Sitting of 18 April 1973

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

    Home Ownership
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage home ownership, in view of the recent increase in mortgage interest rates.
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to increase home ownership, in view of rising mortgage rates.
    Sir Gilbert Longdenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage home ownership, in view of the recent increase in mortgage interest.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon): The best way of encouraging home ownership is to increase still further the number of houses for sale. The measures set out in the White Paper "Widening the Choice: The Next Steps in Housing" will help to ensure an adequate supply of mortgage funds and building land which are essential for a high and stable level of house building.
    Mr. Adley: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that the first priority should be to encourage home ownership. What is the latest position on private sector starts, to the latest convenient date? Is he sure that the proposals in the White Paper will produce enough land? Does he feel that the building societies themselves are assisting the
    464
    Government's aim of encouraging home ownership, especially for those who have never previously owned their own homes?
    Mr. Channon: On the last part of that question, discussions have begun with the building societies and I am sure that they will be carried out helpfully and cooperatively. As for the other parts of the question, I believe that the steps proposed in the White Paper will ensure an adequate supply of building land being available. As for the number of private housing starts, if the rate of the last three months, from December 1972 to February 1973, were projected at an annual rate, we would have over 250,000 private starts this year.
    Mr. Crosland: The county elections, of course, are now over. What will the Minister do if, as is still possible, building societies increase their lending rate to 10 per cent. at their next meeting?
    Mr. Channon: It is a long-established rule in the House that one does not answer hypothetical questions.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: What steps is the Minister taking to encourage public sector house building? Does he not think that the whole process would be encouraged if he compelled councils to sell their houses to willing buyers?
    Mr. Channon: We give every encouragement to local authorities to sell their own houses and I strongly support them in doing so. I hope that the Government will not be driven to taking compulsory steps, because the management of their housing stock is one for local authorities themselves. But I must say that my patience is sorely tried by the activities of some local authorities. As to the question of encouraging the public sector, I had a meeting yesterday with some of the local authority associations to discuss a number of matters. As I have made plain again and again in this House, I am anxious that in areas of housing stress there should be an active public sector house building programme.
    Mr. Heffer: Has the Minister considered the establishment of a Government building society in order to pump in money provided by the Government and attract money for the Government, so as to bring down interest rates? What precise plans has he if the rate goes up to

    465
    10 per cent. as my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) suggested?
    Mr. Channon: I do not think we need assume that it will go up to 10 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman was being uncharacteristically pessimistic. So far, I see no evidence of the need for a Government building society. There seem to be enough building societies already.
    Mr. Allason: Has my hon. Friend any ideas on the supply of land for self-build groups? Does he recognise that they, at least, can produce houses without putting a strain on the building industry, which is one of the bottlenecks in the further provision of houses?
    Mr. Channon: I am very keen on self-build groups. They provide only a small number of houses at present, but I will consider what my hon. Friend says to see whether there is any way in which they can be further helped. This is really up to the local authorities.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Would not the best way of helping owner-occupiers be to keep down the soaring cost of building land? Would not the most effective way of doing that be by the public acquisition of land at its existing use value, as farmland or waste land, instead of at the enormously inflated market value that it acquires once planning or building permission is given?
    Mr. Channon: No, I cannot agree. The hon. Member's proposals would cost the country hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of pounds. They would be wholly impracticable and would fail to achieve their aim. What is essential is that there should be an adequate supply of building land, so that houses can be built on it. If that is done, it will stabilise the price of both houses and land.

    Cities (Finance)
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about Government aid to ease the special financial problems of the great cities.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I have nothing to add to the reply given
    466
    by my right hon. and learned Friend to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) on 6th March.—[Vol. 852. c. 94–6.]
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware of the anger felt by the people of Manchester at the Government's failure to make an adequate contribution towards paying for services provided by the city of Manchester to hundreds of thousands of people who do not live in the city but use those services and who do not contribute towards their cost? Is he further aware of the anger of the people of Manchester at having to pay an increased rate in order to cover the cost of Government legislation of which they disapprove, such as the Housing Finance Act? When will the Minister take some action to help us, instead of just waffling complacently?
    Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman appears not to appreciate the purpose of the rate support grant, which is a global figure arranged with the local authorities, in November or thereabouts each year for the following year, so that local authorities may have freedom to decide on what they spend their money and need not ask the taxpayer or ratepayer for more. It is reasonable for the Government to ask them to keep within that estimated expenditure.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in any case, 60 per cent. of local government revenue comes from the central Exchequer, and that if there is any problem, it is surely a problem of the rating system itself, which is illogical, unfair and out of date?
    Mr. Page: I would not go so far as that. The contribution from the taxpayer is substantial. It is, after all, worked out by agreement with the local authority associations.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the city of Manchester is in a rather special position? Has he observed that, as a result of the fall in population and the elimination of the rate resources element, it is estimated that Manchester has lost £1·9 million during the period 1972–73? Will he reconsider this problem and give some relief to the burdened ratepayers of the city?
    Mr. Page: The problem of Manchester is not unique. We are taking account of the problems of the large cities in considering a new formula on which to distribute the rate support grant, which I hope will shortly be put before the House in new legislation.

    Operation Eyesore
    Mr. Edward Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to announce a decision about the future of the special environmental assistance scheme Operation Eyesore.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I hope to announce my decision shortly.
    Mr. Lyons: Is the Minister aware that I make no apology for raising yet again the urgent need to extend Operation Eyesore beyond 30th June? This is the third time that he has given me this reply. Is he aware that some nervous local authorities have already stopped accepting new Eyesore projects, cutting the scheme from 17 to 14 months? Are not the work forces engaged on Eyesore projects in local authorities entitled to know now what the future holds for them?
    Mr. Rippon: I appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. It has been a very popular and worthwhile scheme, but it was announced as a short-term measure and it must be regarded in that light at present.
    Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remember, in consultations with his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland, that this scheme has been of particular value to those parts of the country which were disfigured by the Industrial Revolution of the past and whose environment has suffered disfigurement through the operations of our older industries?
    Mr. Rippon: That is certainly true. I am sure that it has been a very valuable scheme and has served the purpose for which it was introduced.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of Early Day
    468
    Motion No. 267, in my name and the names of a number of hon. Members representing constituencies in the North West, from both sides of the House, regarding the need to continue this scheme for a further 12 months?
    As this feeling is so widespread, will the Minister give a very sympathetic answer at an early date?
    Mr. Rippon: I shall certainly bear in mind the views expressed.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his proposals for dealing with those property developers making substantial profits from house improvement grants.
    Mr. Stallardasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the Committee on Housing Improvement Grants.
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the Committee on Housing Improvement Grants.
    Mr. Channon: My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet completed his comprehensive review of policy on older housing, which includes improvement grant policy. A statement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Minister agree that a problem exists here and that there is a scandal which needs to be dealt with? In so far as there is the scandal of profiteering and speculation, nothing, or very little, is being done to solve the housing problem for which the housing improvement grant scheme was instigated. In view of that, will the Minister take urgent steps to deal with this matter as expeditiously as he can?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman slightly exaggerates the position. I think it would be common ground throughout the House that the improvement grant scheme has been a major step forward in improving our older and obsolescent housing, and the ghastly conditions of many tens of thousands, if not hundreds

    469
    of thousands, of people who have to live in appalling housing conditions.
    I agree that there is a problem, but the hon. Gentleman exaggerates its importance.
    Sir G. Nabarro: On the subject of scandals, is not the real scandal in this context the fact that housing grants are limited to only £1,000 and that from the point of view of the Government it would be a far better investment if the limit were at least doubled, in order to induce an even greater number of people to improve their house properties, thereby increasing rateable values and lessening the burden on the central taxpayer?
    Mr. Channon: I note my hon. Friend's view. Very few improvement grants come anywhere near the present £1,000 limit.
    Mr. Stallard: Is the Minister aware that his reply will disappoint thousands of people throughout the country and, more particularly, those in areas such as mine, in inner London? Does he really understand the racket that is going on in conversion and improvement grants in inner London? Does he know about the squatting problem, and the difficulties of squatters? Did he read in the Press this morning about the eruption of violence in my constituency arising out of this problem? Does he know about the problems of evictions, and of youngsters seeking a home in Camden Town, where a one-bedroomed flat costs £12,750? Does he know about the problems of teachers and other workers who are searching for the last few furnished tenancies which are available in inner London? Does not the Minister appreciate—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is quite a good go.
    Mr. Stallard: Will the Minister consider—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister already has enough for consideration on his plate.
    Mr. Channon: I am well aware of the problems that exist in the stress areas of our big cities, and, in particular, in inner London—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening to the answer, as he put
    470
    such a long question, he will have noted that the White Paper just published promised that the Government's proposals will be brought forward following a review of the policy on older housing.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If improvement grants were included in assessing liability for income tax, those who need it most would receive it at practically no deduction and those who need it least would pay a heavy rate of tax on what they receive, would they not?
    Mr. Channon: I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's very interesting views.
    Mr. Cox: Returning to the Minister's reply, is not he fully aware that we are opposed not to housing improvement grants when they are being properly used but to the callous indifference shown by property speculators to the people living in those properties in trying to get them out by any means that they can and thus make substantial profits? Already throughout London, in spite of the inquiry that is taking place, properties are being bought up and left to remain empty for weeks and weeks at a time. There are 100,000 empty properties in London. When will the Minister do something about it?
    Mr. Channon: I had a meeting with the hon. Gentleman's borough on this very topic yesterday. We discussed the problem of empty houses. I made it perfectly clear that I hoped local authorities would make the best use of their own properties and that in cases where private people were blatantly leaving their properties empty for long periods my right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider a compulsory purchase order.
    I must point out, however, that if there is this great scandal about improvement grants in inner London it is the boroughs themselves which make the improvement grants.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, will he encourage local authorities in areas where there is acute housing shortage to purchase such premises and make use of improvement grants to provide extra housing much more quickly than would otherwise be done?
    Mr. Channon: As always, my hon. Friend has made a most helpful and useful suggestion.
    Mr. Freeson: Why does the Minister have to wait until he has completed this review, for which we have been waiting so long? Does not he agree that at least two points can now be clearly accepted by all of us? On the one hand, there is abuse in certain areas in London, and possibly elsewhere in the country, to which my hon. Friends have been referring, and, on the other, large areas of landlord-owned twilight property are not being tackled. Does the Minister agree that that is so? If he does, in order to tackle both problems will he accept the recommendation of the Layfield Report and the policy which has been advocated by the London Labour Party, of a massive takeover of these properties by municipalities, in order to get the job done?
    Mr. Channon: I should be much more inclined to accept the Layfield Report than the advice of the London Labour Party. The wholesale policy of municipalisation suggested by the Labour Party would not add one house to the housing stock. What the White Paper promised was that we would bring forward proposals for housing stress areas following the review of older housing policy. If the Opposition will promise us the time to complete it by the end of the summer, that will be a great help.

    Roads (Portsmouth)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what communications he has received concerning the construction of a strategic lorry park, the construction of a related link road and the widening of existing roads in North Portsmouth; what replies he has sent; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I have received from the hon. Member a petition from local residents. On the siting of a lorry park, I cannot usefully add to my right hon. Friend's reply given to a similar Question from the hon. Member on 7th February 1973.
    Mr. Judd: Will the Under-Secretary take an early opportunity to come with
    472
    me to see for himself the rape of the living communities of Portsmouth by the totally unnecessary and disruptive road building? In keeping with the Report of the Public Expenditure Committee on Urban Transport, will he urge the city council of Portsmouth fundamentally to think again about its road building programme and to improve its public transport system with park-and-ride schemes?
    Further, will the Under-Secretary now tell his special working party on strategic lorry parks that, unless the Ministry of Defence can make the firing range at Tipnor available, there can be no strategic lorry park on the already overcrowded Portsea Island?
    Mr. Speed: The last part of the question is a matter for my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As to the first part, at this stage it is for the Portsmouth City Council to proceed. I have today written a very full letter to the hon. Gentleman explaining the position. I do not think that it is my job to tell the city council what it should or should not do about its own road schemes.

    Council Houses (Sale)
    Mr. Lambornasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he sets before allowing local authorities to sell council houses at 30 per cent. below market value.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am prepared to authorise sales at up to 30 per cent. below unrestricted market value in cases where the local authority can show that there have been substantial rises in the market value of their houses. Sales on this basis have to be accompanied by resale conditions for a period of eight years and costs have to be covered.
    Mr. Lamborn: Is the Under-Secretary aware that one of the criteria on which the Greater London Council approached the Minister's Department to have the percentage reduction increased to 30 per cent. was the difficulty of selling housing on certain estates? In view of the stress conditions of inner London, is it not scandalous that the pool of housing which produces 12,000 vacancies a year to deal

    473
    with the problems of the area is being dissipated in this way?
    Mr. Eyre: No. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the varying aspirations of people in housing matters. Local authorities should be prepared to sell to tenants who want to buy and are able to do so, and should at the same time build or otherwise provide accommodation to meet the needs of those needing houses to let.
    Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend prepared to apply the same criteria in the case of new towns, where there may equally well be conditions in which a 30 per cent. discount would be highly suitable?
    Mr. Eyre: The circumstances in new towns are rather different, and the requirement that houses should not be sold below cost does not allow much scope in the respect that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. Crosland: There is a blockage here. Does not the Under-Secretary agree that we are very concerned, not only with the total housing condition but with the supply of rented accommodation? Is he aware that the supply of private rented accommodation is continually declining and that both starts and completions of public rented accommodation are lower than they have been for 10 years? In those circumstances, not only to allow but, indeed, to encourage the sale of badly needed rented property is a disastrous policy.
    Mr. Eyre: The difference I have with the right hon. Gentleman in this respect is that the tenant who wishes to buy is not normally prepared to live elsewhere. It therefore follows that one meets his aspirations by allowing him to acquire the family asset—the house he lives in.

    Car Seat Belts (Children)
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the adequacy and effectiveness of existing controls on the safety of car seat belts that are sold and fitted expressly for use by children.
    Mr. Wigginasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to make the public aware of the legal requirement only to install in cars children's seats and belts that are of a
    474
    design and standard approved by the British Standards Institute.
    The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I am satisfied that child seat belts approved to the British Standard are effective and that the law is right in permitting only such belts to be installed for safety purposes in cars. I am considering how best to supplement recent publicity about the sale and use of belts not so approved.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of the utmost gravity, in which many traders are unwittingly in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act by attributing safety properties to these harnesses which they do not have, and that parents are lulled into what turns out to be a false sense of security about their children by using belts which are not adequately fitted, as has been proved in recent tragic accidents? Will my right hon. Friend please reconsider this question very urgently, as a matter concerning the health and safety of thousands of children?
    Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and hope that further publicity will result from what she has just said. The difficulty is that we are dealing with two kinds of appliance—one to restrain the child, to keep it from moving about in the car, and the other to protect it. The standards applied to the latter are those which are intended for the purposes of safety, and those which have a British Standard are safe and reliable. The other ones are the traps, when it is represented by retailers that they fulfil a purpose for which they were not made.
    Mr. Sandelson: Does the Minister see any sense in the extremely expensive campaign which has been mounted to encourage people to use safety belts, while, as the same time, an additional tax is imposed on their purchase? I refer to value added tax.
    Mr. Peyton: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Wiggin: Is it not an absurd state of affairs that it is legal to sell harnesses and children's seats which, once fitted in a car, break the law? Will my right hon.

    475
    Friend have consultations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs to see whether the sale of non-standard belts and seats can be prohibited? Will he give publicity to the regulation about the illegality of fitting non-standard seats and belts?
    Mr. Peyton: I shall certainly consider the point my hon. Friend has made. It would be difficult to take overall action to restrain people from employing useful devices which simply keep a child anchored in a car. It is important that parents should be aware when buying these seats that only a limited number— and those are particularly the ones that conform to British Standards—are designed for safety purposes.

    Rate Rebate Scheme
    Mr. Horamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the working of the rate rebate scheme.
    Mr. Graham Page: Various representations have been received about the rate rebate scheme, including proposals that its terms should be aligned with those of the scheme of rent rebates and allowances, and that assistance should be available higher up the income scale.
    Mr. Horam: Is the Minister aware that in one inner London borough where the housing association of which I am chairman operates the district valuer has recently fixed rateable values at such a level that the rate payable is more than £4 a week on a large flat and more than £3 a week on a smaller flat—[Interruption.] It is indeed Camden. At that level of rates, does not the Minister realise that the rate rebate scheme is meaningless, even for families with below-average incomes? How does he expect ordinary families to pay that amount of rate? Does it not make a mockery of all the effort now being put into helping low-paid families to continue living in central London?
    Mr. Page: I appreciate the various representations which have been made about the rate rebate scheme, including proposals that its terms should be aligned with those of the scheme of rent rebates and that assistance should be available higher up the income scale. We are considering
    476
    these matters, with a view to legislation shortly being brought before the House.

    London Motorways
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received concerning the inner ringway and radial motorways proposed by the Layfield Committee and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rippon: I have received various representations from members of the public and interested bodies. There will be a formal opportunity to make representations about my proposed modifications to the Greater London Development Plan when I publish them in draft.
    Mr. Davis: Has the Minister included in the representations he has received the most forceful possible representations from the electors in Greater London last Thursday? Are not the schemes now finally dead and buried?
    Mr. Rippon: Various representations are made in various ways. No doubt the new Greater London Council's majority will have views to express in due time. At this stage I can act only in a formal capacity in regard to these matters.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. and learned Friend read the comment of the new Leader of the GLC about new motorway construction in London? Has he noted the effect that that will have upon access to the proposed new third London airport at Maplin Sands, which, apart from the high speed link, will be very dependent on road communications?
    Mr. Rippon: In regard to all these matters it would be wise to give the new majority party on the GLC an opportunity to consider its position. It will have to take matters rather further than its election statements.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be no question of the Government's trying to browbeat the new GLC into accepting Ringway 1 when it has declared itself completely against it?
    Mr. Rippon: In my original statement I said that phasing and timing are matters for the GLC.
    Mr. Jayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of past reports by the Council on Tribunals, including that on London Airport plans in February 1968, what further public inquiry he now proposes to hold into the revised plans for London motorways put forward by the GLC and the Layfield Panel.
    Mr. Rippon: Any modifications which I propose to make to the original motorway proposals in the Greater London Development Plan will be published in draft and an opportunity given for public comment. There will be a further inquiry or inquiries only if objections to the proposed modifications raise issues not already considered by the Layfield Panel.
    Mr. Jay: As these proposals have been plainly and drastically modified and the inner ringways abandoned, will the Minister assure us that any proposals for radial motorways to be brought into London will be the subject of an overall public inquiry in each case?
    Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman has shown that he is hopelessly muddled about the legal position—which I have tried to explain to him in this House and in letters—just as he was hopelessly muddled in his question about the relevance of the Stansted inquiry. I shall do my best to write him another letter to try to explain the situation, but it seems a pretty hopeless task.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. and learned Friend now be willing to reconsider the possibility of constructing Ringway 3—the outer London ringway?
    Mr. Rippon: I cannot at this stage add to the statement I made when the report was published. I shall make further statements in due course about the whole or part of the proposals.

    St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington
    Sir G. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the inspector who, in July 1972, held a public inquiry about St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, and the proposal to fill in most of the three acres of water in the Paddington Basin.
    Mr. Channon: The inspector's report is being considered. I cannot yet say when a decision will be reached and the findings published.
    Sir G. de Freitas: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a matter of national and not merely local concern? Will he confirm that the Government stand by the statement made last August supporting the development of urban canals as a public amenity?
    Mr. Channon: I accept that it is an extremely important matter, about which there has been a public inquiry. The matter has far-reaching effects, which is why it is taking a long time for the public inquiry to come to a conclusion.

    Ordnance Survey Maps
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision concerning the future production of the 2·-in.-to-the-mile Ordnance Survey maps.
    Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. and learned Friend expects to be able to announce a decision on completion of his conferences on this matter.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reports that there is a possibility that the production of 2·-in. maps will be discontinued have caused considerable concern among ramblers' organisations and others who make great use of these maps? Will he undertake to consider very carefully all the representations made to him, and not necessarily to make his decision on purely commercial grounds?
    Mr. Page: Yes, indeed. All representations will be taken into account. The review is being undertaken to discover what use is made by Government Departments, statutory undertakers and local authorities. We are faced with the fact that 2,015 sheets of the 2·-in. maps are produced and of only two-thirds of these are more than 200 copies sold.
    Mr. Waddington: May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell)? If sheets covering certain parts of the country were no longer published, would not there be a danger of footpaths in those parts being used less and less and eventually disappearing from local

    479
    knowledge? That would be a great tragedy.
    Mr. Page: I appreciate that. The question is whether we should reproduce all the 2,015 sheets or whether there is a demand for a part of them which can be commercially viable.
    Mr. Oakes: The Minister says that he is considering Government Departments' and local authorities' reactions. Will he bear in mind the public need for the maps, and their growing use by the public, as well as the needs of Government Departments and local authorities?
    Mr. Page: Yes, Sir. I am considering that need as well. I wanted to be quite frank, and to say that the review was to ascertain the demand from Government Departments—a demand that we would subsidise. In addition, we are taking account of representations from schools, ramblers' associations, and so on.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a big gap between the 1-in. and the 6-in. maps, that the 2·-in. series has only fairly recently been coming out in a folder form, which is convenient to people to buy and use, and that it will not really have had a fair trial on the market until it has has covered a substantial area of the country?
    Mr. Page: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is right. That is the sort of thing we want to review. The commercial demand does not exist at present. Whether that is because the demand has not built up properly, I do not know. That is what we shall find out from the review.

    Railway Network (White Paper)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will now publish his White Paper on the future of the railway system.
    Mr. Peyton: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 14th February—[Vol. 850, c. 343.]
    Mr. Huckfield: Is not the Minister aware that, with a management reorganisation only half completed, with the advanced passenger train perhaps two
    480
    years behind, and with the Railway Board's willingness completely to shuffle off commuter railway services to the new metropolitan counties, thousands of railwaymen and millions of railway passengers need some certainty injected into their lives? When will the Minister do that?
    Mr. Peyton: I do not accept the multitude of premises with which the hon. Gentleman preceded his question, but I entirely appreciate the need for clarification. The problem is complicated and difficult. A statement will be made to Parliament as soon as possible.
    Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will the White Paper include information about expanding the electrification of railways, bearing in mind the likely shortages of diesel fuel over the next 15 years? Will it include the need for higher-speed inter-city services, such as I have seen in Japan in the past few weeks?
    Mr. Peyton: I should not like to anticipate the contents of the paper, whether white or green, but it will, of course, be comprehensive.
    Mr. Mulley: Can the Minister give us no indication of the likely date of publication? The matter is one of great public concern and causes anxiety, which was unfortunately fostered by leaks from his Department. There is great public concern about the future of the railways. The matter affects the planning of roads and all manner of things. Will publication be before Whitsun? Will not the Minister at least commit himself roughly to a date when the great public interest in the subject can at least begin to focus on positive proposals?
    Mr. Peyton: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety. I should not like to give a firm commitment, but I hope that publication will be before the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Bagier: Does the Minister agree that great concern was caused by the somewhat premature disclosure of a document which came to his Department about the possible future size of the railway network? Does he appreciate that in the absence of a White Paper giving some idea of the future size there is great concern about lines such as that between

    481
    Sunderland and Middlesbrough and various others which it was suggested could be closed?
    Mr. Peyton: I have said time without number that the document which leaked, and which was accompanied in its subsequent publication by a wholly unauthorised map, had no official foundation whatever.

