this is a lesson for both central and local Government.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reiterated the point that I made about exceptional working conditions. British Leyland has great experience of making buses—we all remember the famous contract it won from Cuba, which was one of the most exciting orders ever won for British buses—but the simple fact is that it does not have experience of making buses for London, whereas London Transport has. Perhaps London Transport will agree this is a teething problem, which must be overcome. It is a problem which affects all hon Members who have constituencies in London, and we may as well recognise that the fault is due, not to bad servicing in the depots, but to faults in the design.
  I congratulate the G.L.C. on its intention to spend £250,000 on the Lea Valley Regional Park. This is one of the most imaginative concepts for creating a recreational area beside a great urban conurbation. Because it is in North-East London, and will serve my constituency, I suspect that we shall get the greatest benefit from it. I am sure that this park, with the enormous mix of recreations that it will offer, will be the envy of most of the boroughs of Greater London, and many of the largest cities in the world.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: As the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) said, this is an important Measure, and I doubt whether there is any constituency which is more importantly affected by the Bill than my own of East Woolwich.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned Thamesmead. It should by now have extended into my constituency which will in due course contain the great bulk of this development. This was a splendid concept, supported by both political parties, but its execution has been extremely disappointing. The construction of Thamesmead is more than 18 months behind schedule, due to failures of administration. I ask the Minister to accept that successive Governments have held up the development of Thamesmead by their failure to reach quick and clear decisions about cost yardsticks, and that that still haunts the carrying out of this great project. I should like an explanation why there have been these continual delays in the Ministry in deciding this vital question of the cost yardsticks which has so seriously delayed the construction of this project.
  Why has no proper decision yet been taken about the amount of shopping space in Thamesmead? Why has the project been crippled by a lack of imagination in the Ministry responsible? I am not blaming only this Government. I have criticised, and I do so again now, their predecessors, too.
  The G.L.C.'s administration of Thamesmead has been woefully inadequate. There are two sides to the problem of labour relations. These have not been a success at Thamesmead, and part of the blame must rest with the management and with the G.L.C. I am glad to say that things are going a little better now, but I should be happier if the administration and execution of this project showed greater skill, greater sensitivity and a greater sense of urgency than we have seen so far.
  Listening to hon. Members opposite one had the feeling that the ruling party in County Hall had proved itself in management and administration and had made itself popular with the ratepayers and citizens of London. How sad they must feel that there were no elections to the G.L.C. this month! What great gains
  326
  the Conservative ruling party in County Hall would have made had they tested their popularity with the electors!
  There are a number of issues affecting my constituency, like the Fleet Line to which the hon. Member referred, absolutely vital and enormously valuable—and I hope that the G.L.C. puts behind the Fleet Line the urgency which that project deserves. But, above all, I come to the point so ably set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing)—Thames flood prevention. There are two sides to this, the barrier and the question of interim flood prevention measures.
  I wish to speak in support of my hon. Friend about the barrier. It is a strange thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved) and myself for 18 months waged a strong campaign to have the barrier placed where it ought to be placed, down river at Crayfordness, with the support of our constituencies, our borough councils, and all the local authorities around. On grounds of amenity, cost and navigation, we feel that it should have been at Crayfordness.
  The argument we could not get round was that put forward by successive Ministers—that if the barrier were at Crayfordness, we could not have a drop gate barrier because of the width of the river and we should have to have a rising gate or rising drum barrier; and the Government said that for technical reasons this type of rising design was not desirable and would take longer to erect. It was also said that there was no prototype and that it was too much of a risk to take. Having no alternative body of technologists and experts at our command, my hon. Friend and I felt at some disadvantage. Now we find that the site chosen is on the boundary of my constituency at Silvertown, and we have the rising gate design.
  What has happened? Why this change of mind? Is it a new design or is it the design that was ruled out when it was a question of using it at Crayfordness? My constituents, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford and his constituents, and all the river boroughs are entitled to an answer. There may be a simple answer, but we are entitled to

  327
  an answer, and if we do not get one we shall make a fuss and a great deal of noise about it.
  Mr. Spearing: I may be able to help my hon. Friend. While I sympathise with his difficulties, I believe that the answer, which is relatively simple, is that while a rising gate of any kind might be feasible, it is feasible only as long as the span does not exceed 200 ft.; and if one had tried to do it at Crayfordness, the span would have been too narrow. But my hon. Friend emphasises the point that I have made. If that is the answer—and I believe it to be one—it is a very simple answer and it is a great pity that the G.L.C. have not provided a comprehensive kind of announcement which would have made unnecessary the question which my hon. Friend has put so forcibly.
  Mr. Mayhew: That may well be the answer. We are looking forward to finding out. But, as I recall, it was not the technical difficulty that was put to us in relation to a rising gate at Crayfordness. That was not related to the width of the river or of the span but to the mechanism of the gate, which it was said, which was new and untried. We leave it to see what is the answer.
  What about the cost? I recall great disputes whether it would be more expensive at Crayfordness or at Woolwich. The plan suggests that, taking everything into consideration, there is very little in it. Have the costings changed, as may hon. Friend suggested? Let us have the answer. Let us open this information barrier which the G.L.C. and perhaps the Minister seem to have erected. We are entitled to know. There cannot be any security aspect to it.
  Has the P.L.A. agreed to the new design at Silvertown? What advice and representations has the Minister received from the P.L.A. about the rising gate barrier being sited at Silvertown? These are simple questions to which we are all entitled to replies soon, especially as the taxpayer apparently is meeting 65 per cent. of the cost.
  On the other hand, I wanted to deal more fully with the second aspect of Thames flooding, the interim measures, because of all the things in the Bill,
  328
  that is the most important and most urgent. We are lookinig at the welfare of Londoners. We can consider in that respect a great number of important questions such as housing, education, the Fleet Line and others. But anybody who has studied the risk of catastrophic flooding between now and the time when the barrier is finished will know that it is the money which the G.L.C. is spending on interim flood prevention which is, in terms of the welfare of London, easily the most urgent and important expenditure.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: May I correct some information which I inadvertently gave the hon. Gentleman earlier about the Government's contribution? The contribution of 65 per cent. applies to the interim measures as well as to the flood barrier scheme. I believe that earlier I said the reverse.
  Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I believe that Item 14, which we briefly discussed, refers to the interim flooding measures. There might be a small part on account of the barrier and one or two minor items of expenditure included in that item but, broadly speaking, in my opinion, the money asked for—more or less £5½ million, to which the hon. Member referred—is for interim flood protection.
  The problem is the six-year gap, for unless effective interim measures are taken, we can work out fairly accurately the risk of catastrophe. During any one year at present the chance of the flood waters over-topping the statutory defence level by one foot is one in 30; and as we have six years to go, we have a five-to-one chance against catastrophic flooding unless effective interim measures are taken. I noticed from a very interesting study that the high tide in 1780 was 14 ft. above the ordnance datum level. In 1834 there was a high tide which was 15 ft. above; in 1881, a high tide which was 16 ft. above; in 1928, a high tide which was 17 ft. above; and in 1953 a high tide which was nearly 18 ft. above. The North Sea is rising and South-East England is sinking. It is extraordinary that we have allowed ourselves to get into the position in which a one-in-five chance exists of catastrophic flooding of London. We must get on with this interim protection.

  329
  The hon. Member for St. Marylebone seemed to take pride in the alertness of the G.L.C. He said that it had discovered that the North Sea was rising and that South-East London was sinking——
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: It has done more than the Socialist L.C.C. did.
  Mr. Mayhew: These facts have been known for a very long time by successive Administrations and successive Ministers of different parties. But what the hon. Gentleman did not say was that the G.L.C. brooded on these facts for a very long time. I said on 16th February, 1970, to the G.L.C. and the then Minister, Lord Greenwood, that just building a barrier is no good, that the important thing is what happens between now and when the barrier is built. But, at the time, I am sure that neither the Ministry nor the G.L.C. had given a thought to the problem of interim flood protection. It was not until 15th December, ten months later, that the G.L.C. announced that it would undertake a programme of interim flood protection. This programme is designed to raise our defences by 1½ feet at a cost of £5½ million.
  I need hardly say that there is a great deal of local interest in this. I attended a conference at Bexley a month or two ago, summoned by the Mayor of Bexley. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford had helped to initiate it. It was attended by many local authorities, several Members of Parliament, water board representatives and other people concerned. It passed the following resolution:
  "That the local authorities and other bodies represented at this meeting view with concern the fact that both Her Majesy's Government and the Greater London Council have consistently announced decisions on the proposed Thames Barrier in advance of adequate consultation with other public authorities representing areas and interests directly affected and that such limited consultation as there has been has only resulted from pressure by these authorities.
  "That such authorities be strongly recommended to demand that the following guarantees be incorporated in the Bill to be promoted in Parliament by the G.L.C. to authorise the construction of the Thames Barrier:—

  (a) the river bank for the whole of the River Thames downstream from the Barrier will be brought up to an acceptable level of safety, in ways which will preserve and improve the amenities and facilities of the
  330
  river frontage, before the Barrier at Silver-town becomes operational;

  (b) the cost of the whole project, including the raising of the defences, will be met from national or Greater London resources and not by riparian owners; and

  (c) full consultation will take place at all stages of the project relating to the proposed interim works, with all local and other authorities before any works are started."

  That was unanimously passed by this highly representative conference of local authorities affected.
  How far has this interim flood protection got? Which areas are being dealt with first? What consultation has been undertaken with local authorities, and how does this help to increase the odds against catastrophe? We know that there is a five-to-one chance in the next six years of a very serious catastrophe. How far will those chances be improved or the chances of catastrophe be lessened when this interim project has been implemented? This can be calculated, and I should like to know the answer.
  I was glad of the assurance of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone that the cost of the interim project will be borne by the G.L.C. and not by riparian owners. That is a valuable assurance which I appreciate. I should be grateful if the Minister would let us have the answers to those questions.
  As the hon. Member said, this Measure is enormously important for London. I wish that I felt greater confidence in the ability of the ruling party at County Hall to administer it effectively. Fortunately, they will not be very much longer in power. We shall have a swing of the pendulum which will deservedly put a better administration in. In the meantime, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Acton in drawing the Minister's attention to the question of Thames flooding, on which we have asked him straightforward questions, to which there are answers available and to which we expect answers to be given.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Dick Leonard: I want to speak about the proposed expenditure by the G.L.C. on housing, as referred to in paragraph 11 of the Schedule. This shows that it is proposed to spend £5874 million in the next 12 months. Am I the only hon. Member who thinks that this is a miserable sum to be spent by the local

  331
  authority of a city of eight million people?
  The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) referred to what he called the "inevitable shortfall" in housing over the next decade, as against the known demand. What he did not tell us, however, is that it is evident that the provision which is being made is inadequate even to meet the minimum statutory obligations of the G.L.C.
  My authority for this assertion is the first Report of the Standing Working Party on London Housing, published by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1967. That Report says that the G.L.C. estimated that, from 1966 to 1972, they would have to rehouse 71,800 families displaced by the council in the exercise of its statutory powers. Yet the G.L.C.'s total housing programme during the seven years involved, including the estimated completions in this year and next year is only an average of 5,000 or 6,000 a year. So the seven-year total will certainly not exceed 40,000. This means that the total G.L.C. housing effort has done no more than account for just over half the displacements and has, therefore, made no net contribution to the crucial need to rehouse families from the waiting lists in the stress areas of Inner London.
  The Cullingworth Report on the proposed transfer of G.L.C. housing to the London boroughs contained the following sentence:
  "It is abundantly clear that any solution to the housing problems of Inner London necessitates the large scale movement of people to Outer London and beyond."
  Many other people have made similar observations, and no one has ever challenged this point.
  The G.L.C. has the right to build houses anywhere in the G.L.C. area and outside. It does not have to ask the permission of London Boroughs to build within their areas, but this is exactly what the Tory leadership of the G.L.C. has chosen to do. The G.L.C. has gone to the Tory boroughs of London and said, "Please may we build houses in your area?". It is not surprising that the parochially minded Tory Outer London Boroughs have mostly chosen to say, "No". The consequence is that less than a quarter of the G.L.C.'s annual
  332
  housing programme of 5,000 to 6,000 houses has been built in the Outer London Boroughs. During the last year for which figures are available, 1970, the G.L.C. built no houses at all in the following Outer London Boroughs: Bromley, Croydon, Harrow, Hillingdon, Merton, Sutton and Waltham Forest—all of them Conservative-controlled until a fortnight ago. The total number of houses built by the G.L.C. in the Outer London area in 1970 was only 1,169.
  If the housing problem of the capital is to be solved, the G.L.C. must start to use the powers Parliament has given it and build in the Outer London Boroughs, whether the Outer London borough councils want it or not. If the G.L.C. refuses to do it, the Government must take action, if necessary by setting up a new housing authority with powers to build anywhere in the London region.
  At the beginning of last month the G.L.C. transferred to the London Boroughs about 46,000 dwellings, about one-fifth of its total stock of houses. This clearly represents a diminution in the long-term capability of the G.L.C. to help to solve the overall housing problem of London. In the Statutory Order under which this transfer took place, the condition was laid down that the G.L.C. should retain nomination rights until 1983 for 65 per cent. of the dwellings transferred. That may seem a long time ahead, but 12 years is not long in relation to the anticipated lifetime of these houses which are being paid for over 60 years, nor, unfortunately, is it very long in relation to the projected solution of London's housing problems. There is absolutely no guarantee that the G.L.C. will have any control over the disposition of these dwellings after 1983. So, if the Outer London Boroughs involved take as parochial an attitude towards these houses as they have in their refusal to build themselves to take Inner Londoners, this will mean a permanent drying up of the possibility of rehousing Inner Londoners in the outer boroughs whenever houses become vacant because tenants move out.
  When these houses were transferred there was no debate in the House, although the Opposition put down a Prayer against the Order. We were denied the possibility of debating this,

  333
  and I am not the only Member on this side of the House who feels bitter about it.
  There are pros and cons about whether it is better for housing estates to be managed within the boroughs in which they stand or by County Hall, a long way away. If it were not for the crucial question of the continued right to nominate by the G.L.C., I would acknowledge that a case can be made for the management of many of these estates from the boroughs in which they stand. What is utterly unacceptable, and, indeed, ludicrous, is that some estates were split into two, part being transferred to the borough and the remainder retained within the management of the G.L.C. This happened in the Harold Hill estate in my constituency, which is the second largest housing estate in London, in which about 30,000 people live. Part of this estate was transferred to the London Borough of Havering, and the other part was retained within the control of the G.L.C. This has caused the most appalling confusion within the estate. Many of my constituents have no idea who their landlord is, and this splitting up can hardly have contributed to the efficient management of the estate as a whole. Surely, the whole estate should either have been handed over to the London borough of Havering or the G.L.C. should have kept control of the entirety.
  The Bill must be given a Second Reading, but at the same time a stern message must go from the House to the Greater London Council saying that its record and proposals are inadequate to meet the major challenges in the period ahead. The electors of London have already demonstrated their verdict on the Tory stewardship of the London boroughs and the Tory G.L.C. can have no illusions about its fate in two years' time if it does not markedly improve its record.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) tried to import into the debate an unfortunate partisan approach as though he were fighting the election that was fought ten days ago. It is a pity he did not bother to say that in 1971 the G.L.C. will have about 16,500 homes available for rehousing Londoners, which
  334
  is 16 per cent. more than in 1970 and 36 per cent. more than in 1967 when the Labour Party were thrown out of office in County Hall. By 1974 the figure is expected to rise to 19,100.
  The hon. Member falls into the usual error of those in the Labour Party in claiming that only local authority housing matters. I suggest that in the context of this Bill that is not so and that all agencies are needed to help to rehouse Londoners—the Greater London Council, the London boroughs, the housing associations, the housing societies and private enterprise. I hope that private enterprise will be greatly aided in the battle to offer new homes when the Government implement their promise to give rent rebates to private tenants. This will at long last stop the wicked anomaly of the well-off council tenant being subsidised by the badly-off pensioner living in private accommodation.
  The hon. Member also failed to face another fact, which is that if the Labour Party had done its job when it controlled County Hall from 1934 to 1967, and indeed controlled most of the inner London boroughs as well, most of the people who are now homeless would now be housed.
  Mr. Leonard: The hon. Member fails to take account of the fact that the L.C.C. did not have the same resources, as the G.L.C, to build in the whole of the present G.L.C. area. The only solution for the inner London boroughs is to build in the outer London areas, as report after report has made clear. The hon. Gentleman is refusing to face the facts of life that either the G.L.C. or the Government can build in these boroughs, whereas the old London County Council could not to the same extent.
  Mr. Finsberg: My recollection, after many years in local government, was that the London County Council did have certain powers to build outside its own area. If it did not choose to do so, it was that council's own responsibility. Certainly the inner London Conservative boroughs, like Hampstead, have built outside their own areas.
  I join with the hon. Member in one thing he said, and that is that the ownership of houses should be with the boroughs and not with the G.L.C, but

  335
  that the G.L.C. should have the right of nomination to carry out its programme of roads, education and the like.
  I shall not take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) in his support for the motor box, which has now been more politely named the ringway. I have opposed this concept since its introduction by the Socialists and they have now done a complete volte face on this matter. I intend to continue opposing the ringways. I hope thatt hey will never come to fruition.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who was so eloquent on the subject of the Thames Barrier and the danger of flooding, forgot, I am sure quite unintentionally, except for his last few words, which were put in to fight the election battle about two years hence, to censure the L.C.C. for doing nothing about floods.
  There can be no dispute that Labour had mastery over the L.C.C. from 1933 until its unlamented demise in 1964, so it had three decades in which to have undertaken protection. The hon. Gentleman mentioned particularly the flood of 1953. I remind him that those far-sighted Socialist London pioneers, Messrs. Morrison and Latham, who were the Tammany Hall bosses of the L.C.C, could have done something, but did not. If they had done something, particularly after 1953, it could have been done at perhaps half the cost which the G.L.C. now has to pay. I think that perhaps on this occasion the hon. Member for Woolwich, East might have emulated the example of his hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and not intervened on this point.
  The debate calls into question the whole principle why the G.L.C. has to come to the House for a money Bill. Other great cities in the land—Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow—do not. I do not see why we should be forced to listen to intimate details about the type of barrier needed to control the Thames. This is a matter for the elected authority, the G.L.C. This House has other tasks to perform. I hope that the G.L.C, if it is to do its job properly, will decide to ask the House to promote legislation to relieve it of the need to come here to raise money. Certainly it
  336
  should come here for a general powers Bill for extra powers, but the right to spend money, which it debates and will call for and precept upon its ratepayers through the London boroughs, is not, in my view, the function of this House to decide. I certainly hope that the G.L.C. will take note of this and will seek, at the earliest opportunity, to introduce legislation to relieve this House of having to listen year after year to debates on the money Bill which I submit are quite unnecessary.
  8.43 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I intervene briefly to say that the Government hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill so that the G.L.C. can continue with its capital expenditure programmes.
  Several points have been raised in the debate on which I may perhaps briefly comment for the benefit of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) mentioned the Fleet Line. The Government are aware of the importance attached to this proposition and are considering their view about it. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to add to that tonight. As soon as we are in a position to go further we shall not hesitate to do so.
  Concerning the flood problem facing London, my hon. Friend mentioned the interim work and the rate of grant. I am pleased to confirm the information which he gave in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) that the interim work is eligible for the 65 per cent. grant. The House should realise that the G.L.C. has already started on the interim work, which is part of the total scheme. Whilst not providing specific details tonight of the work which has already been put in hand, I can, as I am sure the G.L.C is prepared to do, provide hon. Members with the details of where the work is being carried out.
  All hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have covered the vital problem which this now presents. I am sure that they welcome the speed with which this Government have given the 65 per cent. grant now available to the G.L.C.

  337
  to get on with solving this difficulty which, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have been among the first to say, has been with us a great deal longer than present risks would warrant.
  Therefore, when we are welcoming that, it is perhaps helpful to remember that the present proposal put forward by the G.L.C. and accepted by the Government, which is for a rising sector barrier, is estimated to cost some £12 million less than the drop-gate alternative, and, perhaps equally important, can be completed some two years earlier than the alternative.
  The point I want to make about this, particularly with regard to the speech by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), is that this is not an occasion for a long discussion on the merits of the various proposals put forward and on the arguments and facts available. It is appropriate for the House to give the Bill a Second Reading so that it can go to Committee, where it will be in order for those questions to be raised. Perhaps even more important, it will be necessary for the G.L.C. to sponsor a private Bill in the next Session of Parliament, a flood barrier Bill, to empower itself to go ahead with this proposition, and that Bill will be very much concerned with all the details raised. Whilst I can assure hon. Members who have referred to this problem that their points will be borne in mind, added to the information available, and considered, it is not for the convenience of the House to consider in detail the lengthy points raised, particularly by the hon. Member for Acton.
  Mr. Spearing: In giving us the figure of £12 million less for the rising gate scheme, the Minister has added yet another figure to the many we have had. Does he agree that if we left the discussion of these points to the promotion of the Bill it would be far too late? Can he assure us that the points raised by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) will be answered by correspondence long before the Bill is tabled in the House.
  Mr. Heseltine: That would be a rather wider undertaking than perhaps would be appropriate. A large number of the points have already been covered, even if per-
  338
  haps not to the hon. Member's satisfaction. Judgments have been reached at a political level by the G.L.C. and the Government, with wide information and technical backing available, some of which is already public knowledge, and the second Report is due to be put in the Library. There will be available to the hon. Gentleman a vast amount of information during the Committee stage of the Bill, and if he felt that there was an urgent need to raise further points, that would be the appropriate time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) raised the whole question of the ringway programme, which is a major capital project of immense implications. My hon. Friend will understand that as the Greater London Development Plan Panel is now sitting, and as it is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider its findings, it is impossible for me to add any comments on the Government's views of that matter.
  However, my hon. Friend moved on to a subject about which I should like to say a word or two—the problem of the growing number of heavy lorries and their impact upon our city centres. He will be encouraged to hear—if he has not done so already—of the decision taken by the Government only a matter of days ago to take powers in another place in the Highways Bill to provide lorry parks outside our major towns to see whether it is possible, in consultation with various haulage and local authority interests, for facilities to be provided for heavy lorries to use these parks for breaking bulk purposes, parking overnight and so on. He will be aware of the experiments under way in various places sponsored by my Department, which are designed to cope with some of the overnight parking problems of such great concern, particularly in residential areas. The Government are aware of the problem, and have already acted—further, perhaps, than my hon. Friend implied by his suggestion that there should be more research—to take powers to provide these areas. We have experiments under way.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich, East raised the question of the cost yardstick delays in the Department in respect of the Thamesmead project. He will know—and I have no wish to make party political points—that the delays until a

  339
  year or so ago were in no way the responsibility of my Government. The decision has recently been made on cost yardstick proposals for Stage 3, the end of what is now a relatively old contract. Therefore, I believe that we have cleared that problem. Equally, against this delay we have to balance the pressure which would have come from hon. Members on all sides of the House if we had not taken that decision after looking very carefully at the costs. Obviously it is very important for the Government to do everything it can to deal with the problem.
  Mr. Mayhew: The enormous delays caused by successive Ministers in reaching a decision about yardsticks have resulted in increased escalation in costs of hundreds of thousands of £s. It has been a terrible waste of public money.
  Mr. Heseltine: I was trying to be relatively sympathetic without making party political points. But a vast proportion of the delays were caused by the Government of which the hon. Member was once a Minister and always a supporter. I cannot accept responsibility. I can only say that we have already taken a decision to clear the last hurdle.
  The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) made a speech largely devoted to the housing situation. There is nothing new that I can add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has already said in reply to the two debates and to Parliamentary Questions. As the House will know, he is shortly to hold a conference of all the London housing authorities to discuss London's housing problems. It would be pointless for me to try to anticipate the conclusions which will come from that discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), in a most forcible speech, indicated just how much responsibility there was for some of the defects of the past and where that responsibility lay. Even supposing that my hon. Friend was not
  340
  correct and that the then L.C.C. did not have these powers, what was the 1945–51 Labour Government doing that the L.C.C. did not have the powers at the end of that time? It serves no useful purpose, in the curing of housing problems, to try to make party political points. Everyone knows that this is something which has vexed all people in responsible positions, and everyone has done their best. I believe that our coherent and comprehensive approach to the problem, saying that everyone has a part to play, without trying to single out one facet of the problem and solution, is much more likely to solve the problems of London's homeless than the party political points of the hon. Member opposite.
  The Bill should certainly be given a Second Reading in order to give the G.L.C. the opportunity to go on with its programmes, which it has already published and which it is already carrying on successfully.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Bill read the Third time and passed.
  ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill]
    Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Nine o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pensions (Increases)
  Pensions (Increases)
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Patients (Return to the Community)
  Patients (Return to the Community)
  Directors of Social Services
  Directors of Social Services
  Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966
  Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966
  Selly Oak Hospital
  Selly Oak Hospital
  Medway Hospitals (Gynæcology Patients)
  Medway Hospitals (Gynæcology Patients)
  Handicapped Persons (Supplementary Benefit)
  Handicapped Persons (Supplementary Benefit)
  Psychiatric Treatment
  Psychiatric Treatment
  Oakwood Hospital
  Oakwood Hospital
  Census
  Census
  Commissioner's Appeals
  Commissioner's Appeals
  Teaching (Use of Patients)
  Teaching (Use of Patients)
  Richmond (Psychiatric Patients)
  Richmond (Psychiatric Patients)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Airdale Hospital (Nurses Social Centre)
  Airdale Hospital (Nurses Social Centre)
  Prescription Charges (Psychiatric Patients)
  Prescription Charges (Psychiatric Patients)
  Pensions (Former British Citizens)
  Pensions (Former British Citizens)
  Fraudulent Claims
  Fraudulent Claims
  Health and Social Services (Consultative Document)
  Health and Social Services (Consultative Document)
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Leaflet PC 11
  Leaflet PC 11
  Strikers and Dependants (Payments)
  Strikers and Dependants (Payments)
  Handicapped Children (South-East Derbyshire)
  Handicapped Children (South-East Derbyshire)
  Mentally Disturbed Adolescents
  Mentally Disturbed Adolescents
  Parkfield Nursing Home, Liverpool
  Parkfield Nursing Home, Liverpool
  Mentally Sick Persons, Corby (Housing Project)
  Mentally Sick Persons, Corby (Housing Project)
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Immigrant Doctors
  Immigrant Doctors
  European Health Service
  European Health Service
  Means-tested Benefits
  Means-tested Benefits
  Necessitous Clothing Grants
  Necessitous Clothing Grants
  Epilepsy
  Epilepsy
  Pneumoconiosis and Silicosis (Industrial Injury Benefit)
  Pneumoconiosis and Silicosis (Industrial Injury Benefit)
  National Insurance Commission for Wales
  National Insurance Commission for Wales
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Hospital Staff (Career Structure)
  Hospital Staff (Career Structure)
  Mental Hospitals (Discharged Patients)
  Mental Hospitals (Discharged Patients)
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease
  Hospital Boards and Committees (Public Meetings)
  Hospital Boards and Committees (Public Meetings)
  Dental Services (Canadian Patients)
  Dental Services (Canadian Patients)
  Social Security Policies (T.U.C. Representations)
  Social Security Policies (T.U.C. Representations)
  Housewives (Disability)
  Housewives (Disability)
  Mr. Zahoor Ahmed
  Mr. Zahoor Ahmed
  Family Income Supplement Scheme
  Family Income Supplement Scheme
  Retirement Pensioners (Gas Fittings)
  Retirement Pensioners (Gas Fittings)
  Wage Stop
  Wage Stop
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Prescription Charges (Exemption)
  Prescription Charges (Exemption)
  Unemployment Review Officers
  Unemployment Review Officers
  Benefits (Eligibility)
  Benefits (Eligibility)
  Invalidity Allowance
  Invalidity Allowance
  Disabled Persons (Additional Expenditure)
  Disabled Persons (Additional Expenditure)
  Supplementary Benefits (Disregards)
  Supplementary Benefits (Disregards)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  New Zealand
  New Zealand
  Forestry Policy
  Forestry Policy
  Fowl Pest (Game and Wild Birds)
  Fowl Pest (Game and Wild Birds)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Maggot Farms
  Maggot Farms
  Industrial Wastes (Dumping)
  Industrial Wastes (Dumping)
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Washington New Town (Computer Centre)
  Washington New Town (Computer Centre)
  Chester-le-Street (Tax Headquarters)
  Chester-le-Street (Tax Headquarters)
  Irish Land Purchase Services
  Irish Land Purchase Services
  Income Tax (Parliamentary Commissioner's Report)
  Income Tax (Parliamentary Commissioner's Report)
  Royal Irish Constabulary
  Royal Irish Constabulary
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Beer (Specific Gravity)
  Beer (Specific Gravity)
  Bankruptcy and Liquidation (Member's Correspondence)
  Bankruptcy and Liquidation (Member's Correspondence)
  Royal Mint
  Royal Mint
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Mental Illness (Research)
  Mental Illness (Research)
  French Language
  French Language
SCOTLAND
  Public Works Programmes
  Public Works Programmes
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Glasgow Airport (Runway Extension)
  Glasgow Airport (Runway Extension)
  Winter Work Programme
  Winter Work Programme
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Remedial Teaching
  Remedial Teaching
  Sewage Treatment (Courses)
  Sewage Treatment (Courses)
  Road Works (Winter Employment)
  Road Works (Winter Employment)
  Vasectomy
  Vasectomy
  Glasgow Royal Infirmary
  Glasgow Royal Infirmary
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Cardross Bypass
  Cardross Bypass
  Milk
  Milk
  Museums
  Museums
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Footwear (Country of Origin)
  Footwear (Country of Origin)
  Dundee Chamber of Commerce (Trade Missions)
  Dundee Chamber of Commerce (Trade Missions)
  Fuel Policy
  Fuel Policy
  Edinburgh (New Industries)
  Edinburgh (New Industries)
  Glasgow
  Glasgow
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Dunbartonshire)
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Dunbartonshire)
  Motor Car Industry (Export Earnings)
  Motor Car Industry (Export Earnings)
  Mosshill Industrial Estate (Advance Factory)
  Mosshill Industrial Estate (Advance Factory)
  Banking and Discount Companies
  Banking and Discount Companies
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  PENSIONERS (LETTERS)
  PENSIONERS (LETTERS)
  ORMSIDE
  ORMSIDE
  CIVIL SERVANTS (OFFICIAL INFORMATION)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (OFFICIAL INFORMATION)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT)
  YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT)
  PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (TALKS)
  PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (TALKS)
  ARMED FORCES, NORTHERN IRELAND
  ARMED FORCES, NORTHERN IRELAND
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
CIVIL SERVICE
  Press Information Officers
  Press Information Officers
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
EMPLOYMENT
  Productivity, Wages and Cost of Living
  Productivity, Wages and Cost of Living
  Bromsgrove
  Bromsgrove
  Construction Workers (West Central Scotland)
  Construction Workers (West Central Scotland)
  Motor Car Industry
  Motor Car Industry
  Prices (Increase)
  Prices (Increase)
  Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello
  Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello
  Dumbarton/Alexandria
  Dumbarton/Alexandria
  Training Centres (Scotland)
  Training Centres (Scotland)
  Glasgow
  Glasgow
  Hamilton
  Hamilton
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
ENVIRONMENT
  House Purchase (Local Authority Lending)
  House Purchase (Local Authority Lending)
  Rent Rebates (London)
  Rent Rebates (London)
  Multi-occupied Houses (Registration)
  Multi-occupied Houses (Registration)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  No. 1 Bridge Street (Demolition)
  No. 1 Bridge Street (Demolition)
  Air Structures (Study)
  Air Structures (Study)
  Patent Office and Library (Rehousing)
  Patent Office and Library (Rehousing)
  Welsh Hockey Association (Rhodesia Tour)
  Welsh Hockey Association (Rhodesia Tour)
  Cardiff (Signposting)
  Cardiff (Signposting)
  Motor Vehicles (Braking Systems)
  Motor Vehicles (Braking Systems)
  National Ports Council
  National Ports Council
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Local Government Boundaries (Wareham and Swanage)
  Local Government Boundaries (Wareham and Swanage)
  National Parks (Expenditure)
  National Parks (Expenditure)
  National Coal Board and British Rail (Land)
  National Coal Board and British Rail (Land)
  Severnside Study
  Severnside Study
  Severnside Study
  Severnside Study
  A3 (Feasibility Study)
  A3 (Feasibility Study)
  A66 Extension Link
  A66 Extension Link
  Housing Land, Sheffield
  Housing Land, Sheffield
  Family Income Supplement Scheme
  Family Income Supplement Scheme
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Caribbean Islands
  Caribbean Islands
  Pakistan (Aid)
  Pakistan (Aid)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence Committees
  Civil Defence Committees
  Adoption (Houghton Committee's Report)
  Adoption (Houghton Committee's Report)
WALES
  Major Projects Pool
  Major Projects Pool
  Merioneth (Council Houses)
  Merioneth (Council Houses)
  Primary Schools (Pupil-Teacher Ratio)
  Primary Schools (Pupil-Teacher Ratio)
  Vasectomy
  Vasectomy
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD TANLAW
Simon Brooke Mackay, Esquire, commonly called The Honourable Simon Brooke Mackay, having been created Baron Tanlaw, of Tanlawhill in the County of Dumfries, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Reay and the Lord Beaumont of Whitley.

BRITISH CONSULAR FACILITIES IN COMMONWEALTH
2.41 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: 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 consular facilities exist for United Kingdom citizens in Commonwealth countries and in the Republic of Ireland.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, whilst, strictly speaking, there are no British consuls in Commonwealth countries, facilities of a consular nature are available to United Kingdom nationals in Commonwealth countries and in the Republic of Ireland, with the exception of certain functions of a technical or legal nature, such as the administration of oaths and services to merchant shipping.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I have the feeling that the present situation is a hangover, in a sense, from our Imperial past. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government are really satisfied that the present arrangements for the numerous requirements of United Kingdom citizens in the Commonwealth, including such matters as my noble friend has men-
942
tioned, and for marriage and matters of that sort, are entirely satisfactory. I have here a copy of the Diplomatic List, which includes a large number of details of consulates, consular districts, and so on, in foreign countries, but hardly a word about consular facilities in Commonwealth countries. Is there not really a case for the introduction of a fully-fledged consular system throughout the whole Commonwealth?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are of the opinion that adequate local facilities exist for the performance of the majority of the matters to which the noble Lord refers. I would only say that consuls and Deputy High Commissioners are, of course, not lawyers and therefore would riot be able to undertake the duties which my noble friend has in mind.

LOW DENOMINATION BANK NOTES
LORD COLYTON: 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 which countries of Western Europe or North America issue bank notes of a denomination of the equivalent of 50 pence or less.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the following countries of Western Europe and North America issue bank notes of a denomination equivalent to 50 new pence or less: Austria; Belgium and Luxembourg; Finland; France; Holland; Italy; Portugal; Sweden; Turkey; Canada and the United States of America. Of these, all except Austria and Holland also issue a coin of the same denomination or denominations. Notes of a value of less than 50p are circulating in Norway (5 kroner notes) and Spain (50 peseta notes) but no more are to be issued there. Like the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece and Switzerland have no note of a value of 50 new pence or less.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his very full reply, may I ask him whether he is

943
aware that many people in this country much regret the disappearance of the old ten shilling note, partly because of the confusion arising out of the similarity of the new 50p piece with the new 10p piece? I believe it is a constant source of confusion to many people, including taxi drivers. The Taxi Drivers' Association support me in this Question. Do not the facts that my noble friend has given, and the facts which I have tried to give, indicate that there is a real need for the reintroduction of a note of 50p in this country?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for thanking me for my long and considered reply. I may be in a minority, but I should like to answer in a rather personal vein. I was one of those who regretted originally the demise of the 10-shilling note, and did not like the 50p piece. I must confess that I have now become completely used to the absence of a 10-shilling note, and also am becoming very much acclimatised —I suppose it is my conservative nature —to the 50p coin. I do not know whether this is the general view; all I can say is that there have been very few complaints of late about the coin, although there was a great volume when it was introduced. In addition—and this is perhaps the more serious point—to go back now to the 10-shilling note, or a combination of the two, would mean that we should lose all the advantages of the economies which we have gained from the introduction of the coin. Also, I think it would be gravely inconvenient to a great many people, such as banks, shops, and transport undertakings, who are now used to handling the coin.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is the Government's original reply true not only of Western Europe and North America, but also of the principal countries of the Commonwealth, South Africa, Russia, China, Japan and many other countries? Might it not be wise to allow a 50p note to circulate alongside the 50p coin, so that the British people could use the coin and the note in whatever ratio they found convenient to themselves?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not quite know what the noble Lord meant by my " original reply ". The United Kingdom is not alone here. In
944
my original reply I said that our practice was shared by the Republic of Ireland, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Norway, Spain and Switzerland, which is quite a respectable and sensible list.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, does Her Majesty's Government remember that when almost exactly the same Question was asked some time ago—how long ago I cannot say, but within the last 12 months—there seemed to be a similar consensus of opinion that the majority agreed that they were glad to get rid of those filthy 10-shilling notes?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not quite certain that we can test the majority of the 50 million inhabitants of this country by the reactions of a few noble Lords to supplementary questions, but I take note of what the noble Lord has said.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, would not a 50p coin be a little more acceptable if it were slightly larger, so that it could be distinguished from a 10p coin without rubbing your fingers round it in the dark?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that was again my original impression of this particular coin, but I have found that I have got used to it as, I suspect, have the great majority of our fellow citizens.

STEEL PLANT AND MARITIME INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
2.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Press statements, attributed to—

(1)The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, that he " would not rule out " private enterprise " including foreign " capital being sunk in new bulk steel plants in Britain (Glasgow Herald, April 28, 1971); and

(2)The Secretary of State for the Environment that, in the light

945
of a shortage of deepwater ports, large-scale maritime industrial development in Britain " has attracttion " (The Times, April 27, 1971);

represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the answer to both parts of the Question is, yes. As regards the first part, the Government would examine, taking into account the regional and other considerations, any proposals if they appeared to be in the national interest. On the second part of the Question, the Government recognise that the concept of locating industrial development on coastal sites adjacent to deep water has attractions and are prepared to consider proposals on their merits.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him whether, since the recovery of our steel and petrochemical industries, which have fallen badly behind in the world's growth league, may well depend on developing maritime sites, he can tell us what steps are being taken to work out a coherent policy in this field? Having done that, can he tell us what machinery the Government have in mind for handling propositions of this sort when they arise?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not unsympathetic to much of the thought that lies behind my noble friend's supplementary. But I must remind him that, in the first place, this must be a matter for the British Steel Corporation to decide. They have yet to come to a firm decision in their own mind about whether to go either for the iron ore terminal on the Clyde, or for a large scale steel plant in Scotland. This is a matter which will fall to be considered in the second phase of the Steel Corporation's investment plan and it will take some time for a conclusion to be reached on this. But it is my understanding that my right honourable friend hopes to reach conclusions, and doubtless to announce them, before the end of the year. He has of course promised to announce his decisions on the first phase of the Corporation's investment plan shortly after Whitsun.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask this further question,
946
and again thank the noble Earl for what he has told us? Is this not simply a question of steel, vital as that is, but also of petro-chemicals? Also, is it not the case that various projects for estuarial development have up till now either run into great planning difficulties, through the cumbersome procedures that exist, or got nowhere because there is nobody in charge? Will the noble Earl bear in mind that there is a demand from industry and from investment quarters to know who is in charge, to whom questions in this field may be addressed with confidence that they really will be grasped and understood and dealt with?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in the first instance, my noble friend is addressing the question to me and I am doing my best to answer it. But I think he is wrong in thinking that there is no governmental machinery here. This falls squarely either to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, or to the two of them to consider together. That is my understanding. I understand also that there is perfecly adequate co-ordinating machinery for handling this type of problem between the two Departments.
LORD BESWICK; My Lords, reverting to the first half of the noble Earl's original Question, may I ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, whether he thinks it is helpful to the morale of the British Steel Corporation that the statement which is contained in the first part of the Question should have been made at all?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think I can answer for the British Steel Corporation on that matter. But I think it is not unhelpful to the morale of the British people and the Scottish people, for my right honourable friend to announce that he is prepared to consider the investment of private capital in the steel industry, provided that that is consonant with the national interest.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Earl think that it would be in the national interest to allow foreign capital, sent here perhaps by a firm like Krupps, to help foreigners become part-owners of the British steel industry?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think there is any question of their becoming part-owners of the British steel industry. This is a question of the possible introduction of foreign capital into new enterprises in the steel sector.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government, if foreign capital is injected into the steel industry to the extent of 51 per cent., to hand over a controlling interest?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to put down a Question on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the steel industry as a whole, I should be glad to answer it. My noble friend's Question related to specific industrial developments, and it would be better to confine our discussion to the narrower segment at this stage.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, as the Question refers only to the bulk steel industry, does that mean that the other sections of the industry are not going to have private capital injected into them? If so, what is the reason for the differentiation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think my right honourable friend's Statement of April 27 was that we would welcome any new private sector steelworks development, and I should have thought that that did not differentiate. But if I am incorrect in my interpretation, I shall of course get in touch with the noble Lord.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: I hope so, my Lords, because when it was asked in the other place whether bulk steel could be defined a definition was not forthcoming. I should like a definition of this, if the Minister would be good enough to get it for me.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I know of the keen interest in, and intimate knowledge of, the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, in this matter and I will gladly get in touch with him about it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on further reflection will the noble Earl now agree that it is bad for the morale of the British Steel Corporation that this kind of statement should be made?
EARL JELLICOE: No, my Lords.

OIL POLLUTION FROM TANKERS: PREVENTION MEASURES
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who cannot be here, I have been asked to put the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who pays for services rendered when a tanker gets into trouble near British coasts and tugs and chemicals have to be provided to prevent pollution; and what steps are being taken to avoid these contingencies.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the cost of dealing with oil pollution in these circumstances is borne by the Department of Trade and Industry, but every effort is made to secure reimbursement from those responsible for the pollution under the law and through the two voluntary schemes arranged by tanker owners and the international oil industry. On avoidance of accidents much work is going on in the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, in which Her Majesty's Government play a very full part. Her Majesty's Government have just concluded talks with France, Belgium and the Netherlands which reached a number of useful conclusions, including agreement to co-operate in identifying and warning other shipping of vessels proceeding against the prescribed direction of traffic flow.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that information.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (ORE BERTH) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PREVENTION OF OIL POLLUTION BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to

949
consolidate the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts 1955 to 1971 and Section 5 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964. 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 la, and to be printed.

WELSH NATIONAL OPERA COMPANY BILL
House in Committee.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

HIGHWAYS BILL
3.0 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Highways Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown. the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. When I introduced the Bill to your Lordships' House I said that it was a substantial measure. It is even more substantial now, having had six new clauses and 56 Amendments applied to it, including two important new clauses dealing with walkways and with lorry areas. I am grateful for the constructive care given to the Bill by the whole House. I am particularly grateful for suggestions which came from my noble friends, Lord Brooke of Cumnor and Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Lords, Lord Pargiter and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I am glad that we were able to respond to them.
950
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill has four main objectives which will enable our highway network to be extended more quickly while continuing to safeguard all the interests affected by the new proposals. It will improve highway management, increase the safety of users of the highways and make a significant contribution to the improvement of the environment. Thanks to the treatment of the Bill in this House, it will be able to do all those four things better than it could have done when it was first introduced. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
3.3 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 EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 82 [Organisations eligible for entry in special register]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM)THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM) moved Amendment 263UUU:
Page 64, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("no").
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in the name of my noble Friend Lord Drumalbyn. In Clauses 82, 83 and 84 we reach the provisions of the Bill concerning the special register. Noble Lords may remember that this was a subject which attracted some interest which I argued was rather premature last week when we were discussing an earlier Part of the Bill. The first three Amendments are all fairly narrow ones; therefore the alternatives before us, if noble Lords wish to discuss the principles underlying this Part

951
of the Bill and their application, are either to have a full discussion on the Opposition Amendments Nos. 263QQ and 263RR, or to discuss the aims and purposes of these provisions on the Motion that Clause 82 stand part of the Bill, or, if noble Lords want to get it out of the way, I should be quite happy to discuss this subject on the first Amendment which I shall move rather shortly, although I am happy to go along to the wider issues. This is a matter for the convenience of the Committee.
LORD DIAMOND: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for having given consideration to this issue. In my view, provided it follows the traditions and precedents of your Lordships' House, I am sure that it would be much more convenient if the noble Lord dealt with it straightaway. Then noble Lords taking part in the debate will know what it is about.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think there is a great deal to be said for that course of action and I willingly concur with it. If I may explain the purpose of the Amendment first, I will then move on to general considerations. The Committee will remember that on Thursday a Government Amendment to Clause 65, Amendment No. 288D, was approved which would enable a federation to register as a trade union if each of the organisations affiliated to it was registered either as a trade union or as an organisation on the special register. Subsection (4) of this Clause 82 similarly provides for organisations so composed to be eligible for entry on the special register, but the effect of the words in lines 15 and 16 on page 65 would have been to grant those facilities to federations whether or not they were themselves registered companies or chartered organisations.
In the case of an organisation not being so registered there is nothing to prevent its registering as a trade union in the normal way. Moreover, it would be wrong to register it on the special register since it would thereby avoid liability for certain administrative requirements from which organisations on the special register are exempted under this Bill because they are already subject to similar require-
952
ments by reason of existing corporate status. These Amendments restrict access of federations to the special register only to organisations which are themselves registered as companies or are incorporated by charter or letters patent. I should have said in opening that Amendment No. 263VVV is on the same point, so perhaps these remarks could be taken to apply to Amendments Nos. 263UUU and 263VVV.
Some general questions were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, about the special register. This is on the part of the Bill which was introduced in another place on Report. I should like to begin by making absolutely clear that the Bill is not concerned with the relationship between the professional man and his client. It is, however, very much concerned about the relationship between the worker and his employer and about the relations between the organisations which represent workers or employers. Indeed, this is as good a summary as we can find for what is meant by the term " industrial relations " and it is contained in the Long Title of the Bill.
As your Lordships are aware, many professionally qualified people work, not for their clients in the sense in which a solicitor may be working directly for his client, but for employers. There might be, let us say, a solicitor employed in the legal department of an industry. He would be working, not in the relationship of a professional man and his client, but in the relationship which a worker has to an employer. Other examples are doctors employed in hospitals, engineers employed in industry, architects employed by local authorities and so on. The relations between these professional workers and their employers are covered by the term " industrial relations " and are just as appropriate to be regulated by this Bill as relations between other workers and their employers. Further-more—
LORD PLATT: May I intervene for the sake of clarity? Surely there is a difference between an engineer who works for a firm which tells him to design a bridge and a doctor who works in a hospital, whose first duty is to the treatment of the patient in the hospital and not to the hospital management committee?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I should like to continue with the explanation, if I may. What I was dealing with was the relationship between the professional worker and his employer, which is a direct relationship of worker and employer. I have to move on to some of the other points the noble Lord and others have raised on this important subject. The organisations which represent professional workers in some cases do regulate terms and conditions of employment and fulfil the same functions as the trade unions in factories, offices, shops and anywhere else where people work. Most of these organisations fall within the definition of " organisation of workers " in Clause 59 and so will be able to register as trade unions. But some of these organisations will not be able to register as trade unions under Clause 59. Professional organisations have a long history and have developed according to the needs of their particular profession, and although they have a lot in common it would be a mistake to assume that all are exactly alike. Some, such as the Law Society and the British Legal Association, are not much concerned with industrial relations because the majority of their members work for clients. They have no relationship with an employer and therefore no relationship which could be regulated by this Bill. Others, on the other hand, like the engineering institutions, are largely composed of people who work for employers but have chosen not to concern themselves with the relationship between employers and workers. Again the Bill would not touch them so long as they continue their current practice.
Now we come to the third group with which the Bill is concerned in these clauses. These are the organisations which consist mainly of workers and are concerned with the employer/worker relationship. As I have said, many of them will be able to register as trade unions but there are some which will not be able to do so. These are the organisations which started off without much concern with industrial relations and which have been incorporated by Charter or registration under the Companies Acts which was only granted because their objects were primarily other than representing the interests of workers. Therefore they remain ineligible to register as trade unions so long as they remain
954
chartered or incorporated as companies because their principal objects do not include regulation of relations between employers and workers. Over the course of time collective bargaining has developed in the professions and certain of these organisations have become involved. Therefore their inclusion in this Bill is very pertinent and it would be a pity if they were excluded.
It sometimes helps to bring light to general observations of this sort by taking an example. The one I should like to discuss for a moment is the one that was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, last Thursday, the Royal College of Nursing. And I do so because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has had an interest in matters concerning nursing. The Royal College of Nursing was granted a Charter many years ago and is known mostly for its work for the advancement of nursing as a profession. It is also the organisation which represents nurses on the Whitley Council for the National Health Service, the body which regulates relations between nurses as employees and their employers in the National Health Service. In this capacity the College naturally desires the benefit of trade union status as much as any other body set up for this purpose. It will want to have access to the machinery for settling disputes which may arise about its recognition as a bargaining agent for the nurses.
By setting up a special register the Government are enabling the College and other organisations in a similar position to obtain trade union status without dissolving themselves and starting all over again. In return, we think that it might provide that they should be subject to the same obligations as to their rules and conditions as trade unions have under the Bill. In short, the organisations on the special register will be trade unions for the purpose of the Bill in respect of those parts of their activities with which the Bill is concerned. These are provisions of the Bill which affect only a relatively small number of organisations. They have made representations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and this is the solution which has been proposed to meet their needs. I hope that the Committee will agree with these proposals. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord for having given that clear explanation of the general purpose of these three clauses as well as of the particular purpose of the Amendment. His analysis was clear and helped. As he rightly said, these general discussions are best illuminated by reference to a particular example; and the particular example that he used was a happy one. I should like, therefore, to raise the question of the general matters that he has discussed in relation to this particular example. One notes that an organisation going on to the special register is distinguished from a trade union in that it neds only to have as one of its objects, instead of its main object, the regulation of relations between employer and employee. In that situation, one is concerned to see that such an organisation does not get inappropriate benefits and reliefs from obligations as compared with the normal trade union on which I might call the normal register, when possibly the two types or organisations might meet and might compete in doing the same work. For example, the noble Lord has referred to the Royal College of Nursing which has as a subsidiary, but not as a main, purpose the regulation of relations between employer and employee It is to be distinguished from the General Nursing Council which has no such responsibility but which has a responsibility for keeping the register.
As the noble Lord is aware, there are others. There is one trade union whose main purpose is to look after the relations between employer and employee in the nursing profession. It is COHSE which is the nurses' trade union. So we have the nurses' trade union, COHSE, and we have the Royal College of Nursing. COHSE, if it wishes to do so, will register and will become a trade union in the ordinary way; the College will register, if it so desires, on the special register, and will become a trade union in what I might call 'the extraordinary way. The Royal College might seek to be the representative bargaining agent in a particular situation where COHSE might also seek to be the bargaining agent. One has therefore set up a situation in which there might be fair and proper competition between two bodies looking after the same category of professional persons,
956
to wit, nurses of either sex, and to seek to regulate the relationship of the nurses as employees with their employers.
One wants to be quite sure that they are at no disadvantage or at no advantage one to another in being able to enter the field and compete with one another fairly as representing nurses in that particular situation. It has been represented to me that equality of opportunity does not exist but that the opportunity—I should not say this—for the nurses on the Nursing Council, or of a body entering the special register, is much greater and the burdens lighter than that of a trade union entering the normal register and equipping itself therefore in that way to represent its members.
I should be grateful, therefore, if the noble Lord could cover this whole field because one of his comments this afternoon was very relevant. He said that those entering the special register were to be relieved of many responsibilities falling on normal trade unions because, by virtue of their being either incorporated bodies under the Companies Act or, like my own profession, a chartered body, they were required by the Charter or by the Companies Acts to carry out those duties from which they were being relieved by entering the special register as opposed to the normal register. What one really wants to know is that the combination of duties under, for example, the Royal Charter and the special register, is equivalent to duties which fall upon the trade union entering upon its functions in the normal way, and being entitled to represent workers in the normal way, by going on with the ordinary register. That is the essence of my question at the present moment, the answer to which may help the noble Lord in most of the Amendments which we have down to this particular clause. So if he would be good enough to explain the matter fairly fully I think it would in the long run save time.
I wonder whether it would be convenient if I deal at the same moment with Amendment No. 263VVV, which the noble Lord broadly bracketed with Amendment No. 263UUU? I am concerned with only a small point, that I am unable to understand the drafting. I always hesitate to raise drafting points,

957
but if one looks at Clause 82(3), one finds it starts off with these words:
" Subject to subsection (2) of this section, any organisation shall be eligible for entry in the special register if…".
If one then looks at line 15, as proposed to be amended by Amendment 263VVV, one finds—but I do not assert—precisely the same wording. In short, one has one subsection saying
" Subject to subsection (2)…any organisation shall be eligible for entry…if ",
and another subsection with the words:
"Subject to subsection (2) any organisation shall be eligible for entry…if ".
There seems to me, therefore, to be little point in dividing the clause into two separate categories, but I may have misunderstood the wording.
3.24 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was gracious enough to refer to a previous clause in the course of which I ventured to raise the general principle associated with the special register; and in the course of his observations he was kind enough to refer to my intervention on that occasion. There was, I regret to say, some absurdity engendered at the time because, when we were about to debate the earlier clause, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, referred myself and other noble Lords to Clauses 82, 84 and so on, which specifically refer to the special register. It was regrettable that there was such absurdity engendered. I was entirely responsible for it. I acquit the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, of any behaviour of that kind.
Two points occur to me in this connection. They relate not so much to the Amendment as to the general principle, which provides the basis for the clause under review. It might have been more to the advantage of the Committee if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, instead of confining himself to one specific example, that of the Royal College of Nursing, had ventured to mention other examples. It might have clarified our minds about the effect—indeed, the purpose and effect, of operating the special register.
The first point that occurs to me is whether there has been any consultation with arty of those organisations, either
958
chartered or semi-chartered as the case may be, to ascertain whether there is a desire to have their names included in the special register. The reason for that question, as is well known, is that there is an aversion—that is a very mild expression —in some quarters against anything related to trade unions, against any suggestion that some of the very high ranking organisations or, rather, associations which operate under a charter wish to be described as trade unions. Any suggestion of that kind would be most bitterly resented. The idea of being described as a trade union is certainly not their cup of tea. That is the first question I wish to address to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham: were any of these organisations consulted?
The other point is this—it follows on the observations for which my noble friend Lord Diamond was responsible immediately before I rose to address your Lordships' House. These associations—I to call them associations, not organisations—are to be afforded special privileges. That is to say, they are to be afforded all the privileges associated with the register which apply to a registered trade union in the first instance yet will not be placed at the disadvantage to which an ordinary registered trade union will be subjected. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to clarify that particular point because it seemed to me when we were discussing the earlier clause last week there was no particular purpose in having a special register if it had not a very wide-ranging field of operation.
The Royal College of Nursing has been mentioned. Quite frankly, I know of a few others. They are, of course, associations connected with mechanical engineering and electrical engineering, but these associations do not operate as between their membership and a body of employers. The associations, which meet for the purpose of debate for considering matters of common interest, are very necessary indeed. No one could take any exception to their operations and their general purpose, but they are not trade unions as such. They do not embark on any discussion with their employers. What they may do—and I ventured to mention this in the earlier debate—is to make representations to the Government, but that is not an industrial relationship.

959
The points that I make to your Lordship's House are whether these associations have been consulted; whether they wish to be afforded any privileges that are associated with a registered trade union, and whether there is any need for a special register at all.
Without a special register—this is my final point—they can continue their operations, make representations to the Government, engage in propaganda and the like—and good luck to them! They are very desirable organisations and fulfil a very useful purpose. But I cannot understand why this register should have been injected into the Bill. It appears to me to have an association with special privileges, yet the associations which register will not be subjected to the inconvenience associated with the legislation affecting registered trade unions. This may give rise to difficulties in the future. I beg noble Lords to appreciate that I am not raising these matters with a desire to obstruct the legislation, but rather because it is important that the minds of those who are to be subjected to the legislation should be quite clear about its purpose.
LORD SLATER: Like my noble friend Lord Shinwell I am confused about the reason for the special register. Up and down the country there are medical officers of health attached to local authorities. Some are members of respected trade unions. I remember that on one local authority on which I served the medical officer was a member of two trade unions. The same thing applies in respect of county administration and chief medical officers of health. I have attended industrial courts in respect of increases of wages for chief officials who were members of NALGO. I wonder why we are to have this special register relating to particular sections of society in which there are various professions.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, may have something to say about the medical profession, but I wish to refer to what is happening in local government and in industry. There is a Treasury Medical Service with whom contact is made by the Post Office; and the Post Office has its own medical fraternity. I am at a loss to understand the reason for the special register, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will be able to tell
960
me what will be the position of such people as those to whom I have referred. Will they be forced to leave NALGO and the other trade unions? I hope that will not happen, and that they will be free to continue their membership.
3.34 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think I can answer all the questions put to me in what I hope will be a reassuring way. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, touched on the most important point of principle. He asked whether the organisations on the special register would obtain preferential treatment compared with trade unions on the ordinary register. The answer is that there is nothing very special about the special register in this context. All the provisions in the Bill apply to the organisations on the special register as though they were registered trade unions, with the exception of those listed in Clause 84(3). The only ones of substance—I referred to them in my opening speech—are contained in Clauses 85 to 88, to which we shall come shortly. That is the block of clauses headed, Administrative provisions." They are concerned mainly with the accounts and certain administrative matters which are set out in the clauses. Schedule 5 also refers to them.
The noble Lord, in his own question, provided the reason why that is so. It is that the organisations eligible for entry in the special register, but not in the ordinary register, are already chartered bodies or limited companies with their own obligations in this respect. The key clause is Clause 84(2) which applies all the provisions of this Act as if they had effect in relation to a trade union, with the exceptions listed in the following subsections. The noble Lord asked a more detailed point about the drafting of Clause 82. The answer is that subsection (2) applies both to single organisations and to federations. Subsection (3) applies only to single organisations on the special register; subsection (4) applies to federation. Single organisations and federations are treated separately throughout the Bill, as the noble Lord will know.
From the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, we had the usual contribution which he makes at this time in the afternoon. If we had a debate on an Amendment in

961
the afternoon without a contribution from the noble Lord, I think it would be rather like a haunted house without the ghost. The noble Lord asked about consultation. The answer is that the Secretary of State has had consultation with four of these organisations. I am informed that, far from having any aversion to registering on the special register, they are anxious to take advantage of this provision, which was worked out after representations had been made to the Secretary of State by these four organisations. The noble Lord asked how many others are likely to be affected. He thought that perhaps the Royal College of Nursing was an exceptional case. There may be others, but there are at least 17 organisations, the names of which I have available if noble Lords wish to check any particular organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Slater, asked about the need for a special register and expressed a fear that people working in local government service or in the Civil Service who are already members of a trade union might in some way be unable to continue with their present union affiliation. I can confirm that that is not so. A substantial number of professional organisations which are concerned with industrial relations—that is, relations between employers and workers —are unincorporated, and therefore likely to be eligible for inclusion on the ordinary register as trade unions. These include the Association of Local Government Engineers and Surveyors, the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, and, I am advised, many others, including the Civil Service associations.
This is a complicated subject. To summarise the debate we have had, there are four characteristics which have to be displayed by any organisation if it is to be eligible for the special register. Perhaps it would be as well if we kept these in mind as we consider the other Amendments. First of all, it must be either a company or a chartered body, not an unincorporated association of workers because that will be eligible to register as a trade union. Secondly, a majority of its members should be workers as described in Clause 158.Thirdly, its activities should include the regulation of relations between workers and employers. Fourthly, it should have power to alter its own rules and control the application
962
of its property and funds. I think I have answered all the points which have been raised, and I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords.
LORD SHINWELL: May I ask the noble Lord a question? It is rather a personal question because he made a personal observation. Is there anything ill the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House which prevents me from making a speech early in the afternoon?
LORD PLATT: I did not intervene in what was perhaps the right place because I thought that the noble Lords, Lord Shinwell and Lord Slater, were making a good many of my points for me. As I understood the gist of their remarks, they wanted to see no hindrance put in the way of a medical person or a professional engineer who was working for an industrial firm or for a municipal corporation, joining the appropriate trade union for that particular industry or corporation. Naturally, I have in mind the medical men who have their own satisfactory organisations and have developed their own negotiating machinery with Government, in cases where, as in most of the medical profession, they are employees of the Government. Why should they not be left alone and why should there be a special register at all? It seems to me that it might have been better to have left them out.
No doubt the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Drumalbyn, will remember very well the debate we had on May 10 when the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, raised the whole question of the professions. As I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the Government were going to look at this again and come back on Report with certain suggestions. On that understanding, the noble Earl withdrew his three Amendments. But one Amendment still remains in his name towards the end of the Bill, in which he seeks to give a definition of a profession or a professional person.
I should like to remind the Committee that the main reason why the professionals feel that they are a little out of this is, first of all, because they do not consider themselves normally in industry; and, more importantly, to use the words of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, they can find themselves between two fires. They can

963
find themselves in cases—the noble Earl gave two very telling examples—where their professional duty conflicts with the kind of duty they would have in relation to their trade union membership. Therefore, I think there is a reason for the professions to be considered as a special case in some respects, but not necessarily wanting to have special privileges which other people do not have, except in relation to the kind of work they do. I should like an undertaking that this matter is still under consideration, otherwise I think that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and I would seek to reintroduce certain Amendments which we had put down formally.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I may deal with the points raised by the noble Lord. Lord Platt. Of course, the undertakings we have already given stand. The noble Lord is dealing at the moment with the position of the individual member of a profession. What we are really dealing with here is the collective aspect of professions. The reason why they have to be treated as a trade union is that unless they are treated as a trade union they could not, under the structure of the Bill, act as a sole bargaining agent. They could not be part of a joint negotiating panel, as they might well be. They could not enter into an agency shop agreement; they could not enter into an approved closed shop agreement. It is for those reasons that they have to be treated as if they were trade unions.
LORD PLATT: With respect, does not the noble Lord really beg the whole question when he says, " They could not under the Bill "? The whole point is whether the Bill ought to be drawn in this way. If it is drawn in this way, then I am quite sure that the provisions made for the special register meet some of the difficulties of the professions. I know that the British Medical Association has agreed that this is the case. The question of consultation was raised, and I think I am right in saying that the immediate reaction of the British Medical Association was to keep out of this Bill completely. It was only when they were told that if they did not come in they would lose certain privileges under this Bill—that is, assuming that this Bill is going to pass in this form—that they then agreed to come in.
LORD BROWN: May I make a brief comment? I have listened carefully to what has been said. If the word " principal " in relation to " objects " in Clause 59(1)(a), where it defines an organisation of workers, as art
" organisation of workers…is and is an organisation whose principal objects include the regulations of relations…"
had been left out, it would almost appear that there was no need at all for all this business of a special register. However, I am sure that one would get an awfully involved discussion. If it had been started from that point, this would have been unnecessary. We are now on a clause of the Bill which is appallingly detailed and complicated.
May I ask one question which I have been waiting for an opportunity to ask? The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when talking about these bodies who have charters et cetera, which disallow them from negotiating with employers, then went on to talk as though the special register allowed them to negotiate. Does the special register override the charters of these people and allow them to ignore those factors of their charter, or is it a fact that those who have charters which disallow them from negotiating on behalf of their members will still be in the position where they are not able to negotiate on behalf of their members? This is just a point of elucidation for me personally, and other Members of the House.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I can answer those remaining points very briefly. The status quo is really reserved as regards those organisations which are negotiating at the moment. That takes me on to the question the noble Lord asked about principal objects under Clause 59. We are not talking about principal objects here. We are talking about activities; what people are actually doing. This is one of the conditions I mentioned previously. This is in Clause 82(4)(b). It says " activities of the organisation ". I think that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, is on a slightly separate point to the one discussed earlier by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, which was the status of the individual professional man, whereas what we are talking about here are those organisations which in one capacity or another represent the professional man.

965
When they represent him in a negotiating capacity with an employer, whether they are on the special or ordinary register becomes irrelevant. As regards the British Medical Association, which is a limited company, not a chartered body, there is no compulsion for them to register on the special register. I understand that they have in mind taking advantage of this register, but the decision is for them.
LORD DIAMOND: I can only repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for what he has said, excluding from that, if I may, what he said in relation to my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I thought that he was living rather dangerously there, especially in regard to the extremely generous statement by my noble friend at the commencement of his speech. However, anybody who has had the privilege of knowing my noble friend as long as I have will know that he needs no help from anybody at all.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that it seems to me that on the professional side there is no real conflict of conscience arising out of these clauses. He is on very solid ground when he regrets being brought into the Bill, and he was looking hopefully to the skies for the possibility of the Bill not passing. All I can say is that if we were to regard merit alone he and I would carry the day, but I believe that mathematics comes into it as well as other matters. With these remarks, and with the reservation that we need to check what the noble Lord has said about equality of opportunity and responsibility as we go through these clauses, I share the view of the noble Lord that this Amendment ought to pass.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.53 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263QQ:
Page 65, line 3, at end insert—
(" or
(c) any independent organisation of workers which would qualify to register or is registered by virtue of an enactment in force on the day before the commencement of this Act ").
The noble Lord said: I think it would be worth while to have a short discussion on this Amendment and perhaps it would be convenient to take the following one, which deals with the same point in an
966
alternative way. As is obvious from the wording, the purpose of these Amendments is to consider the possibility of an independent organisation of workers qualifying in the same way as those in the Bill to go on the special register. Amendment No. 263RR takes the matter a little further and deals with it more specifically.
It is for discussion whether the gates into the special register ought to be;widened to permit organlisations who would be likely to go on the ordinary register to become registered on the special register, now that we know in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that there are no special privileges attached to being on the special register as opposed to the ordinary one. If there are no special privileges or special burdens, if in fact being on one or the other is more or less equal, and this satisfies the needs of public duty and public interest in general, then there is something to be said for organisations having a certain latitude of choice about which register they should go on. At the moment there is no such latitude. Certain organisations can only go on the special register and others can only go on the ordinary register. What this Amendment seeks to do is to rake for discussion, not to put it too high, the possibility of organisations which may join the ordinary register going on to the special register if they so prefer. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As I explained fully on the last Amendment, the special register was designed for certain independent organisations, a majority of whose members are workers but which, because of their being companies or chartered bodies, are unable to register as trade unions. These organisations are already subject to statutory administrative requirements which overlap with certain administrative provisions in the Bill, and are not required to satisfy these provisions in the context of the special register. The effect of the Amendment would be to open the special register to other organisations for which such exemptions would not be justified. The bulk of these organisations would be trade unions within the meaning of the Trade Union Acts of 1871 to 1964. With the repeal of the 1871 Act under

967
this Bill, registered organisations among them will be relieved of the statutory requirements under that Act.
This Bill provides that an independent organisation of workers which would have been eligible under the 1871 Act would be eligible for registration on the ordinary register under Clause 59 of this Bill. Organisations so registered would be subject to the full range of the administrative requirements in the Bill, but if instead, as proposed by the noble Lord—though not very strictly because this is only for discussion—they could apply for entry on the special register, they would obtain the benefits of trade union status but without at the same time having to satisfy the requirements in Clauses 85 to 89 and Schedule 5, relating to accounts, audit, annual return and report, register of members, examination of superannuation schemes and winding up. The reasons why companies and chartered bodies on the special register do not have to satisfy these requirements is not because they are irrelevant, but because these bodies are already the subject of corresponding obligations under the Companies Act. For these reasons it seems to be better to keep the two registers distinct.
LORD SHINWELL: May I draw the attention of the noble Lord to the subsequent clause where, at the top of page 66, the term " organisation of workers " is used in association with those included in the special register. Why does the noble Lord object to the Amendment?
LORD WINDLESHAM: The expression " organisation of workers " is used in the Bill in distinction from trade union. The definition of trade union is a registered organisation of workers under Clause 59, whereas the expression " organisation of workers " means a group of people who are in a specific relation to worker-employer. The noble Lord will remember the rather protracted discussions we had earlier on the attempt to substitute the word " person " for the word " worker ", and we see throughout the Bill that the expression " worker is a very exact one; so " organisation of workers " merely refers to a collective group of people who are in a relationship of employment with an employer.
LORD DIAMOND: I made it clear that my purpose in moving the Amendment was to pave the way for discussion, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. It may be that one will have to consider more carefully what he has said in relation to a later stage of the Bill, whether this alternative choice ought to be open, subject to the further condition that those who elect in this way and who are not at the moment subject to the administrative requirements ought to be compelled to elect subject only to these administrative requirements. That would not necessarily remove the choice of electing: it would merely mean they could go on to either register, but that if they went on to the special register they would have to undertake these additional requirements. We will look at this point. Clearly at the present time there is no purpose in pursuing these Amendments, and with your Lordships' permission I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 263QQ.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 263VVV:
Page 65. line 15, leave out from beginning to (" shall ") in line 16, and insert (" Subject to subsection (2) of this section, any organisation ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. It has the same purpose as Amendment No. 263UUU which we discussed at the beginning of our proceedings.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.4 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263SS:
Page 65, line 25, after (" union ") insert (" or independent organisation of workers ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It seemed to me that there ought to be some method of facilitating registration on this special register of a federated organisation which has as members bodies which are special organisations and organisations of workers—a mixed bag. Again, all I would seek at this stage of the Bill is a discussion of this topic in order to gain the view of the Government on it. I do not think I need say any more at this stage.
EARL. FERRERS: This Amendment has a very similar object to the one put forward, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, the other day on Clause 65; that is to say, it would remove the requirement that all the constituents of a federation must themselves be registered before the federation can obtain and retain registration. Unlike the earlier Amendment which we discussed, this Amendment guards against the possibility that a federation might be composed of workers' organisations which were under employer domination. Therefore from that point of view it is not open to the same objection as was the earlier one. But it is unacceptable for the reason which I gave the other day, which was that it could result in organisations' obtaining the benefits of registered status whilst at the same time avoiding the obligations of registration.
LORD DIAMOND: I am bound to congratulate the noble Lord on the brevity of his answer, but 1 doubt whether I can congratulate him on its persuasive- ness. I recognise that the Amendment would have the effect he mentions, but if no such Amendment is accepted, or no such procedure or amended procedure is made available, we are going to have this difficulty of excluding federations which I should have thought ought in the general interest to be included. What I understand the present position to be is this: that if there is a federated organisation which is not perhaps 100 per cent. pure—that is to say, not every single one of its constituents or affiliated members is an acceptable organisation either for one register or the other; and at the moment we are considering the special register—then the whole of the federated organisation is excluded. I should have thought t here ought to be some provision whereby a federated organisation should be allowed to play its proper part and to have the benefit of advice and participation in the federation, notwithstanding that one per cent., two per cent., or at any rate a very small proportion, of its membership was technically excluded as the Bill is at present drawn. I should be grateful, therefore, if the noble Earl would give further thought to this matter and give us his further views as to whether it would not be helpful for that situation to exist, and also to tell us the philosophical approach of the Gov-
970
ernment which would prevent that happening.
EARL FERRERS: When we discussed this matter the other day I remember saying that the Government consider that these federations do a very good job of work and are therefore much to be encouraged. But, quite clearly, it would be creating a difficulty if, for some reason, some of the constituent parts of the federation had declined to accept registration and the obligations, and therefore the benefits too, yet were members of a federation which had decided to accept registration, because by so doing the federation could take the advantages of registration and thereby confer in some way on the members of this federation the very benefits of registration which they had 'themselves declined by refusing to register. I think the noble Lord would agree it would be an anomaly if members of a federation were to have the advantages of registration when they themselves, as individual constituents, had declined to register. It is for that reason that the Government would feel difficulty in accepting this situation.
LORD DIAMOND: It is for that reason that I feel the Government are taking the matter much too far. Here we have a situation where a federation is accepted by the Government as being a wholesome body that may be carrying out a useful purpose. A federation, as we know, may consist of a number of bodies, 'the vast majority of which may individually be registered unions on one or other of the registers. Yet just because a very small number (even one would be quite sufficient for the Government's argument on this) finds a good reason—and I am assuming that it is a reason which the Registrar would hold to be a good one—he has no discretion about allowing the federation to register. If he had such a discretion, he could hold that though there was a good reason why it was inappropriate for a particular organisation to register—having regard, perhaps, to its professional 'situation, or some complication of the kind about which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has always showed considerable anxiety—nevertheless it was right that the federation should be able to register.
The function of the federation is not only to negotiate on wages and matters

971
of that kind; its function is to do a number of things that are helpful to a Government. Every Government knows that the relevant Departments are in continual touch with the federation: there is a continuing two-way traffic, helpful to the Government and to the industry or the organisation concerned, about a number of matters. It is a means of communication; it is a means of enlisting help. Yet just because the one individual organisation has, as I have indicated, decided (and it is free to decide; even the Government have said it is free to decide, and we are grateful to the Government for saying that we are free to do anything) not to register on either the normal register or the special one (here we are considering the special one) it is nevertheless going to prevent the
Government from getting the benefit of the two-way discussions and negotiations with the federation about a whole host of matters, about which one or none could be the regulation on relations, because the Government might not be interested in that side of it at all, and it might be a quite separate function. I am bound to say that we consider the noble Earl's answer on this issue most unsatisfactory, because it illustrates an attitude of nice, tidy, inhuman organisation on the part of this Bill, which we dislike the whole way through.
4.12 p.m.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment (No. 263SS) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 116.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Arwyn, L.

Heycock, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Hughes, L.

Samuel, V.

Birk, Bs.

Jacques, L.

Serota, Bs.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Janner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blackett, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Brockway, L.

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

Slater, L.

Brown, L.

Sorensen, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Burntwood, L.

Moyle, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Champion, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Walston, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Platt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Popplewell, L.

Williamson, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Raglan, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Royle, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Clwyd, L.

Exeter, M.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Colgrain, L.

Falkland, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Conesford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Airedale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Fortescue, E.

Albemarle, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Gage, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Courtown, E.

Garner, L.

Alport, L.

Cowley, E.

Gladwyn. L.

Amherst, E.

Craigavon, V.

Goschen, V.

Amulree, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Gray, L

Auckland, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Grenfell, L

Balfour, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Gridley, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cromartie, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L

Barrington, V.

Daventry, V.

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

Beauchamp, E.

Delamere, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Denham, L.

Hankey, L.

Belstead, L.

Derwent, L.

Harris, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hatherton, L.

Boston, L.

Dundee, E.

Henley, L.

Braye, L.

Eccles, V.

Hood, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Effingham, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Burton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Caccia, L.

Essex, E.

Ilford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Sempill, Ly.

Jessel, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Kemsley, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Kilmany, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Strang, L.

Kindersley, L.

Poltimore, L.

Suffield, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinton, E.

Lothian, M.

Rathcavan, L.

Templemore, L.

Loudoun, C.

Reay, L.

Teynham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rhyl, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Lyell, L.

Rockley, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

MacAndrew, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Mancroft, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Wade, L.

Mansfield, E.

St. Helens, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

St. Just, L.

Willingdon, M.

Meston, L.

Salisbury, M.

Windlesham, L.

Milverton, L.

Sandford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sandys, L.

Yarborough, E.

Morrison, L.