    Theatres (Preservation)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him about the future of London and provincial theatres, in view of the threat of demolition; and what action he proposes to take thereon.
    Mr. Channon: My right hon. and learned Friend met a deputation from the Theatres Advisory Council on 23rd February. A number of London theatres were added to the list of protected buildings last year, and my right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to consider the points the deputation put to him.
    Mrs. Short: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will the Minister bear in mind that every theatre closure means fewer opportunities for work for actors and theatre staff, and that we are in a crucial situation? Is he aware that the Shaftesbury Theatre is the latest to appear to be under threat, and that the company there is under notice for closure in September? Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will work closely with local authorities, especially the new GLC, which is equally concerned about the preservation of theatres in London?
    Mr. Channon: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Lady says. My right hon. and learned Friend is always prepared to work closely with local authorities on this and many other matters. I agree with the hon. Lady about the great importance, not only to actors but to us all, of having a good number of live theatres in London.
    Mr. Jeffrey Archer: For every 10 theatres that have been knocked down since the war, only one has been rebuilt. Will my hon. Friend ensure that a Conservative Government give every support
    482
    to a local council when it wishes to build a new theatre for its community centre?
    Mr. Channon: I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, which is true, but does not, luckily, apply to Greater London, where I think there are no fewer theatres now than there were at the end of the last war. Of the 57 theatres in the Greater London area 33 are listed, 19 of them as recently as in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Strauss: I agree that a number of these theatres are listed but that is not a complete protection against demolition. When requests are made for their demolition, will the Minister bear in mind that most London theatres are outstanding examples of Victorian and Edwardian architecture and for the most part have an irreplaceable atmosphere of warmth and welcome? Will the Minister turn his back on any suggestion that they should be replaced by the building of some cold, modern theatre auditorium in a new office block?
    Mr. Channon: The whole House has the greatest sympathy with what the right hon. Member says.

    Rent Assessment Appeals
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals to rent assessment panels against the determinations of rent officers are at present awaiting decision.
    Mr. Eyre: About 3,450 in England and Wales, inclusive of appeals in respect of applications for certificates of fair rent.
    Mr. Bell: If rent officers generally take the view of the Thames Valley rent officer in the case of which I have sent my hon. Friend particulars, the appellants are wasting their time. If success on appeal against applications made before 6th November last and ordered by the panel to take effect from the date of application, as in due course of law they would be. are nevertheless set aside by the rent officer in view of the counter-inflation legislation, what is the point in these people appealing?
    Mr. Eyre: My hon. and learned Friend may be aware that the limitation and standstill applied only until 29th April this year. He referred to the position of

    483
    the Thames Valley panel. I understand that 115 cases are outstanding, of which 95 were lodged by or on behalf of tenants of a housing association on 7th March and that another nine were lodged on several dates between 16th and 21st March.

    Out-of-Town Shopping Centres (Yorkshire and Humberside)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications he has received for out-of-town shops and shopping centres in Yorkshire and Humberside; and how many he has allowed.
    Mr. Graham Page: I have been informed about three applications under the terms of Circular 17/72 for out-of-town shops or shopping centres in Yorkshire and Humberside. None has yet been allowed.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that Labour swept the board at last Thursday's elections in South Yorkshire and that one of its planks was a balanced shopping development that would provide for all housewives, and especially the old and those without cars, and would generally have regard to all social factors? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the new South Yorkshire Metropolitan County that in spite of Chandler's Ford it can undertake sound structure planning?
    Mr. Page: If the Labour Party swept the board on that policy it stole Conservative clothes, because this is a principle which we have applied in any application for out-of-town shopping—that it should not affect the High Street to the extent of destroying it. We treat each application on its merits.
    Mr. Fry: Out-of-town shopping centres are becoming more and more acceptable in this country, but are steps always taken to approach the developers of such sites for a contribution towards the improved roads which are often needed if the development is to be successful?
    Mr. Page: That is just the subject which is included in the White Paper on land availability.

    Westminster (Redevelopment)
    Mr. Freesonasked the Secretary of Slate for the Environment what his plans
    484
    are for the Broad Sanctuary site near Westminster Abbey and Central Hall: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Channon: I am still considering the future use of this important site. I will make a statement as soon as a satisfactory scheme has been agreed.
    Mr. Freeson: We have been getting answers on this topic occasionally over 25 years. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is far too long a time. It was proposed after the war that the site should be used for Government offices, and in the 1950s a conference centre was suggested which was the subject of an architectural competition sponsored by the Department. Yet today it still remains an eyesore in the centre of London when it could become an amenity. Rather than wait for another 25 years, would it not be wise for the present car park to be decked over and turned into a public open space, thus providing an amenity in central London?
    Mr. Channon: The second part of the question raises an interesting possibility. However, neither side of the House can take much credit for what has been done in Broad Sanctuary for the last 25 years. But I have to bear in mind what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said in a previous supplementary question.
    Mr. Marten: What are the three major schemes which are being considered by the Minister?
    Mr. Channon: I do not think that I said that three major schemes were being considered. A number of schemes are being considered. I would not limit them to three. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question I will give him the details.
    Mr. Bidwell: Would it not be a good idea to keep Broad Sanctuary as a Member's car park and to hire out the parking space in the car park being built close to the House, because medical opinion has it that since MPs have had to undertake that little walk they are likely to live a great deal longer?
    Mr. Channon: Certainly the hon Member is looking extremely well. I shall naturally consider that suggestion with the seriousness it merits.

    Lead Recovery Plant (Swinton)
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will call in on environmental grounds the application for the siting of a lead recovery plant at Clifton Junction, Swinton; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rippon: The planning application is for the replacement of plant in an existing factory within an industrial area. It is for the local planning authority to decide. The advice of my Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate is available to it. There is no reason for me to intervene in the planning application.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is great concern amongst the people of Prestwich and Whitefield about this development on their doorstep? Is he satisfied that the present statutory limits on lead emission leave a sufficient margin of safety? Will he assure the House that this new plant will not constitute a danger to public health?
    Mr. Rippon: It is now a matter for the local planning authority to weigh all the considerations involved and to decide whether or not to refuse planning permission. It would not be right for me, this afternoon, to go into the merits of a particular proposal.

    Railway Land
    Sir H. Harrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land were sold by British Rail in 1972; and how this compares with 1970 and 1971.
    Mr. Peyton: 7,165 acres, compared with 6,118 in 1971 and 6,600 in 1970.
    Sir H. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with this very small increase, and that where some of our railway lines are being closed enough of the available land is turned over for housing or industrial purposes, so that it can be put to a full and proper use?
    Mr. Peyton: I do not think one is ever satisfied, but I think that the railways take every reasonable step to get rid of land for which there is no likelihood of any railway use.
    Mr. Heffer: In view of the great problem of land in the conurbations, will the right hon. Gentleman have further conversations with the British Railways Board urging that the land available in great conurbations, such as Liverpool, should be given priority for housing, which is our greatest need?
    Mr. Peyton: It is the policy of nationalised industries and the Government that the nationalised industries should first offer their land to local authorities. The need for land for housing purposes is completely understood.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the latest figure is railway land in the assisted areas, because in undertaking industrial projects those areas which benefit from the Industry Act are often impeded by the lack of suitable land for development?
    Mr. Peyton: No, not without notice.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister approach British Rail on the question of derelict railway land at Broome Lane, Manchester, asking the board to tidy it up and to turn it into a children's playground or amenity, or sell it to somebody who would do the job for British Rail?
    Mr. Peyton: I have no doubt that the Chairman of British Rail will take due note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

    Holiday Caravans
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to prevent the eviction of caravan owners from holiday sites because they refuse to buy new caravans from the site owners.
    Mr. Eyre: I do not think such legislation is the appropriate way to deal with the alleged abuse.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that planning permission for caravan sites is now almost at saturation point and that this situation puts owners in a monopoly position? Is he further aware that many caravan site owners are also caravan manufacturers, and that three years after somebody has bought a caravan on the site the owners threaten

    487
    to evict ordinary people, including pensioners who have invested their savings, if they will not buy a new caravan.
    Mr. Eyre: The question of the adequacy of sites is a matter for local planning authorities. On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that if Parliament approves the Fair Trading Bill this kind of practice could be drawn to the attention of the Director of Fair Trading.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister concede that it is reasonable that many people should feel anxious about this matter and are entitled to receive some reassurance, since the sort of practice outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has been widespread, for example, on many parts of the East Coast? Has the hon. Gentleman received any correspondence from people who are anxious about this matter?
    Mr. Eyre: Administratively, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place is primarily responsible for this matter, but I have carefully noted the hon. Gentleman's assertion about the number of cases which have come to his notice.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Minister aware that some months ago I drew his Department's attention to the extortionate rents that were being demanded from those who had placed their caravans or chalets on these sites? His Department replied that it considered this not to be a fitting subject for legislation. Since these increased rents were imposed in the very week that preceded the standstill, and since they are still continuing, it is not time that legislation was brought forward to protect these people?
    Mr. Eyre: The matter of increased charges on holiday caravan sites is one for the Department of Trade and Industry, and is another question.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that caravans situated on permanent sites represent the one area of home ownership that is without any protection or security? Is he further aware that there is growing evidence of action by site owners to deprive people of security and to impose intolerable conditions upon occupiers, on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member
    488
    for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)? Does he know that certain owners refuse to allow co-operative societies on to the sites to serve goods? Will the Minister undertake to set up an inquiry into the situation, since the Opposition will be glad to co-operate to see what can be done to protect the interests of occupants on permanent caravan sites?
    Mr. Eyre: I have carefully noted what the hon. Gentleman said. The original Question relates to holiday caravan sites. The difficulty in that respect is due to the transient nature of occupation of holiday caravans. With regard to permanent sites, there is some protection for the occupier under the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, since a court order is necessary before eviction can take place.

    Accommodation Agencies
    Mr. Cordleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions were brought in 1972 under Section 1 of the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953.
    Mr. Eyre: Figures for prosecutions in 1972 are not yet available.
    Mr. Cordle: Is my hon. Friend aware that many agencies in London charge one or two weeks' rent illegally by way of commission? Does he realise that most tenants are students and young people who pay without demur? Will he consider increasing the number of prosecutions in this respect?
    Mr. Eyre: Prosecutions in 1970 numbered four, and in 1971 they rose to 39. But it is evident that properly conducted accommodation agencies meet a real need on behalf of potential tenants. They can save people a great deal of time and trouble in their search for premises. The courts have not found it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal fees.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I can show him columns of newspaper advertisements in which advertisers are breaking the law by offering rented accommodation to tenants on condition that they pay commission of some kind?
    Mr. Eyre: I shall be interested to study carefully any specific matter the hon. Gentleman wishes to send to me, but the Act prohibits only certain actions by the

    489
    agent. There is a wide field of useful activity which an agent can follow and provide a service which merits a fee.
    Mr. Freeson: Is the Minister aware that this is an area of growing concern in the big cities, particularly in inner London, and that the problem is not confined to abuse by agencies, in terms of students and other single people? One of the largest groups of people affected by the situation is the unsupported mother—the single-parent family. Will he consider amending the Act to establish a licensing procedure to make sure that only properly-run accommodation agencies are allowed to operate?
    Mr. Eyre: I am prepared to consider any detailed proposal that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make, but as at present advised I understand that the form of the law is not unsatisfactory in this very difficult matter. Furthermore, I would point out that private individuals as well as the police can prosecute.

    Driving Licences (EEC Directive)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the EEC draft directive which proposes to raise the age for a driving licence from 17 to 18 years; and what view he has expressed to the Commission about it.
    Mr. Peyton: I have considerable sympathy with the reservations which have been expressed in this country since the publication of the draft directive. I intend to express these in Brussels at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Marten: I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend's reply. Will he make it absolutely clear that this Parliament— this sovereign Parliament—will not tolerate this fussy interference in our way of life? The raising of the driving age from 17 to 18 years is not a negotiable matter, and that is that.
    Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has his own way of making his views clear, and does not need me to comment upon them.
    Mr. Mulley: Will the Minister ensure that the English texts of this draft directive are made available? Is he aware that, while there are grave objections to this
    490
    particular proposal, there are many other proposals in the so-called draft directive to which one can also take objection, and that probably the only thing one can commend is the suggestion that we should lower the age for driving motor cycles, back to the age which obtained before the Minister changed the situation a year ago?
    Mr. Peyton: I have already said that I have considerable reservations, or that I share the reservations which have been expressed in this country, on this directive. I am not quite sure whether my powers extend to the immediate provision of a copy in English of the draft directive, but I shall look into the situation.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while that particular topic is being discussed, the question of lowering the age at which people may drive a bus from 21 to 18, to make sure that we have some bus drivers in London, should also be discussed?
    Mr. Peyton: That is an exceedingly interesting proposition, but it does not arise out of this Question.

    Travel Concessions Act 1964
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the operation of the Travel Concessions Act 1964.
    Mr. Peyton: Very few, Sir.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it must appear unreasonable to the elderly, the disabled and the blind that some areas have adequate schemes for concessionary travel while others have none at all and still others have very bad schemes? Is it not desirable for the Minister to have powers to collect information from local authorities about the schemes which they provide, so that he may issue guidance to local authorities where inadequate or no schemes are in operation?
    Mr. Peyton: I am under very little pressure from local authorities to produce a uniform policy stretching over the whole country. In regard to my powers to collect information from local authorities, I may have many complaints, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that

    491
    that is not one of them. I can always collect the information I want.
    Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that when we last had a uniform policy it was his party's policy, in a former Government, to forbid all concessions.
    Mr. Peyton: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken.

    ROYAL ASSENT
    Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

    1. Gaming (Amendment) Act, 1973.

    2. Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act, 1973.

    3. Cost in Criminal Cases Act, 1973.

    4. Administration of Justice Act, 1973.

    5. Education Act, 1973.

    6. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1973.

    7. Humber Bridge Act, 1973.

    8. Derby Friar Gate Chapel Act, 1973.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Edward Short: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the week following the recess?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir.
The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows: —
MONDAY 30TH APRIL—Second Reading of the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefits Bill.
At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
Motions on the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order, the Furnished Lettings (Rateable Value Limits) Order, the African Development Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order, and the motion relating to the Local Government Super-
492
annuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations.
TUESDAY 1ST MAY—Progress on the remaining stages of the Water Bill.
WEDNESDAY 2ND MAY—Completion of the remaining stages of the Water Bill, which it is hoped to finish by seven o'clock.
Afterwards, motion on the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) Order and motions relating to Counter-Inflation Orders on Remuneration of Teachers, the Notification of Increases in Prices and Charges and on the Modification of Agricultural Wages Acts.
THURSDAY 3RD MAY—Debate on a motion to take note of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Session 1971–72, on the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and on the relevant Government Observations.
Motion on the Regulation of Prices (Tranquillising Drugs) Order.
FRIDAY 4TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen the extremely serious trade figures today, which I believe are the worst ever. When are we to have a statement from the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or both, on what the Government intend to do about the extremely serious and deteriorating state of the economy, and when are we to have time for a debate on it?
Mr. Prior: I shall convey the right hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend, but I should tell him that the Government intend to keep their nerve, to keep the economy expanding and to keep prosperity going.
Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. Friend recall that about a fortnight ago it was proposed to debate the motion on the draft directive concerning driving licences.
[That this House rejects the proposals contained in a draft directive of the Commission of the European Communities (No. C 119/1 dated 16th November 1972 in the Official Journal of the EC) namely, the Raising of the Age for a Driving Licence from 17 years to 18 years and other related matter.]

493
The reason given for postponing the debate was the absence of the draft documents from the Vote Office. Two or three weeks have elapsed. Surely the documents have been printed. Why cannot we debate the motion? I should be very grateful if we could.
Mr. Prior: I have told my hon. Friend and the House on various occasions that the motion will have to be debated at a convenient time, but there is no particular hurry about it. My hon. Friend will have heard the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries this afternoon. I am sure that a proper opportunity will be found at the right time to debate the motion.
Mr. Fernyhough: When are we to have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the outcome of the marathon talks in Brussels which ended at half-past six this morning and the effect they are likely to have on our cost of living?
Mr. Prior: The talks have not ended and therefore there is no outcome at the moment to report, but my right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House when the talks have finished.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Early Day Motion standing in the name of 100 Members on both sides of the House about raising the exemption limit on prescription charges from the age of 15 to 16 to coincide with the raising of the school-leaving age?
[That this House is deeply concerned that Her Majesty's Government feels unable to grant free National Health Service prescriptions to all children up to sixteen years of age who are attending school; and calls upon the Government to grant this concession as soon as possible.]
Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement to the House after the recess to the effect that he has decided to increase the limit to the age of 16?
Mr. Prior: I do not know about the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, but I shall convey his views to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Heffer: Will the Leader of the House indicate when we are to have a
494
debate on the Robens Report dealing with the question of safety, particularly as it affects the construction industry, and when we are likely to get the proposed legislation?
Mr. Prior: I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House are keen to have such a debate, but I cannot promise one in the immediate future. I cannot undertake to give a date for the introduction of legislation, but there will have to be legislation and I have already told the House that the Government accept the need for it.
Mr. Kilfedder: Will my right hon. Friend say when the Oaths and Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order will be debated? [HON. MEMBERS: "Tonight."] I already have the answer to that question. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Northern Ireland orders are not taken late at night and bunched together, making it difficult for Northern Ireland Members and, indeed, other hon. Members?
Mr. Prior: I hope that my hon. Friend realises that he, too, causes certain difficulties to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I think that we have done Northern Ireland pretty proud in the last 12 weeks, and I hope that Northern Ireland Members will wish to co-operate with other hon. Members as well as with themselves.
Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend indicate when the House is likely to debate the fifth directive on managerial and supervisory boards in industry? This matter is being debated in Europe and is regarded as exceedingly important in this country.
Mr. Prior: I cannot promise immediate time. I shall consider the matter and get in touch with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Short: Unless English words have lost their meaning, the Leader of the House talked gibberish when he replied to my earlier question. We have the worst trade figures ever in any one month. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government will keep their nerve and will keep prosperity going. Will he tell us what they will do about these figures— the worst trade figures we have had in any one month in our history?
Mr. Prior: I am not sure of the relevance of the right hon. Gentleman's question to business. That might be a suitable matter to discuss on the Adjournment Motion which we are to take next. I shall be very happy in the next debate to put the Government's case, which I think is a superb case.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  OVERSEAS PENSIONS BILL
  [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  OVERSEAS PENSIONS BILL

    Clause 2
    SUPERANNUATION SCHEMES AS RESPECTS CERTAIN OVERSEAS SERVICE AND SERVICE WITH THE CENTRAL OFFICE OF THE OVERSEAS AUDIT DEPARTMENT
    9.47 p.m.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I beg to move Amendment No 1, in page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph (e).
    In Committee on 13th March I moved a similar amendment to delete Clause 2(2)(e). On that occasion the Committee refused to agree to that amendment because I was not able to state the attitude that the Government were taking to the purpose behind the new subsection. As hon. Members will remember, the subsection had attracted fairly wide support both in this House and in another place. I undertook on that occasion to report the Government's decision on this important matter before this House was asked to part with the Bill.
    The Government have now completed their consideration of this complicated and difficult question and they have decided that they should be prepared, on the grounds of hardship, to make the same arrangements for the former members of the South Arabian Security Forces as already exist for civil pensioners of the former South Arabian Services. That means, in other words, that we are prepared to make ex gratia loan advances with effect from 1st April 1973 to bring payments up to the level of pensions due for service given up to 30th November 1967.
    The Government have taken this step to try to alleviate the hardship suffered by individual pensioners. It in no way changes the Government's view that responsibility for these pensions rests properly with the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen.

    621
    I expect the annual cost to be between £100,000 and £200,000, and a Supplementary Estimate will be presented later.
    In general these arrangements will apply to all entitled officers. But I must make it clear that the Government reserve the right to deny a loan advance in any case where we are satisfied that there was disloyalty to the former British administration.
    I am confident that the announcement I have made will be gladly received by all those who have given support to the amendment which was made in another place. For reasons that I have given to the House on earlier occasions, the Government have the power, without the inclusion of this subsection, to make loan advances to these people. Therefore, the subsection is, and in my opinion always has been, unnecessary. If it were kept in the Bill it would breach the principle that the legal responsibility for these pensions rests with the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen, not with Her Majesty's Government.
    Therefore, in view of the Government's willingness to make these loan advances, I ask the House to agree to the amendment and to delete the subsection.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: In moving the amendment the Minister has made a statement which I believe will commend itself to the House generally. The object of the words which he now seeks to delete was to right an obvious and long-standing injustice to a number of officers who served this country and, indeed, Southern Arabia with loyalty and devotion before the transfer of power.
    Without retaining the subsection the Minister accepts the argument on merit and undertakes to extend to these officers "similar arrangements" as exist for civil pensioners, as we call them. The amendment which was carried in the other place and confirmed in Committee upstairs was declaratory, and no one would pretend that its drafting was perfect. Granted that there is no likelihood of a change of policy concerning civilian pensioners, I agree that the insertion of these words might have created fresh anomalies if they had been retained in the Bill.
    It is enough that the Minister has deferred generously and graciously to the
    622
    remarkable consensus of view on both sides of the House on Second Reading of the Bill and throughout its different stages in both Houses and has undertaken that the pre-independence military personnel will be treated in the same way as civilian pensioners.
    I shall not detain the House longer than to welcome the Minister's statement. In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), who regrets that he cannot be here this evening, especially to hear the statement which has just been made, I should like to quote what he said in the closing stages of the discussion in Committee so that the House may hear from this Front Bench that the Minister has met precisely what my hon. and learned Friend suggested:
    "If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government would say that they accept the merits, as far as I am concerned, the right hon. Gentleman can have his amendment; he can delete Clause 2(2)(e); he can do it by means of ex gratia loans; I do not mind how he does it. The right hon. Gentleman is an honourable man. If he says that he accepts the merits, and will see that these people are paid, I am happy to leave the matter in his capable hands."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March 1973, Standing Committee F; c. 23–4.]
    It is clear, therefore, that the Minister has met in detail the spirit and intention of what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court and, indeed, the consensus of both Houses on this matter. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. It makes the Bill even better than it was when first presented.
    Mr. Richard Luce: As one of the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been pressing the Government to honour what was clearly an obligation to indigenous former officers serving the British Government and the Aden Government before independence, I am delighted to be able to support what was said by my right hon. Friend, on the understanding that he will fulfil the obligation and, by means of ex gratia loans, pay pensions to those retired officers who were in the various forces in Aden before 1967. Everyone, not only hon. Members but serving British officers who knew and worked with these people in Aden, and in particular the officers who have been advocating this

    623
    step, will be grateful to my right hon. Friend and to the Government for what they have done.
    This is undoubtedly one of the many legacies of our Empire. I understand that there are about 300 of these ex-officers, the vast majority of whom have served the British people with the greatest loyalty. There was never a shadow of doubt in my mind that we should have fulfilled this obligation. There was only one honourable course of action to take and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has announced that we are to take it. I hope very much that our friends in the Arab world—and we have many friends there— will recognise that we have decided to do and will recognise, too, that ours is a country which honours is obligations.
    I have two brief points to put to my right hon. Friend. I accept that he may not be able to answer them tonight but perhaps he will consider them. The first is about the timing of the payment of these ex gratia loans. Perhaps I did not hear my right hon. Friend when he was dealing with this, but it is the case that when, in 1970 we undertook to fulfil the obligation to the indigenous civil servants we paid them as from 1st April of that year. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will think around the possibility of making these loans retrospective and paying them as from that date.
    The second matter is that of the treatment of those—if it is possible to detect them—who were disloyal to the Aden Government at the time and, indeed, to the British Government. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) was right in an earlier debate to draw attention to the fact that there had been a mutiny and that a number of officers had been disloyal, but I think he was wrong to say that because a small minority had been disloyal we should penalise the vast majority who had remained loyal to the British Government. I am sure that on reflection my hon. and gallant Friend will reconsider that, but it is important to meet his challenge and not pay pensions to those who were responsible for or played a part in killing British soldiers during that mutiny.
    624
    I hope that, however difficult it may be, my right hon. Friend will find a means of vetting and picking out those who were disloyal. There were a number of forces in Aden which were not in any way involved in the mutiny. I suppose that in respect of the Hadhrami Beduin Legion the pension can be paid automatically, but I suggest that where forces such as the Armed Police were involved we should give careful consideration to inviting them to put in an application for pensions, stating where they were at the time of the mutiny, what they were doing and where they were serving. On that basis it might be possible to sift out those who were disloyal.
    My right hon. Friend might consider setting up—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Overseas Pensions Bill [Lords] and the Motion relating to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fox.]