Savile, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

4.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 82, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: I do not think we need to detain the Committee on this matter. We have discussed the essential principles of the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was good enough to explain them on the first Amendment. We do not require any further elucidation.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83 [Application for entry in special register]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263TT:
Page 66, line 8, leave out (" appear to him to be') and insert (" are").
The noble Lord said: This is one of the Amendments which are merely to make sure of what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said a little earlier as to the effect of applying to join the special register. As the Bill is at present drafted, the words used are that in determining whether an organisation fulfils the conditions the Registrar shall have regard to the activities actually carried on. The words " activities actually carried on " are very -important and were stressed by the noble Lord. The subsection says:
" whether they appear to him to be in accordance with its memorandum and articles…"
We do not see why this discretion should be given in this way. Either they are or they are not in accordance with the memorandum and articles of association. I should not have thought it was necessary to give a discretion to a Regis-
974
trar to consult himself and to say whether they appear to be. It seems to me a perfectly straightforward matter and one wants to have clarity as opposed to vagueness; and the elimination of these words would assist towards that end.
LORD WINDLESHAM: An Amendment which was identical to the one that we are discussing was the subject of some debate on Report in another place. This has enabled the Government to look again very closely at the drafting of this part of Clause 83 to see whether there is a need for clarification, because we share the noble Lord's desire that the Bill should be as clear in its wording as possible so that no subsequent misunderstanding should arise. We have found it difficult to see that the change proposed would be an improvement. Subsection (4) does not say that if, in the Registrar's judgment, certain activities are not in accordance with an organisation's memorandum and articles of association then he must take a certain decision about its eligibility for registration, and if they are in accordance he must take a different decision. The matters which must govern the Registrar's decision are specifically limited to those which are listed in subsection (3) of this clause. One of them is the question of whether or not in accordance with subsection (3)(b) of Clause 82 the activities of the organisation include the regulation of relations between workers and employers. That is what the Registrar has to establish.
What subsection (4) says is that in doing this the Registrar is to have regard to what the organisation actually does in practice, irrespective of how he interprets its objects as set out in the memo-

975
randum and articles of association. Subsection (4) is, in effect, recognising that the Registrar may come up against a situation where his interpretation of an organisation's constitution would not lead him to expect that its activities would qualify it for admission to the special register, which is why the words, " appear to him to be " are in the subsection.
In that situation subsection (4) clearly tells the Registrar to reach his decision on the basis of the actual activities and not how he reads the constitution. Altering the drafting of the subsection so as to insert the word " are " for the words " appear to him to be " would make it somewhat less clear that this subsection is directed at the Registrar, telling him that whatever he personally may think about the memorandum and articles he must make his decision on the basis of the activities in which the organisation is engaged. I do not think there is a great deal between us on this point. We must be frank and say that this is a point of drafting—a somewhat technical point—but we believe, for the reasons that I have given, to make sure that it is aimed at the Registrar, it is desirable to adhere to the wording in the Bill.
LORD POPPLEWELL: This is disappointing. The noble Lord has said that this matter has been considered since it was discussed in the other place. " Appear to him " gives the Registrar a certain latitude, and we suggest that those words should be deleted and " are " substituted. The Registrar has to work within the legal framework of the Bill, and " appear to him " allows a certain amount of latitude that might be debatable. An applicant will not have any standing at all if it is left so loosely. I hope the Government will have another look at this matter to get something more definite for the Report stage, so that people know that this latitude is not given to an individual. We know that judges differ considerably from time to time in this direction. We get a Lord Justice of Appeal on the question of interpretation giving a different view. The noble Lord has said that it is a matter of drafting and that there is not much difference between us. Therefore I hope that he will not be too dogmatic and say that this wording has to stand, but will have another look at it for the Report stage.
LORD DIAMOND: I share the anxiety which my noble friend has been expressing. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, because he has made it clear that we are after the same objectives. I am sure we both share the view that neither of us ought to attempt to be authorities on drafting. The noble Lord encourages me to interpret the words as meaning that if there is a latitude it is a latitude on the Registrar to disregard anything that might tempt him not to have regard to the activities actually carried on; therefore he must concentrate his vision particularly —almost in blinkers—on the activities actually carried on, and that is what we all want. So, if I have followed the noble Lord correctly, I think the words might after all be as suitable as he claims them to be. But he will no doubt look at the matter again and I shall no doubt look at it again, in consultation with my noble friend, Lord Popplewell. In the meantime I think it would be right to seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment, which I do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263UU:
Page 66, line 10. at end insert (" and shall ensure that the rules of this organisation are in conformity with Schedule 4 ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 263UU. The noble Lord will recognise this immediately as a most important Amendment, even though it is of a probing nature. When I say that it is most important. it is clearly most important that we should be absolutely sure that the provisions of Schedule 4 should apply to an organisation on the special register just as much as they apply to an organisation on the ordinary register. I myself am really seeking confirmation regarding Clause 84(3), which says:
"The following provisions of this Act shall not have effect…"
and then sets out a number of things which are not to apply. Clause 84(3) does in fact put upon organisations registered on the special register the obligations of complying completely with the provisions of Schedule 4 inasmuch as Schedule 4 is not excluded. But I am no lawyer and I do not know the effect of silence. I therefore raise the question, so that the

977
noble Lord can make the position absolutely clear. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I asked exactly the same question and I can give the noble Lord, without equivocation, the answer he seeks. The Registrar can request a chartered or a corporate body which applies for entry on to the special register under Clause 83 to change its rules if they do not comply with Clause 63 or Schedule 4. Furthermore, the Registrar has powers to examine and approve the rules of trade unions and employers' associations under Clause 73, and to request changes if they do not comply with the requirements of the Bill. Clause 73 is applied to organisations on the special register by Clause 84(2), and it is not one of the excluded provisions in Clause 84(3).
The position is, therefore, that the Registrar can notify an organisation on the special register in what way its rules are defective, and can ask that organisation to make the necessary change. He will allow the applicant on to the special register first. But the main clause—that is, the powers in Clause 73—I can confirm are applied to the special register under the terms of Clause 84(2).
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful for that very clear confirmation, and in the circumstances seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Effect of entry in special register]:
4.34 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 263WWW:
Page 66, line 42, leave out ("and 75") and insert (" 7.5 and (Relaxation of restrictions on changes in rules)").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name. This Amendment follows one which was moved yesterday by my noble friend on Clause 73; that was Amendment No. 263NNN, which makes way for a new clause after Clause 91, which is Amendment No. 263EEEE. This particular Amendment enables the effects of the new clause to apply to organisations
978
on the special register. With that explanation, I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: This is far too important an Amendment—to leave out " and 75 " and insert " 75 and " is obviously of crucial importance—for us to allow it to go by without saving perhaps just one word. The Committee will see that we are now approaching the stage when the Marshalled List is virtually exclusively used by the Government for putting their Bill in order. To the extent that they are choosing, even at this late hour, to attempt to put it in order is of course acceptable to us. But I say to noble Lords opposite that I hope we shall be able to make some progress on this Bill notwithstanding that they are cluttering up the Marshalled List in this way.
LORD SHINWELL: I have only one reservation to make following the observation of my noble friend Lord Diamond. It must not be thought, because there is a series of Amendments advanced by the Government, that these in any way mean concessions.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 [Duty to keep accounting records and register of members]:
On Question, Whether Clause 85 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: May I ask just one question on this clause? I know we are on administrative provisions which are of perhaps less importance than some other parts of the Bill. Nevertheless, these are some of the matters for which the Bill is being introduced; namely, the requirement of trade unions to comply with these administrative provisions, and they ought to bear some careful examination. Clause 85(1)(b) states:
" establish and maintain a satisfactory system of control of its accounting records….".
" Satisfactory system " is a curious term. One immediately asks the question: " Satisfactory to whom? " Does this mean satisfactory to the auditors?—because I see the auditors at a later stage have to make reference to the system of control. If they had to be satisfied that the system was an adequate system of control, that I could understand, and in

979
that case one would expect the words to be " establish and maintain an adequate system of control ". But, I repeat, the paragraph refers to a " satisfactory system ", and I should like to hear from the Government why they consider that these are the appropriate words to use.
4.39 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): This particular subsection (1)(b) of Clause 85 applies to proper accounting records and cash holdings. receipts and remittances. The whole of this clause replaces something similar which is already to be found under provisions in the Trade Union Act 1871. It means, of course, that the auditors must be satisfied that these are proper accounting records. A treasurer or other officer of a trade union, registered under the Trade Union Act is required, by Section 11 of the 1871 Act, to render proper accounts to the trustees or members of the union—it is actually put down as " just and true accounts ". This clause as a whole replaces these requirements by applying to trade unions and employers' associations the same directions concerning the maintenance of adequate accounting records as already apply to friendly societies and similar institutions under Section 1 of the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I wholeheartedly agree with this clause, but may I ask one question? Would it be the Government's intention, or the Registrar's intention, to lay down a standardised type of book-keeping to cover the whole of these financial matters within the union?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I do not think it would necessarily be a standardised form of book-keeping. It is for the auditors to to make sure that it gives a true and accurate account.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Baroness must not assume, from what I am about to say, that we are not delighted to have her help in considering this Bill, because we are. We are not only flattered by having her taking
980
part in our deliberations, but in this hour and a half or so we have spent considering the Bill no less than four of the distinguished Members of the Government Front Bench have shared the labour in order to cope with the Opposition's questions. We are very flattered indeed.
I was not absolutely clear whether the noble Baroness was saying that this replaces a provision in the Trade Union Act 1871, but we are delighted that that Act should be regarded as the appropriate standard with which to comply. I am not clear whether she is saying it replaces a provision in that Act which referred to a " satisfactory system ", or whether she said it was to coincide with the provisions already in the Friendly Societies Act, which provide for an " adequate system ". My question really was, why have the word " satisfactory " if the word you want is " adequate "? If the word you have is " satisfactory ", by whom is it to be regarded as " satisfactory "? Is it the auditors, or somebody else? Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to have a second go.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am always willing to have a second go. My noble friends on this side of the House have attended this Committee so regularly because they are interested in the Bill; and as it also happens that they have responsibilities in other directions, we take it in turns. There are, of course, two main points. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, wished to know why it was called " a satisfactory system of control ", and to whom it was to be satisfactory. We hope that it is satisfactory to the auditors in question. I referred to the true and fair view of the unions' affairs in explaining its transactions, which is in the clause as a whole, because I thought it only fair to this Committee not to let this clause pass without describing the full provisions of Clause 85. I said that these provisions were in fact similar to those in the Trade Union Act 1871, and that this clause replaces those requirements by applying to trades unions and employers' associations the same directions about adequate accounting records as apply to Friendly Societies and similar institutions.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 [Annual return, audit, annual report and members' superannuation schemes]:
4.42 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 263XXX:
Page 67, line 39, at end insert—
(" () in any calendar year in which a trade union or an employers' association, in pursuance of such an exemption, does not publish a report under subsection (3) of this section the trade union or employers' association shall supply to each of its members free of charge a copy of its annual return for that year ")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 86 of the Bill requires registered organisations to publish an annual report to members, which must include the annual financial return submitted to the Registrar. However, subsection (4) of the clause authorises the Registrar to exempt small organisations from the obligation to publish a report. Therefore, we felt that it was necessary that, if they did not have to have a report, the members should, in an exempt organisation, at least have access to the financial statement or to the return in some other way. Therefore, this Amendment will ensure that the members of an organisation who are exempted will nevertheless have the right to receive, I am glad to say, a free copy of the annual return which would have been included in the annual report to members had one been published. It fills an unintended gap in the provisions, and I commend it to the Committee for approval.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Would the noble Baroness indicate what might be considered a small number?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: A small number might, for example, be under 500.
Clause 86, as amended, agreed to.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY): I understand that, in accordance with the instructions of April 21, I must now put Schedule 5.
Schedule 5 [Administrative provisions relating to trade unions and employers' associations]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: I do not know whether the Government propose to say a word or two about Schedule 5. We shall not detain the Committee long on it, but the Government may wish to make a short explanatory statement.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Schedule 5 relates to the administrative provisions of trade unions and employers' associations, and covers in almost all respects those provisions which were in Part VII of the previous Administration's Bill in Clauses 70 to 79. I think the only difference of any substance is the question of penalties, which we shall come to discuss under Clause 89, and these are higher than previously because I understand that they have not been altered since the 1870s. Therefore, it was felt that they should be brought into line with the provisions for other organisations such as industrial and provident societies and building societies. Otherwise Schedule 5 is entirely the administrative regulations.
LORD SHINWELL: Do I understand that what the noble Baroness has just referred to is Schedule 3, Part V, Supplementary Provisions?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIROF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIROF BELHELVIE: No, it is Schedule 5.
LORD DIAMOND: It would be discourteous of me not to thank the noble Baroness for the explanation, which was a wholly satisfying one. What she said was that this was an exact copy of what the Labour Government had done, and what further argument was needed. I do agree.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 87 [Duty to inform registrar of changes in rules, officers and other matters]:
4.48 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 263YYY:
Page 68. line 19, leave out (" together with the prescribed fee ").
The noble Baroness said: If it is convenient to the Committee, I should like also to refer to the next Amendment, Amendment No. 263ZZZ. These two Amendments are here for two main reasons. First, subsection (2) of Clause 87, as it is at present drafted, provides for the payment of fees every single time an organisation notifies the Registrar of a change of officers. The Government's intention is to require payment of a fee only for the registration of a change in rules. This is made quite clear in the Amendment. A fee is justified here because the Registrar will have a considerable amount of work to do to study the changes, and to see whether the amended rules still conform to the requirements of the Bill.
The second object of these Amendments is to ensure that the fee to be charged is broadly of the same order to those charged to organisations which are registered under other Acts. Registration fees under the legislation relating to industrial and provident societies and building societies were revised by Statutory Instrument as from April 1 this year, and the figure of £10 proposed in the Amendment corresponds to the fee now charged to such organisations for registering a partial change of the rules. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: Can the noble Baroness give me one additional piece of information? She has been kind enough to tell us that these fees for comparable organisations were raised as recently as April 1 to £10. From what?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: They all vary, because a good many of them had not been altered since the 1870s. But to give an example, the industrial and provident societies are now charged £30 for registration, £20 for a complete revision of rules, £10 for a partial revision, £6 for a change of name and £1 for a change of registered office.
LORD DIAMOND: I recognise that there is a variation and that will not help us very much. I think the first Amendment is an acceptable one, but one does not like the second one. The addition of the words
" or such other sum as may be prescribed "
have the unfortunate effect that, without any opportunity of discussion, fees are
984
increased, not only to keep pace with inevitable rises in costs but also to keep pace with rises due to inefficiency, without any opportunity of challenging the inefficiency. I realise that what is in this clause is not something which is unique. Therefore, all I want to do is to register our anxiety about it and to say that we shall obviously watch this. A fee of £10 does not seem out of place for what may be required, although it will rest somewhat heavily on the smaller union. I imagine that
" such other sum as may be prescribed "
will always be a higher sum and never a lower sum, but we shall keep the matter under review. With those words, I think my noble friends will wish me to say that we shall allow the Amendments to go through.
LORD SHINWELL: I should also like to draw attention to the words
" together with a fee of £10 or such other sum as may be prescribed ".
What is the purpose of those words, unless the Government expect further inflation as a result of their general policy? By the time this Bill is fully implemented, the £10 may have become £30 or £40. Is that what those words mean? Are they there because of impending inflation as a result of Government policy?
LORD SLATER: As a trade unionist, I strongly object to the increase which the Government are seeking to impose. The noble Baroness said that one of the reasons why this fee must be increased is because of the research and everything else which the Registrar will have to do in compiling rules governing the trade unions. But in all probability there will only be an alteration or addition to one part of the rules governing a trade union. It seems to me that the weakness of the present Administration is that they let prices rise whenever a demand is made. The attitude of the Government seems to be to allow increases here, in accordance with their general policy.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I have sought to explain to the Committee why the sum of £10 is fair in relation to other charges which I gave. I should dearly love to debate the whole economic position of this country with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, but

985
I shall refrain as I suspect that that would not be in order. But may I say, in passing, that the present inflation cannot be entirely owing to this Government. It must have some origin in an earlier Administration. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that the Amendment makes provision for a revision of the fee by
"such other sum as may be prescribed"
by Statutory Instrument, and that is to take account of increased charges for administration, should they arise. But, like him, I am always hopeful that perhaps they will also come down.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Am I to understand from the last observation of the noble Baroness that any change in the £10 fee would have to be brought about by Statutory Instrument laid before both Houses? This is extremely important. It would have been possible for the Registrar to alter the fees according to the number of changes that might be necessary in the rules. But if any alteration in the fees must be prescribed by Statutory Instrument, then I am very satisfied.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: That is the point I was trying to make. I should perhaps have explained it earlier when I sought to allay the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell. It would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
LORD SHINWELL: If I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she said that she would love to debate with me. When can we arrange this debate?
LORD DIAMOND: Before the noble Baroness answers that question, may I remind her that she told us that these charges have not been increased since 1880. I hope that the debate will therefore cover all inflationary policies since then, with a list of the various Governments which held command during that period. I am sure the noble Baroness does not misunderstand my point about debating increases in charges, and it is very difficult on a Negative Resolution to have a proper debate. We shall therefore watch the matter and, perhaps by putting down a Question, seek elucidation if necessary. I think my noble friends are reasonably satisfied, but perhaps I could
986
say this to my noble friend Lord Slater, who, I gather, is not wholly satisfied. I accept what the noble Baroness has said with regard to the first Amendment; namely, that whereas charges would otherwise have been open to be made under the Bill. they are no longer open to be made on minor matters. Secondly, that on major matters—that is to say, on a change of rules—the charges compare with charges made to similar institutions for similar functions. That is the starting point, and we think that is perhaps unavoidable. But we shall certainly watch any increases very carefully.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 263ZZZ.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 20, at end insert (" and, in the case of a copy of a change in the rules, shall be sent to him together with a fee of £10 or such other sum as may be prescribed").— (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Bellzelvie.)
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 263AAAA:
Page 68, line 24, leave out from first ("change ") to end of line 25.
The noble Baroness said: I think the fact that something is being deleted from the Bill will be acceptable to the Committee. This Amendment deletes from the Bill the provision stating that a change in the rules of a registered organisation shall not take effect until the change has been registered with the,Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations. This clause also applies to organisations on the special register, including chartered bodies whose rules can take effect only when approved by the Privy Council. Where a change is to be void until recorded by the Registrar, the status of an amended rule of a chartered body will be unclear. I beg to move.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 88 [Power for Chief Registrar to inspect and apply for winding up order]:
On Question, Whether Clause 88 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.59 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I am anxious not to be technical in putting certain questions on Clause 88, but I am emboldened to do so by the fact that when the Committee was discussing Clause 72 I gave notice that there were certain questions which seemed to me to arise and to involve both Clause 88 and Clause 148.
These are the type of questions that I should like to put to the noble Baroness. Clause 88 deals with the winding-up of a trade union. It is, I should have thought, important that one should know precisely how that clause is to work. I hope it will be very rarely brought into operation, but of course it might be on occasions, particularly in the case of a small union. If one looks back to Clause 72 to see what has happened to an organisation of workers when it has become registered, one finds that in the terms of Clause 72(1) it has become a body corporate. If one then looks to see what happens to property broadly speaking applicable to the purposes of the trade union, one finds in subsection (3) of Clause 72 that,
" All property and funds…for the time being held by any person in trust for the organisation shall vest in the organization…without further assurance."
So far one has reached the position that the trade union has become a body corporate. One is not told what sort of a body corporate and, as I have previously pointed out, we do not know what are the rules of the body corporate. The only other thing one knows is that property held for it by trustees is without further assurance vested in that body corporate.
With that store of knowledge, one proceeds to ask what is to happen in the event of it becoming necessary to wind up the trade union under the terms of Clause 88. All one is told when one looks at the actual method which is prescribed (I am reading the words at the end of the clause) is that the organisation is
" to be wound up by the court in accordance with the Companies Act 1948."
I do not know what sections of the Companies Act 1948 are to be brought into operation in relation to this new type of body corporate, the existence of which so far as I know finds no place in the Companies Act 1948 which deals with
988
certain specific corporate bodies, primarily companies with limited liability. These are in terms referred to and dealt with by that Act.
If the court is winding up a limited company one knows precisely what are the provisions of the Companies Act which are to be brought into operation. They are the well known provisions by which the creditor can file a petition, the court has discretion, it considers the wishes of creditors by majority value and so on. It is open to question, I should have thought, whether the words,
"in accordance with the Companies Act 1948 "
would in any event bring into operation any of the provisions of the Companies Act 1948 other than those which deal strictly with the parcelling out of the assets among creditors and, if there are any over, among shareholders in the case of a limited company. I should have thought, just looking at these words, that they would in any case only bring into operation that limited number of sections. I do not know how the liquidation is to be initiated before the court because no provision of the Companies Act dealing with that matter is brought into operation in terms, and is also not brought into operation for the further reason which I gave when we were dealing with a new type of amorphous, undescribed body corporate which finds no place in the Companies Act.
If one looks at other parts of the clause one asks, how is it determined whether the trade union is insolvent? One knows the well-known definition of insolvency in this context—" unable to pay their debts as they become due ". But suppose a proceeding is initiated before the Companies Court. A petition is presented. Suppose the Court holds that under the terms of the Companies Act such a petition lies. As I have said, I should have thought this a matter of very considerable doubt. Suppose it is presented by a creditor in respect of debts which a trade union seems to be unable to pay. I would ask myself, upon the hearing of that petition, what assets is the court to have in view in answering the question, aye or nay, is the trade union able to pay its debts and ought a winding-up order to be made upon the petition?
As I have said, is it only to look at the assets vested in the body corporate?

989
Under Clause 72 those are assets which theretofore were vested under trustees and which under Clause 72 have been vested in the trade union. Or, as one would be rather inclined to suppose looking at Clause 148, is the court's jurisdiction to extend to assets of the members of the trade union? In any event we do not know what the relation of the members of the trade union and the trade union itself, now converted into a corporate entity, are and what are the rules and what rights or obligations the members have towards it.
Earlier we moved that the corporate body should have limited liability. We still do not know whether it is to have limited Lability. I quite understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said—and it was very helpful of him to do so—" I think further consideration must be given to that aspect of the matter." I do not want to be querulous, nor to make complaints; but here we are at Clause 88, some time later in terms of hours of discussion, having passed Clause 72, and I would respectfully submit to the Government Front Bench that they ought by now—and very likely the noble Baroness will do so—to give a very full account in answer to the questions I am putting.
The Government ought by now to know what is to be the procedure and what is the mechanism to be brought into play if a question arises as to whether a trade union is insolvent and unable to pay its debts. Who can put the petition on the file? What discretion is the court to have? What assets is the court to look at'? Is the court only to look at assets previously vested by trustees on behalf of the union and under Clause 72 vested in the union, or to look at some or all the assets of members of the trade union and, if so, subject to what qualifications? How can the court decide whether or not to wind up a trade union even if it knows specifically what are the debts of the body corporate, unless it can have the answers to the questions I have put and knows what are the assets which can be made available to discharge those debts?
That is a mouthful, and I apologise to the noble Baroness. I should have given her notice of these questions although in a sense I did give her notice on Clause
990
72 that I should be raising them. I think she will agree that they are matters of importance which should be answered before we pass this clause and that we ought to be enlightened by the Government.
5.9 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: Before the noble Baroness replies to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, will she answer this question? Subsection (2) of Clause 88 says:
"The organisations to which this section applies are trade unions and employers' associations."
Your Lordships have just assented to the establishment of a special register. When this Bill becomes law we shall in future concerning trade union organisations have what 1 call a form of snobbery. We shall have a register and then we shall have a special register which will apply, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said earlier, to those organisations which have certain qualifications. Can the noble Baroness tell your Lordships whether this will apply to all organisations, irrespective of on which register they are?
BARONESSTWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The Committee are always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, when he rises and poses these terrible questions—terrible but very necessary for us to consider. I am rather glad of the opportunity once again to refer to the question of limited liability about which he asked and its relation to the Companies Act. I did not have the opportunity to do so when we discussed Clause 72. As I am advised, the position at the moment so far as funds are concerned is more favourable to the unions than similar provisions in the Companies Act, in two ways: first, registered trade unions are given the opportunity to safeguard their provident funds by separating them completely from their other activities; second, individual members and officials will have no liability to meet any union debts beyond the payment of their normal subscriptions. On the other hand, members of companies have to meet their companies' liabilities up to the full amount of their share holding or, in the case of a company limited by guarantee, up to the limit of that guarantee; because liability for these is imposed by the Companies Act 1948.

991
When we turn to this particular clause, Clause 88, we find that its object is to give the Chief Registrar of trade unions and employers' associations powers which are broadly similar to those proposed for the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies under Clause 5 of the 1970 Friendly Societies Bill, which I understand was introduced in your Lordships' House. Its intention is to bring the financial control relating to trade unions and employers' associations more closely into line with those relating to friendly, industrial and provident societies. The powers proposed for the Chief Registrar under subsection (1) are in fact rather narrower than those proposed for the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, because the latter would be authorised to arrange an inspection of an organisation if it appeared to be in the interests of members or the public, whereas this clause limits the right of inspection to causes of suspected insolvency. Under the existing law I am advised that any provision in the Companies Act is made inapplicable to trade unions by Section 5 of the Trade Unions Act 1871. But the Bill repeals the 1871 Act and will re-enact that part of Section 5 which prevents registration as a company of any organisation of workers or employers' association. It will not re-enact the exclusion of trade unions from the application of the Companies Act, so the winding-up provisions in Clause 88 will be applicable as proposed in this clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, asked about the bodies on the special register. These are exempt under Clause 88, but because of the. way they are incorporated there are very strict requirements as to their accounts and the audit of accounts. I can refer to the various sections of the Companies Act in that connection, but I do not think that the noble Lord will particularly wish me to read them out. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will recall that when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was referring to the Amendments to Clause 72 he said that we might consider whether in fact these provisions—and this includes Clause 88 in the respects to which the noble Lord referred—were absolutely watertight. I think that our joint inten
992
tion is the same; we want to make sure that they are watertight. I shall certainly see whether there is anything more that can be done, if it should be necessary.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sincerely grateful to the noble Baroness for her full answer and for the thorough way in which she has obviously studied what was said before of the problems arising out of this clause. With respect, I am not certain—I want to study what she has said—that I feel wholly convinced by the advice she has given with regard to the effect of the repeal of Section 5 of the Trade Unions Act 1871. I shall wish to study that fully. It may be that the Government will wish to give further consideration to that to see (as the noble Baroness said) whether it works. I am in some slight doubt about it. I also feel that she did not quite answer the dilemma I sought to pose before and which I still feel. If the effect of Clause 72 is simply to invest in the corporate body property previously held by the trustees, I do not understand how Clause 148(2)(b) can stand up, as it were, beside it. The two are inconsistent. If the body is corporate and the only property vested in it is property previously vested in the trustees, what is the point of excluding from the property which can be taken in execution of judgment against the trade union any property belonging to any member of the trade union or employers' association, otherwise than jointly held in common with the other members of it?
As I read Clause 72, such property in any event does not vest in the trade union. Why it should be necessary to limit the property taken in execution to property jointly held by the members, I do not follow. No doubt the noble Baroness will give further consideration to that point. I quite understand that it is difficult to deal with these points as they arise in a very complicated situation. I shall be content if she says she will give further thought to it. My difficulty is that I do not understand the consistency between Clauses 148, 72 and 88.
BARONESS TWEEDS MUIR OF BELHELVIE: I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that before we reach Clause 148 we will give consideration to the points he has made to-day—as was indicated by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
5.18 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I echo my noble friend's gratitude to the noble Baroness, particularly for her saying that the whole of this matter is still under consideration. We are also grateful to my noble friend, Lord Stow Hill, for raising those important matters. If they are still under consideration, then. I should like to add another to the agenda, so to speak, rather than submit it for immediate answer; but I must trouble the Committee with the detail so that it will be on the Record. I am going to talk about insolvency, and the reason why I attach so much importance to it is that here is a clause which gives the Chief Registrar power to wind up a union. Death to the union! We want to be absolutely sure that that power is not capable of misinterpretation. As I understand the clause, and as the noble Baroness has confirmed, the present position is that if the Bill goes through, including the re-enactment and cancellations, the effect will be that the winding-up provisions of the Companies Act will apply here.
Presumably this will mean that insolvency is to be interpreted for these purposes in the same way as it is to be interpreted for its various purposes under the Companies Act. One of those purposes—with respect to my noble friend, as it was touched on by my noble friend, Lord Stow Hill—is the ability to meet one's debts as they fall due. There is another definition in the Companies Act for the purposes of winding up which is a much more troublesome one, and which is very little used. The Government are fully aware of the matters that have been happening in recent times—let me put it that way. It is a definition of insolvency which involves the revaluing of all assets and liabilities at the moment of inquiry on the basis of the amounts likely to be involved, likely to be realised, and likely to be called on to be paid out, and whether that results in solvency or insolvency at that moment of inquiry. On that basis—and noble Lords will be surprised at what I am now going to say—a large number of the most substantial companies in this country are at the moment insolvent.
I must make that dramatic statement to make the House realise the seriousness of what I am talking about, because every large company which invests in large amounts of fixed plant and specialises is
994
in this position. It has got a large, specialised and sophisticated plant which is essential for its large-scale production, which costs a great deal of money to set up, but is worth very little—indeed very little more than scrap iron value —if it has to be sold overnight because of liquidation. The reason is that, by the nature of the situation, it is highly specialised, of great value to the company as a going concern, of very little value to anybody else. There are a number of very large companies, highly capitalised, which have that situation. The gearing of their capital is such that the whole of their share capital is invested in this plant, and indeed they may go further and borrow on debentures repayable over a period of years in order to provide themselves with sufficient finance for this large and sophisticated plant. That is the picture I am putting before the Committee. I will relate this to a union in a moment.
In that situation, where a company has offended against the Companies Actin that a person has traded or caused the company to trade and incur debts—incurred credit, it is an offence, and those who have acted in this way, directors or persons acting as directors, are liable not only to be proescuted—I think this is one of the rare cases where there are two penalties, both a criminal and a civil one—but also to have to pay a very large sum of money. It might be extremely large, depending on the amount of credit that has been taken up; namely, they would have to repay the whole of the credit that might be involved. That is the situation which is very rarely relied upon—I have inquired about the number of prosecutions that have taken place—because it is somewhat unreal, but nevertheless is in the Statute Book and, as I understand it, will apply to a trade union.
I now relate it to a trade union. Take the case of a trade union which has bought a very large, freehold property, at a very large price. There is no question that the price would be large. Suppose it has for this purpose put in part of its own funds, and borrowed on promissory notes or debentures or something in order to pay off over a period of years the cost of the freehold property. If it is a freehold property in a normal situation, of course, it will retain its value; but one can imagine a freehold

995
property suitable for the trade union being in an area which is going to be developed in an unsatisfactory way, where blight is going to apply, and where the capital value is going to fall considerably owing to some unforeseen circumstances. The trade union is then going to find itself in a position of having debts to pay over a period, which it would be able to pay in the normal way, and if no Registrar came and made inquiries it would continue to pay its way. Out of its membership fees it would build up a surplus each year sufficient to repay the debentures and all would be well.
What I am saying is, let us imagine a situation in which a trade union is carrying on perfectly satisfactorily, in the sense that it is building up a surplus each year with which to repay its debentures or what is has borrowed to acquire its freehold premises. There comes a point at which, for some reason or other, this clause applies and an inspection takes place, and the Registrar wants to know whether the trade union is insolvent. The inspector goes along, looks at the premises, and finds there has been an order by the local authority and the whole of the area is going to be pulled down, or there is some unforeseen circumstance affecting the price of the property and the property is going to be worth only one-tenth of what it originally cost. Then the inspector has to consider whether the union is insolvent, not unable to meet its debts if the union carries on in the ordinary way and out of its annual surplus from membership fees meets the debts on the dates due, but whether at that moment of time on a revaluation of assets and liabilities it can do so.
Of course, the inspector will come to the conclusion that the union cannot, by virtue of this drop in the value of its premises, by virtue of the provision in the debentures, saying " If anybody issues a writ against the union then the whole of the capital borrowed must immediately become repayable ", or some quite familiar position of that kind. Then it would be in the situation in which debts would be either due or have to be counted as being due: the assets would have to be revalued, and the two sides would not balance. The Registrar would say, " I am very sorry. I am required under this clause to wind up the union."
996
It has been a long explanation. I am sorry to have explained it all at such length, but this is a very, very troublesome clause. The Government are aware of that. What I want to do is to prevent the unions, and indeed the Registrar, from having to act in an unreasonable way because certain sections of the Companies Act—which will apply by virtue of this Bill, which will apply to trade unions—will be made to apply, and will therefore inevitably apply harshly. It is that which I naturally want to avoid. All I am saying to the noble Baroness, as she has already been good enough to say she will give further consideration to the points raised by my noble friend, Lord Stow Hill, is that I would be grateful if she would give further consideration to the difficulties which I have indicated might arise. I do not say, of course, that they will necessarily arise, but they might well arise, and when we are dealing with legislation we have to be as far sighted as we can.
5.29 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think the Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for giving expression with great clarity, if I may say so, to a very understandable anxiety. He asked whether I would add to the agenda the definition of " insolvency ". Of course, he was quite right to point out that if a union was, through any very unfortunate and we hope rare circumstance, declared insolvent it might have to dispose of its assets at a very unfavourable moment, and he instanced freehold property. That is rather in my mind because only last night we had a small Scottish Bill in which we do not call a mortgage " a mortgage ", we call it " a heritable security ". But it was really on those lines, about that type of fixed loan and investment, that we had a discussion only yesterday evening.
I think I should point out that the Companies Act is not invoked until after the Registrar is satisfied that the union for the employers' association is insolvent, and creditors or other people are not able themselves to apply for the winding-up of the organisation. I think it is very important to put this on the record. The object of Clause 88 is to enable the Registrar, after there has been an inspection, to apply for a winding-up order when a

997
trade union is unable to meet its financial commitments. What the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was really saying was that many large companies, and perhaps many individuals, are in fact insolvent if you take into account what they are borrowing from their bank managers or from elsewhere. But I will undertake to see that we look into the definition of the word " insolvency " and I quite understand his concern.
Clause 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Cancellation by Registrar on request or where organisation ceases to exist]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD) moved Amendment No. 263BBBB.
Page 69, line 35, leave out (" may at any time ") and insert (" shall ")
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I will discuss Amendments Nos. 263CCCC and 263DDDD with this Amendment. In another place considerable anxiety was expressed by the Opposition that the Registrar might for some reason refuse to cancel the registration of a trade union when requested to do so. An Amendment was then accepted to make plain that the:re was no intention of refusing cancellation when the organisation no longer wished to remain registered. This first Amendment is intended to make more plain that if the organisation requests it, the Registrar must cancel its registration. The other two Amendments changed the drafting to take account of this change. I am sure we are all agreed that the Registrar has no need of any discretion in this matter, and I therefore commend these Amendments to the Committee.
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 263CCCC.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 39, leave out (" at the request of the organisation ") and insert (" if he is requested by the organisation to do so ").(Lord Belstead.)
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 263DDDD.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 1, leave out from (" Where ") to (" he ") in line 2 and insert (" under this section the registrar cancels the registration of an organisation ").—(Lord Belstead.)
5.35 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263XX:
Page 70, line 3, at end insert—
(" (3) Such cancellation shall not affect the traditional tax exemption to any organisation of workers which would have been eligible to register under the Trade Union Act 1871 in respect of provident benefits for which they are now eligible under section 338 of the Income Tax and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.")
The noble Lord said: This is closely comparable with an Amendment which we discussed fairly fully only yesterday, and therefore it would not be right for me to seek to occupy a great deal of your Lordships' time discussing it again in its application to this clause. Although it is, of course, a new clause and a new application, I am bound to recognise that fundamentally the point is very similar to the one I raised previously. But as we do have the opportunity, I should like shortly to raise one aspect on this matter with the Government, and with the noble and learned Lord, who, I gather is to reply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was not aware that I am going to reply to this Amendment, but I will pay close attention to what the noble Lord says, and will endeavour to do so.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble and learned Lord was looking at me with such pleasurable anticipation that I assumed he was wishing to reply. Whoever is to deal with this Amendment on behalf of the Government I want to refer to the continued eligibility of the unions to have their liability for income tax and corporation tax to be treated in the same way as previously in relation to its provident fund. We discussed this fully yesterday. I want to refer to what was said in the other place by the Secretary of State when this matter was being discussed. He said:
" I assure the House that if it were necessary to set up a special register for trade unions

999
which wished not to register in the industrial relations sense, so that they could continue the other half of their activities, their provident fund activities, I would propose a special register."
So here we have the Government, through their responsible Minister on this matter of industrial relations, recognising the difficulties which I described yesterday and which may amount to the loss of up to three-quarters of a million pounds a year for one union alone. The difficulties are so great that they would have to be met.
The Secretary of State was saying that if it were necessary he would set up a special register. He continued:
" But it is not necessary. I have gone into this most carefully. I am told that there is no technical, constitutional or legal difficulty."
That is a very wide undertaking.
" I am assured on technical advice that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or the Friendly Societies Act 1896 is available for registering for the provident funds of unions which do not wish to register under the Bill in the industrial relations sense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons 23/3/71; col. 335.]
What we were discussing yesterday, and it is again under discussion, was the provident funds of unions and a situation where a trade union was being compelled, under duress, to register as a union lest it should be denied the continued benefit of the treatment for income tax and corporation tax purposes which has always been available.
I will repeat very shortly what I said yesterday. The reason why this treatment is what it has always been is because all Governments have taken the view that it is right and wise to encourage saving of this kind for provident purposes —for funeral expenses, for a rainy day, for misfortunes at one time or another—and have given, and continue to give, tax inducements for that saving. The most obvious and continuing case is the relief which everybody gets on his insurance premium, for saving against a rainy day. This is a matter, therefore, of public policy which all Governments have recognised, but the benefit of which is to be denied to trade unions unless they register under this Bill and take on the additional responsibility which registration involves. That is a damaging step, so far as trade unions are concerned, and it is a step
1000
they would not wish to take unless they are compelled—as one union has said it will be compelled—to do so, in order to gain these benefits.
That is the background of what we are discussing, and the point to which I am drawing attention is the statement of the Secretary of State that the Acts of 1965 and 1896 are available for registering for the provident funds of unions. I wish to say to the Government that my advice is that there seems to be some possible doubt about the inclusive accuracy of the Secretary of State's statement. I therefore want confirmation from the Government that what the Secretary of State said is right; that there is no doubt but that the provident funds could be hived off from the union and registered in this way so as to continue the same tax treatment for income tax and corporation tax purposes, notwithstanding that the parent union, the union whose members have contributed to, and whose members are entitled to the benefits of, the provident funds does not register under the Bill.
5.41 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I should say first of all that we are dealing in this clause with voluntary cancellation of registration. The Registrar may cancel the entry of an organisation at the request of the organisation, or if the Registrar is satisfied that that organisation has ceased to exist. What 'the noble Lord is implying here is that there may be cases where the registered trade union is compelled to withdraw or a body registered on the provisional register feels that it must withdraw. As I am advised, the position is that although a trade union or other workers' organisation is prevented by Clause 150 from registering as a friendly society, there is nothing to stop it from setting up a separate friendly society for that purpose. Such a body would be limited to provident activities and could in no circumstances act as a trade union, but it could continue to enjoy broadly the same tax concessions in respect of provident benefits.
Clause 148 will encourage this kind of action for other reasons. It is intended to protect non-militant funds from compensation claims. Such funds must be completely separate, so that it is not possible to get at them for militant purposes. In practical terms, this means

1001
putting provident funds in the hands of separate trustees, which is more or less the same thing as setting up a separate friendly society.
The first point one has to make is that this is a matter of choice for an individual organisation in almost every case, because they will automatically go on to the provisional register and it will then be open to them to choose whether or not to withdraw. If they do not withdraw, then if they are eligible for full registration they will be issued with their certificate and will be incorporated. They will have six months in which to make that decision. That is a matter for their individual choice, but there will be some organisations of workers at the present time who are not on the register. They will have to make a decision whether or not to apply to go on to the provisional register. But for the rest all that is required is for the registered trade union or the union on the provisional register to decide for itself whether it wants to remain registered or to withdraw from registration under this clause. If it decides that it does not want to remain on the register, then, as I have said, there is nothing to prevent it setting up a separate friendly society for the purposes of its benevolent funds.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Lord will appreciate that he has made a very important statement. It confirms precisely What the Secretary of State said. It is not a controversial statement, although it deals with a highly controversial matter. While thanking the noble Lord for the clarity of what he has already said—and he is right in saying that we put down the Amendment to take care of the kind of event which he himself has described—may I ask one further question. In the event of an organisation withdrawing from the register, as is contemplated by this clause, and setting up its own separate provident friendly society, would the transfer of existing provident funds from the union to the new society be any bar to the income arising from the funds transferred continuing to be treated as it has previously been treated; that is to say, exempt from taxation under the conditions and various maxima laid down Which are well known to your Lordships House?
1002
The noble Lord has made it clear that there is nothing to prevent a trade union setting up a new organisation under the Friendly Societies Act 1896 to deal exclusively with what he called nonmilitant matters, by which I understood him to mean industrial matters in the normal course of events. He has already said that the setting up of such a fund could be organised, and that the funds so applied exclusively for provident purposes would be funds which would earn income which would be treated in the traditional and beneficial way. Taking a circumstance of that kind, coupled with a transfer to that new organisation of the provident fund of the union, the courts would have to inquire into the question of how the income on those old funds would he treated. Would they continue to be treated in the old way, which would be satisfactory, or would they start to be treated in a different way which would be wholly unsatisfactory? I hope I have made the question clear. I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. I merely want to make sure that his answer covers the circumstance of the transfer of existing funds for provident purposes exclusively.
LORD DRUMALBYN: First, may I again say that we would hope very much that eventually what the noble Lord envisages will occur very rarely indeed. It may be that a union will go out of existence altogether. That is one case. The other case, where it withdraws voluntarily, we hope will not arise. There might be a change of circumstance which might cause it to withdraw. All I can say is that we very much hope that this will not occur very often.
As to the second question, I should not like to answer that " off the cuff ". My general feeling would be that where the funds are held separately at the present time there should not be any great difficulty about it. I should not like to say what the position would be if the funds, as they sometimes are, are merged with other trade union funds. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord a better answer than that now, but I will write to him on the subject.
LORD POPPLEWELL: This is such an important subject. I am delighted with the information we have now obtained, compared with that we had yesterday. Supposing that a union were

1003
put on the provisional register and it gives notice that it wants to come off that provisional register. In giving that notice, it also gives notice that so far as these provident funds are concerned it is prepared to take the necessary steps to register them under the Friendly Societies Act as something completely separate from the general funds of the union. Do I understand that now to be the position?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that the noble Lord has got it exactly right but for one thing. The tax conLession depends on actual registration under the Friendly Societies Act, not on the basis of it. The noble Lord is exactly right, but with that qualification.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for undertaking to look fully into the matter which I raised and to write to me. I think that would be the most convenient way, but obviously I wish to acquaint my noble friends with his answer. May I say to my noble friend Lord Popplewell that this is not even a second best answer but a tenth best answer. Any union which is able to avail itself of this alternative course will have a number of technical difficulties to get over to achieve this. It will find itself in the awkward position of having two groups of members, one being members of the trade union and the other members of the friendly society.
That is why my noble friend Lord Stow Hill was so right when he asked a question yesterday—to which we have still had no answer of any kind—as to the justification of the Government in dealing with one body of persons in a penalising fashion, when what they seek to do is to penalise another body of persons. In other words, why were the Government penalising potential beneficiaries under provident funds when what they were seeking to do was to penalise members and officials of a trade union for not registering? My noble friend
asked that question several times yesterday, and so far we have had no answer to it. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would like to give an answer on the logic of this treatment. We will be delighted to hear it. But if not, we regard it as our duty to give the Government a full opportunity of coming back to the matter on Report stage. I am grateful to those who have suggested that the proper course now would be to seek leave to withdraw the Amendment, which I do, having regard to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been good enough to undertake to consider the matters which we have raised and write to me upon them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 91 [Examination and approval of changes in rules]:
On Question, Whether Clause 91 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: Clause 91 continues the mischief to which we have drawn attention on many occasions, and I do not wish to spend a great deal of time on it. We have explained our attitude with regard to the Registrar and his excessive powers. We are approaching an area of the Bill which is of enormous importance, and unless my noble friends wish to continue the debate I do not propose to do so, in order to devote the time to a more constructive discussion of the new and even more damaging and mischievous Clauses 92, 93 and 94. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the contents of Clause 91 are wholly objectionable and that we should divide against it.
5.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 91 shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 120; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Balfour, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Airedale, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Boston, L.