  OVERSEAS PENSIONS BILL
  [Lords]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Luce: Perhaps my right hon. Friend might, if it were possible, set up some kind of vetting committee, with serving on it, for example, the former Director of Establishments at the time of the mutiny, the former Advocate-General, perhaps the former head of the Aden forces, a representative of the GOC at the time, and perhaps one or two Arabs who were serving as officers and who could serve as witnesses. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider some such vetting system to meet this very important point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West has made about the minority of men who were disloyal to the British Government, so that we can give due justice to the vast majority who served the British people so well.

  625
  I feel that on this occasion the British Government have shown great generosity of spirit, and along with those of my hon. Friends who have been so strongly advocating some action in this direction, I am delighted to support the amendment.
  Mr. James AllasonI congratulate my right hon. Friend on coming to a satisfactory solution of the problem, and I am glad that the British Government are gradually taking over responsibilities that properly fall on the Governments of the South Yemen and Zanzibar, both of which have gone back on their own proper obligations. Here I quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce) who spoke of out fulfilling our obligations. In this case we are fulfilling the obligations of the South Yemen Government.
  I had the privilege of seeing some of the soldiers in action in Aden alongside our own forces so I know what excellent service they gave—or some of them, at any rate. But there are other people in either South Yemen or Zanzibar who should be receiving a pension from their Government but are not getting it. I know that my right hon. Friend is pressing hard to help all those categories who should have been helped by their own Governments.
  Mr. Nicholas WintertonI welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and assurances. I am one of only a very few hon. Members present this evening, perhaps the only one, who served on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. On that occasion I found it impossible to support my right hon. Friend because I believed that the British Government were continuing an injustice and I wanted to see that injustice put right. The assurances which my right hon. Friend has just given fully meet the reservations I held on that former occasion, and I very much welcome the statement which rights a wrong and honours commitments we have to those many people who served Great Britain faithfully in South Arabia.
  Mr. Wood: With leave of the House, may I reply very briefly?
  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts)
  626
  and to my hon. Friends for what they said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Luce) raised two questions. The first was the timing of the payments. He pleaded for retrospection. I must tell him clearly that I am afraid that I can give him no encouragement. I said that the date which the Government have decided was 1st April 1973, and we must remain quite firm about this, particularly because these payments, as I made clear earlier, are on hardship grounds and are therefore designed to meet the needs of the present and, as far as is necessary, of the future.
  On the question of loyalty, my hon. Friend will no doubt be studying very carefully my words on this matter. I will certainly study his words, but I would not want to commit myself to any particular means of satisfying myself about loyalty or disloyalty. I would merely like to leave it that I will try to reach my own judgment in as effective a way as I possibly can. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore study that part of what I have said, while I will study what he has said, without being able to commit myself to any means of reaching this kind of decision.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  AGRICULTURE
  Resolved,
  That the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 501), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]
  Resolved,
  That the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 502), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]
  Resolved,
  That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 591), a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]

  HORTICULTURE
  Resolved,
  That the Horticulture (Increase in Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order 1973. a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Ordered,
  That any new Clause relating to punishment for murder of which notice may be given not later than 2nd May in respect of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill be committed
  628
  to a Committee of the whole House; and that, when the Committee of the whole House have reported with respect to any such new Clause and the Standing Committee on the Bill have reported the Bill, the Bill be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND (OATHS AND DECLARATIONS)
  Resolved,
  That the Oaths and Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 603), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th April, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

  SCOTLAND (GOVERNMENT OFFICES)
  10.8 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McElhone: I thank Mr. Speaker sincerely for this opportunity to debate the dispersal of Civil Service jobs from London to Glasgow and the West of Scotland.
  This subject is vitally important to my area when one considers that in Glasgow alone male unemployment is as high as 10T per cent., which must be wholly unacceptable to any Government with a social conscience. I must also tell the House—alas, not for the first time—that the West of Scotland is more than fed up with always being regarded as the industrial dormitory of the South, enjoying industrial expansion last, yet suffering industrial contraction always first.
  The greatest investment that any nation can make must be in the education of its young people, yet this precious asset is being destroyed. In the city of Glasgow alone we have more than 2,000 school leavers wholly unemployed. Within the figure of 10·1 per cent. male unemployed in the city, there are, regretfully, many university graduates. Therefore, is it any wonder that so many of our brightest young people have to leave home, many to go to London, to attain that basic human dignity, the right to work?
  It is also important that I should state that in our claim for a fair share of these jobs our arguments are not just economic. Before I come to that matter, however, it is only fair to pay tribute to the many people in the West of Scotland who have played a part in this campaign to get the jobs, not least the Lord Provost of the city of Glasgow, Mr. William Gray, who has led this campaign with splendid imagination and energy. This is not just a city of Glasgow exercise. The exercise concerns the whole of the West of Scotland. Indeed, the support of the four counties, the new
  630
  towns and everyone concerned within industry, commerce and the trade unions should ensure that we get our rightful share of any dispersal recommended by the Hardman Committee's Report.
  Coming to the other arguments, it is worth recording that the Civil Service Commission's Report published on 10th April states that in spite of every effort made by the Civil Service 400 jobs in the higher executive grade are still unfilled in the London area.
  The cost of office accommodation in London is prohibitively high. When one compares rents in London of, for instance, from £6 to £12 per sq. ft. with rents in the West of Scotland as low as £1 per sq. ft. one can see the decided commercial attraction for coming to that part of the world.
  On the subject of building costs, the new Post Office Savings Bank in Cowglen, custom-built for a staff of 6,000, cost about £7 million and provided 700,000 sq. ft. of accommodation. That should be compared with the recent acquisition at Whittington House in London occupied by the Home Office. Here, we have a building at a cost of £9·6 million, yet it provides only 71,000 sq. ft. as against the 700,000 sq. ft. in Cowglen.
  Those figures prove conclusively that Glasgow can provide 10 times the amount of accommodation at two-thirds of the cost of such accommodation in London. This must be a compelling argument, especially as I can record tonight that in the city centre of Glasgow we have about 500,000 sq. ft. of new accommodation lying empty and ready for letting, and another 500,000 to 600,000 sq. ft. under construction or in the pipeline.
  A very important aspect for any family involved in dispersal is the quality of life. One can state, with a certain guarantee, that people can purchase a house in the West of Scotland for half the price, or less, of a house in London of comparable size.
  Regarding education, families which have moved to Cowglen and other Civil Service establishments will testify that the educational facilities are superior to those in the South. Apart from the many colleges of further education, there are two universities in the city of Glasgow

  631
  and a total of five universities within a radius of 45 miles of the city.
  As for recreational facilities, our Scottish National Orchestra is equal to the best in Europe, and our Scottish opera and ballet companies bear similar comparison. The facilities for golf, fishing, sailing and other outdoor participation sports are worth recording. The countryside is about half-an-hour's journey by car from the city centre.
  The problem of dispersal is being tackled in many countries. In West Germany, the Anti-trust Corporation is in Berlin, the Statistical Office is in Wiesbaden and the Employment Agency is near Nuremburg.
  It is worth recalling that in France decentralisation has taken place to the extent that the computer operations for the Statistical Office are being carried on at Bordeaux and part of the Foreign Ministry has been dispersed to Brittany. Holland, Eire, Sweden and nearly every other European country are going through or have gone through an exercise in dispersal. Much could be learned by the Government if they made a study of what is happening in those countries.
  It is worth recalling some facts from the excellent Tavistock's Institute report on dispersal. Of the male higher executive officers and higher grades in group one departments, 89 per cent. in general terms would accept dispersal. This is a high figure, and it points to a much wider acceptance of the principle of dispersal than many would imagine. The greater the distance from London the dispersal location is, the more willing are people to elect to go there.
  The report analyses four dispersals which have taken place in recent years— the Savings Certificate office to Durham; the National Savings Bank to Glasgow; the Stationery Office to Norwich; and the Civil Service Commission to Basingstoke. It is important to recall that in all these dispersals not one compulsory transfer was made of a Civil Service officer. It is vitaly important to the Government that any dispersal should be carried out on a voluntary basis as far as possible. This belies the fears of many Londoners that dispersal will be compulsory.
  This leads me to my conviction that, given the right inducement, many civil
  632
  servants would volunteer to come to the West of Scotland. I have no doubt that many expatriates would welcome the chance to return.
  One cannot fail to appreciate the difficulties of this Government, or indeed of any Government, in attempting an exercise of this nature. Nor can one fail to appreciate the fears and apprehensions of many families which might be dispersed from London.
  Nevertheless, for the Government not to act in a bold and decisive manner, especially in an area of such high unemployment as Glasgow, not only would be an act of political folly but would provide those apostles of separatism in Scotland, of whom we still have a number, with an even greater harvest of discontent than they at present enjoy through the failure of many of the Government's policies.
  It is perhaps important to quote from a recent statement made by the Prime Minister, who is, after all, also chief Minister for the Civil Service:
  "We refuse to condemn large parts of the country to slow decline and decay—to dereliction and to persistent unemployment in pursuit of old-fangled 19th century doctrines of laisse faire. We shall act to bring new life to these areas suffering from high unemployment or depopulation."
  That is an exact description of the problem facing Glasgow and the West of Scotland.
  If the Government lack the political will to honour the pledge made by the Prime Minister or to make the necessary decisions, the long-term effects will be morally damaging, disastrous and serious for the people of Scotland. They will be even more disastrous and serious for the country as a whole.
  The Minister will know that I have produced a plan which I think is worthy of consideration. I have given him a copy. I will not delay the House at this late hour by going into my plan in great detail. I will state a number of points briefly for the record and ask the Minister to give them serious consideration. Perhaps some time after the Easter Recess I shall have the opportunity of further discussions on the practicality on some of them.
  We have been assured that housing will be provided not only in the cities but in the counties, and especially in the

  633
  new towns. The Lord Provost has told me that he is prepared to support a plan for 100 per cent. loans for the executive officers required in Scotland if they need them. Civil Service representatives will be invited to the West of Scotland when we identify which Departments might be dispersed. It is important that those who might come, and certainly their families, should see what we have to offer.
  We also intend to get together a team to come to London for at least a week to provide an exhibition and film shows. I hope that the Minister will assist us so that we may bring at least five or six civil servants who have settled in Scotland. They are the best testimony—far better than a thousand leaflets or a hundred speeches. Many people from the metropolis have settled down very well in Scotland and will never return. If some of them can speak to their counterparts in London, that will be the best advertisement we can have in a campaign to induce jobs to come to my part of the world.
  I also intend to approach the media, especially television, to make sure that the families are aware of what we have to offer.
  I have several somewhat novel points which I should like the Minister to consider seriously. First, I should like the Government to consider a weighting allowance on the salaries of civil servants who come to Glasgow or West Central Scotland—a London allowance in reverse. I can see no case against that. I have been told by senior civil servants that they are prepared to move voluntarily if the Government give certain inducements. If the Government will not give such London allowance in reverse, they could give an ex gratia or severance payment, much akin to the payment made in the dockers' redundancy scheme. If we are to bring people to the regions from London, inducements will have to be given, and in some cases they will have to be financial.
  Another important point for consideration by the Government is in-service retraining for those who might volunteer for the regions but do not come from the Departments concerned. There would be no great difficulty, especially with administrative jobs.
  634
  I am making my speech brief because the Minister wants sufficient time to reply to the case, which I believe to be unanswerable, for a substantial number of jobs that might be dispersed from London going to Glasgow and the West of Scotland because of the high rate of unemployment that still exists there.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) on raising this important subject and on the splendid way in which he has presented the case for Glasgow.
  So that all Ministers and hon. Members may examine all the facts, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider publishing the numbers of candidates who are successful in Civil Service examinations, the numbers who opt for jobs in particular areas, and the numbers who are successfully placed? I ask because a number of us in Glasgow come across Glasgow and West Scotland youngsters, graduates and others, who have been successful in Civil Service examinations but have been unable to find a Civil Service job in the locality and have been offered jobs elsewhere.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will consider publishing such figures to give us a picture of the availability of suitable personnel for Civil Service jobs.
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I should like briefly to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) said, and to congratulate him on the facts and figures he gave.
  My hon. Friend spoke tonight for West Central Scotland, but he was also speaking for many other parts of the country which want Civil Service offices situated locally rather than in London. There are many indications of stronger pressures yet to come. If their object is to be achieved, a strong lead from the Government will be required, and that is what we look for.
  I would refer briefly to two problems which are bound to arise if such a policy is advocated. One is a genuine anxiety by the staff. I inherited as Postmaster-General the decision to move the Post Office Savings Bank to Cowglen. The staff had not been consulted. I remember

  635
  one big meeting which I organised in the Albert Hall, at which the Glasgow authorities put on a film. There was a great deal of anxiety at that time, but in fairness, if the staff are fully consulted there will be no problems provided that there is full discussion with the responsible trade union officials, and provided that people are treated sensitively.
  The other problem is opposition from senior civil servants who will argue that they must be close to the Minister and that, therefore, all the offices must be located in London. I believe that this argument should be looked at much more critically, because if large bodies of civil servants are to be retained in London simply so that those in charge of them can pop in and out of the Minister's office the operation will never be carried through sensibly. Therefore, I hope that tonight we shall have some indication from the Minister of the Government's thinking. The Opposition will be watching to see how active a policy the Government intend to pursue.
  10.25 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I add my congratulations to those offered by other hon. Members to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) for raising this important subject this evening. Not only is it important. We had a short, interesting debate which is something in the nature of being an historic one in that this is the first occasion on which I have been able to find any record of a general debate on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs. There have been many questions but no debate, so a niche is somewhere being kept warm for the hon. Member for Gorbals.
  The hon. Member was kind enough to give me his seven proposals before I entered the Chamber, and I assure him that I shall study them carefully. If he would like to see me after the recess I shall be only too pleased to discuss them with him in detail. He has made a powerful case for the dispersal of more office jobs, especially clerical work, to West Central Scotland. I appreciate his concern, and I appreciate also the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). I can assure them both that the Government
  636
  are also equally concerned. We are very well aware of the seriousness of the lack of employment opportunities, particularly for young people, in West Central Scotland and in many other areas. We appreciate the tensions and frustrations over the lack of jobs which well qualified people leaving school experience. The Secretary of State, as the House will know, is constantly seeking solutions to these problems. The House will also be aware that in October 1970 we commissioned the Hardman Review on the Dispersal of the Civil Service.
  Areas like Glasgow should not regard dispersal of Government work as a panacea, because the supply of Government jobs is limited. Hardman has been looking at headquarters offices. The number of civil servants employed in headquarters offices would be about 150,000 for the whole of the country, of which 57,000 are already outside London and the South-East. The great bulk of civil servants do not work in London. Only three out of 10 of the people in the Civil Service work there. Of these three, one works in local offices of the Department of Employment or the Department of Health and Social Security, and two are employed on headquarters work.
  So, Hardman has been reviewing a group which amounts now to some 86,000 posts. We are determined to disperse a sensible proportion but it would be wrong to suggest that it could be a major proportion. The scope for Civil Service dispersal alone overcoming employment problems in the regions, is, therefore, restricted. As regards the general campaign for West Central Scotland, I am glad to see that the authorities there are not pinning all their hopes on one employer. This must be the right course. Efforts must be made by Government, development councils and local authorities to attract new jobs from a wide range of sources in both the private and the public sector.
  West Central Scotland is well placed. It is a special development area, manpower resources are there, and there are financial incentives. The very attractive countryside is there, and a well-developed social infrastructure exists. The idea can exploit these advantages, and I am glad to have this opportunity to congratulate the local authorities on the presentation they made on 28th March in London on commercial and industrial relocation, and

  637
  the Scottish new towns on their initiative in opening a promotion office in Regent Street just a few hundred yards from my constituency.
  It is fair to present the Government record and the record of previous Governments on dispersal. A previous Conservative Government set up a review under Sir Gilbert Flemming in 1963, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, then a junior Minister, was instrumental in getting that review off the ground. The recommendations of the review have resulted in 23,000 civil servants already being dispersed from London. Another 8,000 are due to go, and some 20,000 jobs have been established in new organisations of government outside London or are waiting to be established. Three quarters of the jobs dispersed since 1963 have been outside the "golden triangle" of the South-East and the South-West. That is an impressive achievement by any standard, and Scotland has not been forgotten in this dispersal. There are some 42,000 civil servants in Scotland, 8·6 per cent. of the total non-industrial Civil Service. They are in roughly the same proportion to the total Civil Service as the population of Scotland is to the population of Great Britain as a whole.
  Apart from London, there are four cities in the United Kingdom with more than 10,000 civil servants, and two of them are Glasgow and Edinburgh. Scotland's share of dispersed work has been substantial. Already 4,700 jobs have been provided, and 3,500 more are planned. A total of 1,800 have been created in new organisations, and 1,000 will be created over the next few years, bringing Scotland's share since 1963 to some 11,000— one fifth of the total. In spite of this fine record, the Government believe that more can be done, as does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Gorbals referred to a speech that my right hon. Friend made, and I can assure the hon. Member that we intend to disperse more.
  Perhaps I may answer the point about the nature of the work. By and large, the work that has been dispersed so far is essentially of a non-policy kind—for example, the National Savings Bank Savings Certificate Division to Durham, and the Teachers Salaries, Qualifications
  638
  and Pensions Branch to Darlington. Although these branches have daily contact with the public they do not have much contact with the rest of Whitehall. They are not policy units. What Hardman has been looking at now is the policy "heartland" of Government. It follows from that that if this is to be dispersed some of the civil servants who work in that heartland will have to go as well. What Hardman has been doing in his study has been balancing on the one side the efficiency and economy of Government against the gain to the regions on the other. That is indeed a crucial balance for that sort of exercise. The House will also know that we have received the Hardman Report as a basis for discussion. It raises complex issues, and these must be considered carefully over the next few months. It will involve consultation with the national and departmental staff sides. We consider that to be essential. Our aim is to announce decisions as soon as possible after this full consultation.
  I would also emphasise the point raised by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) about the importance of consultations with the staff side. Some people say that civil servants do not want to go and that there is a sort of conspiracy amongst them not to leave London. I have not found this, but one must accept that civil servants faced with dispersal have a natural concern for the work they are doing. They have a pride in their work and the efficiency of it, and they are concerned for fair treatment for themselves and also about the effect on their wives and families. All these factors have to be taken into account.
  Previous dispersal exercises have been handled extremely well, and we are proud of our record. Many of those who have gone certainly do not want to come back after they have settled in and done their work. When I visited Cowglen I asked many Londoners whether they would like to return to the South, to "the Smoke". I did not have one taker.
  I assure the House that we are well aware of the claims of Scotland in general and of West Central Scotland in particular. Representations have been received by my right hon. Friend the

  639
  Secretary of State for Scotland and myself far in excess of representations from other areas. In recent months I have talked to Glasgow Members in the House; I have travelled to Glasgow to meet the Lord Provost; I have visited Cowglen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recently received a deputation.
  But it would be disingenuous of me to sound too optimistic about the degree to which West Central Scotland's claims can be met. Glasgow alone repeatedly bids for 20,000 posts. I cannot anticipate the review's outcome, but I take this opportunity to draw attention to one factor which is something of an inhibition. It is the policy heartland of the work we are looking at. We need to avoid reducing the effectiveness of that work. I am not saying that the work will be done less well outside London. In all cases we expect it to be done as well and in some cases better. I take my hon. Friend's point about the many qualified school leavers who cannot find jobs. I shall consider whether I can give him the information for which he asks.
  The effectiveness of the various departmental machines depends on a series of formal and informal face-to-face contacts.
  640
  This is a complicated pattern of communications in the policy area of Whitehall. It has developed in London because all the other interests historically have been in London—trade union associations, employer associations, cultural associations, business associations. I am not saying that those are the best in the country but they are the most concentrated. When we start disturbing this pattern of communication, this web, we must make sure that we do not upset and destroy the effectiveness of the machine. Dispersal imposes its price as well as bringing its dividend.
  I recognise the force of many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals. I fully appreciate the importance of the problems facing the West Central Scotland area. But they must be seen against the general background which I have described regarding the limitations and constraints on dispersal and the many competing claims for, comparatively speaking, a small number of jobs. But I assure him and my hon. Friend that the claims of Scotland will be considered by the Government as thoroughly as they have presented them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  A4, Chiswick (Speed Limit)
  A4, Chiswick (Speed Limit)
  Wrexham (Road Links)
  Wrexham (Road Links)
  Water Supply
  Water Supply
  River Thames
  River Thames
  Empty Houses (London)
  Empty Houses (London)
  Construction Projects (Objections)
  Construction Projects (Objections)
  London Boroughs Superannuation Funds
  London Boroughs Superannuation Funds
  Foreign Vehicles
  Foreign Vehicles
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Al, Skellow-Scotch Corner
  Al, Skellow-Scotch Corner
  Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances
  Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances
  Airports (Access Routes)
  Airports (Access Routes)
  Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation
  Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation
  Motor Vehicles (Safety)
  Motor Vehicles (Safety)
  New Palace Yard (Excavated Fountain)
  New Palace Yard (Excavated Fountain)
  Operation Eyesore
  Operation Eyesore
  House Prices
  House Prices
  M34, Winchester—Newbury
  M34, Winchester—Newbury
  Ordnance Survey Maps
  Ordnance Survey Maps
  Construction Materials (Supply)
  Construction Materials (Supply)
  Minister for Sport
  Minister for Sport
  Housing (Suffolk)
  Housing (Suffolk)
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Beverley Bypass
  Beverley Bypass
  Office Rents
  Office Rents
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Motorway Accidents
  Motorway Accidents
  M54 (M6—Telford Link)
  M54 (M6—Telford Link)
SCOTLAND
  Employment
  Employment
  Select Committee on Scottish Affairs (Report)
  Select Committee on Scottish Affairs (Report)
  Glasgow Rent Assessment Committee
  Glasgow Rent Assessment Committee
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
  Civil Servants (Employment)
  Civil Servants (Employment)
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  EEC Energy Policy
  EEC Energy Policy
  Dairy Herds
  Dairy Herds
  Feu Duty
  Feu Duty
  "QE2" (VOYAGE TO ISRAEL)
  "QE2" (VOYAGE TO ISRAEL)
  Schools (Staffing)
  Schools (Staffing)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (DELEGATIONS)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (DELEGATIONS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Flood Defences
  Flood Defences
  Butter Surplus
  Butter Surplus
  Beef Prices
  Beef Prices
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Instant Coffee (Price)
  Instant Coffee (Price)
DEFENCE
  "QE 2" (Voyage to Israel)
  "QE 2" (Voyage to Israel)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Serpentine Gallery, Kensington Gardens
  Serpentine Gallery, Kensington Gardens
  Trade in Endangered Species (Convention)
  Trade in Endangered Species (Convention)
  Teachers (London)
  Teachers (London)
  Orchestras (Financing)
  Orchestras (Financing)
EMPLOYMENT
  Civil Servants (Employment)
  Civil Servants (Employment)
  Government Research (Scotland)
  Government Research (Scotland)
  Industrial Relations Act
  Industrial Relations Act
  Miners (Retraining)
  Miners (Retraining)
  Ayrshire
  Ayrshire
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  Industrial Accidents (Prosecutions)
  Industrial Accidents (Prosecutions)
  Macclesfield
  Macclesfield
  Factory Inspections
  Factory Inspections
  Work Permits (Japanese Subjects)
  Work Permits (Japanese Subjects)
  Domestic Servants
  Domestic Servants
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Napalm (United Nations Report)
  Napalm (United Nations Report)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Brazil (Embassy Staff)
  Brazil (Embassy Staff)
  Uganda (Tea Estates)
  Uganda (Tea Estates)
  Kenya
  Kenya
  Passports
  Passports
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Servants (Employment)
  Civil Servants (Employment)
  Probation Officers (Selection Procedure)
  Probation Officers (Selection Procedure)
  Maximum Security Institution
  Maximum Security Institution
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Back Duty Investigations
  Back Duty Investigations
  Matches and Mechanical Lighters (Duty)
  Matches and Mechanical Lighters (Duty)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Border Poll
  Border Poll
  Local Elections
  Local Elections
  House Purchase Scheme
  House Purchase Scheme
  Church Property (Damage)
  Church Property (Damage)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Adoption of Children
  Adoption of Children
  Personal Social Services Council
  Personal Social Services Council
  Disabled Persons (Report)
  Disabled Persons (Report)
  Dental Services (Macclesfield)
  Dental Services (Macclesfield)
  Drug Prescribing
  Drug Prescribing
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Oil Industry Supply Companies (Scotland)
  Oil Industry Supply Companies (Scotland)
  Offshore Oil Technology (Electronic Equipment)
  Offshore Oil Technology (Electronic Equipment)
  EEC Energy Policy
  EEC Energy Policy
  Coal (EEC Imports)
  Coal (EEC Imports)
  Titanium Sponge
  Titanium Sponge
  Industrial Development Certificates (Cheshire)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Cheshire)
  Aircraft Noise (Heathrow)
  Aircraft Noise (Heathrow)
  Japanese Electronic Products (Imports)
  Japanese Electronic Products (Imports)
  Silk Textiles (Imports)
  Silk Textiles (Imports)
  Industry Act (Grant Applications)
  Industry Act (Grant Applications)
  Concorde (Routes)
  Concorde (Routes)
  Property Bonds and Equity Linked Life Assurance
  Property Bonds and Equity Linked Life Assurance
  Small Businesses (Advisers)
  Small Businesses (Advisers)

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

ROYAL ASSENT
2.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Gaming (Amendment) Act, Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act,

Costs in Criminal Cases Act, Administration of Justice Act, Education Act,

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act,

Humber Bridge Act,

Derby Friar Gate Chapel Act.

PROPOSED EUROPEAN CONFERENCE: PREPARATORY TALKS
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 what progress has been made at the Ambassadors' conference at Helsinki regarding the preparation of an agenda for the projected Conference on European Security and Co-operation.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, after a long and useful third session, the talks have adjourned until April 25 for consultations in capitals. We hope that it will be possible to complete the preparatory work in time for the Conference to take place in the summer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, may I ask whether it is not the case that agreement has now been reached for the agenda on the principles of European security and economic co-operation? Does that not represent a great advance, and is it not the case that the only difference remaining is about cultural and human contact? Will Her Majesty's Government seek to make a contribution to that last question of free movement by suggesting that it should develop as confidence develops between East and West?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is indeed encouraging that we are all talking about terms of reference of broadly similar scope for the discussions that will deal with security and co-operation in economics and in the environment. But it is also true that there are a number of differences which still remain on the development of human contacts, the broadening of cultural and educational exchanges and the wider flow of information, and we hope to take our part in those when the talks resume.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for confirming what I had indicated in my supplementary. May I ask her this: Will Her Majesty's Government give more enthusiastic support for this proposal? It is hardly mentioned, and yet it is the great hope for peace in Europe and in the world. Will Her Majesty's Government seek to make the British public, who are unaware of this fact, alert to this great possibility?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we have strongly supported the proposals tabled by the Belgian, Danish and Italian delegations, which were put forward on behalf of our European partners and our allies. But of course a great many other proposals have been put forward and, as the noble Lord may imagine, a good deal of discussion is still going on about the agenda.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, can the Government tell us anything about what is technically called the "linkage" between the Helsinki talks and the forthcoming Vienna negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions? Would it

1111
not be rather unwise if the West were to abandon its claim that the two sets of negotiations should be linked, and can the Government assure us that they will not abandon that claim?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am afraid we have not got very far on the exploratory talks in Vienna on the M.B.F.R.s because no plenary sessions have been held since the end of January and the delegations are still discussing questions of procedure and who is to take part and how. It will be some time before that is settled and therefore the link has not yet come before the exploratory talks.

COMMUNICATIONS AND BRITISH TRADE
2.41 p.m.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the reduced tempo of business in the United Kingdom resulting from the inadequacy of all forms of communication; and in particular what steps are being taken to improve the telephone system.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not accept that there is a reduction in the tempo of business. Indeed, the latest industrial production statistics show an increase. So far as the telephone system is concerned, it certainly compares well with other countries in Western Europe and the Post Office continues to give high priority to the improvement of its services.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for that would-be helpful Answer, is he aware that letters posted in St. James's before 5 o'clock on a Friday frequently do not get delivered to a place 40 miles away until Monday mid-day? Also, is he aware that, as an ardent dial-yourself telephone user, my average of calls to connections is about 2¾ to 1? And does he not agree that the frustration and
1112
unreliability of posts and delays on the telephone system takes the cutting edge off business enterprise, and destroys the fire and spirit that should be present in a business community?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend has been experiencing difficulties with both the postal and the telephone services; but I must say to him that these are complaints that should be addressed to the Post Office as they concern matters that are for the day-to-day running of the Post Office and not for Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any widespread complaints of the efficiency of both services.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in view of the undertaking he gave before Christmas, may I ask the noble Lord when the Government hope to be able to announce the Post Office's decision about further orders for TXE 4 equipment?
LORD DENHAM: This afternoon, my Lords. My right honourable friend will be making that announcement in another place this afternoon, and it has been arranged through the usual channels that this report should appear in your Lordships' Hansard.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I regard the Answer he has given to the Question on the Order Paper by his noble friend as a most adequate answer, dealing with the situation as it exists and as it has existed over the last ten years? Is the Minister aware that the Post Office has come under serious attack for something of which it has not been guilty, because of lack of equipment going into the building of new exchanges? In many instances it takes at least five years for the erection of a telephone exchange.
On the telecommunications system, may I ask the Minister whether he would pass on to his right honourable friend the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications, that the rental charges, standing at the moment at a very high figure, have just about reached zenith and ought not to be increased any further? If application should be made from the Post Office Board for further

1113
increases in rental charges of the telephone to subscribers, will he definitely not grant it in any case?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, for his supplementary questions. I think your Lordships must bear in mind that the Post Office handles an enormous bulk of traffic, some 30 million letters and some 38 million telephone calls on average every day, most of which occur during the peak hours. Even if it were practicable to produce an infallible system to handle this size of traffic, the cost would be tremendous and would involve charges that no one would be prepared to pay. The Post Office is, however, always striving to improve the standard of service it provides to its customers.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the Post Office Bill was put through it was most definitely laid down that the services would be run on a separate basis, that telecommunications would be run on its own, just as the postal service would be responsible for its own particular services. The telecommunications side has been making a profit which goes back into the business. There is nothing to stop the Post Office Board from borrowing money on the open market for the extension, if need be, of its services.
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords, of course the Post Office has increased borrowing powers; and I agree with the noble Lord that the two services are separate.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as my noble friend has stressed that the Post Office is keen to improve services, particularly the telephone system, now that we are a member of the European Economic Community is my noble friend satisfied that the number of telephone lines between London in particular and the West European capitals—I am thinking particularly of Paris—is sufficient? Would he not agree that during business hours it is extremely difficult to put a call through to Paris, whether for business or social purposes?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords, of course the Post Office is always extremely keen to improve and keep up the standard of its own services. With regard to
1114
international calls, of course there are certain matters that are not within its own control.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, who is responsible for laying the lines? Could there not be some consultation with the French postal system for more lines to be laid?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, there is consultation. But I will certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend what my noble friend has said.
Following is the report referred to:
MODERNISATION OF TELEPHONE NETWORK
On February 7 I informed the House that the Post Office had submitted plans for modernising the telephone network.
These envisage first, a gradual replacement of Strowger equipment by more modern systems capable of providing not only improvements in service quality but also additional customer facilities; second, the early participation of the established suppliers in the production of a new large electronic exchange known as TXE 4; third, depending on further discussions with industry, the development of both electronic and Crossbar systems, both to meet future domestic requirements and to assist exports; and last the eventual development, in close collaboration between the Post Office and industry, of even more advanced exchange systems for introduction in the 1980s.
In consultation with the other Departments concerned and with the fullest co-operation from the Post Office these proposals have been thoroughly examined. Possible options, comparative costs, effects on overall capital investment and other aspects, including in particular the industrial, export and employment implications, have been investigated. I am satisfied that it is right to introduce TXE 4 into the network. It is a modern system capable of meeting economically all current requirements, and capable of progressive development for the future.
The Post Office plans are accepted by the main firms in the supplying industry who are now anxious for their early approval and implementation. The Post Office have fully consulted the Post Office Engineering Union and other Staff Associations, who have expressed their support.
The export prospects for British manufacturers should be improved by this further move into electronic equipment. For the future a high level committee is to be established under the Managing Director, Telecommunications, to work closely with industry in ensuring that export considerations are borne fully in mind in the further development of exchanges for domestic use.
In terms of jobs, the Post Office's proposals mean that the supplying industry will employ at least as many people on the manufacturing of exchanges for the British network as they would have done under existing plans. But

1115
the gradual changeover from electro-mechanical to electronic production is bound to mean, in time, a shift in the type of skills required and conceivably some changes in the distribution of manufacturing facilities. Production will, as now, be largely concentrated in the development areas. And the Post Office will collaborate closely with the manufacturers with a view to minimising any local employment difficulties.
In the light of all these factors, not least the prospects they offer for improved service to telephone users, I have therefore approved the Post Office's proposals within the context of their total investment programme which will, of course, continue to be subject to annual review by the Government. The Post Office and industry will also keep me informed and consult me as necessary about the progress of these plans, about the pace of modernisation, about the progress of technical development and generally about any major industrial, employment and export matters.

TOURISM: AVAILABILITY OF ACCOUNTS
2.47 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 why the accounts tinder the Development of Tourism Act 1969 for the year ending March 31, 1971, have only recently become available through the Printed Paper Office; and whether this delay can be avoided in future.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, under the Development of Tourism Act 1969 it is the Comptroller and Auditor General who is responsible for laying before Parliament copies of the statement of account of the Tourist Boards. The statement of account for 1970–71 was published on November 18, 1971.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, being more concerned with the principle than these particular accounts or those of the succeeding year, which also showed delay, may I ask my noble friend whether he is satisfied that this procedure is really as good as could be devised for getting
1116
these accounts into the hands of Members of both Houses?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not sure whether it would be possible to say that it is as good as can be devised, but it is at any rate in accordance with the Act, which lays down that the accounts should be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General by November 30 each year.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is it not the case that the accounts for both years were laid before Parliament in dummy—that is to say, a title page only—and the accounts themselves were not available for months after being laid in dummy? Is not this laying in dummy an absurd practice which ought to be abolished?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I do not think it is an absurd practice. The purpose of laying in dummy is to allow reports when they become available to be printed, even although the House is not in session.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, does it not lead Members to suppose, when they see in the Minutes that a set of accounts has apparently been laid, that if they went to the Printed Paper Office they would be able to get those accounts, whereas when they do go to the Printed Paper Office all they get is a dummy front page and no information whatever?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I hope that what I have said to-day will mean that noble Lords will know better in the future.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is really satisfied that the practice of laying accounts in dummy is in fact limited to the few circumstances such as he mentioned, where there would appear to be some justification, and that it is not used just as a delaying device, which some of us sometimes suspect?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that carries the question a great deal wider, and I am afraid that I should have to do some research before I could give that assurance.

"QUEEN ELIZABETH 2": SECURITY ON ISRAEL CRUISE
2.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: 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 what cost has been and is being incurred by the Defence Department in shepherding "QE 2" to Israel and guarding her in Southampton before her voyage there, for the celebrations of the 25th anniversary of the foundation of that State.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, among the security precautions being taken for the cruise of the "Queen Elizabeth 2" to and from Israel this month and next are some by the Ministry of Defence, the cost of which will be recovered from the Cunard Steam-Ship Company. I cannot discuss amounts, since this could indicate the nature of the measures being taken.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend very much, may I ask him, first, whether he is aware that there has been concern because we have appeared to be subsidising the holidays to the Middle East of richer members of the community? Secondly, is he aware that we may be appearing to play too great a part in the celebrations for the 25th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel, having regard to the present circumstances in that area?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the first question of my noble friend, I hope that my Answer will have put his mind at rest. With regard to his second question, this ship is on the high seas and is entitled to go wherever she pleases, and I think it right, since she is flying the British flag, that she should do so.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the reply that he has just given. Will he be good enough to say whether it is in accordance with our practice that any British ship shall be entitled to sail where and when it wants for a legitimate purpose? Also, is not this ship, having been chartered in this way
1118
rendering a service not only to the State of Israel but also to the world as a whole?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that is perfectly right. But perhaps I ought just to say that the responsibility for the security of a ship rests primarily with the owners of the ship concerned, and whether assistance might be provided by my Department in another case would, of course, depend upon the circumstances.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the expenses are recoverable. I take it that any sea support, or any air support by Nimrod aircraft—which would provide them with a good training flight—will not be charged back to the Cunard Company, because this seems to me to be the proper sort of defence which should be given in any circumstances to one of our ships going about its lawful duties.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not want to go into what precautions have been taken, because I do not think that would be helpful, but all the expenses which it is proper should be charged to Cunard will be charged. Those members of the Ministry of Defence security forces on board the "Queen Elizabeth" will, I hope, have a very agreeable time.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to tell the House whether he was consulted when this trip was planned, and, if so, had he in mind the extent of the precautions that would have to be taken?
LORD CARRINGTON: No, my Lords, we were not consulted, and I hope to goodness that the Ministry of Defence will not be consulted about all the cruises which are being undertaken.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is this not a great compliment to the British Navy, and can we just leave it at that?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, On behalf of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That on Thursday the 3rd of May Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day)

1119
be dispensed with Ifor the purpose of enabling the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on that day.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA GOVERNMENT STOCK
2.54 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I would seek to make a Statement on the subject of Rhodesian stockholders. As I told the House on February 14—I think in answer to my noble friend Lord Napier and Ettrick—Her Majesty's Government have been considering the situation which arises from a number of Petitions of Right presented under the Colonial Stock Act 1877 by or on behalf of holders of Southern Rhodesia Government stock. Before U.D.I., the Government of Southern Rhodesia made a number of issues of stock in London. These issues are registered under the Colonial Stock Acts and the provisions of those Acts apply to them. The Bank of England is registrar of the stock, apart from one issue for which Barclays Bank International Limited is the registrar.
After U.D.I., the illegal Rhodesian authorities have not provided funds to the United Kingdom registrars to service the stocks. It is understood, however, that those authorities have made some payments in respect of interest and redemption monies for stock held by persons not resident in the United Kingdom. The total amount of arrears outstanding on these stocks is, I am informed, now £53 million.
Section 19 of the Colonial Stock Act 1877 requires the prospectus and other documents relating to stock to which the Act applies to state
"that the revenues of the colony alone are liable in respect of the stock and the dividends thereon and that the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and the Treasury are not directly or indirectly liable or responsible for the payment of the stock or of the dividends thereon or for any matter relating thereto".
It is clear from this that the British taxpayer as such is in no way liable to meet this obligation of the Rhodesian Government. This is further borne out
1120
by Section 20 of the 1877 Act, which, as originally enacted, provides that a person claiming to be interested in stock to which the Act applies or in any dividend thereon may present a Petition of Right in England and that the certificate of judgment or order of the court in proceedings upon such a Petition may be left with the registrar of the stock instead of the Treasury and
"shall be complied with by the registrar or other agent of the colonial government having possession in England of moneys of such government instead of by the Treasury".
In the case known as Franklin v. the Attorney General, which was decided on October 27 last, the High Court ruled that the remedy by Petition of Right in England provided for in Section 20 of the 1877 Act had not been modified in respect of Southern Rhodesia Government stock by certain later legislation. It was, I think, the Cyprus Act 1960. Following this decision, Petitions of Right have been presented by various stockholders and have been referred to the High Court in pursuance of an endorsement of Her Majesty on the advice of the Attorney General. More than fifty petitions have so far been received. In relation to one of these petitions, an order was made in the High Court this morning adjudging the sums claimed to be due, although I understand that it was made quite plain in the course of the hearing that there would be no liability on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. It is expected that similar orders may well be made in the proceedings on the other petitions. As I have explained, it is clear from the terms of the Act that the United Kingdom funds are not liable to meet payments on these stocks, which is a responsibility of the colonial Government only, and that any declaratory order will fall to be satisfied out of the moneys of that Government held in England by the registrar of these stocks or any other agent of the colonial Government.
The funds held by the Bank of England as registrar in respect of the stocks are negligible. Her Majesty's Government have no detailed information as to other funds held in this country which are, or might be, available to meet the liabilities to stockholders, with one possible exception—the funds of the Reserve

1121
Bank of Rhodesia which are held in this country. It would not be appropriate to disclose the amount of these funds of the Rhodesian Bank, but it forms only a fraction of the amount of the arrears I have just quoted. Whether or not these funds of the Rhodesian Bank, or any part of them, are available to meet the liabilities in respect of the stock is a question of law and therefore, in the last resort, is a question for determination by the courts. As this is the case, it would not be appropriate for me to express any opinion on this issue. Should it emerge, by a decision of the courts, that the funds of the Reserve Bark are not available for this purpose and that, as is believed, there are no other significant funds available, the petitioners will of course be without an effective remedy in this country. Should, however, it emerge, by a decision of the courts, that all or any of the funds of the Reserve Bank or some other significant funds are available, it nevertheless seems clear that they will be quite insufficient to meet the total liabilities. If nothing further were done, the effect in law would be that the creditors would be dealt with on a "first come, first served" basis, so that the earliest would receive 100p in the pound (as I suppose I have to say now) and latecomers, who would be the immense majority, nothing. This would be manifestly unjust. In commercial law the difficulty would be met by a winding-up or a bankruptcy, yielding an equal dividend to all unsecured creditors; and that, in our view, is the only just solution here. But such a solution is not possible without legislation.
Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government have decided that, in the event of significant funds being held by the courts to be available to meet the obligations of the Southern Rhodesia Government, they will ensure that they are distributed equitably, and will entrust the Foreign Compensation Commission with this task, which may involve difficult questions of law and fact as to the rights of any particular claimant. Her Majesty's Government propose that other creditors of the Southern Rhodesia Government, including Her Majesty's Government themselves, should be given an opportunity to submit their claims to the Foreign Compensation Commission. To the extent that any amounts due to stock-
1122
holders or other creditors remain unsatisfied, the intention is that they should be preserved and be capable of being pursued against a future lawful government. Legislation in the form of an Order in Council will be required, and a draft is being prepared. Her Majesty's Government have thought it right to make this Statement now in order that stockholders may be fully aware of the position. My Lords, I apologise for the length of that Statement, but it was inevitable.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for making this Statement, and if the Government propose to invite Parliament to agree to certain legislation it is certainly acceptable that we have the longest possible notice of what the intention is, apart from the convenience to the stock-holders, to which the Lord Chancellor referred. Obviously I have not had the opportunity to consider with my right honourable friends in another place their view of this Statement, but it would seem to me that the general proposition that the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, the taxpayers of this country, should not be liable for the servicing of these stocks is an acceptable proposition. I should also have thought that it was right that we should try to ensure that the principle of "first come, first served" should not apply in this case.
My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord one question? He said that if it is found that there are other funds available, and in particular the funds in the Reserve Bank, then they will be distributed under the proposed Order. May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it would not be possible, by appropriate legislation, to ensure that these funds are in fact available for this purpose? In other words, is there any reason at all why we should not ensure that the maximum possible assets of the Rhodesian Government are used for this purpose?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said; and I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord about one technical point. May I take it that no application by any creditor should be made to the Foreign Compensation Commission until a further announcement is

1123
made? Otherwise, there could be a certain amount of chaos in the immediate future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very much obliged to both noble Lords. So far as I can give them, the answers to the questions are as follows. Of course, by legislation one could make the funds of the Reserve Bank available for any purpose whatsoever, but the Reserve Bank has liabilities of its own which are not the liabilities of the Rhodesian Government. Therefore, it does not seem to me that it would be right to anticipate the decision of the courts on this matter, because somebody else would have to go without, I assume, if we did that. It is quite likely (although I do not want to express an opinion on this, for the reason I have given) that the courts will say, "No: the Reserve Bank is one thing, the Government is another; and the creditors of each are separate". If that happens, it would not be right for us to interfere with that situation by legislation which would effectively, and I think retrospectively (although I speak without notice on this), damage the rights of those who are undoubtedly entitled to the funds. Therefore, we thought it best to leave it until the courts have decided what it is that is available to meet the judgments when and if they are made.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I agree that there is no particular reason—and it would be inconvenient—for applicants to write into the Foreign Compensation Commission now, because nothing whatever can be done until the Order in Council is approved.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble and learned friend for his courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to make this Statement this afternoon. I think your Lordships will agree that it contains a great deal of substance, and I should like to give it the careful study that it undoubtedly merits. My immediate reaction is that it sets out the position extremely fairly. May I ask my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack just one question? Can he give your Lordships the assurance, in view of the judgment given to-day in the High Court in favour of the petitioner, that there will be no
1124
question of Her Majesty's Government seeking to introduce a Bill, or an Order in Council, on the lines of the Burmah Oil case, to reverse the decision of the High Court?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is certainly not our intention to introduce legislation to reverse the decision of the High Court. What we are seeking to do, of course, is this. If people in this country sue to judgment a debtor who cannot pay, then somebody has to distribute the funds which are available equitably, and not on a "first come, first served" basis. Normally, that happens under the bankruptcy law or the law governing the winding-up of companies, and you do not need legislation for the purpose. But if we did nothing we would in fact be ensuring that the people who came first got everything and that those who were last in the queue got nothing. So what we are really doing, as I see it, is to substitute a statutory bankruptcy or winding-up procedure in order to distribute the assets fairly, if in fact there are any assets to distribute, which is not yet established. But we certainly do not want to take away from a petitioner of right a judgment which he is given, for what it is worth.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue this much further without proper opportunity for consideration and consultation, but again the noble and learned Lord refers to the possibility of there being assets. What I think we should like is some assurance that every effort will be made to establish what assets there are, wider than the immediate assets held by the Registrar.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, of course in all litigation the initiative lies with the claimant, and in this case it is the stockholders who will be trying to make various assets that they may get wind of liable to meet their judgment—and it will be for the court to decide whether they can. No doubt the holders of those assets will, if they think there is a doubt as to their liability to meet this particular judgment, challenge the availability of those funds to meet that particular judgment. I think we have got to leave that to the courts because, for the reason I gave to my noble friend a moment ago, I do not want to interfere with the legal position at that

1125
stage. The only reason we are interfering is to ensure that if the assets are once identified they will be distributed equitably.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether or not, in the event of there being funds in this country which are in the ownership of members of the illegal Government of Rhodesia, they will be attached for this purpose?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that again would be a question for the court, and I should not like to anticipate the ruling of the court. But what the Statement referred to was funds of the lawful Rhodesian Government in this country. So far as I know, the unlawful authorities of Rhodesia have no funds in this country. If they do, they are not known to me.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, perhaps the services of Mr. Muir Hunter might be used in this case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure that the learned gentleman referred to will be glad of the boost which the noble Lord has given him.