Albemarle, E.

Barnby, L.

Bourne, L.

Alport, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Amulree, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Braye, L.

Auckland, L.

Belstead, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Balerno, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L

Clwyd, L.

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

Rea, L.

Colgrain, L.

Rockley, L.

Conesford, L.

Hankey, L.

Rothermere, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harris, L.

Rothes, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hatherton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Courtown, E.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cowley, E.

Hood, V.

St. Helens, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

St. Just. L.

Cranbrook, E.

Inglewood, L.

Salisbuiy, M.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sandford, L.

De Clifford, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sandys, L.

De La Warr, E.

Kilmany, L.

Savile, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kindersley, L.

Seear, Bs.

Derwernt, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Sempill, Ly.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sherfield, L.

Dundee, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Somerleyton, L.

Eccles, V.

Lothian, M.

Stamp. L.

Ellenborough, L.

Loudoun, C.

Strang, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Suffield, L.

Essex, E.

Lyell, L.

Swinton, E.

Exeter, M.

McFadzean, L.

Templemore T,.

Falmouth, V.

Mancroft, L.

Teviet, L.

Ferrers, E

Mansfield, E.

Teynham, L.

Fisher, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Fortescue, E.

Milverton, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Gage, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Verulam, E.

Garner, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vivian, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wade. L.

Gray, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Greenway, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Ward of Witley, V.

Grenfell, L.

Oakshott, L.

Willingdon, M.

Gridley, L.

Poltimore, L.

Windlesham, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wolverton, L.

Hailes, L.

NOT-CONTENS

Addison, V.

Garnsworlhy, L.

Royle, L.

Archibald, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Balogh, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bernstein. L.

Heycock, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Shinwell, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Slater, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Sorensen, L

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Crook, L.

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

Taylor of Mansfield, I.

Dclacourt-Smith, L.

Walston, L.

Diamond, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Moyle, L.

Williamson, L.

Faringdon, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, 8s.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 91 agreed to accordingly.
6.3 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 263EEEE:
After Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
Relaxation of restrictions on charges in rules
".—(1) The provision of this section shall have effect for enabling any organisation to which this section applies to make a change in its rules, whether by altering or revoking existing rules or adding new rules,—

(a) for the purpose of becoming eligible for registration as a trade union or as an employers' association, or

1006

(b) for the purpose of complying with the requirements of a notice served under section 73(1) or section 91(1) of this Act, or otherwise for the purpose of securing that its rules will be consistent with the principles set out in section 63 of this Act, or with the principles referred to in section 67 of this Act, as the case may be, or that they will comply with the requirements set out in Schedule 4 to this Act.

(2) This section applies to any organisation which is for the time being entered in the provisional register or which is a trade union or an employers' association.
(3) Where at any time after the commencement of this Act the steps which, by the rules of an organisation to which this section applies are required for making a change in the rules for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2) of this section could not, apart

1007
from this section. be initiated by reason of a restriction imposed by the rules as to the interval which must elapse between successive changes, or successive proposals for changes, in the rules, the steps so required may be initiated, and any procedures consequential upon those steps may be entered upon and completed, notwithstanding that restriction."
The noble Lord said: Amendment 263MMM was a paving Amendment, and some explanation was given on that occasion. This new clause will apply not only to trade unions and employers' associations, but also to organisations on the provisional and special registers. It will enable all such organisations to take action to alter their rules where necessary in order to be eligible for full registration, and it will enable trade unions, employers' associations and organisations on the special register to take action to alter their rules as may be necessary in order to comply with the requirements of the Bill in accordance with any notice served by the Registrar. I hope your Lordships will be satisfied with that brief explanation, in view of the paving Amendment moved earlier. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 263FFFF:
After Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
Inspection of registers and other documents
" The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to inspection of the registers and other documents kept by the registrar under this Part of this Act, and with respect to the fees to be charged for inspection of any such register or other document."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to make provision for public access to the registers maintained by the new registrar: that is, the registers of trade unions, employers' associations and organisations admitted to the special register. Such a facility is a normal feature of statutory systems for registration and has hitherto applied to registered trade unions by reason of regulations made under Section 13(6) of the Trade Union Act 1871. Since the Bill at present contains no authorisation for regulations concerning inspection of registers and related documents, it is necessary to make separate provision, as in this new clause, which I ask the Committee to accept. I beg to move.
Clause 92 [Inducement of, or threat to induce, breach of contract]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I must point out to your Lordships that if Amendment 263NNNN is agreed, I am unable to call Amendments 263A and 263BBBB.
6.7 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 263NNNN:
Page 70, line 26, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(" (1) An act done by a person or organisation of workers in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that it induces some other person to break a contract or that it is an interference with the trade, business or employment of some other person, or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friends. In Clauses 92, 93 and 94 we come to a Part of the Bill to which the strongest exception has been taken in many parts of the country and to which my noble friends also wish to object very strongly. The Amendment I am now moving was tabled in another place but was not discussed because it was not called. But some of the things which could properly be said of this Amendment were said in the discussion which took place, particularly on the Amendment which was moved from the Liberal Benches—what was described as the " conscience " Amendment. The Solicitor General, in speaking on this clause in Committee on February 16, made it quite clear that this was specifically aimed at the " wildcat " or unofficial strike; and in the discussion which took place in another place there was a wide-ranging expression of views on this subject.
On this side of the Committee, first of all our objection is centred on the point that protection of the paragraphs of the Bill as they stand does not extend to the non-registered trade unions and, secondly, that the ambit of subsection (1) is far too wide—indeed, so wide that it might well strike at unofficial stoppages arising out of the refusal of workers to do a number of things which have often been done by them and over a long period of time have been regarded as quite proper. For instance, it was pointed out that during the American Civil War

1009
Lancashire cotton workers refused to handle imported cotton which had been picked by slave labour. In doing so they expressed the view that to have handled this cotton would have lent support to the Southern States and their desire to perpetuate slave labour in America. In 1920 the London dockers refused to load a ship with arms destined for Russia to be used against the revolutionaries there. The view was expressed that at this time we might have the situation where workers might conscientiously refuse to handle Wasp helicopters going to South Africa. The range of possible objections which people might have included even the possibility that Roman Catholics might object to working on a particular project if they discovered that to do so might help to feather the nest of a manufacturer of the Pill.
The purport of this Amendment is to assert the right of workers to do these things. A strong part of our argument is to criticise the sweeping provisions against inducing or 'threatening to induce which are contained in this clause. It was not only on one side of the House in another place that there were doubts about the correctness of using this word " induce ". Indeed, one Government supporter went so far as to suggest to his right honourable friend that he thought it would be better if Clause 92 (though it was not at that time numbered 92) should be withdrawn altogether, so that an opportunity might be afforded to the Government to bring it forward in a more acceptable form. It has been suggested that, at the very least, " inducing " ought to exclude anything that is indirect or unintentional. The clause, indeed, would not be so bad if the Government had qualified it by saying that it was unfair " knowingly and intentionally to induce " a breach of contract by unofficial action.
But our objection to what this clause does stems from the fact that it seems to 'be accepted that all unofficial strikes are necessarily unfair or bad. Some unofficial strikes undoubtedly fall into that category, and it is not my wish, as I am sure it is not the wish of any of my noble friends, to give encouragement to the strike which in every sense of the word can be called a " wildcat ", unofficial strike. But many of these spontaneous strikes, as I prefer to call them,
1010
arise from what seem to the workers concerned to be perfectly legitimate grievances, and in which it seems to them that the right course of action is to walk out there and then—the spontaneous down-tools or walk-out. Such actions will be directly struck at by this clause, irrespective of whether their grievance is justified or not. This seems to us not to be an acceptable situation.
Why should the Bill go to the length of prejudicing what can be regarded, at least in the minds of those who are undertaking it, as a justifiable, spontaneous stoppage? But the position is worse than that, because it does not stop there. The news commentator, who is commentating on an industrial grievance, could be doing so in such a way that, though he is far removed from the industrial dispute, he is regarded as having committed an unfair industrial practice, when all that he is doing is communicating news and making fair comment upon it.
The person who is most likely to be involved in this so-called unfair practice is the shop steward, because it will be regarded as
" an unfair industrial practice for any person, in contemplation or furtherance of industrial dispute, to induce or threaten to induce another person to break a contract "
et cetera. It is not the striker but the person inducing the strike who is the object of this provision. It is most likely that he will be a worker on the shop floor who happens to be a shop steward. But not only is it a direct attack upon the shop steward; it interferes with the freedom of the mass media, politicians and others to speak their minds. But I should like to speak to it particularly from the point of view of the difficulties of the man on the shop floor—for example, the shop steward.
On Second Reading, Mr. Carr, the Secretary of State, did not explain very well what was intended. Later on, he gave an interpretation which seemed to help /he situation, but in fact it did not go nearly far enough. The shop steward has an insoluble problem in trying to remain within the law as it was explained by the Solicitor General. For example, if the shop steward himself is acting at each point in accordance with the rules of the union and the authority conferred upon him, he is under no

1011
liability. Yet the union may be under liability. This remarkable exposition obviously must give food for thought to the trade unions in redrafting their rules concerning the scope of authority of shop stewards and local officials. As I understand it, the shop steward will be liable during the period until the dispute becomes official. I am talking about the situation where an unofficial strike has taken place and the union has decided to make it an official strike. The shop steward is liable for the position until it becomes official.
In the Guardian, this explanation of the Solicitor General mystified at least one expert commentator on the subject, Mr. Arnold Foster. He wrote:
" This means that if a shop steward has the authority to call a strike he can do so with impunity, even if it turns out to be an unfair industrial practice under some other clause of the Bill. But in that case, the union and not the shop steward would be liable. If the shop steward has not the authority to call a strike, but calls one nevertheless, he himself is liable, and will still be liable even if his union later makes the strike official. In this case the union can safely do this, because the act of making the original strike unofficial has made it no longer unfair, unless of course it is unfair, anyway, because of some major other provision of the Act."
One of our criticisms of this Bill so far as we have gone, and in many places, has been that it is so complicated that it must be exceedingly difficult for the ordinary worker or the ordinary trade union official to make sense of it. It seems to me that in Clauses 92, 93 and 94 we certainly have not entered any area of simplicity. Although I have no real expectation that any Amendment that we may move to this and the subsequent clauses will make the Bill acceptable, I beg to move this Amendment in the
6.19 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I wonder how far the Government propose to go in the way of Clause 92. What I mean is this. How are they going to catch people who are really determined to induce or to have a strike? What is to stop employees from discussing these things in their homes, in pubs or in clubs? How far are the Government going on this? expectation that, if it were accepted, it would at least make the position a little better than it stands at the present time. I beg to move.
1012
Will they have a series of " private eyes " following these chaps, and putting down exactly what they are saying, in order to prove that they are inducing other people to cause a strike? This really smells of practices that have gone on in Russia, and maybe are going on to-day in Russia, when one member of a family is induced to attack another member, or to give evidence against another member of the family. This clause seems absolutely ridiculous, and it goes much too far.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I should like to support what my noble friend has said. These clauses are some of the most important clauses in the Bill. The definition of what is an unfair industrial practice is extremely important, and the wording of subsection (1) of Clause 92 is very ominous:
"…to induce or threaten to induce another person to break a contract to which that other person is a party, unless the person so inducing or threatening to induce the breach of contract—
(a) a trade union or an employers' association…"
If we take life on the shop floor, what happens? Certain disputes might arise regarding the payment of a bonus, or it may be some difficulty with regard to piecework based upon some problems on the conveyor belt. People talk, an approach is made to the management, and the management says, " We do not agree with you ". This difficulty develops over a period instead of being dealt with pretty quickly. This is a normal practice in many instances. With a job that is extremely boring, such as one on a conveyor belt, the difficulty is magnified and there is talk, "Let us stop the job; let us walk out. Bring the shop steward in ". But that would be threatening another worker to break his contract because that talk is not with the approval and support of his trade union. Before any discussion can take place. or anything with regard to threatening to stop the job, or strike can take place, there must be approval by the trade union or employers' association.
I could quote a dozen of these instances that come under this particular aspect of unfair practice. For instance, to try to discuss or talk about the unfair dismissal of a worker, whatever that may

1013
mean. It could be that a man has committed some disciplinary breach. We all know of a hundred and one issues that can flare up in industry because of an impetuous supervisor or someone of that description. There may have been a repetition of a certain type of situation, and a workman is told. " All right, you can take your cards ". When that happens the shop goes up in flames, as it were. There again that is an unfair industrial practice. I do not want to go through the whole list of them because most of you will know them as well as, if not better than, I do. But a person in circumstances like that is then liable to be brought before the courts and have a penalty inflicted. A situation of that type developing in that way is the quickest way to real trouble. If the penalty inflicted—the fine—is not paid, this amounts to disobeying the court order, and people are then faced with prison sentences.
We often say that the day of going to prison for debt is about over, but there is another way of dealing with it, and that is by imposing a court order. There is a whole chapter of these instances that arise. I think it is extremely dangerous to use the words, " to induce or threaten to induce another person to break his contract ". Instead of doing something towards straightening out industrial relations or establishing firm trade union law, this particular subsection is calculated to increase the difficulties of those engaged in industry.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I think I understand the intention of the Government in this regard. This particular clause is openly making war on shop stewards and hoping to secure the scrapping of the shop stewards system: there is no doubt about that. Shop stewards are going to be handcuffed and manacled from first thing in the morning until last thing at night. I invite noble Lords opposite to consider where industry would be without the services of the shop stewards. Shop stewards, particularly in engineering and allied industries, are not mere agitators; they are also diplomats. In the course of their work they iron out far more differences between the management and the workers than there are cases where their action leads to strikes. I am afraid that instead of improving industrial relations, this handicapping of the shop stewards and this move which will
1014
ultimately, in many instances, lead to the abolition of the shop steward system, will do far more harm to industrial relations than it will do good.
Many of your Lordships are probably associated with big engineering companies. The strain in some of those plants is enormous. There may be an occasion where the employer will suddenly speed up the production line, make some minor adjustment in the piecework rate, issue some order about the tea break, or take some other action which may, legitimately or otherwise, irritate the workers on the production line. In cases like that, if there is not a shop steward there as a kind of workers' sergeant-major, it may be that spontaneously the people will just walk out instead of staying behind, listening to their shop steward, asking him to negotiate with the management and perhaps bring about a peaceful settlement of the trouble.
It will not be necessary for the shop steward to stand up and shout, " All out! ", they will all walk out themselves. It may be that the shop stewards will organise a new formula, and instead of saying, " All out, lads! ", they will stand up and ring a bell—a process with which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be familiar. Without the services of shop stewards, industry is going to be far more chaotic than it is to-day. Far more working days are going to be lost than are lost to-day. It is obvious from the wording of this clause that the object is to handcuff the shop stewards and, so far as possible, scrap the whole shop stewards system.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Surely the noble Lord is wrong; he cannot have read the clause correctly. Under paragraph (b), provided the shop steward induces a breach of contract with the authority of his union, he is perfectly in order. This clause seeks to try to prevent unofficial strikes. Surely the noble Lord is in agreement with that.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Must I answer? I know that the clause deals with unofficial strikes. There are many unofficial strikes which deserve to be denounced and I should be among the first to denounce them. But there are some unofficial strikes which spring up spontaneously because of some anti-worker

1015
action by the employers. In those cases the workers must not be left defenceless.
6.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have always tried, in the course of these debates, not to paper over or gloss over differences which have in the end to be discussed and decided by votes. But what I have sought to do is to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings, and the primary object I have in rising now is to clear away some of the misunderstandings because I think that in the end there is a difference which we must discuss. Some of my points may seem therefore a little pedantic, but I hope the Committee will bear with me.
First of all, may I say this. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who introduced this Amendment, began by launching what was really a frontal attack on Clauses 92. 93 and 94. I will come back to that very shortly if I may. But may I say to begin with that, although I shall try to deal at any rate cursorily with all the points which have been raised, I am quite conscious that some of them will have to be dealt with in greater depth when we come to look at some more of the individual Amendments which have been put down. To give one example straight away, I am quite convinced that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about the news media is a bad one. I am absolutely convinced that the word " induce " does contain the connotation of deliberate action that he said it ought to contain explicitly, and that nobody who prints the opinion of somebody else in a newspaper or expresses an opinion of his own in a newspaper or reproduces a report in which inflammatory words are used in a newspaper—or, for that matter, on the radio or television—is under any danger at all.
I should need to make a separate speech to justify that rather bald and dogmatic statement, but there will be an opportunity as we go through the clause for me to make that speech and therefore I do not want to do much more now than to state the position.
LORD HUGHES: I would be content, and I am quite certain my noble friends would be content, if the noble and learned Lord were to elaborate on that rather
1016
important statement during a debate on the clause stand part, unless he finds a more convenient point for doing so earlier on. But I accept his position, that he wants to leave it at that statement at this point in time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very grateful to the noble Lord because in fact there are quite a number of separate issues. This is one. It has excited quite a lot of anxiety. My own conviction, although nobody is more conscious than I am of his own fallibility, is that the whole of that anxiety is misplaced. But I quite agree with the noble Lord that it would probably be more convenient to probe that question in a little greater depth at a later stage in the sequence of discussions we must have upon this clause.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would permit me to intervene; I am sorry to interrupt a person of his eminence. There is an Amendment down on Clause 132 which should lead to a full debate on this question of journalists and television. Perhaps that might be a better occasion, than to go off at half cock on this particular clause and then have a full-scale debate later.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is also an Amendment down to Clause 94. I am not trying to dictate to the Committee where they have their debate, but it is important for me to state the position now baldly—to state where I stand on it—so that I am not accepting that criticism but I ask the Committee to postpone judgment on my view about that until we have on one of the other occasions which have been suggested an opportunity to discuss it in a little greater length.
Similarly, this question of prison for contempt of court, raised I think by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, is also a pure misconception in this context. It may arise of course in connection with a mandatory order, which is one of the three types of remedy contemplated by a later clause, but it cannot arise in relation to an award of compensation. And may I again rather boldly but shortly state my reason for saying that. The reason is that I shall be bringing into effect (I cannot remember the name of

1017
the Act now) the Act which stops imprisonment for debt once and for all, which was passed last year, on August 2. I suppose it is theoretically possible that this Bill may have received the Royal Assent by August 2; but if for the moment the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, will admit that it is at the worst from his point of view neck and neck, and that by August 2 this Bill either will not have received the Royal Assent or will not have received it sufficiently before August 2 in order to give rise to proceedings for contempt, he can put that fear wholly out of his mind. Various things can be done to somebody who will not pay, but sending him to prison for contempt of court is not one of them. Therefore, we can I think again try and shift that matter away out of our minds in order to concentrate on some of the real problems which exist.
Again to be slightly pedantic, I must point out, although I shall pass from the point almost immediately, that this particular Amendment in the form in which it is proposed would actually do nothing which is not already done rather better and rather more completely by Clause 128 of the Bill. It is limited to what is actionable, and it would give absolutely no protection at all in respect of other unfair industrial practices before the Industrial Court. That is a technical point, and no doubt with greater ingenuity noble Lords opposite could frame an Amendment which achieved something rather more than Clause 128 already does. That, I hope, clears away some of the misconceptions.
Perhaps there are two more preliminary points I ought to make—and I must apologise to the Committee for making rather a long speech about this because I think the Committee would wish to dwell at this stage upon the general picture rather than the particular. But, whatever may be the effect of the clause, I should like to disabuse the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that there is any thought in our minds of trying to handcuff shop stewards. I am just as aware as he is, and I think my colleagues are, of their enormous value and the enormous service to industry which shop stewards can do, and are doing, in the main from day to day. They being somewhat numerous, we must expect there to be good ones, bad ones, and
1018
indifferent ones. But in fact they perform an indispensable service, and it is not our desire in any way to do away with them or to handcuff them or to hamstring them in the legitimate work which they quite rightly do. Let me say at once that I fully recognise the truth of what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, says, that they can very often be—and one hopes will increasingly be—the instrument by which spontaneous outbursts of indignation can be controlled rather than egged on. Obviously, again, there are good, bad and indifferent in any group of men as numerous as shop stewards can be. But I absolutely accept the factual assertions upon which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, made his speech.
One more preliminary observation, and that is about the conscience cases which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred to—a somewhat heterogeneous group of cases. There were the Lancashire workers in 1860, or thereabouts who refused to handle cotton from the Confederate States; there were the potential objectors to Wasp helicopters; and there were the group of devout Roman Catholics who would not handle articles which might contain contraceptives. Let me first of all point out that, whatever may be law about that matter—and I am not for the moment going to dogmatise about what it is—it is not affected by this clause at all so far as I can see. This clause is limited to acts, for better or for worse, and indeed this whole sequence of clauses is limited to acts, for better or for worse, in contemplation of furtherance of a trade dispute.
A trade dispute is, I think, defined on page 116 of the Bill. It does not include that kind of dispute at all. Therefore, whatever else we are concerned with, we are not altering the law about that. It may be that the law about that is complicated and difficult to ascertain, as anybody who has read Citrine on Trade Union Law would undoubtedly agree, but this is not a clause which alters it: it does not improve it and it does not make it worse. It leaves it untouched except in so far as such quarrels can be described as a trade dispute. We may come on a little more to this kind of territory when we deal with " extraneous parties " in Clause 94; but even that, if noble Lords will look at the construction of the clause, is still limited to acts in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
LORD BROWN: Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, I am not following completely what he means when he says that the clause does not cover that kind of dispute. Perhaps he could explain a little more fully. That course of action means that the man feels extremely strongly. After all, I do not apologise for having a wide range of conscience activities, and over a long period of time, because conscience can be a peculiar thing and it can be a very wide-ranging thing. But if the man of conscience felt so strongly about some of these points that he induced some or all of his colleagues to follow his own course of action, would he not be indulging in that kind of dispute?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think not. I am anxious not to become too technical or over-simple, but if the noble Lord would allow me to use a little intellectual shorthand for a moment, if he will reflect upon the decision in the case of Torquay Hotels v. Cousins or the case of Stratford v. Lindley, he will see that under the existing law the court held against the union officials in both of those cases, but on the basis that there was no industrial dispute in being; and if the noble Lord tries to relate the expression industrial dispute " on page 116 of the Bill to the case of the Roman Catholics and contraceptives, I think he will find that it is either difficult or impossible for him to do so. We are dealing now with actions done in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute. I should have said " industrial dispute " throughout; I think by a lapse of the tongue I allowed myself to use the phrase " trade dispute ". The correct phrase, of course, is " industrial dispute " and it is so defined in Clause 158. So that this is not what these clauses are about.
Again I apologise for the rather inordinate length of what I am saying, but I am trying to open up the discussion into a frank discussion of what our differences may me. The first thing to realise about this sequence of clauses is that we are dealing with what the Donovan Commission described as " a maze ". The legal situation we are now dealing with can by no stretch of the imagination be described as " clear ". It is in fact extremely confused, and I would venture to suggest that as I shall go along one of my themes will be that
1020
we are trying to make it a little more clear than it is at the moment. Donovan regarded this as a maze. I respectfully agree with him, and whatever else we are doing is not to confuse the law, and whether we are succeeding or failing in our endeavours we are trying to make it a little more simple. This is the first thing to realise about this sequence of clauses, though naturally with the complication of industrial relations it is not always easy to turn complicated human relations into clear legal phraseology or legal ideas.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This of course I accept at once, but if I may say this to those who have just cheered my observation as if I were making an important concession, they are perpetually attacking us for creating what is called a " lawyer's paradise ". I am not altogether attached to that phrase. But if you want to know how lawyers make a lot of money it is by a confused state of the law and not by a clear state of the law, because obviously the more confused the state of the law the more often they will be asked for their opinion. I start by saying that what we are doing is to try to hack away the maze into something which is a little more rational and intelligent. Whether we have succeeded or failed is obviously a matter for the opinion of the Committee, but this is what we are trying to do.
The second point is that Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 confers certain privileges and immunities on existing trade unions, and that provides that if in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute—and I have the text here if anyone wants me to refer to it, but I take it that most noble Lords are fairly familiar with it—someone tries to induce somebody to break a contract of employment he shall be free from liability in tort for so doing.
Donovan recommended—I forget how much of it was unanimous and how much of it was majority, but part of it was unanimous and part majority—that under the limitation imposed on the community by Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906, the principle that the contract, the inducement of the breach

1021
of which was protected, was a contract of employment, should be removed; and Donovan recommended that any form of inducement of breach of contract should be protected, and not simply the inducement of a breach of contract of employment. Donovan further recommended—and here I am fairly sure that it was a majority, including the chairman, but not a unanimous recommendation—that this should be limited to registered trade unions. That of course is reasonable provided that the conditions of registration are reasonable in themselves. That is a matter about which we have had long debates and I do not want to re-open it; but of course our case is that no responsible body—and we all recognise that the great majority of trade unions are responsible—has anything to fear either from Schedule 4 (in spite of the rather small point about the cost of the brochure which we discussed yesterday) or from Clause 63; that they are no more than what ordinary justice and ordinary good management would require. At any rate Donovan recommended that the protection should be extended to all breaches of contract and not simply to breaches of contract of employment; that it should be extended in that direction but in the other direction limited to registered trade unions under the Donovan Committee's recommendation.
These clauses accept that situation, with two qualifications, both of which arc important and both of which we can discuss in debate; but as Donovan recommended we have extended the protection to all contracts but subject to three qualifications. The first is that we extended it with the qualification which Donovan recommended, that only registered unions should be able to avail themselves of the protection. That is in accordance with the Donovan Report, and I think it is no more than a consequential refinement—and I am not sure that it is even a refinement. Consequential to that, under the umbrella of protection rest those who act with the authority of a union. If they do not have the authority of a union they are not underneath the umbrella of protection.
The two other qualifications are, first, that if a primary piece of industrial action is itself an unfair industrial practice, then secondary action designed to back up an
1022
unfair industrial practice should also be an unfair industrial practice. That is the purport of Clause 93, and our view is that this is necessary so as not to make a monkey of the law. This again is something we must probe in depth. But let me say in passing, because 1 am sure the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, or somebody else, will wish to ask me, I fully accept that as it stands at the moment some of the phraseology in Clause 93 is unsatisfactory; and would, pursuant to an undertaking of the Solicitor General, already have put down an Amendment to it, but as I did not like what I was offered I have put it back and hope to have something better still by Report. But the basis of Clause 93 is that nobody should make a monkey of the law by actions in support of industrial action which was itself an unfair industrial practice.
LORD POPPLEWELL: If I may intervene, the noble and learned Lord spoke of the authority of the union, and I inferred that this referred to an organisation of workers not registered and therefore not a trade union. I see in Clause 92(1)(a)
" a trade union or an employers' association ".
Does that mean if a member of a registered trade union discusses with his colleagues a question of influencing a person to break a contract, one of these what are termed unfair industrial practices, it would be exonerated from the penalties involved?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No form of discussion qua discussion, if that is all that is meant, would, as I see it, render anybody liable to penalties at all. But what I am trying to convey at this phase of my argument is that Clause 92 holds an umbrella over registered unions, and as part of the umbrella, as it were, under the umbrella of protection, rest those who act with the authority of registered unions, but not those, whether members of unions or not, who act without that authority. The question of discussion and what amounts to inducement is slightly different, but discussion as such is not involved in the clause.
The other qualification to the Donovan recommendation is that contained in Clause 94. It really deals with the Cousins v. Torquay situation, that where there is no genuine participation in an industrial dispute innocent third

1023
parties should be protected from industrial action. That again is a clause which will give rise to a whole complex of questions into which I do not want to go in depth at the present stage. There are a number of different Amendments there, and different questions to be discussed in relation to it. All I am saying at this stage, when we are looking at the sequence of clauses as a whole, is that it is not intrinsically unfair to exonerate wholly innocent third parties from industrial action if they are not contributing to the particular dispute. That is the principle behind Clause 94; the rest, I say at this stage, is draftsmanship. That is the philosophy of this clause. It does mean that we are in dispute with the Labour Party about this. I hope I have not tried to gloss that over, but I have been trying to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings, because what we have to discuss is sufficiently important to make misunderstandings an embarrassment, I hope, to both sides.
One of the things I cannot do is to talk to the Committee and read a note at the same time. I hope it does not mean I have made a ghastly error, but if I have I will try to repair it.
LORD DIAMOND: Perhaps I could tell the noble and learned Lord that if at any time he wants me to ask him a long, detailed, unimportant question, I will be glad to do so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I know I can rely on the noble Lord's co-operation. I shall have to study the note that has been sent to me, but I hope I am on safe ground at the moment.
The thing I am now going to say is controversial. It follows from the philosophy I have been putting forward that we do not accept, and cannot accept, the proposition that unregistered unions should be under the umbrella. This is basic to what I have been describing. This is the point of difference and of substance. In one context or another we have discussed it on a number of occasions. We do attach importance to that. Secondly—and here I would like to try to carry noble Lords with me up to a point—we contemplate at any rate that some employers will be the respondents of complaints of unfair industrial
1024
practices. It is I think not a coincidence that in this sequence of Amendments noble Lords have assumed, and I would submit have assumed too readily, that in every case the employer will be the complainant and the respondent will be the trade union or trade union official. We may be wrong about this, but this is not the way we look upon it.
There are a number of cases,.more numerous I think than cases where the union would be the respondent, where the employer can be guilty of an unfair industrial practice. I think the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, mentioned one, unfair dismissal. We hope that if there are cases of unfair dismissal it will no longer be the case, as it certainly is at the moment and as the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, pointed out, that the shop floor is in flames immediately it happens; because we hope when the Bill becomes law, and the various imalications come to be appreciated, people will say, " There will be ample compensation available if this is so ", and what is more, compensation will be more if the man is not reinstated. This, I hope, will lead to unions whose members are subject to unfair dismissal taking action through the mechanisms provided by the Act rather than walking out in a fit of spontaneous anger.
LORD POPPLEWELL: In theory it sounds ideal. In actual practice. knowing the men as we do, it is a different story.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What the noble Lord does not know is what they will be like after the Bill is in force. This is something we must wait and see. This, at any rate, is what we believe about it.
The only other thing I think I ought to say at this stage on this Amendment is this. We equally do not hold the umbrella, as I have chosen to call it in, I hope, not unduly over-simplified, language, over people who act without the authority of the union, whether they are union officials or not. I fully accept what one noble Lord said—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—that this will probably lead to unions defining the authority they give to their shop stewards rather more precisely tha a they are apt to do at the moment. Personally I hope it does lead to that result, because

1025
I think a shop steward is entitled to know where he stands with his union; and if the pressures applied by this clause mean that the union and the shop stewards define what each is able to do with or without special authority more clearly than at the moment, I think the result will be beneficial rather than the opposite.
I do concede—and this is a matter which I must recognise is a matter of difference between us—that our object is to withdraw the umbrella from actions which are wholly unconstitutional and wholly without authority, whether they are trigger happy officials, or whether they are self-appointed leaders who have no authority at all. We believe—and again this may be a matter of difference between us, but it is as well that the two sides of the Committee should understand one another quite clearly about it —that the effect of these provisions will be to strengthen the hand of the official union, because we shall have withdrawn the umbrella of protection from those who act without authority, and are trigger happy. We believe, on the contrary, that the splinter group, the " wild caters ", the minority dedicated to the overthrow of the system of society more than to the promotion of reasonable conditions for their working comrades—that dedicated minority to whom the noble and learned Lord. Lord Donovan. referred on the Second Reading debate, will have something to fear from this clause. We mean that they should. I do not conceal that.
What I do not wholly understand is why so many of the responsible leaders on the other side, who want to strengthen the official unions, who want to strengthen their authority over their members, should be so disturbed at what we are proposing to do. I recognise that they are. I recognise that they are opposing this, but that is the difference between us; and I think that is the matter about which we shall be voting when this Amendment is voted on. I apologise again for this long speech. but this is an important part of this Bill. and I thought your Lordships would wish me to deal with it at length. It may. indeed, save time in dealing with some of the subsequent points.
7.2 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: Would it he an unfair Parliamentary practice to suggest that, as the noble and learned Lord has
1026
admitted that his was a very long speech and a speech intended to remove misunderstandings, we might defer consideration until we receive the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning, and examine it meticulously in order to ascertain whether the misunderstandings have been completely dissipated?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not a question for me.
LORD SHINWELL: I must confess that seldom in my experience have I listened to such specious pleading, such sophistry of an alleged legal character as, along with other noble Lords, I have just experienced. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, began by saying that it is impossible to debate this clause and this specific Amendment effectively, accurately and in order to remove possible misunderstandings, without reference to subsequent clauses. How right he was! With that observation of the noble and learned Lord I am in full and wholehearted agreement. This is an experience that we have had to endure during the course of our deliberations. We proceed to discuss an Amendment on a specific clause, and then we are informed—and I agree—that it is impossible to debate it accurately and remove any possibility of misunderstanding without reference to subsequent clauses. The noble and learned Lord, although we are debating an Amendment to Clause 92, not that the clause stand part, referred to Clause 94 and even to Clause 128, which refers to action that can be taken against any person who seeks to break a contract. All this is very interesting, but what it had to do with the specific Amendment I am unable to comprehend, except for one thing: that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chocellor will ask your Lordships to reject it.
In fact, with great respect to my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench, it has only a limited effect on what, after all, is the solar plexus of this legislation; and that is, what is an unfair industrial practice. That is the issue. If I may say so, much that we have been debating, if I can use a rather odd expression, is " pocket fluff ". This is the very essence of the legislation; and I understand it and, to a considerable degree, appreciate it. I shall tell your Lordships why. Along with noble Lords in all parts of

1027
the Committee I dislike unofficial strikes, I believe them, on the whole, to be unnecessary, although I recognise that sometimes they are inevitable. Nevertheless, one dislikes them. They are inconvenient and they are troublesome. They lead to hardship not only to the consumer but to the producer also, the person who is engaged in turbulence. I recognise all that. Of course there is a substantial point of difference between noble Lords on the Government side and noble Lords on the Opposition Benches. Why is that? It is because of the history of the trade union movement and, in particular, what is, after all, an integral element of trade union practice, whether noble Lords dislike it or not. And whatever hardship or inconvenience be the result, this integral element in trade union practice is the withdrawal of labour; not deliberately, sometimes unwittingly, and sometimes gratuitously. It is just as simple as that. What has the worker in his possession? He has the labour, and he is ready to sell it if there is a willing buyer, an employer; but he has the right to withdraw it. At the same time, that withdrawal must be undertaken with a measure of restraint and with the least possible inconvenience; and that we accept.
Let us consider what actually happens. Leave aside the somewhat spectacular incidents that have been disclosed by my noble friend on the Front Bench who led for the Opposition, about the effects on the Roman Catholic persuasion of some workers being asked to engage in the production of the Pill, or what happened during the American Civil War. Those were all very interesting and spectacular incidents. But what really happens on the shop floor? The union engages in a contract. There is a collective agreement. That is the beginning. It is a registered union, and there is a collective agreement. But, despite the collective agreement, despite what is regarded as binding on those engaged on the shop floor and on the employers also, some incident occurs. What kind of incident? A foreman, perhaps in a rather nasty, querulous mood, perhaps having had some quarrel with his spouse early in the morning, arrives at the factory and wants to take it out of somebody. He cannot help himself, and he says something offensive or authoritative to some other worker. The worker
1028
resents it and says, " I am leaving ", and asks his colleagues to leave with him. According to the Government, that is an unfair industrial practice. But it is really nothing of the sort. It is a very natural consequence of something that has happened. What do the Government expect is going to happen in that case? I admit—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is absolutely right—that it really is not relevant to this clause, but it is relevant to Clauses 93, 94 and 128. It does not matter very much whether a person induces somebody to break a contract and is therefore regarded as having engaged in an unfair industrial practice. What matters is whether he is going to be penalised in consequence.
What happened with the previous Government? By their legislation—which was not altogether dissimilar from the legislation of the present Government, although there are fundamental differences—they sought to prevent wildcat strikes, to have a cooling-off period, and the like, but their fatal mistake was to inject penal clauses into the legislation. I speak with some knowledge of this matter, because I was very much involved in discussions with the previous Prime Minister and with those in authority. If it had not been for the penal clauses much of that legislation would have been implemented. I am glad to know that my noble friends assent. This is not the occasion to disclose all that happened, although there is nothing sinister about it; it was all above board. But the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is right in directing attention to Clause 128, which deals with what is actionable and with the kind of penalty that will be consequential.
I do not want to pursue this matter any further. I know that sometimes one speaks at some length. In the course of our earlier proceedings, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, suggested that I was making my customary speech at about tea-time. Noble Lords should not worry about that, because they are usually not here at tea-time; they are having tea or are in some other place. I want to ask a simple question about which there can be no misunderstanding. It is as clear as it can be and even the noble and learned Lord cannot misunderstand what I ask. Is he in favour of the Amendment or is he not? If he could