DOMESTIC WELFARE ORGANISATIONS AND MEMBERSHIP
3.10 p.m.
LORD ALPORT LORD ALPORT rose to call attention to the importance of maintaining a representative element in public bodies responsible for administering services affecting the domestic welfare of the people of this country; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose this afternoon to repeat the arguments which illumined the various stages of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill, but I freely confess to your Lordships that one aspect of the debates on that Bill which occupied a great deal of the time of the House of recent weeks has caused me to put down the Motion which I now have the honour to move. Consequently, I wish to use some of the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Aberdare to illustrate an important issue which I am asking your Lordships to consider.
Put briefly, the issue is this. I am concerned at the growing habit of Govern-
1126
ments to insist on giving administrative authority to boards of Government nominees instead of to boards elected by or representative of classes of people or interests over whom that authority is exercised. Until relatively recently, it was, I think, fairly generally accepted that a public authority should contain a large representative element, particularly where the matters with which that authority was concerned related to the welfare of citizens in its various aspects: for instance, if consumers' affairs were affected, then one or more of the consumer organisations would have the right to nominate a member or members to the body concerned; or it might be in another case that a representative professional organisation had the right to nominate suitable members; or it might be, in another case, that the right of nomination would be exercised by some local authority or by an employers' organisation or by a trade union.
The nominee would certainly in those circumstances represent a sectional interest, but his or her presence on the board had two overriding advantages. First, the class of the community concerned would know that its particular point of view would have a chance of being heard in relation to any decision made by the board affecting its interests; secondly, the representative element of a public board had the effect of producing some sort of balance where conflicting sectional interests arose, and at the same time helped to produce a balancing factor in the relations between the board and the Department of State under whose auspices it was operated. It gave to the board some degree of independence and to the individual members the confidence of judgment which derives from acting in a representative role.
There is, I submit, a fundamental difference between the position of a doctor on a public board who is the nominee of the Secretary of State and one who is nominated, say, by the Royal College of Physicians. Similarly, a member nominated by the Secretary of State because of his long experience of local government is, I should have thought, in an immeasurably weaker position than one who, with a long experience of local government, has been nominated by a local authority because he is perhaps an

1127
elected member of that local authority. The former is answerable primarily to the Secretary of State. Indeed, recently I came across the example of a Minister demanding that nominated members of a public body should report to him over the head—or behind the back—of the chairman of that board. I cannot think that that is right.
My Lords, let me now examine the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Aberdare on the Report stage of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill which clearly and frankly illustrate the Government's attitude to the whole question of nomination. On February 13 last in your Lordships' House my noble friend Lord Aberdare said:
"Our view is that the Regional Health Authority, as the principal agent of the Secretary of State for carrying out his policies, should be appointed by him, of course after consultation. After all…he"—
the Secretary of State—
"is responsible to Parliament for enormous sums of public money—almost £2,000 million a year.… In view of those huge sums, we owe it, I should have thought, not only to the taxpayers but to … potential patients, that they should be properly and wisely spent."
He went on to say:
"I believe, therefore, as I said on Committee stage that he"—
the Secretary of State—
"should have the freedom to appoint members of Regional Health Authorities for their own personal qualities…".—[0FriciAL REPORT, 13/2/73; col. 1427.]
There can be only one conclusion from that; namely, that the Secretary of State does not believe that someone nominated by the General Medical Council, for instance, or by the Royal College of Physicians, or by the Greater Manchester Council, is likely to have the right qualities for the job concerned as compared with the nominees of the Secretary of State himself.
This means that where large amounts of public money are at risk the Government must, according to their point of view, have control over those who spend it; and because interventionalist policies are the order of the day, involving a tremendous spread of the use of public funds, the powers of the Government are constantly proliferating through the
1128
instrumentality of nominated boards and nominated individuals. The Government have just provided £15 million, as I understand it, for the building societies. Would it be fair to ask when the Government nominees are going to appear on tehe Council of the Building Societies Association? The local authorities have very large sums of money to spend for which Ministers are responsible to Parliament. When are tile Government nominees going to be added to the number of members of the great local authorities? The universities are almost wholly dependent on Government money. One of which I am at present pro-Chancellor will spend about £15 million in the next quinquennium. When is the Secretary of State for Education and Science going to judge whether I have the personal qualities for the job of spending that money or whether a nominee of hers should be appointed? I confess that if she knew what I think about her handling of the universities she would be dispensing with my services forthwith.
Later, at Column 1431, my noble friend Lord Aberdare explained the Government's point of view with absolute clarity. This is what he said:
"There is a distinction between a body which collectively represents the interests of the public and a body whose members are individually appointed to represent the interests of a particular section of the public. The bask job of the Regional Health Authority and the Area Health Authority must be to plan and administer services in the interests of the public. In that sense we"—
that is, the Government—
"believe we shall meet what my noble friend is asking for in the new service;"—
referring to one of my noble friends who intervened in the debate—
"but we do not feel that the interests of the public are best served by setting up governing bodies which comprise a spectrum of sectional interests. What we are proposing is authorities whose members will for the most part be chosen for the personal contribution they can make."
If I thought that this was the point of view of my noble friend Lord Aberdare alone, or of his right honourable friend Sir Keith Joseph, I should not be worrying overmuch; but I realise that what we are hearing in measured, moderate terms are the slogans of the managerial revolution. I think it was borne out clearly in something further that my noble friend

1129
said on that occasion. He said, after I had intervened for a very short time:
"I do not think I can answer that in a word. My noble friend"—
that is, me—
"is striking at the root of the managerial arrangements which exist in the Bill."—[Col. 1435.]
He went on to refer to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, saying that the Annual Report of the Hospital Advisory Service reads:
"'I am also concerned at the very considerable gap between generally accepted policies and the reality of the Service as patients find it.'"
My noble friend went on to say:
"This is because we have not got a proper management structure at the moment."
My Lords, I am beginning to realise why it is that many Conservatives, or Tory Democrats as we used to call ourselves as opposed I suppose to the Social Democrats of the Party opposite, are feeling increasingly uneasy about the trends of that philosophy within the present Administration at the moment. In earlier days representative institutions, the balancing of sectional interests, the right to a say in the choice of the people, and therefore in their policies, to administer the services which we use and on which we spend the money we pay in taxes—that principle was more or less universally accepted in those earlier unregenerate days. We might be Social Democrats or Tory Democrats but we were all more or less democrats, suspicious of the power of Government and of the influence of Government services and statesmen and nominees. We saw the balancing of sectional interests within our administrative system as being a virtue which was both a protection to our liberties and a deterrent to corruption.
When someone, I think it was Mr. Douglas Jay, proclaimed that the man in Whitehall knows best there was a nation-wide guffaw which did much to undermine the credibility of the first Labour Government. But when 25 years later a Conservative Minister says exactly the same thing, I feel that for a Conservative like myself it is time that I sat up and took notice. I now realise that the Prime Minister's talk about the "quiet revolution" is not simply a figure of speech, but that the managerial revolution is in full swing and before long
1130
we will be living in a managerial State. I have no doubt that the prospect will appeal to a number of noble Lords on both sides of the House. Indeed it is significant that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, who is a dedicated manager, gave to my noble friend Lord Aberdare general support throughout the various stages of the National Health Reorganisation Bill. But the prospect, as far as I am concerned, appals me. Let me go back to the words of my noble friend Lord Aberdare:
"What we are proposing"—
he said, as your Lordships wil1 remember—
"is authorities whose members will be chosen for the personal contribution they can make."
One of the personal contributions they will be expected to make quite clearly is to conform to the policies of the Secretary of State of the day, who is responsible to Parliament, mark you, as my noble friend said. They will be appointed no doubt for leading blameless lives politically. They will be appointed perhaps in the later stages as a reward for past support. They will be very efficient, and perhaps not particularly humane or practical in their attitude to the system and services which they administer. They will be withdrawn from the turbulence and contradictions of ordinary life. They will judge people and situations in terms of cost effectiveness, for return on capital employed. They will use all the bogus jargon of the so-called managerial science.
My Lords, I simply do not think that that is the way in which English men and women—I do not know about Scotsmen or Welshmen—are prepared to govern. It is unwise for a Conservative Government to assess the significance of the trade union movement simply in terms of wage inflation, or our membership of the E.E.C. simply in terms of the Common Agriculture Policy, or British industry in terms of the current volume of its capital investment, or the social services in terms of the cost effectiveness of the public funds employed, or local government in terms of the optimum size of financial resources at the disposal of its unit, or the eligibility of individuals for membership of public boards in terms of personal contribution which the Secretary of State—or, more likely, his civil servant advisers—thinks can be made.
I am sure that there are few Members of this House who would suspect that I now have very much in common politically with either Mr. Enoch Powell or Mr. Angus Maude. It may be however of some very small significance that twenty years ago we were all colleagues of the Prime Minister in what was then called the One Nation Group and which has provided the field for the Prime Minister's present Government. Since then our paths have taken us in very different directions, yet in our different ways and from our different standpoints Mr. Powell, Mr. Maude and I have warned the Government during the course of the last month that we do not think that England can be governed successfully or permanently on the astringent, paternalistic, interventionist manner to which the present Administration appear to be committed. I do not believe that public opinion of this country will accept the philosophy and pattern of the managerial State.
It is of course natural that dissent of all three of us should be attributed to our exclusion from the responsibilities and privileges of authority. I can only speak for myself. Everything which I wished for at the beginning of my political life has come to pass. All that I personally could wish for to-day is that the present should go on for ever.
But, my Lords, what I cannot do is to neglect the opportunity which the privilege of the membership of your Lordships' House gives me of voicing my grave anxiety at the way in which the philosophy and actions of the present Government are developing. I believe that with the best of intentions they are falling victims to a most insiduous heresy which, if allowed to prevail, could destroy much of the quality and variety in our national life, and what is perhaps even more significant bequeath opportunities to less well intentioned men in the future which will enable them to destroy the institutions upon which our personal freedom and our political life in this country have been based for many years.
3.28 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I believe that the whole House should welcome the initiative of the noble Lord who has put this Motion down on the Order Paper to-day, and I only wish perhaps that it had been clarified a little
1132
in order that more Members would have been stimulated to take part. This, in my opinion, should have been the basis for a most important debate. I believe that in our democratic society with its consequent proliferation of committees it is of paramount importance that these cornmittees—the one the noble Lord spoke about in the Health Service, and all others, because I hope the House does not think for one moment that this debate is entirely devoted to the Health Service—which are being set up from day to day should reflect the needs of the inarticulate majority. We all know that there are those individuals who can always make their voices heard, but the great silent majority who think deeply and is concerned with the matters which concern the whole country is too often unrepresented on these committees.
On the Second Reading of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill I quoted the Secretary of State who stated in the White Paper that
"The purpose behind the change is a better, more sensitive service to the public".
My Lords, how can this be effected if the choice of the public representatives is left in the hands of officialdom which is mainly concerned behind the scenes with counting the heads and then presenting the Minister with a completed list of the requisite number. Then they feel that their duty is done. And I believe that the reorganised Health Service is a striking case of management by bureaucracy, with its headquarters at the Elephant and Castle
My Lords, decisions made there are going to reach up to the North of Scotland, to the West of Wales and the East of England, and this is wrong. The decisions should be made by the people of the country. Hardly a week passes without our attention being directed to the unimaginative decisions of those who seem to show a disregard for the need for a better and more sensitive service to the public. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will have guessed what I want to emphasise, and perhaps others also. It is the deliberate exclusion from committees of women; the exclusion of one sex in this country which represents 50 per cent.—indeed, more than 50 per cent.—of the population. They are excluded from committees, both administrative and advisory,

1133
where their knowledge and special aptitudes would be invaluable. To emphasise their knowledge, I would remind noble Lords of the large number of able girls who now go to university and who come out recognising that still they are to be condemned to perform the same repetitive jobs, even in the higher echelons, to which women were condemned before. It seems to me that some members of the male sex possess a protective amnesia which enables them to forget that there are two sexes until there has been gross injustice.
Your Lordships' House has, time after time, heard me stand up and, on a matter which concerns the whole country and which often is of particular interest to women ask the noble Lord who is speaking how many women are on this or that advisory or administrative committee, and I will repeat some of the answers that I have received. My Lords, I am not talking about the last century or the beginning of this century; I am talking about what has happened in your Lordships' House in the last few weeks, so that those who are listening to me to-day will be able to recall what has happened, and also in order to emphasise my point. For instance, I would mention the Committee set up a few weeks ago to consider conditions for granting bail. There are unfortunate women in Holloway, desperately anxious to obtain bail—more anxious than any man because they want to get home to care for their families. But not one woman was included on that large Committee. When I asked the Minister about it, obviously he was shocked to be reminded that there were two sexes. I do not blame the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who has plenty on his plate, but this reflects the attitude of the Civil Service. The membership of this large Committee was drawn up by the Civil Service and presented to the Minister, and he comes here and reels off the names. And there are unfortunate women in Holloway desperately longing for someone to be on that Committee who will understand their feelings as mothers and wives. But their sex has been forgotten. Is this the more sensitive approach that we have been told that we are to have?
The week before last we debated a Report dealing with liquor licensing, which recommended that the public
1134
houses should be open for 14 hours a day and that children should be admitted. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that that Report was denounced by noble Lords on both sides of the House. The Minister, again the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross (it seems to me that the Home Office seems completely oblivious that women should be represented on some of these committees) felt that after the debate on the Report there was nothing more to be said; and, of course, assured us that no legislation would be introduced this year. Of the 16 members of this Committee, which sat for a long time and finally made these stupid and harmful recommendations, only one was a woman. I believe that all that expense and waste of effort could have been avoided if the Committee had been representative of the community.
Last week we debated the preservation of historic towns and villages. Having regard to the descriptions which we had of the widespread destruction of beautiful old houses, and having regard to the fact that women are the home makers and that biologically women are constructed to conserve rather than to destroy, I asked how many women were on the Listing Committee. I might have anticipated the answer—my Lords, it was "None". And so we go on, in the 1970s, week after week, with committees being set up which, far from being sensitive to the needs of the population, have, as I said at the beginning, been listed because the Civil Service is told to make a list of people—men—who would be prepared to serve on a committee.
My Lords, let us come to the question of homes. The cruel, harsh concept of a home for the captive mothers and children who live in those high-rise blocks of concrete, stems from building and architectural interests which are almost exclusively male; those responsible for these prisons in which they never live themselves. Never have I heard of a young male architect living on the 20th floor of a concrete block of flats with his wife and little children and having to lock them in there in the morning before going to work. The mother finds it too difficult to go down to the ground floor because the lift may have broken; and even more difficult to come up again. She cannot leave her children outside the building on the concrete pavement because she would not be able to hear

1135
them if they cried. Who are responsible for constructing these horrors? They are constructed by men who are anxious to secure a big financial return. Home-loving women with imagination, who might have exercised some restraint on the acquisitive instincts of the builders and architects, are excluded from the preliminary discussions in committee. I invite your Lordships to look at some of these advisory and administrative committees.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I am not sure whether she is aware that it is now eleven years since the present Secretary of State for Education and Science and myself drew attention to the deficiencies of these high-rise blocks of flats. But we are women, and no one took any notice of us.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate, what are one or two women against a thousand men? That is the answer, is it not? What we are asking for is proper representation. I have read about that ghastly place called Ronan Point which has been rebuilt. Only one family which formerly lived there, two old people of over 70—one saw their picture in the papers—said that they would go back. They had lived on the 17th floor. They went back yesterday to the fourth floor and the pathetic part of it was that they said they went back because they found there were other people to whom they could talk on the other floors. Not one woman with little children went back. One woman said that she would not go back there, even if she were given a million pounds. But these people are condemned to do so because there is nowhere else for them to go. There is a very long list of people waiting for houses, and so children and mothers are condemned to live in these high-rise blocks by cruel men devoid of imagination and concerned only with their bank balances. I would say that the social historians will condemn the modern architects responsible for these monstrosities as enemies of society.
My Lords, it is significant that the public boards—of which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has made some mention—
1136
responsible for administering many of our great domestic services are deprived by officialdom of the advise and guidance of women. I ask for the foregiveness of the House if I quickly give a comprehensive list. I should like to put it on record in Hansard, for the consumption of the Civil Service and Ministries. My Lords, these are the public boards of this country dealing, as the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, puts it, with "the domestic welfare of the people of this country". The British Railways Board does not include one woman. The same prejudice is shown by the British Transport Docks Board, the British Waterways Board, the Transport Holding Company, the National Bus Company, the National Freight Corporation, the Scottish Transport Group, the British Airways Board, the Civil Aviation Authority, the British Airports Authority, the National Coal Board, the Electricity Council, the Central Electricity Generating Board, together with all the Area Electricity Boards—the London, the Southern, the South-Western, the Eastern, the East Midlands, the Midlands, South Wales, Merseyside and North Wales, Yorkshire, North Eastern and North Western.
There is one outstanding, amazing, exception, a light which shines in the darkness, the South Eastern, which must have had enlightened and wise chairmen. It has two women: Dame Elizabeth Ackroyd and Mrs. Jolliffe, B.Sc. I will say that these two women know full well that there are thousands of other women equally qualified who are ignored by reactionary officialdom which has decided to keep all the boards of the country, with one exception, a male monopoly. There are no women on the North of Scotland Hydro Electricity Board, the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the British Gas Corporation and the British Steel Corporation. There are none on the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the Sugar Board, the White Fish Authority, the Herring Industry Board, the Board of Directors of Cable and Wireless and, last but not least, the Post Office which might well profit from the knowledge and common sense of women. My Lords, what a record! What a record in the 1970s when the Sex Disqualification Act was passed in 1919!

1137
In the course of the last year I have served on the Select Committee on the Sex Discrimination Bill. I have listened to the evidence, and we have taken a great deal of evidence over the year which, incidentally, can be obtained from the Printed Paper Office because it has already been published. But it seems to me that if evidence is needed one has only to study Cmnd. 5207 on public boards, presented to Parliament by the Minister for the Civil Service last January. That is evidence of gross discrimination regarding the use of women on public boards responsible for administering services affecting the domestic welfare of the people.
My Lords, whereas my noble friend said that something happened eleven years ago, I hope that this little debate may be like a stone dropping in the pond and that some ripples may go out. We may find, perhaps, some enlightened civil servant who will make it his business to ensure that the Department adopt a more enlightened attitude towards 50 per cent. of the population in this country.
3.45 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am sure we all are very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for introducing this subject. He has called himself a Tory Democrat. I greet him as a democrat because he has always shown himself to be a person immensely interested in democracy. Democracy is really what we are concerned with in this Parliament and in trying to see that the country runs at all effectively, because democracy is, I think, the only way in which one can successfully govern any country. It is perfectly true that one can use autocratic methods. One can use dictatorial methods for a time. But the trouble with any dictatorship is that it has no means of continuing itself. Democracy alone can do this. Therefore, it is our job to see that democracy works properly.
The noble Lord has made very clear that in his view we must have a better element of democracy in our Government, and especially in all those services which concern the individual and the community. We have learned to realise over the last few years, thanks very largely to the uprising of young people in this country, the importance and significance
1138
of participation. I have spent most of my adult life inside a university, and those of us who were in some position of authority in a university were rather staggered when suddenly there arose the demand for participation. We asked ourselves how it could be possible that students who had only just come to the university should be able to tell us how to run a university—how could they possibly contribute? Many tried to resist this, but over a period of time it became clear that unless universities were prepared to allow student participation, in effect there would be no universities, and so student participation has occurred. Wherever I have seen it I have found that, far from damaging the university, it has been of enormous advantage to the university. It has brought fresh ideas, fresh life, into university. It has enabled new things to be done, because the young are always wanting new things. They are quite right to be wanting new things. This type of participation which they have brought into academic affairs must surely also be brought into the running of everything within the community.
The noble Lord has referred to the health and other social services. I think he would agree that we have got to go far beyond that, and that the type of participation to which he has referred—the democratic element inside the whole of our industries in so far as they affect the individual—has become absolutely vital. We had a debate last summer on the Government's Gas Bill, and at that time several of us pointed out that it would be most unfortunate if we set up a central organisation and displaced all the local regional organisations. It is important to understand why this is so because it applies to everything which touches the individual in the community. It is quite easy to have a central organisation to produce gas, to obtain gas from the North Sea or to bring gas over in a liquid form, or to manufacture it in any way you like. A central organisation is perfectly all right for that.
It may well be argued that the central organisation will not be any better for having people elected on it. I am not certain; I think it might be. But it could be argued that the central organisation for production of that sort can be very well run without taking into account the precise needs of the individual. The

1139
same may be true of winning coal. The same may be true of making iron and steel. But when it comes to distribution, when it comes to the impact with the individual, when it comes to the point where the householder is involved—where, for instance, the gas cooker is brought into the house—then it matters a great deal whether that gas cooker is properly serviced. That is not something to be done by a central organisation. It is most important that these things are properly done by local bodies. It is most important that one has local representation. It is most important that the consumer comes in on all that. Without that, we have no sort of proper democratic participation.
This goes right through an enormous range of activities. I have just jotted down a few. If one looks, for instance, at the airways, we have had continuous discussions in your Lordships' House on the question of whether B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. should be permitted to close down their present methods of collecting passengers in the centre of London and to insist upon doing it at Heathrow, Gatwick or other airports. It is quite clear that the majority of individuals who travel would prefer to have the local collection. But we are informed that B.E.A. have decided on economic grounds that it is better done at Heathrow, and this overrides the wishes of individuals.
My Lords, if we go on like this, we set up that appalling dichotomy inside our society of "we" and "they". It is "they" who order things, "they" who run things, and "we" are the unfortunate dogs-bodies who get kicked about and are told what we are to do. This is not democracy. We may call it democracy because it is initiated by a democratically elected Government, but democracy is much more diverse, much more fascinating and important to the indidual than just being allowed once in five years to elect representatives. It is a continuing process, and something that affects us all the time. Unless we realise that democracy can only exist if the people believe it serves them, they will throw it over and go for anarchy or anything else. It will only exist if people really believe it is working for them. Therefore it is essential that we find the right method in all our industries, and in
1140
everything we do, to facilitate the working of proper democracy.
I have referred to the airways and to the Gas Board. One can turn to the Electricity Board, where exactly the same argument applies. One can turn to transport, the railways, buses, the Post Office, the planning system of the country and everything else. All must be brought close to the individual. It is no good imagining that because someone has devised an academically perfect plan it will be accepted by the hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people whose houses are knocked down as a result of that plan. They must feel that they have participated in it and they can understand exactly why this has been decided. They may decide that, even though it is in a technical way the right solution, it is socially an abominable solution, and it is better not to have it. These are the ways in which we as people have the right to decide. We must not be told that something has been decided by someone else who knows all the answers—as indeed he may—and that this has to be done. This is not the way in which we should live.
I quote front a speech made on January 20 referring to the individual in the community:
"…he is increasingly unable to live his own life, express himself, dream his dreams, and realise his ideals, because increasingly the decisions which govern his life, and the life of his family, are taken for him, by remote powers or persons he perhaps has never heard of. Where he will work—regardless of the amount of satisfaction and fulfilment he will get at that work. Where he will live—even in what part of Britain he will live. Whether the community in which he and his family have been brought up will survive as a community, or be destroyed by some technological thunderbolt or regardless stroke of financial lightning…".
That was a speech made by Mr. Harold Wilson at Leith in January of this year. I welcomed it very much, because it showed that a leader of a Party was now coming forward with this idea, which is not a new idea, but which is something that concerns every one of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, has I think brought us to the real fundamentals of democracy; to the part of democracy which concerns every one of us. If we believe in democracy, we will welcome his Motion and ask that it be regarded as a first priority by the Government to