1029
make up his mind about that, without going into the 1893 Act with which I am familiar, or the 1871 Act about which I have read then we could get on with the rest of the business.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer is no.
LORD SHINWELL: Now that he has told us he is not in favour of it, can we decide what we are going to do about it? I suggest that the best thing to do is to divide on it.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: May I—
LORD DRUMALBYN: Will the noble Baroness allow me? I think we had an agreement that we would adjourn at about this time and go back to other business.
House resumed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.16 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Tweedsmttir of Belhelvic.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ROYLE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Re-enactment with nzodifications of Section 3 of Education (Scotland) Act 1962]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert (" after such schools have been designated in an order made by the Secretary of State and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I cannot help feeling that this Bill is in a totally different position from the one which we have stopped discussing for a short time, because at least the Government believe that that Bill is necessary. I find it difficult to believe, after the municipal elections in Scotland earlier this month, that the Government believe that any useful purpose can be served by carrying
1030
this Bill any further. In fact I was tempted to confine my Amendments to a single one, to alter the title from the Education (Scotland) Bill to the Education (Edinburgh) Bill, because it has no relevance outside Edinburgh, and, given the disarray of the Progressives and Conservatives—who, if they are together, form a majority on Edinburgh Corporation, but who have recently demonstrated their inability to remain together—there is not even any guarantee that there is a majority in Edinburgh for resuming fee-paying in schools.
However, whatever may be the position in Edinburgh or outside, I think we are entitled to be certain that what is done is approved by Parliament. It is for that purpose that I' have put' down this Amendment, which is to the effect that if the Secretary of State wishes to approve fee-paying in Edinburgh or elsewhere he should make an Order and lay it before Parliament, and it should be subject to approval in each House of Parliament. I beg to move.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, because if this Amendment is accepted the Government—not only your Lordships' House—could be saved from a very embarrassing situation. Quite clearly, Scotland is not going to be turning its back on the future: it is going to be turning its back on some of the more regrettable features of the past. The usefulness of this Amendment is that it gives more time, and I am sure that if time is provided, and if both Houses have opportunities to consider this matter fully when they are asked to give their consent, they will by then have recovered from the mad fits of the recent past, and the Scots people, in particular, will be back to their own good, sound, democratic common sense. Therefore, I very warmly support the Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: However quietly the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, purrs over this matter, however much fun he may get out of certain disruptions among the Right wing of the Party in local government in Edinburgh, what he is doing in this and the next Amendment is to reject the whole purpose of the Bill. If your Lordships were to adopt this Amendment and the consequent one the Bill would virtually he rendered null and void

1031
because of the amount of red tape that would have to be gone through, and a great deal of your Lordships' time would be taken up by it. I think it utterly iniquitous that institutions which have educational systems that work so well should be destroyed and replaced by systems which have still to prove their value and which in some instances are not doing very well. The traditional Scottish system of education, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde pointed out on Second Reading, is a fee-paying system, and the reason why the fee-paying schools have been successful and why we wish to continue them in certain parts of Scotland is that they are thoroughly supported by parents who are keen for their sons to succeed.
Many of the new State schools are failing because of twenty or so ragamuffins for whom the headmaster can do little. The reason why the headmaster can do little is that he is not supported in those cases by his education authority. I do not say by any means that all the comprehensive schools in Scotland are like that, but there are certain numbers of them. What this Bill wants to do is to enable parents, rather than sending their children to such a school, to have an alternative outlet for their children's education. That is the purpose of the Bill, and I think the whole idea of the Amendment, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hughes knows well, is to wreck the Bill as it stands. I hope that your Lordships will reject this Amendment.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: I just do not understand what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has been talking about. He talked about this as a wrecking Amendment. It may be an untried experiment. I may be an untried experiment as I came from a comprehensive system, long tried way back into history. What we are talking about is privileged schools which people were able to introduce and which were never part of the democratic system in Scotland. We are not talking about the rejection of something accepted as the tradition of Scottish education. Fee-paying schools may have been a useful experiment for parents of children who had the money for them, but we are saying now that this is no longer valid
1032
I do not know what my noble friend Lord Hughes feels, but if he is trying to wreck this Bill I am with him.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: First, I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who said that he was surprised that the Government still thought this Bill necessary. We believe in this Bill, in its own limited way, as much as we believe in the Industrial Relations Bill, and we believe in it because the system which this Bill seeks to restore was abandoned only last year. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, suggested, something which exists only for the rich or only for those who go to grant-aided schools; it is for what I would call the middle sector of education. We are also very proud of our comprehensive system of education and no doubt we can see that the noble Lord is a very admirable example of the comprehensive system, but in Scotland we believe that we can provide for all the wishes of parents, and that is the point in having this type of education.
I say this only because that was how the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, began when he introduced his Amendment. Of course, what the Amendment does is to require the Secretary of State to make an Order designating schools in which fees could be charged by an education authority, and to require that Order to have the approval of each House of Parliament. The Committee will not be surprised when I say that I cannot accept that Amendment, not because I think that it would be a wrecking Amendment, but because it would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the Bill itself if the traditional discretion of local education authorities in managing their detailed affairs were to be made subject to the making of Orders and their approval by Parliament.
The Education (Scotland) Act, 1918 provided in Section 6 that authorities should submit for the approval of the Scottish Education Department a scheme for the adequate provision of all forms of school education and, if the authority thought fit, for the maintenance of a limited number of schools where fees were charged. Therefore, since 1.918 the selection of schools as fee-paying has

1033
been left in the first place to the local authorities. The system of submission of schemes for approval by the Secretary of State has also existed since 1918 and it has not been thought necessary since then to bring before Parliament details of such schemes related to schools in which the authorities charge fees.
At the time when we are about to bring great legislation before this House for the reform of local government which is designed to give greater powers and responsibilities to local authorities, it would be ironical indeed if we now sought not to give greater responsibilities to the authorities but to ensure that they had greater supervision over their affairs by the Secretary of State. It is not as though there were not a longstop engaged in this exercise. As I pointed out during the Second Reading debate, no scheme of educational provision under Section 7 of the 1962 Act can contain provision for fee-paying and an authority which wishes to restore fees will have to submit a revised scheme or a modification of an existing scheme. That, in itself, will identify particular schools. Therefore I suggest to the Committee that this Amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I am afraid the noble Baroness is indulging in a vain hope. I am surprised by some of the things that have been said. I had hoped that I should be able to rest on a comparatively short statement of the position. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, however, for saying that she did not accept that this is a wrecking Amendment. I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Balcrno, should think that it is. Obviously it could be a wrecking Amendment only if the noble Lord thought that if it were accepted it would be likely that one or other of the Houses of Parliament would be so outraged that it would reject the Order. If the noble Lord thinks that anything which would be placed in an Order would be of such a nature, he would be correct in thinking that it is not desirable that Parliament should have an opportunity of that kind. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks about comprehensive schools, but if I could apply the rather unsatisfactory word which appears in the Bill, it would appear to me that Lord
1034
Balerno's approval of our comprehensive school system in Scotland must have added to it the word limited ". He certainly expressed some limited approval of those schools.
Coming to the main point made by the noble Baroness, that the objection to the Amendment is that it reverses the procedure which has existed since 1918 and that this is a matter which is left to the discretion of local authorities, she went on to say that it was not in fact completely left to the discretion of the local authorities because it had to be part of a scheme approved by the Secretary of State. As long ago as when I was still in local government the Party opposite had as one of its main themes that the man in the town house knows better than the man in the White House—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD HUGHES: I am anticipating Mr. Heath's taking over of Presidential functions if we go into Europe and turning 10, Downing Street into the White House. I meant to say the man in the town house knew better than the man in Whitehall. But in fact she is not following that out, because what she is saying is that the Secretary of State should be the one to decide whether or not a scheme should be approved. I want to go further than that. I agree that this is a case where we should not be continuing or adding to the powers of the Secretary of State, but in a matter of this kind, which is so fundamental to the educational system of Scotland, such a proposal is worthy of consideration by both Houses of Parliament.
But I have an even greater objection to what the noble Baroness said. She said that this is a matter which the Government wish to leave to the discretion of local authorities. Is this a principle to be generally applied in educational matters, or is it one which is going to apply only in the case of fee-paying schools? Because I gather that some local authorities (of which one has already made a statement in England, one other may follow, and one Scottish local authority is contemplating it) think that they are in a better position than the Government to determine whether milk should continue to be given free to their pupils. If the Glasgow Corporation decide that this is what they want to do,

1035
will the Government say that this is a matter which is best left to the discretion of the local authority, or is this a case where the Government will go back to the argument that the man in Whitehall knows better than the man in the town hall? It seems to me that it is only on matters of this kind, like fee-paying, that the Government respect the discretion of the local authorities.
Now I have many objections to this system, but I would conclude at this stage by saying that there is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, are perfectly correct when they say that the parents who send their children to fee-paying schools approve the system and want it to carry on. What I am not so certain of is that the parents of the children who have to go to, say, the other schools in the centre of Edinburgh, and who perhaps suffer by the extent to which the Edinburgh Corporation concentrate their activities on improving fee-paying schools, are as much in favour of it as the parents of those children who go to the fee-paying schools. I am quite certain (and this month's election results, even in Edinburgh, would seem to indicate it) that there is at least a possibility that the majority of the parents of children in Edinburgh would be glad to see an end to this system, whatever the parents of the children attending the fee-paying schools may think about it.
LORD BALERNO: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I do not quite understand why he wants this, what he calls an Edinburgh Bill, which has been debated in the other place and is now being debated here, to be again debated, and so on ad infinitum. It is because he wants to do that that I call it a wrecking Bill—I mean a wrecking Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: No. It is certainly a wrecking Bill: that was a useful slip of the tongue. This is an attempt, at least in part, to wreck some parts of Scottish education. But when we come to the
other Amendments it will perhaps be made more clear. To have such vague terms as " limited " and " adequate " appearing as qualifying words in the Bill is a reason why Parliament should examine the results which may appear in a scheme, and that is why I say that it is appropriate that Parliament should consider the matter again. I know the noble Lord does not like it. He can see nothing wrong with the fee-paying system. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was saying on the previous business, there are complete differences of opinion on some of these matters, and I am afraid that this is one upon which, no matter how long anyone may talk, we shall not convince the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that there is anything wrong in what he is thinking.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I would just say once again to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, if I may, perhaps to allay his fears (although I am absolutely certain he knows the system inside out himself, and that therefore he has put this Amendment down just in order to raise a debate upon it) that he knows perfectly well that there is a provision whereby a scheme can in fact come before Parliament, but only where there is a disagreement between the local authority and the Secretary of State. Everything else has been very well tried over a large number of years, and therefore I would commend to the Committee that they should reject this particular Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: As I am quite certain that in this matter there is little likelihood of a disagreement between the present Secretary of State and the present Corporation of Edinburgh, the noble Baroness has directed my attention to something which for my purposes is completely worthless.
7.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Brockway, L.

Champion. L.

Airedale, L.

Brown, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Archibald, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Diamond, L.

Beswick, L.

Burntwood, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Blyton, L.

Byers, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

St. Davids, V.

Henderson, L.

Maelor, L.

Shackleton, L.

Henley, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Slater, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Popplewell, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wade, L.

Janner, L.

Royle, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Sainsbury, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

De Clifford, L.

Milverton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Digby, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Alport, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Dundonald, E.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oakshott, L.

Balfour, E.

Fisher, L.

Pender, L.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Gray, L.

Ridley, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rockley, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bessborough, E.

Hailes, L.

St. Helens, L.

Boston, L.

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

St. Just, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hanworth, V.

Savile, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Harris, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Inglewood, L.

Somers, L.

Buchan, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stamp, L.

Burton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Caldecote, V.

Kilmany, L.

Conesford, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Latymer, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Verulam, E.

Craigmyle, L.

McFadzean, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mansfield, E.

Windlesham, L.

Daventry, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
"() In subsection (2) above limited" means that the proportion of all pupils within an education authority area attending all types of fee-paying schools shall not exceed 5 per cent, of the total number of pupils within that area.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. I do not intend to say much at this stage, because I should like genuinely to find out what are the views of the Government not on the Amendment but on this matter. I should like the Amendment at this stage to be regarded as a probing Amendment. I do not intend to divide the Committee on it, but it will depend largely on what the noble Baroness has to say whether at the next stage I may put the matter down again and divide on that occasion.
The Bill uses the word " limited ". There is no definition of " limited " in the Bill. My Amendment would restrict it to a figure not exceeding 5 per cent. of the total number of pupils attending all types of fee-paying schools within the area. I have already been criticised by one of my noble friends who asked, " Why put in so high a percentage as five? I should have put 0·0005 per cent.". Having regard to the purpose of this Amendment, I should like to know just what the Government have in mind by the use of the word " limited ". Do they believe that what they have in mind would be what the courts interpret as the meaning of the word? It could be argued 'that anything less than 100 per cent, of the schools in the area complied with the term " limited "; while some people might think that " limited " was not complied with unless the number affected was only a minority of the schools in the area. I do not know the legal interpretation of the word, and in moving

1039
this Amendment I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say about the Government's ideas on it.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that he considers this Amendment a probing Amendment. He would like to know what is in our minds about the word " limited ". The term " limited ", as 1 am sure he knows, has been in use in the Scottish Education Statutes since 1918 and has been very well understood by all the authorities in practice. Quite apart from that, it seems to us that it would be wrong to quantify the meaning of the word " limited " in the way proposed, to the 5 per cent. which he has chosen, because it would in fact introduce a statutory and inflexible check on the authorities' discretion in running their own affairs which hey have been able to do with great success until now.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I confess that I was rather shocked when I saw the figure of 5 per cent. I would rather have had " 0·0005 per cent. " as my noble friend has indicated, because I do not want the Committee to underestimate the importance of what we are now discussing. My grandfather was the one Labour Member, along with the old Liberals—alas! who in Scotland in the county of Fife introduced towards the end of the last century free books and free schooling. Therefore, there is an old and deep tradition in Scotland of the children flowing out from their homes together, going to the same schools and growing up together. I believe that that tradition, that democratic tradition in Scotland, is one of the sources of our strength. I think it means that you do not often find a servile Scot though you might now and again. But in all our poetry (you do not need to be drunk on a Saturday night to start quoting " a man's a man for a' that ", whether it is Robert Burns or another) there is a deep tradition, a dignity and a feeling that we want to be one family. I think it is a disgraceful thing to mark down 95 per cent., or any other percentage, of children. I do not feel that I can compromise at all on this Amendment in my sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Hughes is seeking to do. He is seeking
1040
to make a very bad proposition a little better. As he indicated, we are not voting on this Amendment. But the fact that we are not voting ought not to be taken to assume that we do not feel very deeply about it. Earlier to-day I had to do a recording on Scottish music. I found to my delight that the young fellow in charge of the programme had been to my old school and my old university—Beath High School in the heart of the Fife coalfield, and Edinburgh University; which means that he and I started off with advantages that very few people can hope to share.
This is not a trivial or a superficial thing. Of course parents want to buy privilege for their children; it is only natural that they should. But I think that we have to protect the parent as well as the child by seeing that we have an adequate and proper school system so that parents are not subject to what often is the very great anxiety and hardship of trying to find fees that they cannot afford. It is not snobbery that made Scotland great; it is not class distinction. Scotland's vitality, shown in the type of people we send out to the world, many of them doing a worthwhile job, is the product of this deep, independent, democratic spirit. I am sorry indeed that noble Lords on the Benches opposite should want to turn the clock back.
Loan RITCHIE-CALDER: I want to reinforce what my noble friend has said. I think that all of us on these Benches, certainly everyone that I know in Scotland, who have any respect and genuine respect for the traditions of education in Scotland would be with us on this. Like my noble friend Lady Lee, I very much object to putting down even a figure of 5 per cent. I should like to make fee paying so eccentric that nobody would tolerate it. Apart from that, we must have a limitation. The word " limiting " does not mean anything in this context. You have to have something which says that you are not going to divert from the free schools, the public schools. Our pride in Scotland is to say, " I went to a public school ", by which you do not mean public schools as in England, which are private schools. We cannot have a diversion at the expense of the free schools by an exaggeration of the emphasis on the fee-paying schools.
LORD BALERNO: In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, the position which Scotland has in the world comes to a great extent from her education, but the spirit of freedom comes greatly from the diversity that there is in Scotland and that there always has been. There has been great diversity of race in Scotland. Different races have come in, have clashed with each other, and it is that diversity that has made Scotland great and not just uniform education. We have diversity of climate to a great degree and we are encouraging diversity of universities. A country without diversity becomes a dead country. That is the answer I would give to the argument that the noble Baroness has put forward.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I should like to reply to the noble Lord and noble Baroness, Lady Lee, who took the trouble to speak in this debate. I thought that the noble Baroness gave herself away. She said that she would like to see this percentage as 0·005 per cent.; in other words, she would like this to be a wrecking Amendment. I could not agree more with my noble friend Lord Balerno. It seems to me that we are talking in this debate as if Scotland has not had local authority fee-paying schools for a very long time. Scotland had them up to last year, 1970. We are not, I repeat, talking about independent or grant-aided schools; we are talking about local authority fee-paying schools. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said, we do not want to have any diversion from the local authority non-fee paying school, I think it should be borne in mind, if we look at the figures for 1970. taking Edinburgh as an example, that 67·2 per cent. of all secondary pupils attended non-fee paying schools; 8·8 per cent. attended authority fee-paying schools; 13·6 per cent. attended grant-aided schools and 10·4 per cent. attended independent schools. Therefore, I would certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, that the Scots are happily independent. They are democratic. This means that they like choice and it is for this reason that we wish to restore to them the choice that they had last year.
LORD HUGHES: I have very little more to say. The noble Baroness explained her reasons for not wishing to
1042
define the word " limiting". She said that it was unnecessary because it has appeared in Scottish education legislation since 1918. That is so, but hitherto it has at least been understandable in that " limited " was capable of a demonstration by seeing the schools to which it applied. The word was being applied to something that existed. It is now being applied to something which does not exist, something which was abolished last year and which may or may not have been kept on in part by at least doubtful methods as, for instance, was adopted in Glasgow.
My objection to it, however, and the objections of my noble friends are very well summed up in an editorial in the Guardian to-day. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has seen it. I do not intend to read it all because some of your Lordships are desperately anxious to get back to industrial relations. I will read part of it:
"The Government will to-day try to persuade the House of Lords that local education authorities in Scotland should be allowed to charge fees in some of their schools but not in others. The Education (Scotland) Bill is in many ways the pettiest, most doctrinaire and the least logical measure that this Government has asked this Parliament to approve. Englishmen like Mr. Heath and Mr. White-law "—
I am not sure that Mr. Whitelaw will appreciate being called an Englishman—
" preoccupied as they are with destiny and turning points in history should waste Parliament's time with legislation such as this."
It makes the mistake of forgetting about what has taken place in Glasgow in the article, but then it goes on:
" In practice the Bill will simply restore an insignificant clement of financial selection into an education system which is highly selective in any case. The seven schools "—
that is in Glasgow and Edinburgh—
" will remain selective. The Bill's effect would be to exclude the very poor. The Lords will be asked to-day to agree that this would widen parental choice."
I should have hesitated to have used these words originally, because they are in condemnation of things which the noble Baroness has said, but I cannot bring myself to disagree with a single word that appears in it.
One reason why I will allow this Amendment to be negatived—I have no intention of withdrawing it—is because

1043
it would take my noble friend Lady Lee out of a difficulty. If I were to press the Amendment to a Division, she would have the choice of voting against the Amendment, which is the Government's point of view, or voting for an Amendment which includes a figure which she honestly believes is far too high. I have a sneaking suspicion that I agree with her.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I want to assure my noble friend that I regard him as the lesser evil.
LORD HUGHES: Yes. I do not wish to be regarded as a lesser evil.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
7.58 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 3, after (" exercised ") insert (" in addition and ")
The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment needs a little explanation. The best way to do it is to read the effect of the change. The subsection as it stands reads:
" An education authority shall not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) above except where it may be exercised without prejudice to the adequate provision of free school education for their area "
et cetera. If the Amendment were made, the subsection would read as follows:
" An education authority shall not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) above except where it may be exercised in addition and without prejudice to the adequate provision of free school education for their area…"
I should like to come back to the position in Edinburgh, because whatever may be said about all the wonderful effects fee paying has had on education in Scotland at least for the foreseeable future the only place which may have other than an academic interest in it is Edinburgh. If I quote some aspects in relation to Edinburgh that is the best way of showing the need for the addition of these words. It might be construed that the intention of the Bill as it stands would be that a local authority should not provide fee paying schools if in the process it had to deny the opportunity for education to any number of children who were not to be paying fees. Quite obviously, if that was the test to be applied, the Government would have no difficulty in
1044
showing that any child in Edinburgh who wanted to have education other than in a fee-paying school was given the opportunity.
But I submit that is not what " adequate " ought to mean. I am told that in the centre of Edinburgh the number of fee-paying schools is probably out of all proportion to the number of people who live in that area. I am also told that there is a comprehensive non-fee-paying secondary school which is suffering very badly because of the extent to which the Edinburgh Corporation concentrates its attention on these fee-paying schools. I believe the schools concerned are the Boroughmuir School and the James Gillespie School. The position is, I am informed, that the Boroughmuir School is in three separate buildings; one of which is a reject of the James Gillespie School. It was not good enough for James Gillespie but it is good enough to be part of Boroughmuir. I am told that Boroughmuir may be placed in the position that it may get yet another of the Gillespie rejects.
I want to make perfectly clear that I am not personally knowledgeable about the Edinburgh school situation and am relying on information given to me. But I have no doubt that what I am stating are the facts. Therefore it is undoubtedly the case that an undue concentration of attention on giving good facilities to fee-paying schools may result in less than adequate facilities being made available for the children who are going to non-fee-paying schools. That this is possible I have no doubt, because I can quote from something in my own experience in my home town of Dundee. Many years ago it was decided that we needed a new secondary school to replace the Harris Academy, which was on a central site in the city. It was outdated, inadequate in size, in facilities, in play areas and in almost everything that, even at that time, was required of secondary education. The education authority decided to build a new Harris Academy further away from the city centre. That was built, and is at present the set of buildings occupied by the Harris Academy in Dundee.
With that argument I have no possible dispute. At that time, of course, the Harris Academy was a fee-paying

1045
school; it has not been for many years. What happened? The Roman Catholic community did not have a satisfactory secondary school, and the building, which was not good enough to continue to be the Harris Academy became the St. John Secondary School for Roman Catholic pupils. It remained in use for, I think, more than 20 years, until it was replaced by a new Roman Catholic secondary school within the last ten years. This is the sort of thing which is encouraged where a local authority regards its primary responsibility in certain directions as being to pupils in fee-paying schools.
This is what is happening in Edinburgh, and this is why something is needed to make clear what a local authority has to do to meet its obligations. It has been suggested that the Corporation may at the present moment be in breach of its legal obligations because of the way matters have developed in the Edinburgh central area. I do not know whether that is the case, or what steps will be taken to test it. But I doubt whether any person, looking at the thing from an impartial point of view, could say that in central Edinburgh the Corporation has discharged its responsibilities fairly to the fee paying and non-fee-paying pupils.
LORD BALERNO: I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has somewhat overdrawn the picture of the schools situation in Edinburgh. True, there is one fee-paying school which has recently been moved to a new site, the Royal High School, and it has very fine buildings. But the buildings from which it was taken were perhaps the oldest school buildings in the City of Edinburgh. In any case they were of value for other purposes. I have some acquaintance with the Boroughmuir School, to which the noble Lord referred, as the last headmaster was a friend of mine. I do not think I ever heard him complain that the Education Committee of Edinburgh was discriminating against his school. There were always things that he would have liked, but I think that the picture which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has drawn is exaggerated. I think of all the new schools that the Edinburgh Education Committee has built in recent years. They are very fine schools and they are not fee-paying schools.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It appears that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is making a laboured effort on purely ideological grounds. I submit that he has not produced one scintilla of evidence that the present proposals will in any way have a deleterious effect on the education of any child. I repeat that the opposition seems to be entirely on ideological grounds.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: As my noble friend Lord Balerno has so well answered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on particular schools, I think that my task is to address myself to the particular Amendment. I thank my noble friend Lord Mansfield for having taken part in this discussion. I agree that there is a great deal of ideological dispute over this small Bill. But if we address ourselves to the Amendment, I think it will be clear to the Committee that I cannot possibly accept it, for the reason that the wording in lines 2 and 3 on page 2 was inserted during the Report stage in another place, in response to an Amendment moved by the Opposition in Committee. The wording now proposed would involve a reversion to the wording of Section 6 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1918. As we made the Amendment for the benefit of the Opposition I cannot possibly take the words out again.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that all that was coming from the Opposition Front Bench was ideological objections. I do not accept that for one moment. If the noble Earl, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, would like to improve my knowledge of the Edinburgh situation, perhaps the three of us should visit Boroughmuir and some of the fee-paying schools in the centre of Edinburgh. That might prove who is being ideological, and whether it is this side of the Committee or the other. I strongly believe that the ideology in this —I might almost say the " idiocy "—is on the other side of the Committee.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, chooses his words with care, and I noticed that when he was talking of the fee-paying schools he talked of his " knowledge " of them; but when he talked of Boroughmuir School he talked

1047
of his " acquaintance " with it. That is the root of the problem. So far as fee-paying schools are concerned, whether in Edinburgh or elsewhere, noble Lords opposite have only an acquaintance, but when it comes to other schools they talk from knowledge.
LORD BALERNO: Perhaps the noble Lord will excuse me if I say that I did serve for 16 years on an education committee.
8.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I served for many years on an education committee, but that does not mean anything because I never liked a minute of it. I do not know that I am terribly liking this procedure either, but it is quite obvious that having regard to the business which remains before your Lordships there is no prospect of my dealing with these Amendments in an adequate form in the time that remains to us. If we were able to go on for a long time, yes. I therefore do not intend to press this Amendment. I shall beg leave to withdraw the other Amendments; but I shall put them down for discussion at the next stage when I hope we may have more adequate time to discuss them. Perhaps through the usual channels it may be arranged that this rather important Scottish subject should, unlike the business last night, not be regarded as a suitable sandwich between two parts of the Industrial Relations Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported without Amendment.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
8.15 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Consideration of Amendment No. 263NNNN resumed.
LORD BROWN: If we are not discussing Part V of the Bill on this Amendment. we are discussing the real contents of Clause 92. I could make a long speech on this, but I am not going to do
1048
so. I want to get clear an attitude that this part of the Bill is an attempt to weaken the power of trade unions, trade union officials, shop stewards and representatives. This attempt to weaken their power is really an attack on the total weight of the problem facing this country. I happen to hold the view that the untrammelled power of some unions as opposed to the weak position of others to-day is the cause of a great deal of disparity in the incomes earned by different occupations in this country. The weak are being driven to the wall, and the strong are earning large amounts of money. This discrepancy in differentials is a cause of a great deal of feeling in this country, and is one of the causes of the inflationary situation.
I also happen to believe that attempts to deal with this problem on the one hand by weakening the unions through this Bill, or, on the other hand, by maintaining the unions in a very strong position, are irrelevant, because I do not believe that if the power of the unions is weakened that will solve inflation problems. Nor do I believe that if the power of the unions remains as it is it will solve the inflation problems. Both will fail.
I have risen from these Benches in support of one or two of the attitudes taken by my friends across the other side of the Committee, because if the Bill comes into force it may as well be as good a Bill as possible. It is a highly complicated Bill which goes deep into interference with unions, and an attempt to weaken them. I do not think this weakening of them will solve the problem of wage inflation. I believe that a totally different attack on this problem is necessary.
I will not bore your Lordships with a description which is inconsistent with the views not only of the Government but also of my own Party, because I have already made two speeches and I do not believe in repeating myself endlessly. I am in a great quandary, as some noble Lords have noticed, over this Bill, because I do not believe in the Bill and I do not always believe in the opposition which is put up against it.
So far as this Amendment is concerned, I believe that it represents a very grave attack on the individual rights of the

1049
worker because the only power he has in himself is to sell his labour at the highest price, or.to refuse it. That seems to me a fundamental human right. The Government have spent many hours pointing out that the purpose of many of the clauses of the Bill is to defend the rights of the individual, and this is an attack upon them. On the other hand, to introduce this Amendment, which would have the result that the action intended by the Bill would not be able to be put into practice, seems to me to be equally illogical. This illogicality—and I have got to say this with humility because I am attacking two great political Panties simultaneously—arises from the fact that the whole term of reference and the way of looking at industrial relations today is wrong. Having reached that very presumptuous note, perhaps I had better silt down.
8.20 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: At the outset of the proceedings I said I should like to raise a few points, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dealt with many of them. He put very carefully a number of points in connection with the clause now before us. I wonder if I may comment on one point he made in respect of the argument about conscience strikes. He took the view that when a man or group of men could not undertake particular work because it was repugnant to their consciences this was not in itself an industrial dispute. I see the force of that argument. But is it not a real difficulty that, almost invariably, such a situation at once develops into an industrial dispute, because the employer is likely to say to the men who resist a particular type of work. " This is work appropriate for you and your fellow workers to do and I expect you to do it ". Is that not likely to develop into an industrial dispute within the term of the definition clause, which embraces disputes about terms and conditions of work? I Should, have' thought that whether an individual did a particular type of work was intimately associated with the terms and conditions of his work, and with the allocation of work among different groups of workers. I wonder whether there is not more real difficulty in the terms of the clause than the noble and learned Lord was disposed to admit.
1050
The other major point I would like to raise, Which has been touched upon, and about which I should like the noble and learned Lord to make some comment, is the term " inducement ". I am sure that he will appreciate that those of us who are not lawyers approach these three clauses with special difficulty, because there are a number of legal concepts in them which are not so familiar to the layman as they are to those more deeply involved in the law. I must confess that I do not find it easy to determine precisely what are the elements in inducement.
Perhaps I could illustrate my difficulty by taking up another point which the noble and learned Lord made. He said at one stage in his remarks that he accepted that many of us on this side of the Committee were deeply concerned and opposed to these clauses, as there were people outside deeply concerned and critical of them. He said he found this genuinely difficult to understand, because Clause 92 was concerned to strike at irresponsible unofficial strikes, and lie took it as common ground in the Committee, as indeed it is, that we should all desire to see irresponsible unofficial strikes diminished in number and in effect. The problem is that we on this side still remain unconvinced that this is the most effective way—or indeed an effective way—of dealing with the irresponsible strike. I have a suspicion that the man of calculated irresponsibility (if I may use that phrase) is likely to find some way through this clause, which undoubtedly to many of us seems to put a cloud of legal menace over the heads of honest people, who may feel that they are put in a situation where a short, sharp stoppage, a spontaneous action, is the only possible human reaction to the situation in which they have been placed.
Let me mention two types of case which give rise to short stoppages, often unofficial and perhaps unconstitutional. There is the case where there is a bullying foreman and representations have failed to get rid of him or to change his habits; or the simple case, which often arises, where people find that the physical conditions of work are intolerable—their workshops may be either too hot or too cold—and again representations have failed to get anything effective done. I would be grateful if the

1051
noble and learned Lord could give us some guidance as to what inducement means in such cases.
Let me take the instance where there is an unsatisfactory supervisor. As happens in these circumstances, a breaking point comes. The people affected say that they are not going to stand it any more. They come out, have a meeting in the canteen, send a deputation to the management, and produce a situation in which something is done at last. What happens if a situation arises in which one man says, " I am not standing for this sort of thing," and walks out? The man to whom he has said this says that he is not going to stand for it either, and he walks out. This creates a stir, and other people take this up, and soon the whole shop has gone out, either to the canteen or outside the factory, held a meeting and stopped work for a period of time to get the grievance put right. Is there inducement here, in the case of the man who first makes a move, the man who sets an example, as it were, and by his example leads others to follow, even though he has not submitted any arguments to them?
Or take a slight variant of this, where an incident of this sort gives rise to a discussion in the shop. It is not a spontaneous walk-out, not even a process of one or two people going out and others following, but a discussion in which people tell each other that they have had enough and they are not going to stand any longer a supervisor's behaviour, say, or his language. These are the cases which cause us concern and anxiety. Is this inducement? And does such action lay the individual open to any charge of unfair industrial practice or offence under the terms of this clause? This is the reason for the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, and I should like to add these additional points which he put forward.
8.29 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to detain the Committee long, because I imposed upon your Lordships a good deal in my first speech. I should not like, without reflecting a great deal to give a complete definition of inducement, because I think the word bears its
1052
dictionary meaning. But three factors must be present apart from any others. First, knowledge that a contract exists; secondly, knowledge that the conduct induced will constitute a breach of contract and, thirdly, intention to create that breach. Obviously, it is easy to construct cases in which relatively honourable conduct or extremely honourable conduct could be held on that definition to constitute an inducement to breach of contract.
It so happens that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, have an Amendment down which deals with personal justification and I was proposing to go into this a little more deeply then. If I may summarise one or two of the things I shall be proposing to point out at that time, without seeking to elaborate on them, clearly, circumstances can exist as in the very well-known case, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred earlier, of Brimelow v. Casson, in which no decent court would wish to do other than find against a plaintiff who complained of inducement to breach of contract. The particular facts in Brimelow v. Casson were that the girls in question had been driven by intolerable conditions of work and low rates of pay to support themselves by prostitution. There is a clear defence in other parts of the Bill which would enable a court, even if the Bill is not amended—and we shall discuss possible Amendments when we come to them—to give effect to such a case and to defend a respondent to a complaint who had induced people to walk out in comparable conditions. But, broadly speaking, one hopes that industrial relations will not be carried on in that kind of spirit and to that extreme, because long before such a situation arises, if there is a strong trade union and if there is a reasonable employer, negotiations will have reached a point at which the union can either say " This will be an official strike because of the rate of pay ", or the employer will say, " What you are asking is too much ". But long before that stage is reached an arrangement of some kind will, one hopes, be arrived at.
All through the Bill—I will not enumerate the places where they occur—the Government have introduced phrases

1053
which try to develop the idea of conciliation before legal action, far less illegal action, is resorted to—and I would stress that. But the broad position, subject to the discussion of individual Amendments, to which Clause 92 gives rise, is that if you induce a breach of contract with the authority of your union you are all right, you are under the umbrella; if you do it without the authority of your union you are not all right. If the union does it, it is all right unless, for some reason contained in the Bill, there is an unfair industrial practice. If somebody simply walks out and other people follow him, or if he says, " This is intolerable: I am off ", or something like that, he is not inducing a breach of contract at all because the essence of what I am saying is that there must be an element of deliberate intention to cause other people to act in breach of contract before the clause begins to bite at all.
Obviously in that sort of situation you are dealing with a series of questions of fact and degree, and it is precisely because you are dealing with just such a series of questions that to handle matters of this sort, we have introduced the conception of an industrial Court which will be composed of a majority of experienced laymen, with a legal president to define the legal. issues which they will have to determine and to join in their decisions. It would, therefore, be foolish of me to predict exactly what the court would be likely to find in any given set of circumstances—which in any case are never complete if you construct a case. All I am saying is that we think the law needs simplifying. Inducement of breach of contract is a tort at the present time and it involves the elements I have tried to describe.
The present umbrella is limited to contracts of employment to be extended to all acts in furtherance of a trade dispute. In agreement with Donovan, we have extended it to all breaches of contract, whether or not there was a contract of employment, referring to trade unions and their organised agents—and that again is in conformity with Donovan. I have not tried to conceal the fact that there is a difference between the two sides of this Committee, and there will be differences when we come to discuss Amendments.
1054
There are cases on both sides, and where the line has to be drawn is something to be discussed in detail. As I see it, the two points of difference at this stage of our debate are these: First of all, do you extend the umbrella to unregistered associations? We say " No "; the Party opposite say " Yes ". Secondly, do you extend the conception of the umbrella to acts which, although they are in breach of contract, are nevertheless all acts in furtherance of a trade dispute? We say " No, not unless you have union authority "; and they say " Yes ". I think we know where we stand, and I do not think I can help the Committee further at this stage. There will be further opportunities later to develop this argument.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, as usual, has put his point very skilfully and has with equal skill skated round the very thin ice of his argument. Of course no one would object to workers walking out if conditions became physically intolerable through heat, cold, fumes, the danger of a wall collapsing, or anything of that sort. Equally, should there be an unpleasant foreman who would not mend his ways and whom the management would not discipline, they would be justified in walking out. But the whole object of this Bill is to strengthen the power of the legitimate trade union. Everyone knows, including noble Lords on the Benches opposite, that in all too many cases power in the trade union does not rest with the elected officials but with an unofficial body of shop stewards, many of whom are either Communists or fellow travellers. They are the people who foment lighting strikes which are often completely against the wishes of the trade union officials concerned and of the great majority of the workers.
What we need to do is to ensure that when a strike is called it is called for legitimate reasons and by responsible officials of the trade union concerned. It has to be remembered—the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith himself admitted this that we need to get away from the lightning strike. Be it remembered that the last Administration themselves introduced a measure purporting to deal with this matter. Then, after it had been

1055
vigorously and bravely put forward by the Minister in charge, she had the carpet pulled from under her feet by her own leaders, who panicked as a result of pressures put on them by their own Left Wing. I repeat that we need to strengthen the trade unions and to pay full attention to legitimate grievances, but not to allow a small and irresponsible band of shop stewards and others to disrupt the running of an industrial concern.
LORD BROWN: We really must get over the stage when we talk about unofficial strikes always, or nearly always, being fomented by Communists or fellow-travellers. No one who has made such a speech has even attempted to explain why thousands of sensible British citizens can be stimulated by these unbalanced people to walk out and to stay away from work at great hardship to themselves, just because a handful of these people have suggested that they should do so. That is a fairy tale which has been repeated in some quarters many times and has no foundation whatever in truth. People go on strike because they want to and because they believe that by exercising this form of power they can achieve some economic gain for themselves. I just want to rise with great respect, and protest at this old fairy tale appearing over and over again. It is not true. This analysis of the industrial situation damages our whole attempt to understand it, and it should be denied whenever possible.
8.40 p.m.
LORD SLATER: The Government continually say that they want to strengthen the trade unions. But the machinery is there for the trade unions themselves to carry out their responsibilities of negotiating with employers and so on, without any consideration from any particular Government, no matter what Government is in power. so long as they have freedom of opportunity to do so. I have followed the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, before on this issue of shop stewards and talk about Communists. He will remember, as will other noble Lords, that I cited that in the National Union of Mineworkers we had two of the best union leaders that this country has ever produced, and they were Communists: one
1056
was Arthur Horner, and the other was Will Paynter. No one could condemn them for their form of leadership.
When we talk of unofficial strikes operating inside industry, I myself have led unofficial strikes when I was working down below in the mines. It was the easiest thing in the world for us to stop the pulley wheels from going round and to call a strike which did not have the approval of our district leaders. But. you know, when you spend 7½ hours down below, and the sun is shining up above—young boys as we were then, 15 or 16 years of age—the easiest thing in the world for us immediately we got to the pithead was to reverse our steps and go back home. Our mothers used to say: " My goodness, they're back again." I do not agree with unofficial strikes. I believe in strong trade union leadership which is able to say to the members: " We are the negotiating body. In accordance with the rules and regulations of our association, you must go back, and we will carry on the negotiations and find the reason for the dispute." This has been done by the leaders of the trade unions.
It is unfortunate that noble Lords put forward the type of argument that seems to bring discredit upon the shop stewards and their responsibilities. Perhaps I may cite this example. Take the local branch secretary of my particular union. The ordinary individual approaches him. But the trouble in industry to-day between employees and management—and noble Lords ought to realise it—is that they have not been able to work out proper conciliation machinery to deal with problems as they arise. If you have good conciliation machinery agreed between the parties, and you have a certain period of time, say, a matter of three weeks, for the problem to be settled, unofficial strikes would never occur.
Therefore, when the Government talk about strengthening the unions, let them not forget for one moment the type of leadership of trade unions in this country. I am proud to think that we still have in this country men who are prepared to take on that form of responsibility, not for the monetary benefit, because some of them receive salaries which are not commensurate with those paid to managing directors of small firms of about 200 people. Some of these union men are