1141
extend democracy throughout all the activities of our nation and not confine it simply to an electoral system.
3.56 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this afternoon we have had three powerful and eloquent speeches on an issue which should be central to your Lordships' House and Parliament: what sort of democracy will we see evolving in the next five, ten or twenty years? Like my noble friend Lady Summerskill, I feel a sense of disappointment that so few noble Lords are participating in this debate. But the three speeches that have been delivered will be read, I think, for many months and many years as an expression of the very deep concern that was held not only by those who have spoken, but I believe on Benches on all sides of the House, as to how democracy will evolve in this country. I do not envy the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in his task of replying to my noble friend Lady Summerskill. When one travels and sees the way in which women participate in the highest fields of government and administration, particularly in the developing countries, it is an act of shame that, for whatever reason, women are not allowed to provide for this country the services which the country requires and which women as a group could provide.
Democracy is something more than electing a Parliament every three or four years, or electing a local authority. Democracy is a question of choice, and if democracy is to have any real meaning to the man in the street it must mean that the question of choice should be as low as possible within our community strata. There can be no question that in recent years and with increasing momentum, either to seek the managerial State or to acquire greater efficiency, we are seeing a reduction in the representative element in our society and moving more and more to an authoritarian bureaucratic system. Many of our people to-day work in our industrial groups. They depend for their livelihood on decisions taken by directors whom they never see, and on occasions they may not even know their names. They can be directors who live in another country. This is a factor which will grow, I think, with the development of the international company.
1142
In the social field we have two pieces of new legislation: the reorganisation of the National Health Service, which has been referred to already to-day, and the reorganisation of local government. As regards the latter, this has come about in an attempt to get greater efficiency, and so we have set up these very large local authorities. This must mean that the elected representatives are going to be further away from those whom they represent, and one can already see the structure evolving when responsible decisions are being taken more and more by persons whose qualification is none other than having been selected, yet having no form of mandate or connection with ordinary people. So, my Lords, are we not moving into a society, as my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones said, when it is a question of "them" and "us". I myself doubt very much whether the efficiency that the Government expect to arise as a consequence of this new structure will come about. But even if increased efficiency were to be achieved, I do not believe that it would last very long, because at the end of the day one needs the co-operation of ordinary people in the way in which the laws are administered.
In the industrial field the Government, in their wisdom, have decided that highly political and economic matters should be dealt with to-day by a Price Commission and a Pay Board—all this sensitive area being removed from Parliament and decisions being taken by some carefully hand-picked men. I cannot myself believe that this is right: nor do I believe that these organisations—since they depend upon the respect of those who are affected by their work—will last for very long. So what can we do? I believe we can give a very clear warning to the Government that any further legislation on the pattern put before this House in recent years we will not accept.
I hope that the House will feel that democracy is still worth fighting for and will see that amendments are made to that legislation to ensure proper representation by the members of the boards. But I think the Government are wrong when they say accountability can arise only when the entire board have been nominated. One can get accountability and control, which is clearly needed where public money is involved, by the

1143
terms of reference that one employs and perhaps by the appointment of one or two members with specific responsibilities. There is no need to have boards of this nature merely to achieve accountability. Therefore in future legislation I hope this House will say that we will not have this situation any more.
However, I believe we need to be a good deal more constructive in this matter. My own Party is now actively considering ways and means by which neighbourhood councils could be set up. I am talking here of a village or an estate community that could easily be identified, and these communities should be encouraged to set up councils whose members could represent their views on the bigger local authorities. We think there is a case for a statutory requirement for these councils to be consulted when a local authority is intending to take action which would in any way involve community life. For instance, one can think of speed limits on various roads. One sees on television pictures of women and children standing and holding up the traffic in order to draw the attention of the local authority to the dangers of speed. This should not be necessary: there ought to be some constitutional system or means by which a community could draw attention to its problems before the bigger authority. I believe these councils should be provided with a certain measure of finance so that they could undertake some of the measures needed within the comunity. These are all things that we are considering. I hope that a report will shortly be produced and perhaps it would merit a debate in your Lordships' House—because I think this raises a crucial area of our democratic involvement. I have no doubt at all that this debate will serve as a warning to the Government and provide thought for those who have listened to it and those who will read it.
My last word is this: criticisms are made of our public Civil Service, whether it refers to central Government or local government. I have the highest admiration for the integrity of that Service. I have no doubt at all that in most cases the decisions taken in fact are right, according to the evidence and the circumstances in which the judgments were made. But in human life there is need for compassion and understanding; and
1144
this is something that perhaps the Civil Service tends to overlook. It is here that a layman, as a representative, has a crucial part to play, not only in the efficiency of the Service but in the humanity of its administration.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him, when he uses the words "them" and "us", who is "them" and who is "us"?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have been an employee of a company and I have never had any doubt that the directors were "them" and I was a member of "us"
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to ask my noble friend a question. I think that in his very last sentence he referred to the civil servants and said that he thought, if I heard him aright, that they tended to miss people and that somebody had to direct them. My noble friend spoke of the "layman"; but, with respect, the layman is the Minister. Could I put it to my noble friend that he has been extraordinarily unfair to civil servants who try to do the job? If the layman, who is the chairman of the company, does not do his job then of course the civil servant cannot really do his. The point I am asking my noble friend is this: does he not think that what he is really saying is a criticism of the Minister and not of the civil servant?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was not seeking to criticise the Minister. I was speaking of the layman as being a representative of the community. If the noble Lord cares to read my speech he will see that what I have said was clear.
4.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, may I straight away express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Alport for putting this Motion on the Order Paper. The few of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate will have found it of great interest and assistance. I have not agreed with anybody who has spoken so far, except the powerful intervention from the "Liberal Front Bench" which seemed to me to have a good deal of sense in it. When I studied the Motion I found it difficult to

1145
know what I should say in reply to the debate, although I had some idea what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was likely to say. I hope that my noble friend will consider that I certainly am a Tory democrat and that much of what this Government have done has been in the best traditions of Tory democracy, as I hope to explain in my speech.
It is important to draw a clear distinction between public services that are the responsibility of local government, and those that are the responsibility of central government. In the first case it has always been our policy to encourage the growth of strong, representative local authorities with clearly defined functions. The Local Government Act 1972 is evidence of that with its framework of counties and districts, each with its own district responsibilities. I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, criticised us, because it is our two-tier system that is very much nearer to the electorate than the single-tier system which his Government proposed to create.
We have accomplished a great deal in removing unnecessary restrictions on local government and we have secured for them more effective freedom of action. We have removed a number of specific, petty, irritating controls—such as Ministerial controls over the fixing of market days and hours, the appointment of a public analyst, the establishment of joint education committees, and so forth. We have identified many other irritating, petty controls which we shall remove as soon as opportunity offers.
Moreover, in the Local Government Act we removed certain statutory limitations on the way in which local authorities organise their own administration. Except for an essential minimum they are no longer required to appoint statutory officers or statutory committees. Such decisions are rightly left to their own discretion.
The same Act greatly increases the amount of money that a local authority may spend, under their general power to spend for the good of their area, from one old penny to two new pence—a fivefold increase. And it introduced a new power enabling authorities to delegate a wide variety of day-to-day decisions to officers, leaving members free to concentrate on the broader issues of policy.
1146
We have been reviewing the whole field of local government finance and issued a Green Paper in July 1971 on this subject. Since then we have held discussions with local authorities and these have included proposals for improving the formula used for the distributiton of rate support grant. We hope that these proposals can be implemented from April 1974.
We have also devolved more responsibility on local authorities for their capital requirements. In certain cases, such as the acquisititon of land, loan sanction is automatic. In the so-called "key sector" (including housing, school, health and social services) approval of a particular project by the parent Department automatically carries loan sanction with it and no formal application is required. In the "non-key" sector a block borrowing allocation is made to each authority which can make use of it at its own discretion.
I have listed these particular facts because I would claim that we have done a great deal to strengthen local democracy in the form of local government and to give it greater independence from central Government interference. There remain those services affecting domestic welfare of the people of this country which are centrally administered. These are the services to which most of your Lordships have referred. In these cases it is the Minister who is accountable to Parliament for their efficient provision, and it is only logical that he should have a predominant influence in the appointment of those who carry out responsibilities on his behalf. But that does not mean the total exclusion of a representative element—not in the least.
I was very flattered that my noble friend made such considerable quotation from my own speech on the Report stage of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill. I was not in the least surprised to find that I agreed with every word I had then said. I am sorry to repeat myself, but I should like to take the example of the National Health Service in this respect because my noble friend referred to it, and it is a critical example. The Area Health Authority, about which he was speaking, will be the main operational tier of the Service. It is right that the Secretary of State should appoint the chairman; but in a total of some 15 members other major interests will be fully represented. I do

1147
not think he fully appreciated that four members of the Area Health Authority will be appointed directly by the local authority. They will not be nominated by the local authority and appointed by the Secretary of State; they will be directly appointed by the local authority. That is surely one significant step forward, something that has never happened before. On that authority there will be professional people drawn from the main health care professions. There will be doctors; there will be a nurse; there will be at least one representative of teaching interests nominated by the university. The balance of places will be filled by those drawn from other walks of life whose character and experience are so essential to a management body of this sort. Theirs is a representative function in that their only concern will be the best Health Service for the public, and that without any professional commitment. This seems to me to give the right balance of delegation of responsibility from the centre and reasonable representation of local and professional interests.
When my noble friend seems to look back to a happy past which we are now changing in favour of a new managerial revolution, I can only say that hitherto there has been no democratic nomination in the Health Service. The Regional Hospital Boards are appointed by Secretaries of State. The hospital management committees are appointed by the Regional Hospital Boards. We are giving the local authority the chance to make direct nominations to the Area Health Authority. In the sense of democracy, that seems to be an advance and not the reverse. I should like to deny straight away one or two words—I do not think he meant them in any sinister sense but the noble Lord spoke about those being appointed who had led blameless lives politically, and as a reward for past support. This is not at all the way in which nominations have been, or will be, made to the bodies.
The exact constitution of similar bodies with executive or adjudicating powers varies according to circumstances. In the social security field National Insurance local tribunals are made up of a legal chairman and two members drawn from panels representative of local employers
1148
and other insured persons and of employees. Supplementary benefit appeal tribunals consist of a chairman and two members, one of them representing workers and all of them local people. In the Water Bill, which is now in another place, an absolute majority of the members of each regional water authority will be appointed by the local authorities in its area. Short of direct election I should not have thought one could get much more representative than that.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I will not delay the House for long but although I came in late this was the area that I was most concerned with and the Minister was kind enough to draw our attention to the tribunal system. As one who had experience as a Minister working in the social security system I found that the layman, although fellow laymen were appointed, was overawed by the tribunal system. Let me be quite fair to the Minister and say at once that I do not know the answer to it, but this is the area in which we get the "us" and "them"; the "we" and "they". We have not found the answer to this, and the tribunal system is growing too rapidly. I apologise for the interruption but I felt that that point should be mentioned.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has drawn attention to this. It is an inherent difficulty in any system of tribunals. People are frightened when they go before them, and if the noble Lord has any ideas of a constructive nature which would help I am sure we should be glad to listen to them.
Besides these executive or adjudicating bodies there is also a vast range of others that involve the community in the provision of central services or of an advisory nature. The war pensions committees will be known to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and their associated voluntary workers who play such an important role in the functioning of the war pensioners' welfare service. They are made up entirely of local people, including members of ex-Service associations, voluntary bodies, representatives of the war disabled, local authorities and workers in industry.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: And, my Lords, some excellent work is done there.
LORD ABERDARE: Or take the new community health councils, which we hope will do so much to bring about that participation of which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, spoke, within the Health Service after 1974. They will be thoroughly representative in composition—half of them drawn from local authorities (mostly from the districts), a third of them from voluntary bodies and the remainder from other local organisations.
There are too many statutory bodies for me to go into them all in detail but I would assure the House that the members of such bodies are selected with the very greatest care and with a view to obtaining a proper balance of representation and experience. I would certainly wish to deny what the noble Baroness said about the Civil Service nominating lists of people who are simply agreed by Ministers. As the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, said, were there any such temptation it would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister not to assure himself that the balance was correct. If the noble Baroness criticises the lack of women on these various bodies, that is the responsibility of the Minister concerned and not the Civil Service.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, having been a Minister I absolutely agree, but when the noble Lord says that he must defend the Civil Service is that not strange, because when I challenge a Minister here and ask why there is not a woman on a certain body the Minister looks astonished, looks down the list and agrees that there is not a woman. The noble Lord has said that this is the choice of the Minister, but it cannot be, because on those occasions I have to prod him before he realises that there is not a woman on a body.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is the choice of the Minister concerned but it may not always be the Minister whom the noble Baroness is prodding. I think it would be quite wrong that sex should necessarily be a qualification for membership of a body. Surely people should be chosen primarily for their own qualities and their experience, but in very many cases it is appropriate that the membership of a particular body should certainly include members of both sexes. My own Department is far from backward in this respect. The noble Baroness
1150
quoted some clearly selective bodies, but may I draw her attention to the fact that over a quarter of the members of the National Insurance local tribunals, of which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, spoke so highly, are women; that half of the members of the Briggs Committee on Nursing were women, and that 10 out of 15 members of the Committee on Abortion, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Justice Lane, are women. But in every case there are constraints on the extent of the representative element. There is a need on some bodies, particularly those concerned with executive functions, for specialist knowledge or experience. This applies, for example, to the Attendance Allowance Board where medical knowledge and experience is required. At the same time there are seats on that Board for a disabled person active in the field of voluntary work for the disabled, and for someone with social work knowledge.
There is a proposal in the Social Security Bill (which we have yet to consider in this House) for an occupational pensions board. Membership of this body will clearly call for specialist knowledge in the field of pension provision. Another proposal in that Bill is for a reserve pensions board, whose main function will be the investment of the reserve scheme fund. Its members will clearly need financial and, particularly, investment expertise.
In the nationalised industries, which are intended to run as commercial concerns, the overriding consideration in making appointments must be that the members should have the necessary expertise to discharge their functions properly. Nevertheless, nominations are invited from a wide range of representative bodies including local authorities, commerce, industry, labour and women's organisations. And of course there are a number of different consumers' councils. There is also the constraint of size. To be truly representative a body may need to have a greater number of persons than its efficient functioning permits. Again this is difficult sometimes in consultation. In the field of the disabled, for example, with which my Department deals, there are almost fifty voluntary organisations in England alone which are consulted by my Department.

1151
However, quite apart from appointments to boards, committees, councils and tribunals there is the whole question of community involvement, which was raised in the case of the universities by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and in the case of industry particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I would say at once that we attach very great importance to this form of community involvement. Within the National Health Service we are seeking what we call a multi-disciplinary approach to problems, which is bringing doctors, nurses and all the health professions into the decision-making process. We also have community health councils to try to involve the community with the management of the Service.
On the industrial front, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would agree with me that communication within a firm or factory is very much an objective of good management, and if there is no such communication, surely that is to be held to be largely the fault of the management. We are paying increasing attention to this matter and, as your Lordships know, we have now a very able Minister for Consumer Affairs. Also a modest start has been made in active research by the Home Office Community Development Programme which we hope will encourage more community participation. At present there are twelve projects under way in England
Finally, may I just make two points: first of all, the proliferation of bodies whose members are appointed by a Secretary of State outside the field of local government, and in those services that he administers centrally, should, I suggest, hearten and not dismay your Lordships. For these, by definition, are services that would otherwise be administered centrally by civil servants. I imply no criticism of civil servants; I wish only to indicate that there is greater, not less, representation of local interests in these centrally administered services when they are managed by an appointed board. Secondly, I should like to take this opportunity to pay a sincere tribute to those many citizens who give their services voluntarily on the kind of bodies that we are discussing to-day. They perform an invaluable role, and certainly in my own field of health and social services we
1152
could not do without them. I am very grateful again to my noble friend for allowing us to air this subject. It is a matter of great concern to us all and we shall Continue to study it with a view to developing increased community participation in all aspects of the government of the country.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he answer one question which is fundamental to this whole subject? He said at one point in his remarks that, short of direct election, one could not get much more representative than now. I think that that was in relation to the matter of tribunals which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. In every sphere which the noble Lord has mentioned, including the extremely important sphere of the Area Health Authorities, the noble Lord has talked about the appointment of representatives by the local authorities, by members of the professions and so on, and he has implied that the whole policy of the Government in these statutory bodies, which are under the control of central Government, is to have the members appointed, and that in the thinking of the Government the idea of direct elections to bodies such as Area Health Authorities or even the community health councils is ruled out for now and all time. That was certainly the attitude which I discerned in the debate on the National Health Service Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister, on behalf of the Government, would spell this out, once and for all, to the House so that people may know that this Government, and the Party which stands behind it, are opposed to direct elections for any bodies such as Area Health Authorities or community health councils.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should hate to rule that out for all time, but we had a debate during the National Health Service Bill on this matter on an Amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and we went into it then. So far as the present is concerned, we do not think it would be practical to run direct elections for Area Health Authorities or for community health councils. We have a system of appointment, after consultation with varying interests, for the Area Health Authorities and for community health councils to be appointed by people from the community that they represent.
4.34 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I do not wish to stand between my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and the House and the next debate for more than a minute or two, but it would not be courteous if I did not take the opportunity to thank those who have spoken during this debate, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who has taken off my shoulders any reference to or words of support for the women's interests in this matter. I have in the past done my best to support women's causes in this House, always to my disadvantage. I remember that the first occasion was something to do with birth control, when the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, shot me down by saying that many women preferred—I think she said—"a short life and a merry one".
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Never!
LORD ALPORT: And I remember on the next occasion trying to support the noble Ladies and their sex and being shot down by the late Lady Horsbrugh, who said that one thing she could not stand in any circumstances was the statutory woman. I am glad that on this occasion I have not had the responsibility of speaking on this matter. But I must say that I was rather surprised that my noble friend Lord Aberdare, in justifying himself for the participation of women in public bodies, should take particular credit for two bodies, one dealing with nursing. I should have thought that as the vast majority of nurses are women, the vast majority of those on that body should be women. The other body is that dealing with abortion. I should have thought that as that is a matter which is exclusively a problem of the female sex, in fact the vast majority on that body should be women. The fact that a few women, or even a reasonable representation of women, are on those bodies shows once again that perhaps these matters are not yet viewed fully with a sense of proportion.
I would say to my noble friend, quite categorically, that when I spoke about past support and blameless lives I meant exactly that. We are not so unsophisticated in public life that we do not know certain of the criteria which Gov-
1154
ernments properly use in the very extensive patronage which they exercise when making these appointments. I do not say for one moment that I am aiming at any particular person or board, I am merely talking about the general understanding of the motives which very often animate public authorities of various kinds in deciding who would carry the responsibilities on their behalf. It is natural that that should be the case, but it is not always healthy for the public life of this country that it should be the case.
I do not want to do more than again thank my noble friend Lord Aberdare for the very full way in which he has replied to this debate. It is always a matter of great surprise to me that even a moderate subject, supported by a small number of speakers, evokes from the Government Front Bench and from the Opposition Front Bench as well speeches of great weight, thought and careful preparation. It is a matter for which I know that private Members like myself always feel very grateful indeed. It is quite clear that my noble friend Lord Aberdare and I—he speaking for the Government and I speaking as a purely private Member—are not by any means reconciled in the difference of our views on this matter. I say only that I continue to reserve my position. He has not changed his views at all with regard to the points that he made in the previous debate on the Reorganisation of the National Health Service. I certainly am not convinced in any way by what he has said that the Government understand the principle of participation to which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, referred, or understand the dangers of the line which they are taking in handling the very sensitive issues so far as public opinion in this country is concerned at the present time. But, my Lords, I am told that if I refuse or delay in withdrawing this Motion, then to-morrow the whole of the contents of the Printed Paper Office will tend to arrive on my doorstep. In order to avoid such an eventuality, and despite what I have said about the reply from my noble friend, I beg the leave of the House to withdraw this Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BRITISH INDUSTRY: DISRUPTIVE ELEMENTS
4.39 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING LORD ORR-EWING rose to draw attention to methods used to disrupt and undermine British industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very fortunate in having drawn in the ballot for the second occasion an opportunity in a mini-debate to discuss a subject which I believe to be of considerable importance to the whole nation. I have set it down in the terms:
"To draw attention to methods used to disrupt and undermine British industry; and to move for Papers."
I am grateful to Peers in all parts of the House for remaining here, the very last debate before we rise for the Easter Recess, and I hope that the importance of the subject will fully justify their attendance and their support. I am most grateful to those Peers on both sides of the House who are speaking on this Motion.
If any noble Lord, or the House in general, expects me to be highly provocative, I shall have to disappoint them, because I do not wish to be provocative. I hope I will not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, because he always likes the good cut and thrust of debate. I am afraid I must disappoint him, because I believe the subject to be so serious that it must be treated as a serious contribution and effort to build some understanding where it is all too short, between the unions and the Government. I may say that it is not just the unions and this Government; if the Government were to change tomorrow there would still be certain militants within the unions who would find similar causes for disagreement. I am delighted to see that two speakers from the Labour side are going to take part in the debate, Lord Champion and Lord Shinwell, and I hope that others will join in as well.
I cannot help feeling that this problem, which to-day affects the Conservative Government, is going to affect equally greatly not only a future Labour Government but the chance of the Labour Party actually coming to power; and Dick Crossman, who is always provocative in the articles he writes for The Times, has yet again been provocative this morning in making exactly the same point. I think everyone in all the major Parties has
1156
fully understood for at least the last thirty years that the trade unions play an absolutely vital part in our industrial and economic life, and therefore their talking to the Government, even though they may oppose the Government of the day on certain things, is essential for the wellbeing of our nation.
It is my object to point out how small numbers of militants—sometimes people call them "subversives"—acting outside their union organisations in almost every instance, acting often entirely against the wishes of their elected union representatives, and often representing no one but themselves, have disrupted and are continuing to try to disrupt British industry. This strike problem, particularly the unofficial strike problem, has come to be known as the "English sickness", and a very good book, which I shall quote later, has recently been published under that name. I cannot help feeling that it must delight our competitors. We have fierce competition in many industries, particularly in engineering, and so much of our export trade is in the engineering field. We have considerable and powerful competitors in Germany, France, Italy and Japan. They must be delighted every time they read how the smooth and efficient flow of mass production in this country is being stopped.
The number of strikes has in fact fallen in the last few years. In 1970 there were 3,970 strikes (incidentally, these are the official strikes, because unofficial strikes are not always registered); in 1971, there were 2,220; in 1972, there were 2,470. Working days lost, however, because strikes have tended to last rather longer, have gone up very steeply. In 1970, 11 million working days were lost; in 1971, that figure had risen to 13½ million; in 1972, to 24 million, in which, of course, the miners' strike played a big part at the beginning of that year.
The effect on Britain's competitive !position in the world, the effect on the punctual delivery of our exports, the effect on the standard of the product which we sell has been serious, and, as I said, our reputation as a great industrial country has been seriously undermined by the tactics of a small minority. I expect many of your Lordships have cause to travel from time to time. The country that I visit most regularly is perhaps Switzerland, sometimes on business and

1157
sometimes to ski, and the reduction in the number of British cars there is symbolic of the reduced impact we have achieved in the last 25 years and the greater impact that our competitors have achieved. At the end of the war we were selling a considerable number of cars into France, and the same with Italy; now the numbers are very small by comparison. In our old Commonwealth, in Australia, B.L.M.C. at the end of the war had 20 per cent. of the market. I read in the Financial Times to-day that that figure has now fallen from 20 per cent. to 8 per cent.
I have just for the first time visited South Africa, from which country I was glad to bring back a very good-looking daughter-in-law; the object of my visit was to attend the marriage of one of our sons. I could not help noticing there that, whereas that was a market which bought largely British cars, Mercedes has made a tremendous penetration throughout that country, as have Fiat and Renault. The same applies in so many of our traditional Commonwealth markets.
Of course, some of this falling off may be due to management. But the problem is a desperately difficult one in a highly complicated, highly organised, manufacturing concern like the car industry, which is collecting together a whole lot of components and assembling them into cars. By way of illustration, the fact is that every single day at Fords, Dagenham, 1,000 C class vehicles deliver the components which are to go into the cars on that day or the next day. So a small disruption, not only in the plant at Dagenham but among the many hundreds of component makers, can so disastrously disrupt the flow of production. In fact, I have the figures. I am instancing the motor industry because we can see for ourselves the impact there, whereas it is more difficult to see in the chemical industry or in the machine tool industry. The United Kingdom motor manufacturer list of official and unofficial strikes in the last two years is most revealing. In 1971, there were 241 stoppages. The five-day week means that there are 250 working days in a year—rather less because of statutory holidays. So there is rather more than one stoppage every working day in one of the motor manufacturer concerns. The numbers involved
1158
in 1971 were 340,000 people, and there were 3·1 million working days lost. In 1972 the figures were a little lower; there were 216 stoppages, 246,000 men affected, and 1·33 million working days lost. It is nice to have an improvement, but there is a long way to go.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, may I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but would it not give a little better balance if he could quote, for the information of the House, the number of working days lost by strikes in the Renault factory in France, for example, and in the Fiat factory in Italy? This is surely an international problem, largely connected with the monotony of the system of producing cars and the strain on the workers. In my opinion, this is not an English disease, applied to the motor industry here; it is an international' disease of that particular industry.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I do not underrate the international quality of this disease. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, so rightly says, Renault, for the first time, I think, for a little while, has a massive strike on its hands, and even in Japan there is at the moment a massive strike in the motor industry. But this is an exception. One has to say that, whatever we call it, if one talks to one's Continental friends they call it the "English disease"; they have the feeling that they have caught it from us. It may be they have given it a misnomer, but that is what they call it. We cannot argue about that.
I would add that, although they are sometimes quite as damaging, these statistics do not include strikes which last less than a day or which involve less than 10 workers. The figures are considerably greater if those are included. I would also say that the problem exists not just in manufacturing industry. Some of our most damaging strikes have taken place in the infrastructure industries—electricity supply, railways, mines, and particularly ports. I mention ports because nothing is more damaging than delays in our exports, when we are not able to keep to targets, when exports and perhaps the spare parts are stuck in the docks. All these earn us a had reputation.
I should like to turn for a moment to the organisations concerned. They