1057
responsible, not for 200 people, but for over one million employees who are members of their particular association. Therefore, I hope that the Government —and I say this to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, for whom I have a very high regard that they will consider seriously before they take this step. We are living in a new age, with young people who are better educated than we were in our day and who see things in an altogether different light. It is only by education and persuasion that we shall be able to get them to fall in line, and so avoid the trouble inside industry that we have to-day. This can come about only on condition that you are prepared to talk to them and make them understand that they are units in and integral parts of industry. Someone has to be at the top and responsible for starling the individual off and for terminating his employment if necessary. That is the way the system works. For heaven's sake! forget all about putting the blame all the time on the shop steward, or even the branch official. Always think that you still have that leadership inside trade unions which tries to guide the membership along lines which lead to good relationships and good conciliation operations, instead of continually putting forward this false condemnation.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Slater, aright, I want to say something which supports him. He was talking about leadership and unofficial strikes. As I see it, an unofficial strike is a negation of union leadership, because it means that at a particular moment of time people who are supposed to lead the union hand over their responsibilities to someone else. I do not pretend to know anything about trade unionism in the way that the noble Lord does, but I have had a certain amount of experience in leadership, and I know that if you are going to lead in this world, whether it is trade unions or anything else, you have to lead first, last and all the time, and you cannot switch leadership on and off like an electric light. That is why the unofficial strike is something that I hope this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will largely put an end to.
LORD SAINSBURY: I do not think the views of the noble Earl, Lord Mansifield, should go unchallenged in this Committee. His is the type of Conservative mind which I do not suggest for one moment is represented on their Front Bench: it is the type of mind that sees a Communist under every bed. The unofficial strike, which is basically a short stoppage, comes about, in my view, not through a negation of leadership, but.from a negation of or a breakdown in communication, sometimes between the egional trade union officials, sometimes between the shop stewards and the shop floor, and equally between middle management and the shop floor. It is not a simple problem. It is a problem that can he overcome, as I said at an earlier stage, only by creating better understanding and better communication, and simplifying the elements of irritation in industrial relations. Many unofficial strikes, in my experience, have been brought on by faults of management, by having a too complex system of wage structure, so that people doing similar jobs in the same area on the same shop floor get different pay packets. They do not understand the basis on which the take-home pay is arrived at. Those are the irritations: the failure of communication, the weakness of management, that lead to these unofficial stoppages. They can only be solved, in my opinion, by the joint efforts of management and trade unions, and not by such things as a legal definition of breaches of contract.
8.51 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: I listened to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor trying to explain to your Lordships the interpretation of " inducement ". I am sure he did his best, but I am still not clear about the full implications of what this word means in relation to the Bill. I should like to take the noble and learned Lord with me in imagination to the pithead on a nice, sunny July afternoon. The custom is that perhaps 50, 60, 100 or 200 men will be congregating there just for a few moments before descending into the darkness and the dangers of the underground. The temperature is about 70 degrees. They are looking to the hills and the horizon, and they are also thinking of the prospect that will face them in a few

1059
moments. One man, Mr. A. says to Mr. B, " Yesterday the colliery official did me out of so much. Instead of putting in a yard of ripping, he put in only half a yard." The rumour goes round: " If he did that to you yesterday he might Co that to me to-day " Then somebody else says, " He may do that to me tomorrow ".
Here you have dissatisfaction with what is happening. There has been no premeditation at all. It has reached such a point that the men say, " Well, if he does that we will go home ". The point I should like to put to the noble and learned Lord is this: under this Bill would that be regarded as fomenting a strike—not on a national basis, not on a county basis, but on a pit basis, which would only affect perhaps a thousand men? I should like the noble and learned Lord to give me a more explicit definition if he can of what is meant by " inducement " under the terms of this Bill, in the light of what has happened, what happens to-day, and what is likely to happen when this Bill becomes law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I tried to say in an earlier intervention that whatever else " inducement " included it included a deliberate intention to induce a breach. In nothing that the noble Lord has said in the case he has given was there that on anybody's part, so far as I can judge.
LORD COLLISON: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that Donovan advocated that protection should be given to workers in registered trade unions and the whole Commission agreed with that. He also said that the Commission recommended that that protection should he limited to registered trade unions, and he mentioned that this was a majority view. I was one of the people in the minority, which included three other people, I believe, including Mr. George Woodcock. Our view was that the protection should continue to be extended to all groups of workpeople, whether they were in a registered trade union or not.
Speaking for myself, and I am sure for Mr. Woodcock in this matter, we wire not thinking in terms of strengthening the trade unions, we were trying genuinely and sincerely to find an answer to
1060
the industrial problems which were worrying the country then, and are still worrying the country. What we are discussing here to-day—the difference between the two sides of the Committee—is that we disagree on how the industrial problems can be solved. I do not want to go into that. We were trying to evolve recommendations which would be just and equitable to all workpeople and to all managements—to industry as a whole.
I should like to know whether, if men walk out because conditions are bad, for instance because they are dangerous, this is an industrial dispute, or is it not? I do not know the answer, and we should be told what it is. I did not see then, and I do not see now, why a group of people who take legitimate action to save themselves from acute discomfort, and perhaps serious accident, should not get the protection of the Act. I do not see why there should be a distinction between these two groups. We have not been given a very clear answer. If it is a fact that these are industrial disputes, and these people would be subject to action, and not get the protection they used to have, I can only continue to think that that outcome would be wrong. I hope someone on the opposite Benches will be able to satisfy me that what I fear is the position is not so.
We get ourselves confused by taking up prejudiced positions about strikes in general and unofficial strikes. I have said already that I accept that there is a problem. It is how the problem is to be solved that we are in dispute about. Some people imagine, as some noble Lords do, that all strikes are wrong. Many people think that unofficial strikes are always wrong. Unofficial strikes are not aways wrong, as I know very well. Sometimes an unofficial strike is completely justified, and if people are in a union an unofficial strike often becomes official in a very short time. I am on my feet in order to get clarity on this point. The minority of the Donovan Commission had very good reason for not agreeing that the protection should be given only to registered unions and workers in those unions; we thought there was a very good case for that protection to be continued for people who were taking genuine and sincere action against something which they felt to be wrong, and which later on would be seen

1061
to be wrong in the public eye. We just could not see the distinction. The noble and learned Lord has said that there was a minority view, and I thank him for that. I have explained why I was in that minority. It is a proper view to take, and I think we are entitled to a proper answer, because this is rather a serious matter.
9.1 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: I have listened to this debate with great interest and, without prolonging the debate unduly, I should like to be allowed to say a few words front these Benches. I would like to say with what great sympathy I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Slater, and also to what the noble Lord, Lord Collison, said. However, it is extremely important that the trade unions should be enabled to have control of the situation. It is really essential that they should be a good deal stronger than they are, and I think this Bill will in fact have the effect of helping them, and to some extent forcing them, to extend their control more widely than it now is.
The point which struck me about the Donovan Report was to find how slender, when one worked it out over the whole country, is the network of branch secretaries. The position of shop stewards is in a way anomalous. One would expect them all to be authorised to act as they do by their trade unions, but in point of fact they very often act independently. I believe, as has been pointed out from both sides of the Committee, that a powerful shop steward organisation is essential for the satisfactory working of industrial relations. But I also believe it very necessary that it should be brought under the trade union umbrella, because I do not see how else the trade unions can be strengthened to perform the essential functions they must fulfil. Therefore, I believe that the provisions in the clauses we are now discussing are necessary, because they will have the effect of bringing the shop steward organisation under the control and influence of the trade unions themselves.
There seems to me to have been some concern in our debate that the designation of various acts as " unfair industrial practices " will in fact work against
1062
the trade unions. I do not think I have seen the words " unfair industrial practice " in any foreign legislation. To me it is a rather new phrase, but I believe it is a quite useful one. But the point which has struck me is that, where there is an organisation for settling industrial disputes abroad, it does not by any manner of means always work to the disadvantage of trade unions. I can assure noble Lords that in many countries I know of management is really frightened of being brought before the labour courts.
It is not right to look at these clauses completely in isolation. We are obliged to do so at the moment because we do not have the code of industrial practice, so what we are looking at now is the negative side of the picture. I believe the negative side of the picture has to be strengthened and that unfair industrial practices by either management or labour leading to a breach of collective agreements ought to be put at the disadvantage that we see in the legislation we are now contemplating. But on the positive side of the picture it is very necessary that better arrangements should be made in every workshop and on every shop floor whereby disputes can be settled in a rational way.
When I say I am against unofficial stoppages, that is not to say that I think all stoppages are wrong; it is merely that I think it is a particularly futile way of settling disputes. There ought to be a better method in the years we live in. We must take into account the fact that by having the relatively bad industrial relations we do have, we are in process of ruining our industries. It would bring tears to your Lordships' eyes if I told you the certain knowledge I have of contracts that have been lost abroad—valuable contracts that would have meant much employment for our workers, which have been lost because there has been a dispute in the docks and motor cars could not be delivered; or there has been a dispute in some subsidiary industry and the goods (not necessarily motor cars) could not be manufactured. This sort of situation shows that this is an exceedingly inefficient way of settling disputes on the shop floor.
We have to look to the code of industrial practice to give a lead to the country as to how this is to be done. And when we look at these clauses in isolation let

1063
us remember that we are looking at only one half of the picture; the other half of the picture we have not yet got. But I hope and believe that this Bill will point the way to an altogether better system of settling industrial disputes—in the same way as we no longer have to go out and draw swords or use fisticuffs on our neighbours when we do not like the shape of their noses. We have a better way of doing things. All right! Let us do that with industrial disputes, too.
Therefore, on the whole, I am much in favour of these clauses, but only on condition that the positive side of the picture is really well dealt with in the code of industrial practice.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It was not my intention to intervene again, but in view of what has recently been said one would think that this country was in a terrible state because of unofficial strikes and strikes generally.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD POPPLEWELL: Very well. This is a theme which has been built up, as the ready cheers of the Government indicate. It would be as well if noble Lords would take a little notice of the international statistics in connection with this matter. In a 10-year average, 1958 to 1968, out of eleven industrial countries we stand in eighth place in lost days of work consequent on industrial disputes—I repeat, eighth out of eleven countries. The countries below us are Norway, Sweden and Germany. Above us are the United States of America, Italy, Ireland, Canada, Australia, France and Japan. That was the average for 10 years. In 1968, which are the latest figures I have been able to get, we stand in the seventh place out of 11. Below us are Japan, Norway, Sweden and West Germany—. where figures are not actually available. That is the correct story, but to hear noble Lords talk about the lost contracts that we are experiencing consequent upon our industrial disputes is just a lot of nonsense, because these figures alone indicate the industrial difficulties that exist. If we take the number of stoppages per thousand employees in mining, manufacturing, construction and transport, again out of 11 industrial nations we are in the sixth place: Australia, Italy, New
1064
Zealand, Ireland and France are above us.
That is the correct picture of the international situation, and surely it behoves this Committee, instead of working purely and simply on an ideological approach, to pay some attention to the actual position and to commend our trade union leaders. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, referred quite frankly to the fact that it is necessary to strengthen the trade union movement. It is odd that not one union acknowledges that this Bill will in any way strengthen them.
The challenge is made against the trade union leaders that they have lost control. Do these figures bear out that contention? Certainly they do not. Instead of denigrating this country in the way that is popular in the sensational Press, purely and simply for political motives and to decry the Labour Party, I think noble Lords opposite should pay heed to the correct position. We will at once admit that the picture is not all clear. There are certain weaknesses, and it is those weaknesses that we should attempt to put right and so improve upon the favourable position that we occupy in the industrial table, instead of denigrating all our efforts.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: I was impressed with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about " inducement ". May I ask him whether he will try to find a form of words to put in the Bill to embody what he said in reply to me? He said, in effect, that the word " inducing " ought to exclude anything that is indirect or unintentional or not premeditated. I take it that the noble and learned Lord meant what he said. So far as I know those words are not in the Bill and certainly they are not in this clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord has said. The actual phrase that I used about " intention " was taken from a modern text book on trade union law. I do not believe a further definition is required because the word is fairly well understood, although obviously questions can arise about different sets of facts.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I am pleased that my noble friend has raised this point, because I wanted to raise it

1065
before we adjourned. I was fascinated by the speech made by the noble and learned Lord but there is something that troubles me about this clause. I can understand that some (although not all) unofficial strikes can be defined legally as an unfair industrial action, but what I cannot understand—and not being a lawyer or a trade unionist I find it difficult to try to understand—is how the words " inducement of " or " a threat to induce a breach of contract" can be defined legally without infringing freedom of speech. That is the point which I think the noble and learned Lord did not make at all clear in his fascinating speech before we 'adjourned this Committee stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gave my views badly in that speech, but there will be a second opportunity to deal with them in greater depth when we come to the particular Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: I do not want to say anything about official strikes or unofficial strikes, or the quality of trade union leaders or anything of that kind, but to concentrate on what I think is the question before the Committee, which is whether subsection (1) as it is in the Bill is better or worse than the subsection which the Amendment of the Opposition proposes to 'substitute for That Amendment reproduces with two changes what is at present Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906. That, I suppose, is the section which, though having some sound things in it, contains, in the view of most lawyers and commentators of all Parties, one of the great blunders made in trade union law. I was never one of those who thought that all the existing trade union law was wrong, but I thought that Section 3 of the Act of 1906 certainly needed amendment, and so did the Donovan Commission. If noble Lords wish to refresh their memory on what the Donovan Commission said about it, they can refer to page 231 of the Donovan Report and the few pages that succeed it. Incidentally, they will find also a comment on the meaning of the word " inducement ". That part of the Report has scarcely been mentioned in the debate as far as I have heard it.
A great deal has been said about the necessity of strikes, and I have never for
1066
one moment denied that the power to strike was a necessary power that must be retained. But why should there be the assumption that a strike must always be in breach of contract? There is no such necessity. A strike can often take place without any breach of contract at all, and simply to justify the inducement of a breach of contract as though that were a necessary element of every strike is to make one of the really great blunders, and one that has caused more mischief in the history of trade union law than I think any other single mistake, with the possible exception of the universal freedom to commit torts that occurs in Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906.
Lest anybody should think that this is a Conservative or Tory view, let me quote what a Liberal said as long ago as 1927. In his little book on trade union law, Cyril Asquith, afterwards the Law Lord, Lord Asquith of Bishopstone, said this about Section 3, the section which the Amendment before us proposes to restore:
" It is true that a 'lightning strike ' in breach of contract is more effective than one which allows existing contracts to run out. It is often possible to profit (temporarily at least) by violating solemn engagements or procuring their violation by others. but there seems no sufficient reason for legalising the practice, whether it is indulged in in pursuit of a trade dispute or in any other connection."
I hope that it will not be assumed that the right to strike necessarily involves a breach of contract and that we can never attack inducements of breach of contract without being accused of attacking the right to strike.
I have referred to the passages dealing with this subject in the Donovan Report, and I submit to the Committee that the words that the Amendment before us proposes to substitute for the words of the Bill are reproducing this much criticised feature of the 1906 Act which has caused so much damage, and even make it in one respect worse, because the Amendment gives the same immunity for inducing the breaches of all contracts which that section of the 1906 Act gives to breaches of contracts of employment only. I criticise the Government clause for leaving out the words " of employment ". Nevertheless they have in their favour that this was a recommendation

1067
of the Donovan Commission, though I think the argument on the whole was against it. At least, in adopting that recommendation of the Donovan Commission they have been logical enough to adopt some of the others. I submit that the words that the Opposition propose to put in the Bill by this Amendment would make the Bill a great deal worse. I have some criticisms of the words that the Government propose in the Bill, but they are infinitely better
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 263A:
Page 70, line 31, at the beginning insert ("is')
than the words which it is proposed to substitute for them. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, we shall have a good deal of further opportunity for discussion of the details.
9.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 263NNNN) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 101.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Nunburnholme, L.

Bernstein, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton. L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

St. Davids, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindgren, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Diamond, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Dundonald, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Airedale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Oakshott, L.

Auckland, L.

Essex, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Balfour, E.

Exeter, M.

Pender, L.

Barnby, L.

Falkland, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Barrington, V.

Ferrers, E.

Redmayne, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Fortescue, E.

Rhyl, L.

Belstead, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gowrie, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gray, L.

Rochdale, V.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Greenway, L.

Rothermere, V.

Boston, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bourne, L.

Gridley. L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Hailes, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

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

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hankey, L.

Sandys, L.

Buchan, E.

Hanworth, V.

Savile, L.

Burnham, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Henley, L.

Somers, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ilford, L.

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E.

lnglewood, L.

Swansea, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Templemore, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kemsley, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Killearn, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Crawshaw, L.

Kilmany, L.

Verulam, E.

Cromartie, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Vivian, L.

Daventry, V.

Latymer, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Davidson, V.

Lothian, M.

Ward of Witley, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Windlesham, L.

Digby, L.

McFadzean, L.

Wolverton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to cure what I think is only a typographical omission. In my copy of the Bill dated March 25, 1971. which I think is the latest one, the word " is ", which I should have thought

1069
plainly should be there, is omitted. If the Government Front Bench can give me an indication that that is so, I need not trouble the Committee and take time over explaining. Is that so?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord moves his Amendment, I am going to accept it.
LORD STOW HILL: I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263PPPP:
Page 70, line 33, at end insert (' or
(c) his actions are subsequently ratified or endorsed by a trade union or independent organisation of workers directly concerned.")
The noble Lord said: It is in the confident hope that this Amendment will achieve the same response as the previous Amendment, and in almost the same time, that I move the Amendment on the Marshalled List. I think I need trouble your Lordships only very shortly at the present stage. Of course I may be moved to say a few words more, depending on the answer I receive. I think the Amendment makes our position quite clear. It is that we are anxious to ascertain the position and, if the position is not already sufficiently satisfactory, to improve it so as to make quite clear that the disabilities stemming from this clause, which we do not accept but which we have to deal with, are disabilities which will be expunged by the simple process of a trade union in good faith ratifying what has been done in accordance with its normal practice.
I do not want to put it any higher than that at the moment. It is a perfectly normal occurrence for an unofficial strike to be called, for the issue concerned to be examined by the trade union and for the trade union to endorse and ratify the strike. As things stand at the moment I understand that the unofficial strike and everything stemming from it would be caught by this clause. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, might say that that is going too far and that what would be caught would only be actions of the kind envisaged by the
1070
clause so long as the unofficial strike continued to be unofficial.
What I want to make clear is that our view must he that once a strike has been made official and, if you like, in good faith, it is retroactive as it quite naturally should be, to the original situation, to the time when the unofficial strike was called. It must be the case that if the trade union has endorsed it, it means that the circumstances which gave rise to the unofficial strike were of a kind to justify an official strike. Therefore the disabilities stemming from an unofficial strike should not apply from the very beginning. The turning of the strike from an unofficial to an official strike is, in my view, no more than a clarification of the original position. We therefore hope that the Government will accept the view that that should be so and will tell us whether it is necessary to have an Amendment to the Bill in order to produce that situation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is relatively little to say about this Amendment. I am afraid there is a difference of policy here and I should just like to say shortly what it is and why it is. I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, expressed the present position a little less accurately than the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in his introduction to the last Amendment. It is not, I think, the case that an unofficial strike and anything stemming from it would give rise to a claim for compensation. The moment the union declares an official strike, that, I take it, is the moment at which the umbrella goes up, and it is our intention that that is the moment at which it should go up. Again I am not trying to rake over differences, but this is the point of difference between us. We do not think preliminary action by an unofficial strike, however unconstitutional or however ill-advised, ought to be capable of subsequent sanctification by a subsequent official action by the union. This is a matter of judgment, of course, and that is our judgment. If it were otherwise, we think that the effect would be to produce results wholly different from that which we desire and I think from that which the noble Lord desires. It would put it in the hands of a militant and unofficial leadership to bring pressure to hear upon a union to ratify what they had previously done, perhaps under threat of a breakaway

1071
movement. This, we think, is undesirable, and should not be encouraged.
The remedy is one of two things, in our view: either the union should give authority to their shop stewards to act with the authority of the union, in which case they must hear the responsibility for what they do but the union official, the shop steward, is blameless; or the shop steward should refer to his union before he calls an unofficial strike. I fully accept that there is a class of case, to which we shall come in due course when the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, move an Amendment in their name, as to which we shall have to discuss cases where emergency action is taken or action is taken which is so manifestly morally justified that the courts ought to be allowed, or so they say, to wink at the unofficial character of what is done. But, speaking now in general terms, we think that either a trade union ought to be prepared to take responsibility for what happens when one of their union officials acts on their authority or, alternatively, a union official, conscious of the fact that he has not got authority, ought to refer to his union authorities before he acts. Therefore we do not accept this Amendment. I think it is a simple question of policy. I do not think one can say a great deal about it. As I say, I think I have put it plainly, and I do not think there is much chance of an intermediate position being arrived at.
LORD STOW HILL: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has put extremely clearly, if I may respectfully say so, the Government's reaction to the proposal contained in this Amendment. I thought myself, when I read it, in view of the last decision we reached, that the Government would have some hesitation in accepting the whole of it, because it includes the words " or independent organisation of workers ", and I should imagine that the Government would not be disposed to accept that. But, short of that, and if one fastens on the words
" are subsequently ratified or endorsed by a trade union "
and assumes that the other words are left out, I would respectfully submit to the noble and learned Lord that there is a
1072
rather stronger case for it than he envisaged. I should like to try to put that case. The position as Clause 92(1) leaves it, in so far as the shop steward himself is concerned, is that he is guilty of an unfair industrial practice if he acts outside the scope of his authority in inducing a walk-out. I am sure we agree on that; and that is perfectly clear. The question is whether that as applied in practical situations produces a fair result in all or, indeed, in the majority of circumstances.
I know that the noble and learned Lord had great experience of industrial disputes in the course of his practice. I have myself read very many union rules. He will know, and noble Lords who concern themselves with this sort of thing will know quite well that those rules were often dratted many years ago—ten, twenty, fifty years ago—and he will have seen many copies of that sort. I am sure he has been as uncertain as to the precise meaning of the wording used in many of those rules as I have, and as I am sure anybody else, including members of a trade union, have been when they have studied them. Over and over again, when one tries to apply these rules, one finds their result is uncertain, and proceedings take place within the union which are the source of dispute and difference inside the union. To go to the position of the shop steward, I would respectfully submit, so far as this coincides with my experience, that this is a sort of situation not infrequently arising. Reference has been made to the intolerable foreman who will not mend his ways. The situation becomes strained until one day something happens which just overspills the cup. The foreman is quite intolerable and the shop steward says, " Let's go out." I should have thought that in saying that to people who are ready to agree with him, he is inducing them to break their contracts because they walk out without notice.
When one looks at those unofficial strikes one finds that that is a not infrequent situation. Looking at it from the outside one queries why they should strike about that particular incident; looking at it from the inside, and from the point of view of the workers, one realises that they have been goaded by intolerable, unreasonable behaviour until one day something snaps and they will

1073
not put up with it any longer. The shop steward who in those circumstances, says " Let's go out ", has induced them. The industrial practice has been gone through and the question arises whether it is unfair within the meaning of Clause 92. That depends upon what the rules mean which set out the scope of the shop steward's authority. I have looked at many rules and I have often wondered what is a shop steward's authority. He has committed an unfair industrial practice unless he has brought the men out " within the scope of his authority " on behalf of the trade union. Over and over again it is difficult to say whether he is within or without the scope of his authority. It may be that he acted hastily and was without; it may be that he misconstrued his mission and exercised his authority in a way which perhaps on calmer reflection he should not have exercised it. But he has done it.
Those facts are reported to the regional organiser or to the executive of the union. When they go into the facts—and that may take some time—they may think that this shop steward was certainly acting as they would have expected him to act. When the full facts are ascertained and the whole course of conduct which led up to the walk out comes before those in the higher tiers of the union who have to adjudicate they may say that he had no alternative and that you cannot expect people to put up with that sort of thing. They are the people to say: " Whether or not he acted strictly within the scope of his authority, we are ready and glad to ratify what he has done. He would be betraying our members if he had allowed the situation to go on. It might have continued for ever unless somebody did something about it."
That is a situation in which the union would be glad to ratify and justify what the shop steward did, and they would be acting unjustifiably if they did not; for they would thereby be undermining the authority of the shop steward and he might just as well not be there. If you want to order the relations on the shop floor, then the shop steward should be supported by the union—who are ready to do it. Nevertheless, if you look at the antiquated rules, he was just outside the scope of the authority vested in him. The Amendment proposes that in that sort of situation he should not be personally
1074
liable if the union, on consideration ex post facto, has ratified what he did on their behalf. When the curtain falls he clearly has been technically guilty of an illegal and unfair industrial practice.
The inducement, the phrase " Let's walk out ", was uttered while he was acting in the assumed circumstances outside the scope of his authority. Therefore he has no defence. If he is brought before the court he is liable to pay compensation that can be quite heavy. Some little time may elapse before the circumstances are gone into and have been ratified ipso facto. Before that time elapses, some reason may have arisen to award quite a substantial sum against that man by way of compensation. It is in order to protect him against that sort of danger and in order to support his position and maintain his authority, therefore contributing to the orderly relations on the shop floor that this Amendment is put forward. Otherwise, what happens? Many noble Lords have said in the course of our discussion that activities of shop stewards are beneficial and essential and that you will not get orderly relationships unless you have a really responsible body of shop stewards to work with, and that the community should be grateful to them for what they have done over the years. If the shop steward thinks that his authority may be flouted or may be demonstrated not to have existed; if his own personal assets are at risk and he cannot afford to pay, he will act with much greater trepidation and will not dare, as he is a human being and probably has a family to support, to step into the breach and protect those who ought to be protected. I submit that that is an unsatisfactory position. I submit that the case for amendment is a strong case, and I should be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord would say that he will reflect further upon the kind of situation I have described to see whether something could not be done to maintain and support the position of shop stewards in that sort of situation.
LORD SLATER: I have listened most attentively to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill in his observations in regard to the shop steward and the people coming out on unofficial strike. A situation can arise where the shop steward has advised his men that by walking out they would he doing wrong, they would be breaking the

1075
law and that in a sense they have no case whatever even for negotiation. This can happen. But in view of what he has had to say, they are not prepared to accept his advice and they say, " This may be your opinion but we are going to down tools and we are going out." They have gone against all the advice expressed by the shop steward in regard to the situation.
What does the shop steward do after that? As the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said, he contacts either his district or national office and informs them that the men have come out on strike. Immediately someone comes from the district office or the head office and they have a meeting. The men are called together and told by the district officer or the national officer that the case cannot be dealt with until such time as they go back to work. That is the condition of the agreement between the two parties. I am talking about the miners. This is the way they work. You have a situation that the officials will not deal with their case and the management will not be prepared to meet the trade union leader until such time as the men resume work.
What will be the position of the shop steward who is forced into a situation whereby the membership are not prepared to accept the advice that he offers? Yet because of that he is taken away with the crowd, as it were, and because of the position that he holds officially, he is the shop steward responsible to the membership of that particular trade union, he is the one who is there to be shot at. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would like to see such a situation arise regarding an individual who had tried to the best of his ability to exert leadership and give information which would allow a meeting to take place with the management and avoid misdeamour being committed. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give serious consideration to this matter. If there is to be leadership in a trade union the individual responsible must be prepared to say to the members, " You are wrong." But if what they are doing is right, then he may say. " Boys, you are right to take this line of approach, and I can negotiate on your behalf."
9.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether it would be convenient if I speak now. I do not wish to curtail the noble Lord in any way but he may wish to respond to what I have to say. The noble Lord, Lord Slater, and the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, put two quite different cases. I should like to deal first with that presented by the noble Lord, Lord Slater, because I think it the easier. In order to create an inducement to break a contract, which is the situation postulated by Clause 92, the contract has to be broken as the result of the inducement by the person against whom a complaint is made. It therefore follows that in the set of circumstances postulated by the noble Lord the shop steward is wholly innocent. He cannot be got at. This is so whether the Amendment is accepted or not. The men have walked out against the advice of the shop steward. That is absolutely plain beyond a peradventure and I ask the Committee to accept that as fairly certain law.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, put a slightly different case. He began by saying that many union rules are old and obscure, and with that I agree wholeheartedly. By way of commentary I would say I hope that one of the results of this clause is that they become less old and less obscure. I did venture to say, in relation to the last Amendment, that a union owes it to a shop steward, and the steward is entitled to demand of his union, that he knows the extent of his authority. This is the first thing I would say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. Granted that existing rules are in need of amendment and renovation I hope that one result of this Bill, whatever other results it may will be to lead unions to revise their rules and to give shop stewards the kind of clear indication of the extent of their authority to which in my judgment they are entitled. Otherwise I would agree that they are put in a difficult, perhaps even intolerable, situation.
The noble Lord went on to build up a case about what I might call the intolerable foreman. I must say I agree that this is a graphic description of what could happen in industrial relations, but it is something which ought not to happen

1077
for quite a number of different reasons. In the first place, if a situation is building up to breaking point, surely it is the business both of the management and also the shop steward to have some communication with one another in order to establish that this situation is not going to be allowed to continue.
If the shop steward finds as a matter of experience that management will not listen, surely the sensible thing for him to do is to get in touch with his union and say " Look, I cannot say whether or not it will break to-morrow or the next day, but this situation is bound in the end to lead to a breach, and there will come a moment at which I want to call the people out. I want your authority to be given clearly to me, aye or no, that I am to be entitled to call them out ". He is entitled to ask the union that. If the union then say that he cannot, then he does it at his own risk. If the union says this sounds a reasonable request and for this purpose they will give him authority, then they ought to be prepared to recognise in advance that they give him authority, and take responsibility for what he does. In that case he gets out that way.
That is, broadly speaking, the answer to the case which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, pur persuasively. The union rules need clarification when there is a doubt about them. When there is a situation building up it is the job of both a good union and good management to communicate with one another before breaking point is reached. If through some fault of management —which is what the noble Lord is postulating in the particular case he cited to me—the union official on the spot, the shop steward, says that the men are not listening, that a situation is hound to develop requiring a decision, then he ought to get authority from his union in advance of its happening. That is what I feel the answer is.
If the Amendment were carried in its present form my own conviction is that one would get nothing but pressure from a militant minority to endorse action, however unconstitutional and however ill advised, possibly under the threat of a breakaway union. That is exactly what we want to avoid. I said at the beginning, and again I am never anxious to
1078
paper over differences, that there is a difference of policy between the parties. I hope I have made clear what our policy is. I am afraid I am not yielding on this point, although I hope the arguments I have presented are neither impolite nor irrelevant, nor wholly unreasonable.
LORD DIAMOND: The arguments which the noble and learned Lord presented are both reasonable and clear to us, but they lack a persuasive quality. Let me say why I have not so far been persuaded. I have not even been persuaded that there is a philosophical difference, and that is why I am encouraged to return to the point. The noble and learned Lord overstated it when he said there was this difference of approach. He was helpful in being frank about it. It is a very bold statement to make in this House. We are all after the one thing, namely, reduction in the number of unnecessary, unofficial strikes. The only question really is which is the best way of doing this.
Nobody on this side wants to encourage circumstances in which official strikes will arise. It is quite clear that there can be occasions when unofficial strikes are inevitable, and they will in due course.be ratified and become official strikes. They may be inevitable. The circumstances which the noble and learned Lord described were quite possible, but in many cases they are incapable of achievement. It just does not happen, and for practical reasons is incapable of happening, that every single shop steward would succeed, if he tried, in getting hold of the branch officer, discussing it all with him, communicating with head office. and turning it into an official strike in advance. It just could not happen. having regard to the number of men on the ground. A union which was so organised that it had so many officials available to be at the service of every single shop steward who wished to consult an official would find itself with an intolerable financial burden. I am afraid that those ideal circumstances, which the noble and learned Lord postulated, are lacking.
LORD SOMERS: The noble Lord said that on some occasions unofficial strikes are inevitable. Is he implying that conditions which cause a strike are unknown to the shop stewards? Would they not be aware of the fact that feelings were

1079
rising for some little time beforehand, and therefore would they not be in a position to acquaint the union with the situation and avoid what might be an unofficial strike?
LORD DIAMOND: That is just the point which the noble and learned Lord put, and which I said is an ideal situation, and on the facts, as confirmed by the experience of my noble friends who have been trade union officials all their working lives, is incapable of achievement. Though shop stewards might talk about it, might wish to have full communications, to have the matter fully considered and turn it into an official strike from the beginning, this might be incapable of achievement, and here we have an example of an inevitable unofficial strike. What we are concerned with is not merely reducing the number of unofficial strikes. If it were, the Bill would be wholly successful, because in my view the Bill would achieve this result; that most of the unions who have this difficulty will, in advance, give such authority to the shop stewards that the shop stewards will be protected from the beginning. That will be the only safe course for the unions to pursue. And lo and behold, the Government will say, " We have achieved a victory "—a slightly Pyrrhic victory—" no more unofficial strikes."
I am not dealing with something which is a million miles away. This Bill is largely framed in this part of its philosophy on American practice, which has succeeded in reducing the number of unofficial strikes and putting in their place something like four times the number of official strikes we experience, comparing like with like—that is to say, the number of working days lost per 1,000 of population. The last figures I saw were four times, but they may be out of date, because these figures take a little time to collect. I do not care whether it is four times, three times, or twice. All that would happen would be a transfer from unofficial strike to official strike. To what extent will that help our economy? Not at all.
In my view it would be likely to damage it further, because an official strike is more difficult to deal with than an unofficial strike. Once a strike becomes
1080
official, there is all the paraphernalia—all kinds of other questions would have to be considered, negotiations would be more extensive, and decisions would have to go to much higher authorities than would otherwise be the case. What would be speedily settled unofficial strikes would become longer official strikes. The Bill as it stands would have the practical effect of reducing the number of unofficial strikes, but at the expense of jumping energetically out of the frying pan straight into the fire, and that is not a course which would appeal to your Lordships. Therefore, I am suggesting that we should think a little more and try to devise some method of achieving our original purpose of reducing the number of unnecessary unofficial strikes. I would hope that in due course all unofficial strikes would be regarded as unnecessary. As time moves on and as opinions move with the times, and as the effect of our many debates is gradually felt, I think that public opinion begins to move. Your Lordships should feel satisfied that the time spent in this Chamber is not to be measured only by the number of Amendments which are dealt with but also by the impact on public opinion of what is said here We hope that we are all moving in the right direction. In the course of time, unnecessary, unofficial strikes may become very few indeed; but I do not think that the rejection of this Amendment will help. It will hinder.
I now turn to the purely practical aspects of the matter, having demonstrated, I hope, that there is no deep philosophical divide between us which is incapable of being bridged. We are all after the same thing. Which course, the one in the Bill or the one in the Amendment, is the more likely to reduce the number of unofficial strikes without increasing correspondingly the number of official strikes? That is what we have to decide. If the noble Lord sticks to his present point of view—of course there will be some pressures of the kind he has mentioned and there are dangers in the course we propose—I think there will never be another opportunity of preventing the occurrence of an unofficial strike by the shop steward having the knowledge that he has the authority to say, " If you strike you do so yourselves ". That is a case of no inducement.
Alternatively, where inducement is involved, the shop steward has the

1081
authority to say, once a strike has taken place, " It was a strike which we thought was inevitable, the union has supported us and we are all right." In all other cases, in my view, if this Amendment is not adopted there will be a situation in which there will be virtually no unofficial strikes. I think there are likely to be more official strikes with the Bill as it stands than with our Amendment. That is a purely practical point of view and I may be wrong about it. But I think we are right and I do not think the position could be worse than it would be under the Bill.
I now turn to the area where there is at the moment a philosophical difference—that is, under the second part of the Amendment; namely, where independent organisations of workers are directly concerned. My noble friend Lord Collison has reminded us that the recommendation in Donovan with regard to withdrawing the umbrella from non-registered unions was a majority one, not a unanimous one. Donovan recommended that unions ought to register. But it is skating over the matter in a most superficial way to leave it at that, because " register " can mean anything. We know what it meant in Donovan, and that is the kind of registration which has previously existed and which still exists—registration to which unions are already committed. In other words, 85 per cent. of trade unionists—the vast majority of trade unionists—are already members of trade unions registered under the 1871 Act, and it is that kind of registration which was contemplated by Donovan. Therefore, to say that because
Donovan recommended that the umbrella should cover only registered unions, it means that it should only go up over unions registered under this Bill, is a totally unjustifiable and illogical statement, because under this Bill the registration is substantially different. We have been over the ground: registration produces far more burdens than advantages, as is evidenced by the fact that those to whom registration is available have decided so far, almost en bloc, not to register. The unions ought to know best; they are the organisations concerned.
So I am saying that it is wholly wrong to say that, just because Donovan says the umbrella should only go up over registered unions, this Bill should say that the umbrella should only go up over unions registered under this Bill. I think we are entitled to ask for the second part of the Amendment as well as the first. But if the noble and learned Lord wants to split it in two parts and say: " We cannot accept this Amendment as it stands, but we are very conscious of the difficulties envisaged in the first part of the Amendment and we should like to reconsider that ", it would be a helpful statement. But I am bound to say that if the noble and learned Lord continues in his present view, we must divide the Committee against it.
10.12 p.m.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment (No. 263PPPP) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 99.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bernstein, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Dollison, L.

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

Shackleton, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Slater, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Balfour, E.

Bessborough, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Barrington, V.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Airedale, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Boston, L.

Albemarle, E.

Belstead, L.

Bourne, L.

Auckland, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Bridgeman, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gray, L.

Redmayne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Green way, L.

Rhyl, L.

Buchan, E.

Grenfell, L.

Ridley, V.

Burnham, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Caldecote, V.

Hailes, L.

Rothermere, V.

Conesford, L.

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

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Cottesloe, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cowley, E.

Hanworth, V.

St. Helens, L.

Craigavon, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

St. Just, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hertford, M.

Sandys, L.

Cromartie, E.

Hood, V.

Savile, L.

Daventry, V.

Ilford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Davidson, V.

Inglewood, L.

Somers, L.

De Clifford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stamp, L.

Denham, L.

Kemsley, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Digby, L.

Killearn, L.

Swansea, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kilmany, L.

Templemore, L.

Dundee, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Terrington, L.

Dundonald, E.

Latymer, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lyell, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mansfield, E.

Verulam, E.

Essex, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Exeter, M.

Mersey, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller]

Ward of Witley, V.

Ferrers, E.

Windlesham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wolverton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

10.20 p.m.
Loan DELACOURT-SMITH Loan DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 263QQQQ:
Page 70. line 36, leave out from (" an ") to end of line 37 and insert (" independent organisation of workers; any reference to an industrial dispute shall include a dispute between workers and workers and a dispute concerning the recognition or non-recognition of a trade union.")
The noble Lord said: As the Committee will see, this Amendment falls into two parts. The first part will be familiar to noble Lords opposite: it deals with the question of " independent organisation of workers " being inserted in the Bill. I am not really optimistic enough to believe that noble Lords opposite are going to have a sudden change of heart on this subject. But the second half of the Amendment seeks to introduce an element of clarity which we hope is acceptable, or which we hope can lead to confirmation that it is the intention that the Bill should cover as industrial disputes, disputes between workers and workers and disputes which concern the recognition or non-recognition of a trade union.
I do not think it is necessary for me to spend long in arguing this point. It is sufficient to establish the fact that as a matter of practice disputes can and do arise which are disputes between workers and workers or which relate to the recognition or non-recognition of trade unions. It may be that noble Lords opposite will argue that in fact such situations, at any rate in respect of recognition, will not, or should not, arise if the provisions of the Bill are completely effective. This is perhaps showing a degree of optimism which goes beyond what one may expect will be realised, and it seems to us to be useful to clarify the point at this stage that the term " industrial dispute " includes disputes of this order.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has proposed his Amendment with admirable and indeed impeccable conciseness; and I will seek to be as concise although answers are not always as short as questions. He is right in thinking that during the last five minutes my noble friends and I have undergone no change of heart with regard to unregistered organisations
1086
of workers, which must be a subject of dispute between us. I would only say this in reply to remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond: that I have never understood what there is in Clause 63 or Schedule 4 which makes people afraid of registration under the Bill or which makes registration under the Bill necessarily more onerous than that under the 1871 Act. In fact, it is simply the kind of provision which any orderly law with regard to the conduct of associations would necessarily envisage.
As regards the rest of the Amendment, again the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, was commendably brief. He will see from page 116—that is the definition clause—that there are disputes between workers and workers which come within the definition of " industrial dispute "; namely, disputes about who does what? it I may again use perhaps over-simplified language: the allocation of work between one set of workers and another. This, we think, is something with which an employer is legitimately concerned, and therefore a dispute about that does come within the range of industrial disputes.
As regards recognition, which is what this Amendment is primarily concerned with, we do riot think it is right to hold the umbrella over the head of recognition disputes—and that for the kind of reason which the noble Lord has suggested. We do not think that a dispute between two unions as to which of the two should be recognised, assuming them both to be respectable and both to be independent of the employer, ought to be a matter on which the employer should ordinarily be subjected to industrial action. We have done our best to avoid this by providing the machinery, which may or may not be used but which we hope will be used and which is intended to be used, for the recognition of the sole bargaining agent; and in the last resort the sovereign authority for deciding which union will be recognised will be the workers in the plant itself on a ballot, subject, of course, to the supervision of the C.I.R. and of the Court. We think that that is the right way to settle those disputes as between the employer and the workers in the plant. Therefore, we do not think that it is necessary to hold an umbrella over the heads of those who indulge in strikes for the purpose of settling that sort of dispute.