1159
are often small, but they are often extremely effective and very powerful; and I again underline the fact that they are outside the organised trade union movement. First, there is the Communist Party. I know it will be said that they are not behind everything, but they are the biggest in numbers and they have a network organisation. Even to-day, although their chances of being elected to the other place are very remote and they make no impact, either, in local councils, they are extremely powerful sometimes inside the movement but very much more often outside. I thought Lou Lewis was very revealing when he said in the News of the World:
"The Communist Party is a lot stronger in this country than most people believe. We are fantastically strong at shop steward level. When I was on the executive of the Communist Party, I would estimate that up to 80 per cent. of senior shop stewards in this country were Communists."
He went on:
"Certainly, all the people I worked with up and down the country in the strike—"—
and he was referring to the building workers' strike—
"all the hardliners—were Communists."
That came from a dedicated Communist, so I do not think one should disagree that they are a powerful influence; and leaders of both Parties have acknowledged the power and influence which they have.
The second organisation—and these organisations are brought together for certain purposes—is the National Port Shop Stewards Committee in which Bernie Steer played such a prominent part in the strike of 1967 when the Labour Government were in power, and which Mr. Harold Wilson condemned. Everyone in the House will know the manner in which he spoke. The third is the Building Workers' Charter Group, which claimed responsibility for the 1972 building strike and organised the flying pickets. Some very ugly scenes were produced as a result of those flying pickets. The fourth organisation is the Power Workers Group, which was based on an Essex power station, and its leader was a member of the Communist Party Executive. The fifth group is the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions.
1160
All these groups, rather like the Civil Liberties group, have very good democratic-sounding names, but that does not mean that they are in any way in support of democracy and they are often seeking to undermine it. That Committee is under Communist control and it emerged at the end of 1966. It then called for nation-wide strikes against the Labour Government's intended industrial legislation.
Then there is the Socialist Labour League. It sounds all right, but it has a strong industrial arm called the Ali Trades Union Alliance which, again, is right outside the trade union movement and certainly does not represent it. That is very active on Merseyside, in Hull and elsewhere. No doubt many of these groups are trying to pressurise the T.U.C. —and we can produce quotations to support this view—to call a one-day national strike on May 1. If it is thought that they are small in numbers—20 or 30—I should like to call in support of the idea that it does not need large numbers to produce rather squalid and serious results, what my noble friend Lord Carrington said. He said:
"One should not be deceived by the smallness of their number. One should read one's history and note that a small number of determined people can accomplish a very great deal."
I should like to turn my attention to one area—not because of any prejudice, but because it is a very important area—and that is the A.U.E.W., because, as I said earlier, engineering exports are such a vital and very important part of this country's export effort. There is a very strong Communist element in that union, either holding office or being influential in other ways. I name, first, Eddie Marsden, general secretary of the construction section of the union. I would say, in parenthesis, that that union—the old A.E.U.— in its new form has four sections—the engineering section, the draughtsmen's section, the construction section and the foundry section. Secondly, I would name Henry McLevey, who is a member of the national committee of the engineering section—a dedicated Communist, I believe. Thirdly, there is Dick Etheridge, joint chairman of the combined shop stewards' committee at the Longbridge plant of British Leyland, a frequent A.U.E.W. delegate to the Trades Union Congress and again of strong Communist persuasion. Then there is

1161
Jimmy Reid, whom we all know. We have all seen a great deal of him—perhaps too much at one time—on television. He led the "work-in" at the Upper Clyde shipyard; he was formerly a full-time national secretary of the Young Communist League, and a former full-time Scottish district secretary of the Communist Party. Noble Lords will know that Moscow felt he was so talented that it was worth while taking him there and training him very assiduously for some months. Then I would name John Tocher, a former National Chairman of the Communist Party, who is the union's divisional organiser in the Manchester area; and that appointment may be reflected in some of the troubles which have occurred on Merseyside and in Manchester.
I read to-day on page 15 of the Financial Times—and this was also reported in The Times—that a Communist keeps his seat on the A.U.E.W. executive. That executive is only 13 strong and the engineering section has 7 of those 13 places, so it is the strongest. The other three sections share an average of two each, to make up the 13. That report states that Mr. Les Dixon is the only Communist Party member among the seven-man executive of the engineering workers' national executive. He has been re-elected, and I am glad to say that it was on a postal vote so there was a rather bigger vote than normal. He may be the only member of the Communist Party, but it is not true to say that he is the only one who has strong Communist affiliations, because there is Reg Birch on the engineering section, and he left the Communist Party to become even more Left Wing than that. There is also Bob Wright in the engineering section, who is also of the extreme Left. Perhaps one should add the President, Hugh Scanlon. Although he states that he has left the Party, he was a dedicated Communist and has said so, according to today's paper. They had a debate yesterday as to whether they should send contributions to the Morning Star and he said:
"I am an unrepentant past member of the Communist Party, and I have never failed to support the Morning Star or the Daily Worker —its predecessor."
So he is not in any way ashamed of his support. That is a Union where, in important positions, there are a lot of
1162
dedicated Communists, ex-Communists or people even to the Left of them. I have picked out some, but there are others that I could pick out and perhaps other noble Lords will do so.
Where do the Government come in this? I think every right-minded democrat in this country, and many who do not take any interest in politics, was horrified at the scenes of the militant pickets and at the manner in which they acted during the building strike and the dock strike. It is wholly unsavoury to see picket lines boo-ing and spitting at women. It is wholly undemocratic to see truck drivers having their vans stopped and their windows shattered. In a democracy, we do not like to see individuals being plagued, their wives and children being put under pressure, and men being forced to strike when they sometimes do not wish to do so. No Government can be happy about this situation. The Government tell us that there is enough power, and that the police have enough power. Mr. Robert Carr, speaking as Home Secretary, made a statement to that effect in another place. It is certainly true that 350 of these pickets were arrested so presumably there is power. But I still wonder whether the interpretation of the law is strict enough, and whether people are being unnecessarily victimised and shamefully attacked.
What else can be done to put this right? I hope that everyone of good will will try to stimulate the average rank and file trade unionist out of his apathy—and a bigger vote for the responsible offices must help. When Hugh Scanlon was elected president of the one million-strong A.U.E.W., only 10 per cent. of that union voted and he got 7 per cent. of the votes. I am glad to say that the introduction last year of postal voting has meant since—and this is reported in today's paper—that that percentage has now risen to nearer 30 per cent. I am sure everyone would support this as a move in the right direction.
Finally, I should like to come back to a consideration which I mentioned once before in this House. Is it undemocratic, or ought the trade unions not to reconsider the banning of dedicated Communists from holding office? This was done by Arthur Deakin, who was a strong leader of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and it was reversed only

1163
in the last period when Frank Cousins was in charge of that union before he came into Parliament. I wonder whether, if this ban were reimposed, we should not have batter relationships in this country; whether it is not desirable in the interests and the image of the trade union movement as a responsible part of our nation.
The noble Baroness (perhaps I misinterpreted her) was, I thought, shaking her head when I was talking about The English Sickness, in reply to Lord Sainsbury, who has now left us. I am sorry, my Lords; the noble Lord has moved further back—and to his right, I am glad to notice. This is a book published recently, The English Sickness by Maureen Tomison; and there was a review by Lord Robens, a person greatly respected in this House and in our nation. He says this of the book:
"I found The English Sickness not only absorbing but very relevant to the present state of industrial unrest".
Later on he quotes John Gollan, the General Secretary of the Communist Party, and says:
"Mr. John Gollan, the General Secretary of the Communist Party, demanded the T.U.C. should break off immediately any kind of talks with the Government. There should be a refusal of any statutory control of wages, an all-out wage offensive, coupled with the demand for real price controls'."
I cannot imagine a better recipe for sending every one of our industrial companies bankrupt in the minimum of time, if you are going to allow wages to rip but limit the price charged. Lord Robens goes on:
"We cannot say that we have not been warned. There are signs that the T.U.C. is being swung over to this viewpoint, and the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party seem to have swallowed it, hook, line and sinker".
He adds:
"The English Sickness traces the history of the trade union movement over the past 200 years. It makes fascinating reading. It contains, too, a subtle warning as to how a movement … can easily be prostituted by evil men".
My Lords, I hope that we in this House, on this last day before Easter, may make a small dent and try to promote, not the evil men—let us not give publicity to them; they get enough publicity on television as it is—but the interests of the good men, the good solid democrats in our nation, and ask them to better themselves so that this very important movement, and the general
1164
well-being and industrial health of our nation, may be restored as it was of old. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend in this debate because I heartily endorse what he has said. I think it is a pity that this debate, which is a very important debate, has come on just before we rise for the Easter Recess. I should have liked to see this not as a short debate under the ballot rule but as a full-scale debate. I say that because we have many debates here on how to cushion people against financial hardship, and so forth, but, of course, if we cannot stop subversion in our industry it does not matter how much we talk about social benefits, or supplementary benefits, because eventually, if our economy collapses, there will be no supplementary benefits for anybody. So this debate is extremely important.
I have spoken on this subject ever since I came into your Lordships' House because at a fairly early age I came up against this problem. I have seen the Communists at work in industry, and have therefore always been keen on this subject and on exposing their work. But up to a short time ago you were always looked upon rather as a crank if you every brought this subject up—Communists under the bed, and all that. People just laughed. But people are now starting to awaken to this danger. After all, Britain has given so much to the world by way of our tolerance. As we are British perhaps I should not say so, but I think that the British, of all races, are probably the most kind; and therefore I think it would be a tragedy if we allowed this Trojan Horse in our midst—and it is a Trojan Horse—eventually to destroy us. As my noble friend pointed out, it is a very small Trojan Horse numerically, but it is very highly organised and politically motivated. It is a very dangerous Trojan Horse.
As my noble friend said, last year we lost more working days than at any time in our history since the General Strike. Of course, there is no doubt at all—the evidence is there—that a great number of these strikes were politically motivated. The professional Communists—and I have

1165
said this ad infinitum—know that to have a fertile seedbed in this country for their propaganda they have to destroy the high standard of living of the working class in this country, and in order to destroy that they must smash industry. Quite a few of your Lordships have been behind the Iron Curtain and have been to Russia. You do not get many workers in Russia who have cars. It is far safer to walk in the streets of Russia because there is so little traffic—and the same applies to East Berlin. I quite agree that they have a point there, but for the wrong reason.
My noble friend referred to Mr. Lou Lewis. I shall not repeat the quote that my noble friend gave of Mr. Lou Lewis, who is a prominent Communist Party member and who, of course, was the organiser of last year's building strike, but the quote that we had from my noble friend showed us that in Mr. Lewis's opinion, when he was a member of the Executive of the Communist Party, 80 per cent. of the senior shop stewards in British industry were Communists. There you have it straight from the horse's mouth. So no one can accuse one of being alarmist about "Reds under the bed". I could quote many similar statements, as also could my noble friend, on the Maoists, the Trotskyists and all those various groups. But, as my noble friend said, one of the most disagreeable aspects has been this violent picketing. It must surely be against the law to have these flying squads of organised pickets who go from site to site, as they did, disrupting the workers on these sites and, of course, being violent—throwing bricks at policemen, and similar activities.
Mr. Lou Lewis—I suppose I had better call him that—said during the building strike:
"We have to wrest control from the unions so that we are going to make sure that the workers all come out even if we have to physically pull them off the site one by one."
That is strong language. The Communist Party, as my noble friend said, has a total membership of only about 30,000 in Britain, which is a fleabite, nothing at all. But as I have said before, they are highly organised and very efficient. Their industrial policy is under the the direction of Mr. Ramelson who comes from the Ukraine in Soviet Russia. My noble friend also mentioned that Mr. Ramelson seeks to organise political strikes through
1166
what he calls (and my noble friend mentioned this) the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions. The cheek of using those words! As everyone knows, the Communists want to smash the trade unions. In Russia the trade unions are only a name; they have no power at all. Nobody working in a trade union in Russia has any power. We live in an age where words are used which do not imply what is meant by them; they are used to fool people. I am afraid that it is a very dishonest age politically.
My noble friend referred to a speech by Mr. Wilson in 1966 when he was Prime Minister. He was referring to the Communist Party's subversive pressure during the seamen's strike. Might I refer briefly to what Mr. Wilson said in another place on that occasion. He told the House:
"It is difficult for us to appreciate the pressures which are being put on men I know to be realistic and reasonable not only in their executive capacity but in the highly organised strike committees in the individual ports, by this tightly-knit group of politically motivated men who, as the last General Election showed, utterly failed to secure acceptance of their views by the British electorate but who are now determined to exercise backstage pressures forcing great hardship on the members of the union and their families, and endangering the security of the industry and the economic welfare of this country."
A week later he said:
"This House will be aware that the Communist Party, unlike the major political Parties, has at its disposal an efficient and disciplined industrial apparatus controlled from Communist Party headquarters. No large strike occurs anywhere in this country, in any section of industry in which the apparatus fails to concern itself."
My Lords, some time ago in this House I drew attention to the case of an acquaintance of mine who was in Czechoslovakia trying to arrange some trade there. They told him—and this was some considerable time ago—that it was no use arranging any imports or exports for a particular date because, "you are going to have a national dock strike". They told him that four months before it happened. They told him the exact date on which it would start in this country. That makes one think. The unions into which the Communists really try to infiltrate are those unions representing those industries that can most easily throttle the economic life of the

1167
country—such trade unions as the engineering unions and those unions concerned with the power industries and the docks. It is really monstrous that a handful of men in a powerhouse can turn a few knobs and black out a whole town, stop the trains, stop the factories and throw tens of thousands of people out of work. Surely that is something we cannot tolerate. I might have some sympathy if it were the inventor of the powerhouse, or the inventor of electricity, who took this action, but for people with very little skill (they have not planned or built the powerhouse or the trains) to have the power to throw out of work those tens of thousands of people is intolerable. How long have we to tolerate that state of affairs? It is not tolerated in the majority of other Western domocracies? In the Netherlands and in other countries if you work in a public utility you do so under a service agreement and you cannot indulge in a sudden stoppage; although of course you can hand in your notice of a month or whatever the period may be.
The real answer I think lies to a certain extent with the Government, but mainly with the unions themselves. If only the unions can get their members to vote when they are electing officials for the executive posts. In the average union sometimes only about 1 per cent. of the members vote. I agree that when Mr. Hugh Scanlon was elected (and my noble friend pointed this out) 10 per cent. of his membership voted. But is that democracy? It is a negation of democracy. Here you have men who claim to speak for millions of people but who have been voted into power by only a small percentage of their members, the hardliners. I should like to see the unions really put their house in order in this regard and to say that if 50 per cent. of the members do not vote then an election is null and void. I do not know whether it would be practical for Parliament to make such an Act of Parliament; I doubt it. I should be most happy to see such an Act, though I cannot see it materialising.
My noble friend pointed out that last year we lost 24 million work days compared with 13½ million in 1971. It is true that we had more strikes in 1971 but they were far shorter. We have had longer strikes in 1972 and this is why we have lost more work days. The reason
1168
why we are having these long strikes is of course that the wretched taxpayer has to finance the strikers. In 1972 I think we paid out £10 million to strikers. It is really mad because in the case of the nationalised industries, particularly the public utilities, the Government are really paying their own employees to strike. We have had a new organisation spring up which gives a handbook to strikers, to advertise and publicise more efficient ways of using taxpayers' money to finance strikes. The introduction states:
"If we are going to strike in the future we need to find new ways of organising so that we hurt the bosses and not ourselves."
But, my Lords, all that will happen is that the bosses will leave the country, and the strikers will hurt themselves. It is incredible that anybody can be so dumb as to believe that nonsense, but unfortunately people do believe it. I should like the Government to tighten up on the question of National Assistance for strikers' families with the exception, of course, of cases of proven hardship. You would probably need to have a lot more inspectors, but it is really immoral to expect the public to pay up.
The position is very serious but if we are going to cure inflation and keep the high standard of living of our working people we shall have to stop the subversion of industry and the slow strangulation of our economy. I will end by quoting Mr. Chapple who has been a strong trade unionist for a long time. He has great inside knowledge of how the Communists work. He said:
"Working for the Communist Party is like being part of a ruthless industrial and political Kray brothers organisation. It is like a religion run by gangsters. They work on the simple policy. Their task is to wriggle their way up from the shop floor to decision-making positions in key industries."
My Lords, we really must stop this situation, and if only all trade union members would take their responsibilities seriously I am sure it could be stopped.
5.23 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, permit me to offer my congratulations to him on having initiated this debate. It is a very important subject as he rightly declared, and I follow that reference to his initiation of the debate by offering

1169
congratulations on his studied moderation. Indeed, he almost approached it—I have heard him speak frequently in the other place and in your Lordships' House—with a reluctant objectivity. He was quite mistaken in assuming that my intention was to be provocative. This is not the occasion for being provocative; nor is the subject one on which any Member of your Lordships' House should be provocative. We ought, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord and to other Members of your Lordships' House who are present, to speak with the utmost reason and objectivity, but we have to consider the background of all this.
The noble Lord had one defect in his speech. It was the absence of a reasonable conclusion. I make no intellectual claim for the preparation of speeches, but in preparing a speech one should think not only of the beginning and the middle but also of the conclusion. All he ventured to say in terminating his oration was that he hoped that the trade unions would get rid of the Communists. I might as well retort that the Conservative Party should get rid of the malcontents in the Monday Club. It is precisely the same argument and is not worth developing.
Let us consider the background to all this. At the beginning of the last century a few agricultural labourers met together somewhere in Dorchester and their purpose was to consider some means of protecting their interests. Their wages, according to what I have read about the subject, were round about 10 or 12 shillings a week—not very much, and they worked very long hours. They decided to form something in the nature of a trade union, a protection organisation. It really was not a trade union in the modern sense; there was no question of registration or anything of that sort. But the magistrates in the area, the landowners and some of the farmers gathered together and decided that they must put a stop to this kind of mischief and they did, because eventually these poor misguided labourers who only sought to protect their interests were deported to Botany Bay. These were militants. These were people who were protesting, people who were seeking to safeguard their interests. What was wrong with that? They were described as
1170
"militants", though probably that was not the term used at the time. They were dangerous men", "subversive elements seeking to uproot society, subversive to the Government of the day".
Coming a little nearer to the present time, I can recall the dispute that took place in 1888, four years after I was born, for the most part in the East End of London, the dock area. It was called "the tanner an hour strike". What was it about? The dockers, who were then very casual labourers, were picked out at random when they gathered at the dockside seeking employment. They were receiving something like fourpence or fivepence an hour. They were very skilled and if there was a scarcity of labour they would probably be getting sixpence an hour. It was decided by a number of so-called agitators, the militants, to undertake a strike. Who were they? Ben Gillet, Cunningham Graham, a descendant of Scottish kings, and John Burns, a notable labour leader of the period who later became the president of the local government board in a Liberal Government. Those are the people who were described as "militants and responsible for subversive action". There are several others that I could mention, but I do not want to elaborate on that theme.
Coming a little further along the line, I can recall what happened when there was a series of strikes early in the century, before the First World War. How did this happen? They began with the seamen. Havelock Wilson, the seamen's General Secretary, in spite of his understanding with the Shipping Federation of the period—he and the shipowners were on excellent terms—decided that the seamen were entitled to higher rates of pay. What were they receiving? I beg your Lordships to take note of this. Deck hands sailing across the Atlantic at that time in some of our great liners of the period were receiving £3 10s. a month; and the stokers below decks received £4 a month. They decided that they ought to have £5 a month. The shipowners disagreed. There was a strike and there was a great deal of picketing at that period; I remember it all. Eventually, the men who went on strike gained a victory. They received £5 10s. a month, not a great deal at that time. They were working long hours when at sea; and

1171
when working ashore, as they sometimes did alongside the ship when it was moored at the quayside, they received little more than 5s. or 6s. a day for excessively long hours. They protested and what is wrong with that, my Lords?
Here I would make a digression. There seems to be some opposition to those who protest. There would have been no progress at all in this or any other country had it not been for those who protested. I would go so far as to say (I do not want to introduce anything theological in any way, that is not my subject) that had it not been for those who protested at the time of the Reformation the theological situation in this country would be vastly different to-day. At times to protest is essential. Therefore, we must not object if men, and sometimes women too, take it into their heads to revolt by refusing to allow their labour to be exploited, because that is all that striking means.
Having said that, I want to make clear beyond a peradventure that I am not in favour of strikes if they can possibly be avoided. I believe that strikes are an intolerable nuisance. But why do they happen? Of course, there would be no strikes if employers gave way every time the workers in a particular industry or factory asked for an increase in their wage rates. But we do not expect employers to do that. Whether or not we expect it, the employers are reluctant to do it, and often that is the cause of the trouble. I ask this question because I do not want to make a long speech at this time and in this kind of debate, but is it not a fact that there is something radically wrong with the whole system? I ask that question and I should like an answer at some time or other. I cannot provide the answer myself. I can indicate defects and point to the malaise; but it is difficult to find a reasonable answer, in other words, a solution for the problem which now infects industry and our social life and indeed may affect our future.
Something more must be said. If we could ensure beyond any possibility of doubt that the workers in the industries of this country would have regular employment I do not believe that there would be any strikes at all. Insecurity is the real trouble. For example, we have strikes about what is called demarca-
1172
tion, whether one person should do this job or that. Why do we have these inter-union rivalries? It is because men feel insecure. If a merger is initiated in the City of London and as a result a number of men are thrown out of employment, what can one expect? They protest but they have no remedy in their hands. This sort of thing happens in present-day society and has been happening since the beginning of this century. Over and over again members of the working class have been oppressed and exploited. Some have become affluent, not so much because of trade union activities but for other reasons, and some have gained material improvement because of trade union activities; and also because of legislation for which many Governments of different political Parties have been responsible. Insecurity is a problem which has to be considered in the context of the subject we are now debating.
What is to be done about all this? The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, suggested that the difficulty was the Communists who cause trouble in industry. I am not here to defend the Communists, and I have never done so. More often, I have attacked them and criticised them. I was a member of the National Executive of the Labour Party, and at one period the Chairman of the National Executive, when we refused affiliation to the Labour Party to the Communists, and not for the first time. We must not make heavy weather about this Communist trouble, because it will have been noted that in the recent local government elections Communist candidates received a derisory number of votes. The Labour Party wants no truck with the Communists, or any subversive element of that kind. All we ask is that those in authority, whether Government or employers, wherever they may be and whatever their authority and responsibility, should take into account the reasonable demands which are made from time to time.
Recently I have been undertaking some scribbling and putting my thoughts into writing. Going back to the beginning of this century—and I have lived through that time—I found, even in spite of trade union activities, militant activities, aggressive activities, strikes and what-have-you, that the conditions of the working classes, relatively speaking, are