1087
Furthermore, one must not forget the Bridlington Rules, which noble Lords opposite have invoked and which more than once in this debate I have endorsed. One thinks that if for some reason unions are either afraid to invoke or do not wish to invoke the machinery which we have provided in the Bill for the recognition of the sole bargaining agency, their manifest duty is to use the Bridlington agreement. It may or may not be effective, but we think that in this day and age when other people's jobs are involved, other people may be thrown out of work, the public may be injured and in extreme cases even the national economy can be damaged, the unions ought not to indulge in industrial action in order to settle a recognition dispute between two rival and respectable unions. For those reasons I respectfully say that the Government cannot accept this Amendment, although I appreciate the spirit in which it was moved.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could look at the matter again between now and the Report stage of this Bill? I recognise the force of many of the points which he has made in commenting on the Amendment, but there are other aspects which ought also to be taken into account. First, so far as disputes between workers and workers are concerned, there can arise disputes which, at any rate to me, do not appear to be disputes about allocation of work. For example, disputes can arise where one group of workers is in one degree or another in a supervisory position as against another group of workers. Disputes can arise in that context which I should have thought would not come under the heading of disputes about allocation of work.
So far as the recognition of disputes is concerned, again of course I accept the force of what the noble and learned Lord has said. I think he will agree that in fact over the last two years or so the number of disputes and disturbances which have arisen from recognition differences has been very small indeed. This is obviously something much to be desired because, as he rightly said, one would not expect this to be the kind of issue which should give rise to a stoppage
1088
of work. In what he says about the determination of a bargaining unit and a bargaining agent, he is perhaps going further than I would be disposed to go in assuming that at any rate in the foreseeable future all our arrangements in this industrial relations scene will be covered under those provisions or under other provisions of the Bill.
I suspect that a good deal of industry will still remain under what are broadly called " voluntary arrangements ", and one cannot rule out the possibility that recognition disputes could arise. I think it would be unfortunate if they did, for the reasons that I have already given, and for the reason which the T.U.C. itself has emphasised on more than one occasion. At the same time, I do not think one can rule out the possibility that in rather exceptional circumstances such a dispute could arise, and I think it would be unfortunate if it were not brought under the heading of an industrial dispute. To accept this situation is not in any way, as it were, to give any additional status to disputes of this kind, or indeed to give them any degree of approval. It is simply to recognise that as a matter of fact they may arise, and that if they should arise it is better for them to be brought within the definition of an industrial dispute.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has asked me to look at this matter again. I do not wish to be provocative about this at all, because this is a continuing debate and obviously I shall consider both what the noble Lord has said and what anyone else may say if they wish to bring thoughts to our minds. I did not mention the conciliatory functions of the C.I.R., quite independent of the sole bargaining machinery, and our present thought is that this kind of protection ought not to be given. I agree that it may happen from time to time. If it were not likely to happen occasionally, I do not suppose either the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, would be proposing or I should be opposing his Amendment. But our thought remains that such disputes ought not to be given protection. Clause 92 is based upon the presupposition of a deliberate breach of contract by persons involved—that unregistered unions ought not to be protected when they indulge in

1089
this sort of thing—or, if unregistered unions do it, they ought to do it without breaking contracts as provided in Clause 92. The noble Lord has put his points persuasively. I cannot commit myself to anything, but I do regard this as a continuing debate. In other words, my mind is never closed about this until the end of the day. If either the noble Lord or anyone else wishes to put fresh arguments to us, of course we shall listen to them.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: There will be opportunities for either side of the Committee to take the initiative and draw attention to the matter again, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 263BBB
Page 70, line 40, leave out from (" agreement") to (" but") in line 42.
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment, and Amendment 263000, are both paving Amendments to the future definition in Clause 157, and have no bearing on the substance of Clause 92. In those circumstances, I might be allowed to move them formally.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: The noble and learned Lord has suggested that these are merely paving Amendments and that we shall come to the point of substance at a later stage in the Bill. If we are to regard them in that way we, on our side, must say that these are Amendments to which we take a great deal of exception and to which we shall return at the later stage to which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, referred.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 263RRRR:
Page 71, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("so ") in line 2 and insert ("does not include").
The noble Lords said: Subsection (3)(b) of Clause 92 extends—as we see it, quite arbitrarily—unfair industrial practices to breach of contracts of employment which
1090
have implied or incorporated terms of a collective agreement. To us this exception contained in subsection (3)(b) seems anomalous and our Amendment seeks to remove it. However, I regard this basically as a probing Amendment. As I understand it, a breach of a dispute agreement which was not incorporated in this way in individual contracts of employment would escape. This does seem to us to be an arbitrary distinction, and I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could comment upon it. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a rather sophisticated point; I may get it wrong, but I think I have it right. First of all, the expression " contract " for the purposes of Clause 92 does not include a collective agreement or any part of a collective agreement. In other words, it is not an unfair industrial practice for any person in contemplation of furtherance of an industrial dispute to induce or threaten to induce another person to break a contract within the meaning of Clause 92. But this is not, I must hasten to confess, in order to be candid, entirely benevolence on our part. It is because Clause 34 already deals with that situation, which no doubt noble Lords will recall as having taken place at some time in the Middle Ages in this debate. At any rate, it is not entirely benevolence but is designed in order to prevent an overlap between the two clauses. Subsection (3)(b) does not, I think, therefore introduce anything new; it simply provides an exception to the exception in (a), by including for the purposes of the main provisions of Clause 92 so much of any contract of employment as is implied or incorporated in the contract by reference to a collective agreement.
This is simply to say this. Obviously individual contracts of employment between workers and management are, of course, contracts to which in the ordinary course the union itself is not a party. The parties to that contract are the employer on the one hand and the individual worker on the other. On the other hand many—and it is sometimes rather difficult, I would venture to say sometimes impossible, to say which—but at any rate many terms of the individual worker's contract have in fact been negotiated for him by a union in the course

1091
of a collective agreement. It has always been an intention of Clause 92 to hold up an umbrella over actions to induce a breach of contract, whether of employment or any other contract except the collective agreement, dealt with under Clause 34, by a registered trade union and its officials acting within its authority. It is not intended to hold the umbrella over an unregistered association or a third party extraneously making trouble; that umbrella does not extend to them.
Therefore, it is said that the exception to Clause 92, which is designed not out of benevolence, as I have candidly admitted, but because Clause 34 applies, does not extend to those terms in an individual contract of employment which have been negotiated as part of a collective agreement, and we do not think it should. The noble Lord asked me what it means and I have tried to explain as clearly as I can; I hope I have got it across, but it is slightly sophisticated, and if it is not clear I must apologise.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: Not only is the noble and learned Lord's explanation sophisticated, but I wish that when the Government had started this Bill they had not made a sort of legal jig-saw puzzle, but had put against such clauses " See Clause 34 ".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I greatly sympathise with the noble Baroness, but we are not allowed to do so by the present rules under which Bills are printed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and I had quite an interesting discussion about that in quite a different connection, but he will be very much encouraged by what the noble Baroness has said.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am bound to say that the complexity of points like that, and the difficulty which we have on both sides of the Committee in appreciating these points and the reasons for them, are very strange when one looks at the setting of this particular subsection which we arc considering. This is a part of the clause which, as the earlier discussion on it has made clear, has very wide practical effect on people holding positions as shop stewards, and other local representatives in industry. It
1092
seems an extraordinary state of affairs that they are going to be covered by provisions which are so difficult for us, after discussion and examination, to appreciate, and it makes one realise the great uncertainties which many people in industry are bound to feel about the impact which the provisions of the Bill will have upon them. Despite those observations, as I indicated, I put this forward as a probing Amendment. We should like to consider what the noble and learned Lord has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 263CCC.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 4, leave out from (" agreement ") to end of line 6.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Whether Clause 92, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
10.43 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I rise because I think it would be useful to make a brief reference to the Amendment which my noble friends and I had on the Marshalled List, but which in fact we have withdrawn because other noble friends have put down an Amendment which proposes a new clause at a later point in the Bill. I think it would be appropriate to make a brief reference to this point, because the terms of the clause, as it stands, have given rise to anxiety that individuals in the Press, or on television, making a comment upon an industrial relations situation might be brought within peril by this clause as having induced a breach of contract. The noble and learned Lord, at an earlier stage in the discussion of the clause, indicated that he would be prepared to make some reference to this, and I think it would be useful if he could refer to this now, since anxieties were expressed upon it in another place which were not altogether allayed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I recognise that, for some reason which I have never wholly been able to understand, genuine anxieties have been expressed about the particular matter to 1 which the noble Lord has alluded. May I

1093
start with the definition of " inducement ", about which I have been asked a number of questions. Clause 92 deals with inducement of breach of contract. Inducement involves five elements, not all of which are relevant to this point. The first is that you must, before you can induce a breach of contract, have knowledge that the contract exists.
In the old days when we had interference with the matrimonial relationship, the first thing you had to do was to know that the parties were married. That is the simplest example I can think of. You must know that there were contractual relations between the bodies or, at any rate, know the facts which would ordinarily lead you to so infer. Secondly, there must be an intention, and this is the most essential part for the purposes of the present issue. You must intend to persuade people to break their contract. Unless you do it deliberately, you cannot be guilty of inducement. Thirdly, there must be an actual breach of the contract which you have induced; that is to say, your inducement must be successful and not unsuccessful. If there is no breach of contract, you may have done your worst but you have not achieved the reality of a tort. Fourthly, of course, I need hardly say that there must be a casual relationship between the breach which followed and the inducement which caused it. Lastly, there must be damage before a cause of action arises.
If you take the case of a newspaper or, for that matter, a television broadcast, I think you will see in every case that a mere report—for instance, of a public meeting—lacks one or more of the elements which I have sought to describe. Secondly, a mere comment upon the merits of a dispute lacks the elements which I have intended to describe. If you say, for instance, " I think the Ford workers are right ", or " I think the employers are right in such-and-such a dispute ", or give a fairly colourful description of why you think so, you are not intending to make them break their contract. You are indulging in ordinary comment upon a matter of public interest. If you report the inflammatory words of a union member or of an employer in the course of an industrial dispute, not because you are trying to achieve any result of interference in the dispute, but
1094
because you think people ought to know what is going on, which is the proper motive of a newspaper or of a television network, then, again, the elements of inducement are absolutely lacking. Therefore, I have never been able to understand the anxieties, genuine as I appreciate them to have been, which have been raised by the existence of this clause.
I derive a good deal of confirmation of my view from the following reflection. Inducement to breach of contract is of course a tort. It is a tort across the whole field of contract. Until 1906 it was a tort even when it was in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. I have been to very great trouble to find if there ever was a case before 1906 in which a newspaper or any medium of communication was found guilty of inducement to the tort of breach of contract in furtherance of a trade dispute, and I found none. I have also been to very great trouble to find out if ever there was a case over the rest of the range of tort—that is to say, after the umbrella lifted over inducement in furtherance or contemplation of a trade dispute under the Act of 1906—and not only have I failed to find one myself, but none of those whom I have asked to look for me have found one either. This might be just good fortune, but for the fact that, quite independently, I had formed the view that it could not happen, and I am confirmed in my view that it could not happen by the fact that it has not happened.
The only possible exception that I could find to counter my view was a very significant case, and that was not a case of inducement to breach of contract, but incitement to murder. There was a case in about, I think, the latter part of the 19th century—I forget the name of it—in which a Russian royalty had been murdered, and a German language newspaper in London which circulated among a group of exiles wrote an article which said in effect, " This is what the Godly Russians have done; you must do the like to the German monarchy ", and they were convicted. But you see the difference between what I have been discussing and that case.
It is of course always possible to use what I may call para-journalism for a special purpose. Most of us (although I am not one) if we have fought elections

1095
for Parliament, have produced what are called election newspapers. This is not a newspaper in the ordinary sense, but it is something designed to achieve a particular object, to persuade the voters to vote in one way. Although I have not done it myself, I know it is a perfectly legitimate feature of our democratic life. It is not quite the same thing as the The Times or the Daily Mirror, but it is designed to achieve the purpose of acting on people's minds. It is possible to think of a case where a newspaper is brought out not simply as an act of journalism but to persuade people to break their contracts. I cannot conceive that Clause 92 would not come into play then, but I have tried to contemplate how any of the existing media could get into trouble and I certainly cannot see that they could achieve that result.
May I say this in conclusion, while I am trying to answer the question which the noble Lord quite legitimately raised? We have, I think, achieved a Press which is one of the most responsible and one of the freest in the world. We are always abusing it, just as we always abuse politicians, and I suppose that we politicians, and I hope newspapermen, have a proper sense of humility engendered by this constant denigration to which both of us are subjected, usually each by the other. If I may reflect for a moment upon the nature of the freedom of the Press, it has not been achieved by giving special privileges to newspapers. It has been achieved by extending to newspapermen the freedom which we all enjoy. That is to say, it is not a question of privilege that a newspaper can publish what it thinks and believes to be true; it is simply part of the right of the ordinary citizen to do the same. That is why the freedom of the Press is so solidly based, because it is based not on privilege but upon the general liberty which we all enjoy.
There are plenty of things in this Bill on which I have expressed a certain degree of doubt, or perhaps diffidence, but whether I am right or not about those I have absolutely no doubt of what I have been saying in the last five minutes. I see no ground for the anxieties, although I recognise that they are genuine. I do not believe that any legitimate newspaper need lose a moment's sleep about
1096
the phraseology or intentions or results of Clause 92.
10.53 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor has made a most interesting and valuable speech. Speaking for myself, I would agree with practically all of it. I would not venture to prolong this particular discussion, especially as we will have to come back to it when we get to Clause 132, but for the fact that the noble and learned Lord said that there undoubtedly does exist in the Press some considerable anxiety whether the terms of the Bill may impinge upon them. It is simply because I think it desirable that they should know that their anxieties are understood in the form in which they have been expressed, to me at any rate, that I venture to put before the Committee and the noble and learned Lord the type of situation with regard to which they feel some anxiety.
It is as I understand it really this. I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord that in practically every case, suppose any question arose as to whether there was an inducement by a Press article, the answer would be that there is not in the circumstances an inducement. Even if there were doubt, a defence like " fair comment on a matter of public interest " would really be more accurately descriptive of what had been written. But the kind of situation which might arise, I suppose, is this. Take a provincial newspaper in a town in which there is a very large plant at which a very large number of workers are employed; a newspaper which circulates in that town and which is read by practically all the the citizens in that town, including those workers who work at the plant.
Now differences arise, and the situation comes about when the parties are almost on the verge of taking strike action. The situation is tense, and a local, militant union leader, well known and respected locally, makes a very fiery and inflammatory speech. A journalist on the staff of that newspaper, acting from perfectly honourable motives, reports that speech in toto, or at any rate a very large part of it, including the inflammatory material in it. Then there appears newspaper comment in that same edition, in the editorial

1097
comment, or perhaps in comment by the same journalist who transcribes or reports the inflammatory speech, and the comment is in forthright terms and represents a belief strongly held by the editor or the journalist, as the case may be, and is in effect an indication that the commentator, whether the editor or the journalist, very strongly agrees with the person who has delivered the speech.
He may express his agreement in, shall I say, moderate terms, which would come within the description used by the noble and learned Lord, " fair comment ". A reader might say, " This is a perfectly reasonable thing for the editor to say when he comments on that speech. If he agrees with it in general, then he is perfectly right in saying so ". On the other hand, perhaps inadvertently, perhaps through an error of discretion, the editor or journalist may go rather further than that, and he may say in terms which are really unnecessarily emphatic that he utterly agrees with what the union leader says and he would have every sympathy with the workers of they came out on strike, as suggested and urged by the union leader.
That is the sort of situation which I think those who feel anxieties have in mind, and it is thought that in that sort of situation the comment could possibly constitute inducement and could have the four characteristics which the noble and learned Lord predicated as being necessary for there to be an inducement. There would be knowledge of the contract; there would be, in the assumed circumstances, an intention, I suppose (that is to say, an intention carried on the sympathy which the editor or journalist feels) that those who listened to the speaker should follow his advice; damage would result; and there clearly would be all the elements of knowledge present. In that sort of situation there is the anxiety to which I have referred, that possibly the person who comments might find himself within the channels of Clause 92.
We all would share and re-echo precisely the words that the noble and learned Lord has used with regard to the freedom of the Press in this country. All of us who know the noble and learned Lord know how very sincerely and deeply he feels what he has said, as we all do.
1098
Therefore, when the Committee come, as I hope they will in due course, to consider the new clause which is down on the Marshalled List, I hope they will approach it in the knowledge that that is the type of situation with which it is meant to deal. If noble Lords have had an opportunity to glance at it, they will see that the safeguard that it imposes to protect the perhaps unwise journalist, who has used language which was perhaps extravagant or unnecessarily emphatic, is that, provided it could in a broad sense be said to be fair comment on something which is of public interest, then there can be no question of any action being brought against him, either by virtue of Clause 92 or of any other provision of the Bill. 1 thought it right, as the matter had arisen and as it perhaps will be some days before we come to Clause 132, to say what I have said in order that it should be known that the anxieties held are borne in mind.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I listened with care to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Despite that—it may be that I am a little obtuse; and he will inform me on that point when he comes to reply—I still do not know whether there is anything in the Bill which says that conduct amounting to an unfair industrial practice could not take place abroad. We are rolling with joy into the Common Market. We are trying to build a legal framework around human acts. Despite what any learned Lord may say, this is impossible. We are going into the Common Market and will have French—and from now on I shall be practising my French. Nous avons ici un offre de Gascogne. President Pompidou is giving us a Gascon offering. Noble Lords opposite all know what a Gascon offering is. We have one when French workers will be coming into the Welsh pits. Noble Lords may laugh, but this is absolutely true. A young French boy will come into the Welsh pits from some farm in Normandy—and the Welsh and the Normans get on very well and are very close—and he will write back to his mother telling her what he thinks of the new trade union conditions prevailing in South Wales. The mother will send this to the local newspaper and it will be read locally. He will be calling the Welsh miners and their leaders all sorts of names. Has he committed an

1099
unfair industrial act? When we get into the Common Market there will he full mobility of labour. There will be Italians and others—though not yet the Spanish; they will come later—coming to work here.
The second point I would make is that I have counted 80 industrial practices. No judge or young lawyer will be able to cope with them all. I am only asking for information. We can still do that without being incarcerated. For example, it is an unfair industrial practice to threaten or induce any action to prevent or hinder a person from exercising or asserting any right of performing any duty under the Bill. Actually, it is a ready-made charter for anybody to haul anybody else in any union or any group of workers before a court for almost anything. Let us peg them down. To strike or threaten to strike would be illegal. For me or for any French boy to try to secure the dismissal of a Welshman cutting coal faster than he does in the pits would be an unfair industrial action. It would be illegal to induce or threaten to induce industrial action aimed at persuading an employer to break an order or to employ somebody in a position of power in a place in contradiction to the C.I.R. It would be an unfair industrial action to strike or take any industrial action while the C.I.R. is considering a special position.
Because it is late, and because we have had such courteous answers from noble Lords opposite, we have allowed some venomous Amendments to go through. The real truth is that no judge will know what the House of Lords, or the House of Commons, were talking about when it comes to trying cases before the courts. If poor Ariadne, with her ball of string, tried to hook her way through the catacombs of this Bill, with its 162 clauses and nine Schedules (in one of his answers my noble friend Lord Stow Hill had to illustrate one clause and talk to another and go back to another, and forward to another, each side of the wicket) if Ariadne had tried to struggle through that, she would not have been able to find her way back to the sunshine from the bowels of this Bill—the alliteration is appropriate at this time of night. So far as I am concerned, all that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor said to me
1100
is just pillars of cloud. It cannot be applied in practice in any court in the land when it comes to a vital industrial issue. For this Government to bring this forward at a moment when we are wishing to go into the Common Market and to have mobility of trade unions throughout Europe, is to me an illustration of lack of vision and of the fact that they are not going to last very long as a Government.
11.6 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I must apologise for the fact that, having moved the first Amendment, circumstances took me away from the Committee for a while. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will forgive me if, speaking briefly to the Question whether Clause 92 stand stand part of the Bill, I refer to some of the things that he was good enough to say regarding the first Amendment. The noble and learned Lord started by referring to the fact that there were a number of misunderstandings about Clauses 92, 93 and 94, some of which arose on Amendments to Clause 92. I came back in time to hear him speaking about the misunderstandings which he felt existed. I do not intend to say more about that, but I wish to say that I noted he said that in his opinion the word " induced " contained a connotation of deliberate action and therefore fears I had expressed about the use of the word were groundless.
I want to refer to some of the things which the noble and learned Lord said subsequently. After clearing up the misunderstandings he emphasised that there were genuine differences between the views of the Government and of the Opposition on these matters—I am paraphrasing him—and he did not expect that anything said by one side or the other would prevent a Division from taking place at the end of the discussion on the Question whether Clause 92 shall stand part of the Bill. In that he was right. We have not been persuaded that we should allow this clause to go without a Division. I am satisfied that that is the right course. Some of the things which the noble and learned Lord said indicated clearly the difference between Government and Opposition on the matters contained in this Part of the Bill.

1101
One of my noble friends—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland —referred to the effect of this clause on shop stewards and said that they were to be handcuffed and manacled as a result of it. Again paraphrasing the noble and learned Lord—but not, I think, in any way misinterpreting the sense of what he said—I think his reply was that, whatever may be the effect, it is not the intention of the Government to handcuff shop stewards. A little later, in reply to views expressed about the complications in this Bill. and particularly in this section of it, the noble and learned Lord said, " We are not trying to make things difficult; on the contrary, we are trying to make the law more simple ". He then went on to say: "It is not always easy to turn complicated human relations into legal phrases ".
That statement from him is exactly what we have been saying, time and time again, on this Bill. And in attempting to do this, the Government are attempting the impossible. If we are right in saying that it is impossible, the Government are bound to fail. It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord made a concession to the point of view we are putting forward when he said that, whatever might be the result, it was not the intention. We believe that the results of these clauses will be contrary to the noble and learned Lord's sincere intention, and because we are much more interested in results than in intentions we shall seek to divide the Committee on whether the clause shall stand part.
LORD ARCHIBALD: May I, as a layman, put a question to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? I understood him—and it would be much easier for me, as a layman, to read the OFFICIAL REPORT before I commented—to lay down four conditions which covered this area of inducing a breach of contract, and the fourth of these was that the inducement should be effective. But I cannot understand how that would apply to the phrase " threaten to induce ", because that is not inducement in itself. It is a threat to do something and I do not think that a threat can he effective in itself. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would explain how " threaten to induce " comes within
1102
the four conditions which he laid down for " to induce ".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: To threaten is not the same thing as to do. It is as simple as that. To threaten to bring about a breach of contract is not the same thing as to bring about a breach of contract. It is simply using words in their ordinary senses.
LORD GARDINER: May I, with diffidence, raise a small point? Except in circumstances of a trade dispute, an actual tort is when A knowingly induces B to break a contract with C, as a result of which C suffers damage, unless it is justifiable. On Second Reading I raised the fact that this Bill does not in any way provide for a defence of justification, which every citizen has always had in an action of tort. I do not propose to discuss that now, because I have an Amendment down at a later stage dealing with it, but I observed that in dealing with this subject the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that, of course, a person would have to know that there was a contract. If that is so, why does not Clause 92 say so? Why does it simply say " to induce "? It does not say, "knowingly induce ". And will not every judge, knowing that common law tort is to knowingly induce a breach of contract, inevitably think, from the way in which the clause is drafted, that Parliament here intended to provide that an inducement, whether offered knowingly or not, constituted an unfair industrial practice?
11.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I answer the last part first? Knowledge is essential to inducement. I took this factor from a well-known text hook on trade union law and therefore I do not think that it is necessary to insert the word " knowingly ". Its only effect would be to cast doubt on the necessity of knowledge in other cases where the word " inducement " is used. My understanding of " inducement " is that it involves knowledge. If the noble Lord can bring me authority to suggest that I am wrong and the textbook on which I have been relying is wrong, obviously I shall try to think again. But I think he will find that I am right, and if I am right then the conclusion follows.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, says that he is going to divide the Committee.

1103
I am not complaining, but I should like to say that when I said that, whatever the result on shop stewards—it was not our intention to handcuff or manacle them —I spent a good deal of time explaining exactly why I did not consider that that would be the result. A person hearing the noble Lord's speech—though I am sure he did not wish to imply this—without having heard my speech on which his was a comment, might have inferred that I had not already dealt at length with the point.
LORD HUGHES: If the noble Lord will permit me to say so, an element of opinion enters into each case. I have no doubt that this is the noble Lord's genuine opinion, and he gave reasons why he thought he was right. But the fact remains that it could conceivably have a result different from what he might expect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not accept that. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, accused us of intending to handcuff shop stewards, and I told him that it was not our intention, whatever might be the result. It was a direct answer to a direct charge, and I do not believe that the noble Lord can build the edifice on it that he now seeks to do. I frankly did not understand the argument of Lord Davies of Leek, because I thought that no matter how complicated Clause 92 may seem, one thing was plain—the Common Market has nothing to do with it. I still think so. Perhaps it will encourage the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, if I tell him that it is quite unlikely that anything done abroad could constitute an unfair industrial practice under this Bill; because " unfair industrial practice " is limited to actions which are defined in the Bill and none of them applies to actions done abroad. Nor does our entry or non-entry into the European Economic Community affect the Bill at all, even though the noble Lord gave us a beautiful example of his impeccable Parisian French in the course of his argument.
I do not altogether accept what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, says about complication. I have never sought to pretend that any legislation going into 160 clauses can be anything but a little
1104
difficult to understand. It is not like the front page of the Daily Mirror, but it is a great deal easier to understand than, for instance, the Companies Act or the Income Tax Act, which in practice have worked reasonably well for quite a long time and not all the people who have to operate them are necessarily profound lawyers. The point I was seeking to convey to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was that you do not get rid of complexities in the law by not legislating about them. The law applies in these matters whether or not we pass this clause. The only thing I would dogmatically say on it is that it is a jolly sight plainer and more simple than the present law—described by Lord Donovan's Commission as a " maze " and described by my noble friend Lord Conesford in equally derogatory terms, out of one of the works of the late Lord Asquith of Bishopstone. This is a much clearer statement of principle, whether you agree with it or not, and a far less complicated one, than the situation which noble Lords will find expounded as well as it can be in Citrine's Trade Union Law.
If I may return to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, I fully recognise that the kind of situation which he has described has given rise to anxiety. But I still adhere to the view, and adhere to it without doubt, that the anxiety is misplaced. However unwise a journalist may be does not render him liable to the process described in Clause 92. What has to be present is a deliberate intention. However hard the noble and learned Lord strained, and however eloquent he was, he did not succeed in importing to my mind that element into the case which he postulated. The journalist was first of all reporting an inflammatory speech, which he was fully entitled to do, and stating in a leading article or elsewhere that he agreed with the sentiments in it. But unless it could be said that he was deliberately interfering, for the purposes of creating a breach of contract, the deliberate intention seems to me to be lacking.
When we come to consider the noble Lord's Amendment we will consider it on its merits and hammer that out: I do not think I start with an absolutely closed mind on that. I think, on the whole, it

1105
will not diminish anxiety, but tend to increase it if I resile at all from the position that I adopted: that this presents no terrors for a journalist acting in good faith, even if he is a very unwise one, which only a limited number of them are. Having said that, I think there remain two main differences between the Panties. One is that noble Lords opposite want to hold the umbrella over unregistered trade unions; and the other is that they want to hold the umbrella over a number of induced breaches of contract which we
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 92, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
11.31 p.m.
Clause 93 [Industrial action in support of unfair industrial practice]:
On Question, Whether Clause 93 shall stand part of the Bill?
would not protect. There we know where we are: there is a difference between us, and it is no good papering it over. But I think I have said all I can to leave the difference plain, and at the same time to avoid misunderstanding on things which are not plain.
11.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 92, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mansfield, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monk Bretton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Essex, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balerno, L.

Exeter, M.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Balfour, E.

Falkland, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Barrington, V.

Falmouth, V.

Pender, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fisher, L.

Redmayne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rhyl, L.

Belstead, L.

Gage, V.

Ridley, V.

Bessborough, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Gowrie, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Boston, L.

Gray, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bridgeman, V.

Greenway, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gridley, L.

St. Just, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailes, L.

Sandys, L.

Buchan, E.

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

Savile, L.

Burnham, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Caldecote, V.

Hankey, L.

Somers, L.

Chesham, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Conesford, L.

Henley. L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hertford, M.

Swansea, L.

Cowley, E.

Hood, V.

Templemore, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Inglewood, L.

Terrington, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kemsley, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Davidson, V.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

De Clifford, L.

Kilmany, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M.

Ward of Witley, V.

Digby, L.

Latymer, L.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Wolverton, L.

Dundee, E.

Lyell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, Bs.[Teller.]

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Raglan, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Stow Hill, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

LORD STOW HILL: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has sat with the utmost gallantry the whole of the afternoon and a good deal of the night, answering legal conundrums put to him. It is for that reason that I feel I owe him an apology for adding to their number, which I confess it is now my

1107
intention to do. But it involves a matter of principle and what I have to ask him involves what I should describe as a respectful disagreement with something he said when he was making his speech on the last question, as to the territorial limits within which unfair industrial practices can be committed.
We are discussing Clause 93, which deals, I suppose one can put it loosely, with sympathetic action. I should like to assume a situation which I would describe as follows. A large international company manufactures its product, say, in this country and then ships it to Rotterdam to sell abroad. It transports it first to London Docks and loads it on ship at London Docks, transports it to Rotterdam, and unloads it at Rotterdam in order to sell it on the Continent. It is one of the very large companies, many of whom one can think of, who have large connections on the Continent. I suppose this will be a situation which will become more frequent if we enter the Common Market.
The question I should like to put is this. If one assumes that the company is in dispute with the dock workers in Rotterdam, what would be the inhibitions upon what is described as sympathetic action at the London Docks? Suppose the London dock workers refused to load the merchandise of this company on to the ships at London Docks in order that that merchandise might be transported to Rotterdam. The reason I put the question is that I have been asked to indicate what I think, at any rate, considering the terms of this Bill, is the effect of possible sympathetic action in order to assist unions overseas.
I should have submitted to the Committee—and I will put the view before the noble and learned Lord in particular —that when one looks at the definition of an " unfair industrial practice ", contained for example in Clause 92, one sees there is nothing in that clause, or so far as I am aware anywhere else in the terms of the Bill, which would produce the result that an unfair industrial practice can be committed only within our shores. I should have thought that if an unregistered union in Rotterdam embarks upon strike action in Rotterham. inas-much as the union certainly would not be registered under the provisions of this
1108
Bill it would automatically be committing an unfair industrial practice. I think that must be right, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord to consider whether he was not mistaken in saying that an unfair industrial practice could happen only in this country in terms of the Bill and the definitions of the Bill. I submit he was mistaken about that, and that an unregistered union in Rotterdam—that is to say a Dutch union, which obviously would not be registered under the terms of this Bill and therefore could not possibly be protected by what the noble and learned Lord has called the " umbrella "—could, within the meaning of Clause 92, commit an unfair industrial practice. I see no reason why not. I may be mistaken, and I should he grateful to hear whether the noble and learned Lord knows of any provision in the Bill which would show that I am mistaken.
Assuming that that is right as an initial proposition, one then turns to Clause 93 and asks what the answer is to the problem I put with regard to the London dock workers. They hear of the action taken by the Rotterdam dock workers and in a deliberate design to assist the Rotterdam dock workers they refuse to load the merchandise on to the ship in London, so that it cannot be transported to Rotterdam. Their intention in so doing is to bring industrial pressure upon the international company which is engaged in that class of operation. I would respectfully present to the Committee the view that if the London dock workers, with the intention of assisting the Rotterdam dock workers, refused to load the merchandise, they would automatically, under Clause 93, be engaging upon an unfair industrial practice. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will at least agree with me that it is an important question, because if the view that I am tentatively presenting for consideration is right, it might create the consequence that on a number of occasions the unions in this country, registered under the provisions of the Bill or not, under the umbrella, as they thought, would be engaged upon an unfair industrial practice. So I should have thought that it was at least open to argument that the consequence of Clause 93 would be that henceforth all such sympathetic action with any overseas union was out. If any union does it in this

1109
country, whether registered or unregistered, they automatically must commit an unfair industrial practice, for the obvious reason that the foreign union would not be registered under the terms of this Bill.
I do not want to examine the consequences of Clause 93 in relation to all the other industrial practices which are constituted under the provisions of this Bill. As has previously been said, there are a large number of them, but some untoward consequences may certainly result unless the utmost caution is exercised, even by unions who think they are safely sheltering under the umbrella by being registered under the terms of this Bill. I will not go through them, but one has only to think, for example, of Clause 34, which makes it an unfair industrial practice to break a collective agreement. Should the collective agreement have been entered into by an unregistered union then any union, registered or not, which acts in sympathy with that union, of necessity commits an unfair industrial practice under Clause 93. It is a far-reaching consequence. I do not say that that is not precisely what the Government intend, and the noble and learned Lord may say that it is exactly what they do intend. Perhaps I should correct myself: I said a collective agreement broken by a registered trade union—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord said " unregistered ".
LORD STOW HILL: An unregistered trade union. It need not be unregistered; for the purpose of my illustration it is equally an unfair industrial practice under Clause 34 if the union which breaks the collective agreement is itself a registered union. So one has to be very careful not to do anything to assist any other union, registered or otherwise, engaged in an industrial dispute, if there is any risk of a breach of a collective agreement. Those are just two situation which I pose in order to indicate the scope of this particular clause. It is very far-reaching and I should have thought that it would virtually outlaw sympathetic action in a large number of situations. I quite understand that the words in the clause " aid and abet "—borrowed from a rather unfortunate context, I should have thought, in this particular connection—are words which are narrow in scope, and we should rejoice in their being narrow, and cer-
1110
tainly I would not ask the Government to enlarge them. But narrow as they are, henceforth a great many unions which think that they are comfortably ensconced under the umbrella and are not offending against any of the provisions of this Bill may find they are liable to be taken before the Industrial Court and ordered to pay compensation on the scale which goes up to £100,000 in the case of unions with adequate membership. If that is right, and if I have analysed the clause correctly, it should be stated—and I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord will indicate it with his usual clearness—precisely what it is the Government want to do. I dare say that is precisely what they do want to do. I have put my points, and I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would give what may be his provisional view, as he may wish to reconsider it at a later date.
11.42 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord indicated, I have had no previous notice of these various points. I shall attempt to reply to them as best I can in the circumstances, but I shall take advantage of the noble Lord's last sentence, that I may wish to reconsider it on second thoughts; instant law is not always good law.
However, before I do so, I should make it plain in advance, because it may have some bearing on the degree to which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, wishes to pursue the matter on this occasion, that there are several significant improvements which the Government feel it may be necessary to make to the present Clause 93, and a suitable amendment will be available at the Report stage. When we come to discuss this matter at the later stage it will be that clause which I hope we shall be discussing, and not the admittedly defective clause which is at present before the Committee.
As I confessed earlier, the only reason why the Amendment was not ready for this stage was that I was offered an Amendment which I did not much like, and I asked for a much simpler one, of which I think I now know the content, but which could not be put down in time. I apologise to the Committee, but I like to have it as good as possible, and

1111
it was due to my pernickety character that it was not provided by the draftsman. Advantage will be taken of any observations which have been made in debate at the Committee stage, including those just made by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill.
The present view of the Government is that the following clarifications are necessary. In the first place, 1 am going to abolish the words " aid and abet ". When the Labour Government were in office, and I was in another place, I said I thought they ought to be burnt by the common hangman, and although I suppose in Government I should not allow myself such freedom of diction, I dislike the words particularly, the more especially as I have never been able to find out why they are two different things. I know what " aid " means, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, knows what it means, but what does " abet " mean? I have never seen the word, except in context with the word " aid ". The conclusion I have formed is that the words " aid and abet " is a single word, not three words, and I am going to have it out of this clause if I possibly can. I have every hope of being successful in that ambition, having abused the last Government for introducing it in another Bill which was theirs.
More substantially, I think, it does require to be made clear that the subsequent sanctioning by a trade union of an unofficial industrial action will not be actionable as an unfair supporting action under Clause 93. We touched on ground which was fairly close to it, but which did not actually cover it, at an earlier stage. My own view is that the clause is clear enough on that point to carry conviction, but it did not carry conviction in another place and the Solicitor General made an undertaking that it would be made clearer than it now is; and it would have been made clearer by this stage had it not been for the fact that I did not like the Amendment presented to me which would have made it clearer.
My own view is that it is unnecessary, because when a union officially endorses an unofficial action it does not do so in support of the unofficial action, although most people might use language to sug-
1112
gest that it does; what it really does is to take official action in respect of the original grievance. I would be prepared to elaborate and support that argument in considerable detail, but as what we are going to do is to make it plain in new words I simply state my opinion without bothering to support it. We also want to make it clear, on the other hand, that it will be unfair for a person to organise industrial action in support of an unfair industrial practice originally committed by himself. Again, for what it is worth, I am convinced the clause means that now, but again I shall not justify that view, because it will be made clear in the amended clause, even if it is not plain now.
To deal with the noble Lord's particular connundra, I would say first of all that I think, with great respect to him, that he has overlooked the fact that it is a general rule of construing Acts of Parliament that they do not bite on foreign territory unless the contrary is clearly implied or asserted, and it follows from that, I think, as surely as night follows day, that the mere fact that a Dutch union is not going to be registered under this Act—which of course it will not be, as the noble Lord correctly said—will not make its actions the actions of an unregistered union so as to attract the disadvantages of an unfair industrial practice in this country. Acts of Parliament do not, unless the contrary is clearly stated or implied, have extra-territorial effect. I think the whole of the noble Lord's argument was based upon a failure to take full account of that general rule of law. However, as I said, he did not give me notice of the point he was going to raise, and although I am fairly confident my answer is a conclusive one I reserve to myself to take advantage of the escape he afforded me in his last paragraph.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and I do apologise for not giving him notice. It is quite impossible to answer all these questions of law off the cuff, and I am sorry I had not told him the point earlier.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not complain at all. Ministers are here to be as helpful as they can, and I have been as helpful as I can; possibly I would have been more helpful if I had

1113
known, but, on the other hand, lots of points occur to critics and they are entitled to the best answer one can give at the moment.
If I can pursue this point one stage further, if I am right in saying that the action of the Dutch union in Rotterdam would not attract the penalties of an unfair industrial practice under Clause 92, or whatever other clause was invoked, then Clause 93 could not bite upon the action by a union in this country, because in order to attract the penalties of Clause 93 it has to he in furtherance, or aiding and abetting as it is at the moment, of a primary industrial action unfair under some other clause. If the Dutch action was out, the other action would be out too; at any rate, it would not be caught by Clause 93.
The same kind of answer is available to me in relation to the rather more sophisticated point which the noble Lord put about Clause 93. He has to remember that the words " in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute " occur twice in subsection (1). In order to be caught by Clause 93, the action must be taken, or threatened to be taken, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute as defined by Clause 158 on page 116. Secondly, his purpose or principal purpose in threatening or taking the action, must be to further
" another person in doing, in contemplation or furtherance of that dispute"—
that is the original dispute—
" anything which by virtue of this Act is an unfair industrial practice on the part of that other person ".
It is a fairly limited prohibition, even as the matter stands at the moment. It is in fact to say that action in furtherance or contemplation of an industrial dispute, which is taken to further an unfair industrial practice by another person in contemplation or furtherance of that dispute, shall itself be unfair. The object is that if you did not have a clause of this kind, however drafted and drafted carefully, you would in fact be making a monkey out of the law.
I do not think I can take the matter much further this evening, partly because I am very conscious of the fact that I am discussing the phraseology of a clause which I have recognised to be defective,
1114
and which I have promised to amend by the Report stage. I hope that when we come back to the clause on Report stage, we shall be discussing the amended version and not the existing version, which is unclear in parts. The little I have seen of the proposed Amendment indicates to me that it will be a great deal more acceptable to both sides of the House. It will also take account of the debates we have had, and therefore some of the points may be taken care of in a way which I cannot at present forecast. Having done the best I can, I hope that the noble Lord will give me credit at any rate for good intentions. To some extent I have covered the ground which he put to me.
11.53 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think that the exchange which has taken place between my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord has been a very interesting one. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate the importance of the point that has been raised, because more and more trade unions are beginning to feel that inevitably they will be involved in greater international contacts, closer international relationships and, as a result, a necessity to act from time to time to a greater degree than in the past in concert with trade unions in other countries. Even apart from any development in the direction of the E.E.C., the point is a very important one. It is bound to cross the minds of some of us, at any rate, that it looks as though, under this legislation, we may have the slightly bizarre position that it will be quite proper and unexceptionable for a union in this country to do certain things in support of a union in another country, for which they would be in danger if they took similar action in respect of a union —particularly a non-registered union—in this country.
This is a clause which, as it stands, strikes against both the registered and the unregistered trade union. The noble and learned Lord has been very candid about the necessity for some rephrasing of the clause. But it is, as we see it, aimed in effect at undermining the principle of trade union solidarity, which is a principle about which trade unions as organisations and trade unionists as individuals feel very keenly. The clause is aimed at action taken, as the noble and learned

1115
Lord has emphasised, in support of other action which is itself unfair. There are, I think, 22 unfair industrial practices under the Bill, so there is a fairly wide range available to anybody who wants to take action in support of an unfair industrial practice. We are glad that the clause is being looked at again, consistent with the statement of the learned Solicitor General and with what the noble and learned Lord himself has said, and we shall look forward to seeing it at Report stage. But even though the clause is under consideration, perhaps I may make one or two observations about it.
The first thing that puzzles me a little is how an organisation—and it may be an individual under this clause—contemplating action will know whether the action for which it feels an initial sympathy is or is not an unfair industrial action. As I understand it, this is a matter which could well not be determined for some considerable time after the action has been initiated. There are many people within the trade union movement who will show spontaneous sympathy with another group of workers, whether belonging to a registered trade union or to an unregistered one, who find themselves in dispute and are perhaps in financial difficulties or require moral or practical support of other kinds.
I think we welcome the fact, as the noble and learned Lord has told us, that the phrase " aid and abet " is to disappear. We did not like the phrase for very much the same reasons as he disliked it. But I am bound to say that we very much hope that when he looks for a substitute for it he will take great care not to find a phrase which is any wider in its application, because I fear that if he did that, much as we dislike " aid and abet ", we should feel some degree of regret at seeing it replaced by something else.
Whatever phrase is used, whether " aid and abet " or, as the noble and learned Lord proposed—we think rightly, subject to the qualification I have made—some other phrase, it has to be read against the substance of subsection (2), and it really will seem strange if a group of people render themselves open to some action being initiated against them if they have organised a " whip round " in support of a group of other workers who are
1116
on strike. The " whip round " may well be intended purely for the relief of hardship; indeed, this is normally the case when collections are taken for trade unionists who are on strike. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to ask himself, when he is considering the revision of this clause, whether it is seriously desired to seek to expose to some kind of penalty individuals who organise a collection for fellow-workers who are out on strike.
I must confess that I am still in some doubt about the phrase " organising … irregular action short of a strike ". We had some discussion upon this earlier, but there still seem to me to be uncertainties about this phrase. Will it be the case, for example, that to " black " the work, or " black " the goods of a particular firm which may be engaged in a dispute, which is a traditionally recognised method and form of showing trade union solidarity, will be a form of action which will fall under subsection (2) of this clause? Or, to take another example, will the banning of overtime be regarded as irregular industrial action short of a strike "? Or refusing to do work which would otherwise be done by those who are on strike? I cannot see how that could be brought within any of the terms in the subsection, but I would welcome an assurance that there is no likelihood that such a refusal to do work normally done by people who are on strike, whether they are members of a registered or an unregistered trade union, will be regarded as action which gives rise to any possibility of the law being put into motion under this clause.
Then I would like to ask about the situation in which an action or a strike begins as unofficial and is subsequently accepted by the union concerned as official. How does this stand under the clause as it is drafted? Is this a point which the noble and learned Lord is prepared to look at in the course of redrafting the clause? It could very well be that after the trade union had decided to ratify and give authority to unofficial action, the issue of some financing of that action arose, possibly to assist people who had run into hardship because of the unofficial action. Could this financing be done without breaching the clause we are discussing? We are glad to know that this clause is being I looked at again, but we hope that it will

1117
be looked at from the point of view of narrowing its scope substantially, not of widening it in any degree.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know that I can answer all of that, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, did not intend that I should. What he said will be noted and taken into account. One point I can answer. If official action is taken to adopt unofficial action, it is our intention not to make that " unfair ". I explained that I did not think it was done under the existing phraseology, but the Solicitor General's undertaking was to make it plainer that it is under the existing phraseology. It is primarily for that reason that my own desire was to make a simpler clause which contained simpler words to the same effect. For the reason I gave, I think this clause would do, but it did not satisfy criticism in another place and my right honourable and learned friend there promised that an Amendment would be introduced here, and that would be taken care of.
As regards " whip-rounds " I may have got the point wrong, but as I understand it (again I speak subject to correcting myself at a later stage) I think the noble Lord overlooked this. What is contemplated in Clause 93 is primarily action in support of a primary action. I do not understand that it necessarily involves " whipping-round ". What it involves, for instance, is striking in support of another strike, and that would involve those inside an organisation in which the action is taken. I should like to consider that again. What I can promise the noble Lord is that when we put the re-cast clause before the House on Report we shall have taken account of these points and hope to be able to answer them in greater detail.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: If I might ask one question here, it is this. If a union lends money to another union in order to help it meet its charitable obligations in the way of its widows' fund, would that be regarded as an unfair industrial practice? Let me illustrate this point. When the postal strike was on, some of the other unions lent money to the Postal Workers' Union in order to assist that union to meet its financial obli-
1118
gations in paying out money to the widows and dependants of their members. Would that be regarded as an unfair industrial practice? I am afraid I have not put my question very clearly, but I hope what I mean will be understood.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Again, it is extremely difficult to be quite sure of the answers to these matters, and I should not like to comment on anything which happened in an actual strike without having knowledge of what actually was or was not done, because that might cause a lot of trouble without doing any good. But I think the answer to my noble friend's question is that if he looks at subsection (2) of the existing clause (this is the best I can do for him) he will find that quite clearly it would be difficult to bring the acts which he contemplates within any of the existing phrases to be found there, and to that extent I think he can be sure that we shall not enlarge the potential area of subsection (2). Subscribing to widows is not, I think, either calling a strike or financing one, and enabling a union to discharge its existing obligations is not something which I would ordinarily have understood as coming within any of the phrases there set out.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: In view of the tact that, as the noble and learned Lord has explained, the terms of this clause are under consideration, I do not propose to invite my noble friends to divide the Committee upon the clause, but in saying this I should like to emphasise to the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues that this does not indicate any great liking for the clause, even in the way in which we hope it is going to be amended. I most sincerely trust that in considering this point the Ministers will bear in mind how deeply felt is the sense of solidarity among workers and how instinctive and immediate is the desire, particularly where a body of workers happens to work in close proximity, or in other ways has particular ties, to go to their assistance if they seem to be in a situation of difficulty. I hope that this very human and very laudable characteristic will be home in mind in considering this clause.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Industrial action against extraneous parties]:
12.9 a.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 263SSSS.
Page 71, line 20, leave out from (" shall ") to end of line 33 and insert C4 not be an unfair industrial practice or a tort for any person or organisation of workers—

(a) to agree to act with other persons in contemplation of a trade dispute or industrial dispute to break their contracts of employment, or

(b) peacefully to persuade suppliers, pro- viders of services and customers not to deal with an employer involved in a trade dispute, or industrial dispute or a dispute concerning the right to join or the recognition of a trade union or organisation of workers.")

The noble Lord said: Here we have a clause which, again, was accepted by the Government in another place as, in its original wording, not fulfilling the purposes which it was intended to fulfil. Indeed, I think I should not be putting it too strongly if I said that it almost appears, from studying the Record in another place, that the learned Solicitor General recognised in the course of the discussion on the clause that he had virtually come to the point of abolishing, or seeking to abolish, the right to strike; and as this had been done inadvertently the clause has been revised, following the discussion in another place. While again this is not a clause which we like particularly, we recognise that the present form is less objectionable to us than the form in which the clause was originally published.
Amendment No. 263SSSS which I move is intended to assert a positive right of peaceful persuasion of third parties who are in contractual relations with a party to an industrial dispute, in place of the negative limitation of interference with contracting third parties which is provided in the clause as it stands. The idea behind our Amendment is to entrench a right to secondary boycott as an industrial weapon with certain inbuilt safeguards. The importance of the secondary boycott in the development of trade union strength and in collective bargaining is, I believe, one which ought not to be underestimated or overlooked. I have seen it put forward by people who speak with authority on these matters that the absence of provisions such as this in the law of the United States has been one of
1120
the reasons why the trade union movement there has not developed to the point of organising as high a proportion of the working population as is the case in a number of comparably industrialised countries. It has been asserted that it is not the intention of the Government—and I trust that this is so—to deprive the trade union movement of legitimate and proper weapons. As I understand the Government position, they seek—and this point has been made many times in the proceedings on this Bill—to strike a fair and reasonable balance. I believe that even now in the clause as drafted the balance is weighted against the trade union side. I shall want to develop this point when we come to the Amendments which are concerned with some of the later provisions of this clause. I hope that the Government will be able to give consideration to this Amendment to see whether something on its lines can be incorporated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I find it very difficult to understand the words proposed to be substituted; I understand much more clearly the effect of omitting the words proposed to be omitted. The purpose of this sequence of clauses, Clauses 92, 93 and 94, is to give effect to the Majority Report of Donovan that the immunity extended to registered unions by Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 in respect of inducing a breach of contract of employment should be extended to inducing the breach of any contract, whether of employment or not, but on certain terms. The first, which is common to the Majority Donovan Report, is that the union must be registered. We have had our dispute as to how far those two provisions are compatible, one with the other. I will not repeat that. The second is that we believe that action in support of an action already declared an unfair industrial practice should, under Clause 93, itself be an unfair industrial practice. We discussed that on the last clause. But the third is to protect innocent third parties from industrial action in purported furtherance of a dispute to which they are not a party and in which they are not giving any material support to either of the parties. We stick by those limitations. In a sense, although we have transferred liability from the field of tort to the field of the Industrial Relations Court, we are doing very little more

1121
in Clause 94 than re-stating the existing law. As noble Lords will be aware, in a number of recent cases the solidarity between the workers of which the noble Lord spoke extended to what I might call blind hitting out against innocent third parties. We do not intend to reverse the decision in, for instance, Cousins v. Torquay Hotel or Stratford v. Lindley if there is no legitimate dispute between the innocent third party and the union and the innocent third party is not in any way interfering in the industrial dispute between the union and its enemy, whether an employer or an affiliation of employers. We propose to stick to that.
A great deal of this Amendment is both unnecessary and also unexceptional. It is the intention underlying it to which we object rather than its actual words—for instance, when the Amendment proposes that it should not be a tort for any person or organisation of workers to do particular acts as set out in paras. (a) and (b). They are already protected under Clause 128(3). So when it seeks to protect the peaceful persuading of suppliers not to deal with an employer, they would not be committing an unfair industrial practice, under Clause 82; provided, of course, that they were not inducing a breach of contract. They could perfectly well go to a customer or supplier and say, " We do not like the person with whom you are doing business and we want you to stop doing business." So long as they use peaceful persuasion, and are not inducing a breach of an existing contract, they are perfectly free to say this. There is nothing in the Act to make it wrong in terms which are set out in paragraph (b).
I do not want to take pedantic points, but this is not a purely pedantic point. I understand that the purpose of this Amendment is to reverse the limitation which we have sought to impose by Clause 94. Whether our clause is well drafted or whether the Opposition Amendment is well drafted is immaterial for this purpose. I understand the purpose of the Amendment to be to reverse the purpose of Clause 94, which is to protect from industrial action innocent third parties who are not interfering in a dispute. If that is the intention we are against it, however it is framed and whether or not our own clause is per-
1122
fectly drafted. Having said that, I think noble Lords opposite will know where we stand.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: In view of the hour, I do not think it appropriate for me to continue the discussion on this Amendment. I should prefer the Committee to run through the Amendments and look at the clause as a whole. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.20 a.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 263GGG.
Page 71, line 40, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: We are now coming, as I said that we should, to provisions in the Bill which, as we see it, contrast with the approach indicated in the first subsection. We are coming to Amendments which deal with individuals who are giving support or are in association with the employers concerned. We think that the bias of this Bill is exemplified by the contrast between the language used in Clause 93—though we welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord has indicated that he is to drop " aid and abet "—when we are talking of assistance provided for workers, with the language of the civil law used here when we are dealing with assistance for employers. It is notable that anyone who gives any support to an unfair industrial practice is caught by the clause but in dealing with employers, industrial action is first declared to be unfair if directed against an extraneous party. Subsection (2) carries this further by excluding from protection someone who is extraneous but who takes it upon himself to take some action in support of the party; and subsection (3) excludes people who appear to us to be obviously partisans in the dispute.
The associated employer, as defined in the definition clause, is an employer who is under common control with the employer involved in the dispute, or a member of an employers' organisation which includes a party to the industrial dispute. Under subsection (3) somebody who contributes or has contributed to a fund financing industrial action can do so, provided that the contribution was not specifically paid to support that dispute.

1123
Thus members of an employers' organisation may finance its members in an industrial dispute, provided the contributions are not earmarked for that particular dispute. When we take Clause 93 as at present drafted and this part of Clause 94, it hardly seems that an even balance is being held. Therefore, I would propose to the Committee, as the Amendment does, that this subsection should be removed. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Again the point is a fairly short one. We have to see it in the context of Clause 94 viewed as a whole. I think that the noble Lord has not realised that the clause, by virtue of subsection (1), is a good deal more restrictive than Clause 93, though he seemed to think that it was wider. The actions which are prohibited under Clause 94 include the taking or threatening of steps specified in Clause 93(2), but only on certain conditions. The conditions are that the intention should be to break a contract other than a contract of employment. This is extremely important in construing this clause, because if the main object is to break a contract of employment, or to induce others to do so, then the action is not caught by Clause 94. It is only contracts other than contracts of employment which can be caught by that clause.
The noble Lord wants to omit subsection (3), which contains a definition of those who are extraneous parties to the dispute. The other limitation of Clause 94 is that the party concerned, the target of the new action, should be extraneous to the dispute. What is meant by " extraneous to the dispute ". The test is whether he himself is either a party to the dispute—when obviously he is not extraneous—or whether, not being a party to the dispute, he is helping one of the parties in that dispute. All that we have said in subsection (3) is that the mere fact that it is an associated company in perhaps a quite different field of industry should not of itself bring it into a dispute. That is the first point. The second point is that if the two companies, the principal party to the dispute and the proposed target, have in the past contributed to a joint fund of which each can avail himself, that again does not necessarily make him a party to the dispute because he can-
1124
not get his money back out of the fund, and nothing that is done to hurt him will make it more likely that the dispute will succeed. Therefore I would have thought these were fairly uncontroversial exceptions.
What would make a difference would be if he were helping to finance the dispute himself, because then we say he is not neutral or extraneous at all. He is already one of the parties and is a legitimate target for industrial action. That seems to me to be justice. It may be because the hour is getting late, but I am not quite sure that I understand the objection to it. The mere fact of association, to our minds, does not necessarily involve two companies: it does not necessarily involve the second company in a dispute to which the first company is a party. And the mere fact of having in the past contributed, or being liable to contribute, to an indemnity fund of which both can take advantage in certain conditions does not constitute interference in a dispute. We think that is justice, and I do not yet find myself persuaded that it is not. There is sometimes a tendency —and one does not say these things harshly—for a union involved in a dispute to hit out blindly instead of trying to aim deliberately at those who are actively participating in the dispute in one way or another, or who may be helping the other side. Hitting out blindly is not something which ought to be permitted under this sequence of clauses.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: It seemed to me that a trade union may not finance an official stoppage of its own members if the stoppage contravenes Clause 92; but members of an employers' association may finance its members in an industrial dispute under this clause, provided that its contributions have not been earmarked for a particular dispute. How does this all work? Does it not give an unfair bias to the employers' side. Would this imply that they could legally spend money advertising, and taking for £100 or £500 a page in a local newspaper for the purpose of putting their points about the dispute? I will not delay the Committee, but that is the kind of problem that concerns some of us on this side. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord considers it relevant, but I should like a reply. If he considers it

1125
to be irrelevant, I will be satisfied with the answer.
12.31 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will try to give a relevant reply. The first point the noble Lord should bear in mind is that Clause 94 is concerned with the making of contracts other than contracts of employment. The second point is that if you pay for an advertisement backing up one side—in this case the employers' side—I think you would come within the terms of subsection (2)(b) of the clause, taking action in material support of a party in dispute, which would make anybody who did that a legitimate target for secondary action. All we are concerned with in paragraph (b), which is the immediate object of the Amendment, are the two propositions: that the mere fact of association does not constitute participation and the mere fact of a joint contribution to an indemnity fund, which cannot be withdrawn, equally of itself cannot constitute participation. So I think I have covered the point the noble Lord has raised, and I hope that. I have made it a little plainer.
LORD BERNSTEIN: if a trade union in dispute borrowed £500,000 from another trade union, that would be subject to the clauses that we are discussing. But supposing an industrial company losing money because of the strike, at the same time as the union is paying out money for the strike, borrowed £500,000, would that be acceptable under the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only refer again to subsection (2)(b). If what the secondary party does is to take an action in material support of a party to the dispute, he is interfering in the dispute and becomes then a legitimate target for secondary action. I suppose lending £500,000 might in certain circumstances be held to be material support. It would not in all circumstances, but in some circumstances it might well be so.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I should like to ask a question in regard to subsection (3)(c). If the Trades Union Congress, for example, was to set up a contingency fund to which trade unions made contributions, exactly as is provided that employers may do under paragraph (c)
1126
and those contributions were not withdrawable, were not earmarked for any specific dispute, but were used only to help a union which had suffered a big loss as a result of a dispute, could the T.U.C. fund be put in the same position as the employers' fund is put under this paragraph (c)?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would be in the same position, but it would not require it. What is now contemplated in Clause 94 is, of course, solely certain types of industrial action. I know of no reason why unions should not contribute to a contingency fund. Their money having been spent on that contingency fund, I do not see how they could be involved in an unfair industrial practice by something which happens ex post facto. I should have thought that they were in the same position, but Clause 94 is not concerned with that side of the matter at all.
LORD GARDINER: I find this very confusing. Is the position this: that if one union says to another, " Your people are involved in a strike, and you need money; we will lend you £500,000 ", that is an unfair industrial practice, but if one employer says to another employer, if there is a strike which results in a loss to the employer, "We will put up £500,000 ", that is not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I do not think either, in itself, is. What Clause 94 envisages is an existing dispute or contemplation of a particular dispute. It protects a general indemnity fund which can be used, among other things, for the purposes of indemnifying an employer. I see no reason why a group of unions should not do exactly the same. What neither the employer nor the union can do without incurring some disadvantage is materially to help the other in the course of a dispute. In the course of a legitimate strike a union can help another without limitation. If it were simply financing a strike which is not legitimate, it might find itself in trouble. If an employer did the same, either a strike or a lock-out, to his fellow employer, he would come within subsection (2)(b) of Clause 94, and would be a legitimate target of second reaction. So far as the two things can be put on the same footing, they probably are on the same footing.
LORD ARCHIBALD: If it is necessary in the Bill to spell out the right of the employers to have an indemnity fund, why is it not spelt out in the Bill that the trade unions equally have a right to set up a similar limited indemnity fund?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer is because they already have that right. The employer has the right, too. All that is spelt out in subsection (3) is not the employer's right to contribute to an indemnity fund—that he has quite independently of subsection (3), as the unions have. What is spelt out in subsection (3) is that the mere fact that he has availed himself of that right does not mean that he is to be treated as a party to a particular dispute which happens to supervene afterwards.
LORD BROWN: Surely the loan of money can never reasonably make the institution that lends it a legal target for action. If this is so, we shall have the banks in trouble for lending money to a union; or the Stock Exchange may become the legal target of a strike because they have cashed the shares of the trade union. Is it not clear that no court would regard a firm that had simply lent money in this way as giving support to a strike? Money is passing all the time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is confusing what we are talking about, and maybe I am confusing what we are talking about. What we are talking about is not what a court would decide is right or wrong, but what a court might decide rendered a firm the legitimate target for secondary action by a union. That is the only thing we are discussing. All I said was that I could well conceive of circumstances in which the direct subscription of money, whether by way of gift or loan, to help finance a lock-out by the employer, or finance his resistance to a strike-bound union, might in certain circumstances be held by the court to have been a sufficient participation in the strike to remove the protection which would otherwise be given under Clause 94.
LORD BROWN: That is exactly what I was talking about.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: The discussion we have had in no way dim-
1128
inishes our belief on this side of the Committee that subsection (3) imports into this clause considerations which are quite unnecessary and weight the scales somewhat against the trade union. Subsection (2) defines the position of an extraneous party. It seems quite unnecessary to go beyond that and to add subsection (3). It will not be easy—it never is—at the time when these events are taking place for the trade union to establish all the facts which might be necessary for it to show that a particular person was not entitled, or a particular organisation was not entitled, to the protection of subsection (3). It is extremely hard to know precisely what is going on between two associated companies at the time that an industrial dispute is involving one of them. Later on this may emerge at a shareholders' meeting. It may emerge in all sorts of ways, but it will not necessarily emerge at the time which is important from the point of view of the trade union: when the dispute is taking place and the trade union has a means of knowing whether the associated company is entitled to the protection of subsection (3). Very much the same applies to subsection (3)(c).
I must confess that the wording of this subsection and the explanation that has been given by the noble Lord imply a certain naivete on the part of trade unions in dealing with employers' fighting funds of this kind. If. after all, a group of employers are making regular contributions or, more likely, contributions when a call is necessary to a fighting fund of this sort, a call may very well be necessary because one of them has been involved in an industrial dispute. Would the replenishment of the coffers, the expected replenishment of the coffers, very soon after the dispute was finished —perhaps with some of that money going retrospectively to the company which had been engaged in the dispute—completely ensure protection under subsection (3)? It would, as I understand it, because the previous call would have been paid perhaps long before the industrial dispute in question had broken out—or certainly before—and the subsequent call which might provide some retrospective financial aid to the company involved in the dispute would take place after the dispute was ended. So within the terms of subsection (3)(c) there would have been no contribution with specific reference to

1129
that industrial dispute. But it would be hard for any reasonable person to believe that the periodicity of the calls or the flow of the money which had taken place had been completely unaffected by the fact that the industrial dispute had taken place.
I feel that this is not a situation we can regard as satisfactory. However, at this stage of our proceedings this is not a matter I want to press to a Division, especially as we have a rather similar pair of Amendments which we shall be dealing with in a moment and which will perhaps give the noble and learned Lord the opportunity of making some further observations on this matter. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.43 a.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 263HHH:
Page 72, line 2, leave out from (" member") to (" has") in line 3 and insert (" except where he").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 263HHH with which is associated Amendment No. 263JJJ. In the light of the debate which we have had I think it is not necessary for me to explain the Amendment at any very great length. I think what we are seeking to do here will be quite apparent. We are seeking to alter the sense of Clause 94(3) so that mere membership of an employers' association would be insufficient to disqualify as an extraneous party; the making of contributions to an industrial fighting fund of any kind would be sufficient to disqualify. I think this is a very reasonable Amendment which we are putting forward in the light of the discussion we have had on the point in discussing the subsection.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I could not resist the impression as we discussed the last Amendment, which to some extent embraces this Amendment, that we were beginning to chase our own tails. The particular example which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, then postulated was one which could not arise or be protected under Clause 94. If in fact a dispute is over, Clause 94 does not apply at all. Clause 94 deals only with a situation which obtains while a dispute is on or in contemplation. Once the dispute
1130
was over, whatever the indemnity fund might do or might not do would not justify a union in taking totally new action as a means of punishment against the members of the indemnity fund, because what it then did would not come within Clause 94 at all. It would have to be justified outside the terms of the clause. The perfectly simple question which the Committee has to decide, and which was one of the two questions that it has decided by implication under the former Amendment, is whether the mere fact of contribution to an indemnity fund should render a firm liable to secondary action designed to cause third parties to break commercial contracts with it—I say " commercial contracts ", meaning contracts other than contracts of employment. We believe that the mere contract of contribution to an indemnity fund should not justify a union in hitting out blindly and inducing people to break their contracts with all the members of the indemnity fund simply because one of the other members has a dispute with it.
We regard this as a fairly simple point, and although we would concede at once that a direct contribution would deprive a firm of protection, we do not think that a union is entitled to adopt these means against all the members of an indemnity fund simply because one of them has a dispute with a union, which they cannot influence one way or the other when the contribution has been paid. In the end, our belief is that the secondary action must have some legitimate effective purpose and must not be done out of mere rage, or as I put it before, a desire to hit out blindly. This is the only point that the Committee has to decide, and for this reason I find this Amendment open to the same objection as the last, because in fact it is part of the last.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I agree that it is closely related to the last Amendment. I think that on the last Amendment, like my noble friend Lord Brown, I must have compressed my argument excessively. I recognise that after an industrial dispute is over whatever payments are made to the indemnity fund cannot reopen the dispute. I was merely seeking to point out circumstances which could easily arise and which would render quite meaningless the proviso at the end of subsection (3)(c), that the contribution must have been paid without

1131
specific reference to a particular industrial dispute. I was arguing that in fact the flow of money to the indemnity fund could take place without its being possible during the dispute for it to be identified as specific support for the employers in that particular dispute, though it could nevertheless have greatly influenced the dispute. Indeed, there might even be retrospective payments to the firm which had been engaged in the dispute if it were judged impolitic to call money in to the indemnity fund while the dispute was taking place. I believe that there is an inequity. After all, it is not a question of trade unions hitting out wildly and blindly. There are the provisions of subsection (2); we are not challenging those; but we are challenging the further qualification of subsection (2) by subsection (3).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think we can carry this discussion very much further, and I am sure the noble Lord will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not. The question at issue is the right to break a commercial contract in contemplation of a dispute and the circumstances in which that is to be legitimate as regards a party who may be extraneous to it. The issue is whether a contribution to an indemnity fund makes the donor a party to the dispute so as to deprive him of extraneous status.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: For the reasons I have given on the earlier Amendment, I do not propose to invite my noble friends to divide, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.51 a.m.
On Question, whether Clause 94 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STOW HILL: I think we ought not to part with this clause without being fully conscious of what I submit are extremely stringent provisions. The clause sets up a new unfair industrial practice. What does that consist of? It is of taking any industrial action such as is described in Clause 93(2), if your purpose in so doing is to induce the outside company to break or not complete its contract, and that is sufficent. It is not necessary that your taking of that step
1132
should have the slightest effect on anybody in the world. It is not necessary that the outside party should in effect be prevented from completing his contract or performing his contract or should be compelled to break it: the outside party may be completely unaffected. It is sufficient if you simply threaten to do it. If you organise a strike for one night and then call it off, you have committed the unfair industrial practice, although nobody has really noticed what you have done. If you have taken a step towards organising it you have committed an unfair industrial practice. As I have said before, it is enough even if you threaten to do any of those things.
This would have been a less stringent clause had there been a further requirement that your threat, or the step that you take should actually have produced some result, and should have caused the third party either to fail in the performance of his contract, or to break his contract. It would not have been so stringent if there had been some provision—I should describe it as a safeguard—of that sort; but without it I submit that this is a most ferocious clause. If you commit such an unfair industrial practice, under Clause 97, you are liable to be taken before the Industrial Court. It may be impossible to show that you have caused anybody the least loss or any damage at all, but even then an order can be made against you under subsection (3) of the clause, ordering you to refrain from any such conduct in future. You must make no more threats, take no more steps to organise strike action; and if almost by mischance, you fail to comply with that order, you run the risk of a motion against you for attachment for contempt of court.
So long as the Committee is aware that that is what the clause does, and is content to pass it in that form, so be it; but it seems to me to be one of the most ferocious clauses in the whole of the Bill. If you just open your mouth, providing you have the necessary intent, automatically you have committed an unfair industrial practice, and you may be sent to prison if you disobey an order telling you you must not open your mouth again. That is what the clause does. Lest it has not been observed, I think it right on the Question, Whether

1133
Clause 94 shall stand part of the Bill, to call to the attention of the Committee that that is its real effect. It is a very savage clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure really whether the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is aware, any more than I am aware that he is overstating his case rather badly. Certain acts are declared to be unfair industrial practices, and one of these is a threat; and admittedly if they are committed, an order of the court can be made, either declaring the rights of the parties, in which case any reasonable man will obey them without. any further order, or awarding compensation if they have resulted in damage. If there is no damage (and this will he the case where there was only a threat) no order of compensation can be awarded—or an order of the court telling him to refrain from an action which is illegal, which is in the nature of a quia timet injunction. There is nothing

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Balerno, L.

Essex, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Balfour, E.

Exeter, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Barrington, V.

Falmouth, V.

Redesdale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Redmayne, L.

Belstead, L.

Fisher, L.

Ridley, V.

Bessborough, E.

Gage, V.

Rochdale, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Buchan, E.

Hailes, L.

Sandys, L.

Burnham, L.

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

Savile, L.

Caldecole, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Chesham, L.

Hankey, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Conesford, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hood, V.

Swansea, L.

Cowley, E.

Ilford, L.

Templemore, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kemsley, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Cromartie, E.

Kilmany, L.

Vivian. L.

Davidson, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

De Clifford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Windlesham, L.

Digby, L.

Mansfield, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L.

Raglan, L.

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brown, L.

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

Rochester, Bp.

Champion, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 94 agreed to accordingly.
particularly ferocious about that, and unless it is deliberately disobeyed no harm can come of it.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: We have on the earlier Amendments expressed our views of the component parts of this clause, and my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has further underlined some of its characteristics. I think there is no need for us to spend any more time in repeating again the critcisms which we have to make of the clause, which seems to us to be a thoroughly inequitable one. In those circumstances, as I say, not having divided the Committee on any of the Amendments, we feel we must divide the Committee on the clause.
12.57 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 94 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Non-Contents, 21.
1.4 a.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 263B:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:
". It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any employer to refuse to negotiate with a trade union representing a particular description of worker on any matter relating to the terms and conditions of employment or the physical conditions under which the workers are required to work or to negotiate on the said matter with a person or persons other than the trade union representing the particular description of worker affected by the said terms and conditions of employment or the said physical conditions of work."
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 263B standing in the name of my noble friend Lady White and myself. It deals with the situation which is not necessarily covered by the creation of a sole bargaining agency, and it is intended to ensure that the trade union is the appropriate body with which an employer will discuss terms and conditions of employment. As has been mentioned at least twice during the Committee stage of this Bill, the National Union of Teachers has a position and experience which is frequently rather special. It has to deal with some local authorities who tend to set up ad hoc bodies to deal with conditions of service, a matter which would more properly be dealt with by the unions. Sometimes these ad hoc bodies are composed of head teachers or other persons who might not be representative of the teachers in the employ of a local authority. The National Union of Teachers would not necessarily wish to exclude consultation with such ad hoc bodies, but it feels that it ought to be quite clear that such consultation should not be a substitute for negotiations with the trade unions.
At this hour of the night, I do not wish to press the Amendment too far but, while being mindful of what has been made clear by the Government following the submission of a similar Amendment in the other place, I ask that some assurance be given that employers are expected to negotiate in the first instance with the appropriate trade unions, rather than with ad hoc bodies, even though there is no sole bargaining agency. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has moved his Amendment with
1136
very great courtesy and speed. He has said that the Amendment is intended to ensure that the trade union which is the appropriate body is the one with which the employer negotiates. It is a little difficult in all cases to say which is the appropriate body. There may be several unions claiming to be appropriate bodies for the people whom they claim to represent. So, to start with, I am bound to say that in many cases the position is not so crystal clear as one would wish. Secondly, it is not the intention of the Government to require the employer to recognise any particular body. If a dispute arises, then the question of what should be the sole bargaining agent can be referred to the C.I.R. for their investigation. In the long run, they can go to the Industrial Court for decision and, if need be, for imposition of a statutory recognition. Where there is more than one union involved, the C.I.R. may well decide that the right answer is to have a joint negotiating panel covering the various units, rather than allow them to contend among themselves, to the detriment of the profession or the workers as a whole.
The answer I must give to the noble Lord is that we believe that the provisions made in Clauses 43 onward as to recognition are the right provisions to make, and we do not think it would be right to lay down, even if it were possible to do so, an obligation, a compulsion if you like, on the employer to recognise a union. For one thing, one cannot very well do that without providing the means of deciding which union he is to recognise. I started by saying that it is not always clear which union represents a particular description of worker. I hope that I have made clear that in our view the Bill already provides suitable machinery to achieve the kind of object which the noble Lord has in view. Certainly I entirely agree with him that it is the intention that there should be stable bargaining arrangements, rather than ad hoc ones, but we think that the Bill already provides for this in the right way.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I rather think that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has added nothing to what was said in another place when the matter was discussed there, but perhaps a close reading of what he has said when the Report

1137
is published may indicate some slight advance on the position as it was stated then. I have no wish to detain the Committee this evening, but I may say that I am speaking on behalf of the National Union of Teachers, which feels very strongly about this, and would have been grateful for some assurance which I rather fancy the noble Lord has not given. However, I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.12 a.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 263C:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause—
(".It shall not be an unfair industrial practice for any person to induce another person to break a contract of employment where there is no breach of statutory duty on the part of an employer. provided that nevertheless the physical conditions of employment are unreasonable.")
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment may I again make clear that the National Union of Teachers feel that there is a very special case which ought to be recognised in regard to teachers in schools. The Solicitor General has stated that the Bill provides no way out for the employer who creates dangerous or unsafe conditions, or tolerates a dangerous or unfair system of work, and that no strike against this kind of thing would be in any danger. Teachers employed in schools are in a somewhat different position from employees in a factory where there are detailed safety regulations and it is not too difficult to know when the employer is in breach. There are no detailed statutory safety regulations applying to schools, except to office accommodation.
As to teaching accommodation, the Schools (Amending) Regulations, 1965 have the general stipulation that the premises of a school shall be kept in a proper state of repair, cleanliness and hygiene and that adequate arrangements shall be made for the health and safety of pupils and staff in case of danger from fire or other causes. But the Standards for School Premises Regulations, which lay down general standards for schools present a very serious drawback in that under the Education Act 1968 the Secretary of State is able to issue a certificate to a local authority absolving it from
1138
compliance with the particular standards by reason of
"having need to control public expenditure in the interests of the national economy."
It would seem therefore that the situation can arise where, although a local authority as an employer is not in breach of a specific duty, nevertheless the conditions of work of the teachers are entirely unsatisfactory. The National Union of Teachers would wish to continue to have freedom to take the necessary action to protect their members' interests in circumstances such as these. I have presented the case as briefly and as concisely as I am able, but I sincerely hope that the Government will give this Amendment the consideration that a very substantial body of people in the teaching profession desire. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: that the noble Lord will recognise that, while he is quite entitled to present a particular aspect of a problem in relation to a particular industry or profession, we are bound, as a whole, to legislate to cover the generality, and it is a little difficult to argue a particular case. There are one or two points that I might draw attention to in his Amendment. For example, I think it is important to remind him that Clause 92 is specifically related to action taken
in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute ",
and I take it that it was his intention that this should apply also to his Amendment. The definition of an industrial dispute which is given in Clause 158 includes disputes related
wholly or mainly to … the … terms and conditions of employment, or the physical conditions in which any workers are required to work ",
and of course the Amendment would be meaningful only in the context of an industrial dispute.
The Government do not consider that there should be a general protection for breach of contract in the circumstances that the noble Lord has adumbrated. The phrase "physical conditions of employment are unreasonable" is not defined, and it could be open to varying shades of interpretation. I might say that the widest of these interpretations could well have the effect of nullifying the effect of

1139
Clause 92 in disputes about physical conditions of work. It is not always easy in any case for experts to decide whether there has been a breach of statutory duty. It would be even more difficult for the court to decide whether a dispute as to whether working conditions were reasonable could justify a breach of contract. It is surprising, indeed, that those who complain that the Bill will introduce excessive litigation into the industrial relations field should propose a measure likely to lead to what could only be repetitive litigation.
I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that the intention of Clause 92 is to curb unofficial inducement to industrial action in breach of contract, so it would not be right to give a blanket authority for unofficial inducement of industrial action in order to meet the particular circumstances that he has in mind. In any case, I should have thought that there would be no difficulty, in the circumstances that he has in mind, in securing official action. There is no great difficulty about this. I see no reason why if, in a particular part of the country, for example, the conditions of work were particularly bad because the local authority was not prepared to bring them up to standard, the union or unions should not authorise official action.
I think it wrong as a general principle to say that, no matter what the circumstances are, unofficial action could be taken to break a contract of employment, or, to use the noble Lord's words, to induce another person to break a contract of employment where the physical conditions of employment are unreasonable. I have given the reasons: first, that it is difficult to define precisely what could be meant by the circumstances in which such unofficial action would be permissive and the circumstances in which it would not; secondly, and much more important, that it would be unwise to make a general principle in such a case as this to allow unofficial action where, quite apparently from the circumstances the noble Lord presented to the Committee, official action could be appropriately taken.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I thank the noble Lord for the care and patience with which he has replied to the case I endeavoured to present. What he said will
1140
be studied carefully, and if there be need the matter will be brought back again. But having regard to the hour I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Fourth Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
  NATIONAL PORTS COUNCILM
  NATIONAL PORTS COUNCILM
  POST OFFICE TELEPHONE SYSTEM
  POST OFFICE TELEPHONE SYSTEM