1173
not very much better now than they were at the beginning of the century. I said, "relatively speaking". Of course, many workers have gained material improvement. It is true that their wage rates have increased enormously. But, almost simultaneously, and alongside these changes in the conditions of the working-class people we often find that those in authority, those in the top drawer, are receiving salaries and gaining profits far in excess of what they were receiving forty or fifty years ago. That is the situation, and naturally it has caused discontent. I am not in the least surprised at that.
What is to be done about it? One could elaborate on this theme for a long time but I should like to come to a conclusion and to try, if possible, to be constructive. I think that we should all try to be constructive. If I may say so with respect, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was not at all constructive simply by saying, "Get rid of the Communists".
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, the noble Lord said earlier in his speech that he found it difficult to be constructive, as indeed I did. But I purposely said that the extension of the ballot was a move in the right direction, and I wished to see the postal ballot now being introduced by the A.U.E.W. extended to other unions, because then a small minority could not fix their own elections. I went on to postulate whether the movement ought not to consider—as has happened in the past—the outlawing of dedicated Communists from holding office. These were two constructive suggestions I made, and I made others too.
LORD SHINWELL: Does it not occur to the noble Lord and other noble Lords that, if the Communists were excluded from normal trade union activity, they would be a self-centred, self-contained, aggressive, turbulent force, perhaps capable of doing far more damage than a few Communist members in a trade union branch? Of course there are militants there. I am not surprised about that. But merely to suggest that they are Communists and that there is no other reason for their militancy, I cannot accept. Indeed, I go so far as to say that there would not have been any Communist in any part of the world—apart
1174
from what happened in the Soviet Union as a result of the First World War—if the conditions had been satisfactory. Provide reasonable conditions, take into consideration the natural sentiments of the working class, have regard to their natural and reasonable desires for a higher standard of living, and all the more so when they see around them people who do not work as hard as they do receiving emoluments, remuneration and privileges far in excess of what they are entitled to. This may be regarded as envy on their part, but envy is not an unnatural quality—if it can be called a quality.
I will now try to come to a conclusion about this question. Let us, for example, take the situation of the trade unions. If I had my way—but I have not got my way, and I say this with full regard to the situation in which many of the trade union leaders find themselves—when an offer is made of £2 or £2·50 a week, or something in that neighbourhood, I should be inclined to accept it. I should make a protest and say it is not enough, but then I would accept it and come along six or 12 months later asking for more. I should try to avoid disputes, because, quite frankly, I do not think disputes are doing the workers who go on strike very much good in the long run. They lose a great deal by being on strike. They lose wages and, at the end of the day, as in this particular instance, they have to accept what the Government have decided. Not a great deal has been gained. As I say, if it had been left to me I would say, "All right, we will take your £2·30 or £2·40, or whatever it may be, but understand that we are coming back later on and asking for more. As the cost of living goes up we are entitled to more." No one would deny that that is a very reasonable suggestion.
About the trade union position generally and trade union leaders, I must confess that I am a little amused at the suggestion sometimes made that trade union leaders want strikes. I was at one time the national organiser for the international marine union. Did I want strikes? Most of my time was taken up trying to prevent them. Whenever I went down to a ship there was trouble. There were occasions when the men left the ship at the last moment. It was very difficult to get them back again. Sometimes I would have discussions with

1175
either the chief officer of the ship or the chief engineer and I would apologise. They would often say to me they could never understand why the men went to sea sober.
These are difficult days, and they exist. There are Members of your Lordships' House who do not seem to apprehend that these difficulties and these sentiments to a large extent colour the action of many working-class people. Do not put the blame entirely on the trade union leaders. They have the hard task of dealing with the men, and if in the case of the lower paid workers a demand is made that there should be a minimum of £20 a week—not that that is very much, not that that lifts the worker or his family much beyond the poverty line—surely it is a demand that is reasonable in every sense of the term and ought to be considered.
One final point, on this question of Government interference. I do not at all agree with many of my trade union friends that the Government should not interfere or even promote legislation in order to deal with the industry and to deal with both sides of the industry. In the year 1909, when Winston Churchill was President of the Board of Trade and was responsible for introducing in the House of Commons the Trade Boards Bill, which became an Act of Parliament, for one reason or another he accepted my nomination as the representative of the Scottish workers. I used to come to London every month for a couple of years, until I joined the seamen and I did not bother about the Trade Board any more. What was it about? It was because of the conditions of the so-called sweated workers in the clothing trade, in the furniture trade, in the chain-making trade, in the Potteries, and so on. This meant legislation. I have to admit that the trade union leaders of the period objected to this legislation because they said it would interfere with the normal practice of collective bargaining. It did nothing of the sort. They said it would inhibit their capacity for organisation. It did nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, it gave a fillip to trade union organisation at the time.
There is another matter. The other day my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland, in the course of his speech—I did
1176
not hear the speech, but I read it and thought it very good—referred to a minimum wage policy, a national wage policy. I believe in a national wage policy, if that means legislation. Moreover, if there are agreements reached between employers and the representatives of the workers in a responsible trade union I see no objections to legal enforcement. I would welcome it all the more. I do not want a Government, no matter whether it is a Labour Government or a Conservative Government, to interfere unduly in the activities of a trade union. I do not want the Industrial Relations Act; I believe that to be superfluous. But a Government from time to time are bound to intervene. That I accept, even if from time to time it means legal enforcement.
These are the suggestions that ought to be made, and if the Government of the present day had been more reasonable and more objective in their outlook, and when Mr. Heath and company met Mr. Feather and company and disagreed, if instead of the Prime Minister deciding to proceed with legislation he had said that there would be further meetings and that they would go on talking, I believe we should have reached a much more satisfactory conclusion.
So I would beg the noble Lord not to bother too much about these dedicated Communists and subversive elements. Anyway, I doubt whether one will be able to deal with them in a satisfactory fashion. Do not bother about that. But consider the background to all this; consider the state of our society; consider whether it is not possible to inject something more reasonable—sentiments which are calculated to present to the workers who are concerned some hope of a higher standard of living and, in particular, security.
That is the constructive line we ask for, and for that reason I welcome this debate or further debates. If I may say so, your Lordships' House is the place to have the debates, because here we can have debates, as I have discovered, without too much turbulence and without too much of the Party hack operating. That is very useful indeed. The more of these debates we have, the better. But let us exclude Party considerations, however strung out convictions and principles are, and let us try to be objective not only in the interests of the workers but also in the

1177
interests of the country for which we have a great affection.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he has ever run a business, or has ever created a business? Has he ever had to find the wages on a Friday night? Has the noble Lord ever run a business at all?
LORD SHINWELL: When my next book comes out, I will send the noble Viscount a copy.
5.50 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I first congratulate my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing on initiating this debate. I offer my apologies to the House that I was not here when it started. I was in the chair at the Refreshment Sub-Committee and was unable to be here at the time. I have listened with great interest and respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, especially in his talking about the origins of the trade union movement, and his very good point that the leaders of the day were the militants. No doubt they were looked upon by people at the time as being dangerous men, but we look back on them now, wherever we sit in this House or wherever we are in the country, as men who played a valuable part in getting a fair deal for the workers of the country. I do not disagree with the noble Lord in his thoughts that one must be careful before excluding militants from any body, whether they call themselves Communists or anything else. As I say, I think that was a good point. But I am sure the noble Lord would agree that the prior situation has come full circle: that whereas in the beginning of the 20th century, and certainly in the 19th century, the organised workers and the trade unions were terribly under strength and underprivileged, to-day the great trade unions are undoubtedly so strong that they can, if they wish to do so, stop the whole economy of the country. So the whole balance of power has completely changed, and we are dealing with a much more difficult situation.
I agree with my noble friends Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Massereene and Ferrard that the record of last year is one which causes anxiety to all of us wherever we may sit in this House. This was, as has already been said, the worst
1178
year for industrial relations since the General Strike. We were all made aware that the flying pickets played a prominent part in this: we saw them on television and read about them in the newspapers—and very offensive their actions were. I was interested to see, although all that is now in the past, that as near home as St. Thomas' Hospital across the river, where there is an electricians' dispute, flying pickets have recently arrived and have been making themselves pretty unpleasant. So we are not out of it yet.
On the legal point, I missed what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said about this, but no doubt he referred to the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice last week, which seems rather to confirm that the view that Her Majesty's Government have taken up until now, that the law is adequate, may well be right. The Government are right sometimes—I say that with respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench. But we all await with expectancy this pamphlet which my noble friend on the Front Bench is about to produce, and which is going to clarify the law with regard to picketing. This will undoubtedly be welcomed by both management and trade unions alike, and I do not doubt by the police and magistrates, as well. Perhaps my noble friend when he replies will be able to tell us when we may expect this document. I should also like to ask my noble friend whether, if among the things that we have to live with to-day are flying squads of pickets, there are going to be flying squads of police in order to see that law and order is observed. Is this being organised?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I want to turn to the broader perspective. I think one can give too much attention to the Communist Party, very dangerous and disruptive though they may be. I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment the history of the last three years, and the industrial scene, which has been disturbed by exceptional strains during this period. The two major factors which have disturbed the industrial scene have been, first, the Government's campaigns to check the surge of inflation which they inherited in 1970; and secondly, their introduction of the Industrial Relations Act. All of us here can remember a number of attempts by Governments over the post-war years to check inflationary surges, and we all

1179
know well that inevitably, whenever this is done and however it is done, it makes hard cases and causes great industrial tensions. So that alone would have caused considerable difficulty and disturbance in the industrial scene. But on top of that, the Government were committed to introduce the Industrial Relations Act, and undoubtedly the combination of these two major policy undertakings raised the strain in this country to a really dangerous level last year.
With regard to the Industrial Relations Act (I do not want to do more than refer to it, and here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell) I believe the Government were right to introduce it, and that in the long run the Act will help to give stability in commercial and industrial affairs. It is fair to say that noble Lords opposite, when they were sitting on this side of the House, believed the same and introduced a Bill very similar to ours. I would not for one moment say that this Act is perfect. I hope that one day it will be possible for the trade union leaders to sit down with the Government and management and consider constructive amendments which may make it acceptable to all. But that is by the way. Certainly the immediate impact of these two major Government policies, both of which I believe were for the ultimate benefit of the community, resulted in a seriously embattled situation in industry last year. This of course is the fertile ground for the trouble-makers to work in. Personally, I see the Communists, and indeed the militants, not so much as causing the troubled situation as cashing in on it; and they certainly know how to do that.
To-day, in the spring of this year, the situation is happily substantially changed and much improved. The Government's decision of last autumn to set up a statutory system of prices and incomes control has won a substantial measure of public support; and the recent secret ballots of the gas workers and of the miners in favour of accepting the Phase 2 award, I think, confirm this. The Government have won the support of public opinion for their policy for two reasons: first, because people feel that broadly it is fair; and secondly, because people think that broadly the Government have the strength to hold firmly to their policy. I should
1180
like, if I may, to pay a tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for his part in this. I think he is absolutely right in declaring his faith in the common sense of the British people. This is a victory for common sense. What has happened now is that the Government have won the consensus of public opinion for their policies.
In this improved atmosphere—although we are by no means out of trouble yet—the proper, natural team work of management and trade unions is substantially restored: and immediately we see that the actions of the militants, the Communists, lose their significance. I am sure that this is the right way to tackle the problem. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that it would be a great mistake to promote this too far. They should be watched carefully, but if both management and trade unions can play their part and cooperate constructively, and the Government can play their part, then I think this is something with which we can live.
So I look now to Phase 3 in the autumn when the Government move into the next stage of their counter-inflation policy and, with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., they must work out how the next stage of this tripartite partnership is to work, with the Prices and the Pay Boards dealing with individual problems. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that to-day the Government have to play a part in this. Just how it is to be done I should not like to say, but I believe that the trade unions—and I am sure they would usually be willing to deliver the goods when they believe that their members are well served—need something statutory behind them to enable them to deal with their troublemakers. So the Government have to play a part here in order to get the right balance between wages, on the one hand, and profits, on the other. Prices must also be associated with this process.
The Government have my best wishes as they move into Phase 3, and indeed into Phase 4—because ultimately we have to relate ourselves to free markets. We are a country which, almost more than any other, depends upon trading in free markets over which we have no control. We have to meet all corners, and there-I fore to a large extent the economy of

1181
this country has to be related to markets in a free economy. We have to work out a convention which will seem fair and acceptable here in the distribution of the cake—which we hope will grow—so that, on the one hand, reasonable wages and salaries can be paid and, on the other hand, sufficient profits can be made. The Government have a part to play in this, and I think that my noble friend and his right honourable colleagues in the other House have bravely faced this difficult matter. They have my support in this and I believe that if they follow these constructive policies the danger of Communism and the militants will fall into place.
6.2 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words without prolonging this debate unduly, because I know the time is limited and we must leave time for the Front-Benchers. I should like to say how important I think it is for the Government to go on doing something about our industrial relations. You cannot have good industrial relations or avoid strikes while you have inflation. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 of that policy are vital. I wish to say something about the general decline of the position of the United Kingdom, because I believe that the situation is even worse than the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, represented. I agree entirely with what the Foreign Secretary said some months ago: that this country is really regarded with great gloom by most of its friends abroad, because we are not fulfilling our delivery dates and we are not delivering goods of adequate quality such as we have been famous for in the past—and this is very largely due to the strikes.
I believe it is time to throw some positive ideas into our debate and I am going to rush in where angels fear to tread in this respect. In the first place, I believe it is time that we all began to consider much more seriously the necessity for Works Councils in our businesses, or at any rate in a great many of them. They are very effective in Germany. They result in the election of a "works representative", who takes a place on the board. Very often the boards are on two levels. Nobody likes the system very much, but all my friends abroad tell me
1182
it is immensely effective in reducing the number of disputes and that it produces much better labour relations. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that we should be aiming at producing better relations and preventing worse ones.
This brings me to the next point, because we have far too many strikes. I believe the time has come to talk not only about the right to strike but also about the right to work. Our work-people have a right to work, and it is unreasonable that any small group of men, led by militants or otherwise, should be able to put thousands of men and even completely integrated industries out of work.
Then I suggest the time has come when a legal distinction should be drawn—of course this would require legislation—between constitutional strikes and unconstitutional strikes. This is fairly far-reaching and I realise that I am suggesting something which is pretty revolutionary in British law. Very briefly, I would define a constitutional strike as one where all the proper procedures for settling disputes have been exhausted, and also as one in which the strike is not contrary to an agreement which is still valid in time. Applying this distinction, I believe the time has come when we should only pay supplementary benefit to the wives and children of strikers when their strike is certified by an industrial tribunal to be constitutional. This would require a strengthening of the framework of industrial tribunals and, of course, it would require a great deal of thought. On the other hand, the wives and children, the trade union leaders, branch secretaries, the works councils and very many other sensible people—who are very numerous in industry if they could only have a voice—would have an excellent argument to use with strikers and militants in trying to avoid unconstitutional and wildcat strikes.
Further, I believe that something more has to be said about picketing. The Government are thinking about this, I believe, but I personally should have been very glad to see adopted the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, to the Industrial Relations Act—an Amendment whereby picketing would only be legal when carried on by people who work in the actual plant

1183
affected. I should also like to say that if you draw a distinction between constitutional and unconstitutional strikes, picketing would be legal only when a strike was constitutional and that the picketers would have to have with them a copy of the certificate issued by the industrial tribunal. I do not believe that this would be beyond the wit of people to organise, and I think it would be extremely effective in preventing some of the disgraceful abuses we have witnessed during the last year or two.
Perhaps we ought to consider whether it is reasonable to allow unconstitutional strikes at all, or even to recognise any constitutional ones by paying supplementary benefit to the workers concerned who go on strike in essential industries. You will recall, my Lords, that until the Industrial Relations Act was passed it was illegal for any strike to take place in the water, gas or electricity industries. The noble Lord, Lord Donovan, told us in his Report that this was quite unnecessary and, as in a number of cases concerned with the Donovan Report, we have learnt to our cost in the last two or three years how wrong that view was. There might be a case for providing special arbitration and conciliation procedures in those essential industries, because if you do not allow strikes then you must find some means of settling disputes quickly—and I emphasise that word quickly"—and justly.
To sum up, at the present time I believe that the militants have really overstepped all limits and that a new situation has been created. I should like to see the Government taking some positive action here. The Government were elected to deal with this situation seriously. They passed the Industrial Relations Act and have clone very well over countering inflation, but I say to them that they have not yet done an adequate job in preventing wildcat strikes from disrupting our exports and diminishing the standards of living of all the workers of this country. I believe the situation is getting worse and not better, and I appeal to the Government to do something about this, possibly on the lines I have suggested.
6.9 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I feel that I should just like to say a few
1184
words. I had not intended to speak, but I see that there is ample time in hand. Having listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and as the son and grandson of active Liberals and conscious, as I have been throughout the debate, of the emptiness of the Liberal Benches, I feel it is proper that he should have described, as he described so well, the problems of the seamen earning so little a month and the hardship which their families had to undergo; lack of support for widows, and so on. Nevertheless one should remember that there were great philanthropists among the employers of those days. After all, this country worked on the abolition of slavery before anybody else did. I am thinking of people like Alexander Balfour of Liverpool, Lord Leverhulme, and others, who devoted themselves to their task (as, I believe, in a little quiet way I have also, in a long life of concern with industry) in the belief that the one thing in an industry which assures profitability and fairness to both sides is the feeling among the workers—that is, not only the workers on the shop floor, but throughout—that they are being propertly treated.
To that end, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said. The Industrial Relations Act is a step in the right direction. Of course it will have to be amended, here and there. This is something practical which is being done. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked: "What constructive suggestions have you to make? What do you propose should be done?" Of course there are many proposals which one could make and which are unworkable, such as the denationalisation of steel, the return of the Post Office to a Postmaster General, and so on. We are past all that; we have to live with the difficulties with which this complex situation, to which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford referred, faces us to-day. The position has turned full circle: organised labour is now the greatest monopolist in the country. Nevertheless, it is often in sympathy with organised labour that people like myself support people like my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing in saying that it is important to defend responsible labour from the infiltration of subversive elements, such as Communists. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, referred

1185
to the working class being oppressed and exploited in the past. By whom? By the employers? Perhaps that was the case in the 19th century; but this was not so much the case as the 20th century went on. To-day the oppressors and exploiters are not the employers. I believe them to be the people who stand at a great meeting and say, "Those in favour, show!" As my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said, the postal ballot is something to amend that situation.
When we talk about practical things to do, I should like to see an end to the use of the words "working classes". It seems to me, particularly as a Scotsman, that this class distinction, which has always been harped on by noble Lords opposite, is now quite out of date. Let us talk about, if you will, the manual workers and the brain workers and the white collar workers; but do not let us imagine that the only people who are workers are the manual (I would emphasise to Lord Shinwell that that is spelt m-a-n-u-a-l) workers. The point I make is that there is much we can do; but more can be done by organised labour than by the Prime Minister with his absolutely patent endeavours to bring people together to come and talk. Much more could be done if poor old Vic Feather were able to come to the negotiating table without obviously having one hand tied behind his back by the Communists.
It is all very well to say that people talk about Communists under the table, Communists under the bed, as my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said. We should be hiding our heads in the sand if we did not know that they were there. They are there. They are in the B.B.C.; they are in the printing unions; they are in the docks; they are everywhere. I believe it is only fair to accept it like that and see what we can do to provide the good, straightforward labour leader, with proper support so that they can cope with them. The Communists not only interfere with the management of labour relations; they work in a very cunning way right the way down the line.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing talked about motor cars. When I bought a new car about two years ago the garage said to me, "We have a range of five colours. Come in and choose the one you like".
1186
I said, "All right". They telephoned me back and said, "We are sorry; there are five colours here but only one of the cars has a self-starter because of the Lucas strike". I said, "All right, I will pick that one up". It worked very well. I bought another car—a British one because I always like to buy British—the other day. I went to take delivery of it and, being Scottish, I said, "Where are my four gallons of petrol?" They filled the petrol tank and it was leaking. While they were filling the petrol tank I opened the bonnet and I found that the air filter had fallen off and was down beside the engine. When the petrol tank had been repaired and the air filter was replaced I took the car home.
The next morning I went to start the car and as I pulled out the choke the whole thing came out from the dashboard. A few days later the tail pipe fell off; it had been assembled incorrectly. I have the car running now and it is an absolute little beauty. I nearly bought a French car the other day because one of my grandchildren said that I ought to do so. Believe me it was not a patch on the British car. But—and this is my point—when I took this up with the makers they said that it was a "Friday" car. I asked them what they meant by that. They said that it was built on a Friday when everybody was hurrying off for the weekend. When I went into it further I was informed that a great deal of the inspectorate of the motor manufacturers are terrified of their Communist shop stewards who—witness their flying pickets and other such oppressive measures—are fully prepared to make difficulties for anybody who will check on the workmanship in British cars. That is one of the reasons why our export of cars to other countries is falling. You only have to read of Switzerland's experience to realise that.
The only other contribution I have to make in terms of the way in which subversive people right the way down the line can have an effect upon affairs, is this. I have a daughter who at one time (I am talking of 10 or 12 years ago) was working in one of the broadcasting organisations—not the B.B.C. She came to me here one day (I could not make out why she was in a state) and said, "I have been in our canteen and have been listening to the lighting crew who are going to be

1187
doing an interview with the present Foreign Secretary. They are working out how they can fix the lights so that he looks a fool". I immediately contacted the Leader of the Conservative Party and the matter has been followed up since so that these chaps cannot do that again.
My Lords, I thought I would say a few words, as there is time, and I congratulate my noble friend on his Motion. I beg your Lordships not to have any doubt about the fact that subversive powers are there, and it is up to us to stand up, face the facts and help good, solid labour relations people, leaders of trade unions, to negotiate fairly with the employers. I believe most employers today to be fair and anxious to be seen to be fair.
6.19 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, as a big supporter of the two and a half hour debate I am bound to say that I think all those who are going to speak in such debates ought at least to take the trouble to put their names down on the list of speakers. That would enable noble Lords who are going to speak to so adjust the length of their speeches that they will not deny Front Benches of the time which they wish to have in order to reply to, or participate in, the debate. I make that point because I hope it will have some effect when, in future, we have two and a half hour debates. It is true that in this case the two noble Lords who have spoken have not unduly interfered with the time that will be left for the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and then subsequently for the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Elvin?, to reply to the debate in the terms which he would wish.
I shall not attempt to deny that disruptive elements exist inside the trade union movement, for to do so would be to put the telescope to the blind eye. Of course they exist, but they can only exist and flourish in suitable conditions; and the suitable conditions in which the Communists and other people of that type can in fact flourish is in a badly managed industrial economy—and I think that we have a badly managed industrial economy. I hope to spell this out in the course of my speech.
At this point, as a trade unionist I think I ought to say that trade unionists
1188
generally are heartily sick of being preached at by people who know remarkably little about them and are prepared to tell them how to behave. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, trod delicately, like Agag. He was very careful when he approached this matter, but nevertheless he was criticising fundamentally the trade unions because he was suggesting that they are the framework within which the disruptive elements can in fact exist and work. In the course of my life I have found that the main criticisms of trade unions come from those who imagine that trade unions exist to solve the labour problems of incompetent managements. So many of the managements in this country, I know, have no member of the board directly responsible for industrial or labour relations, or have not seriously tried to grasp the fundamentals of the problem.
The problems are not those of accountancy but of fundamental human relationships. If we are going to tackle the job of sweeping away the disruption that noble Lords assert is undermining British industry let us begin with those upon whom the responsibility rests for running our industry. In my opinion the responsibility lies in the boardrooms or offices of management. Let them begin with those industries and managements whose failings Mr. Oliver Jessel asserted a few months ago stemmed, not from economic pressures but from management deficiencies. All too often, he asserted, inefficiency was due to broken down and senile and drunken managements. Although he toned down "senile" and "drunken" later, I do not think he modified his view that to a large extent the British economy was built on companies which are a complete shambles within.
In his speech not very long ago, Mr. Michael Clapham, now the President of the British Confederation, asserted that we were heading towards becoming the peasants of the Western world, and while not absolving the trade unions and Governments from blame, he pointed a critical finger at members of the Confederation of which he is now the distinguished President. The facts of the British economy are—this has to be kept in mind, and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Shinwell pointed it out—that our wages in this country are lower, our holidays are shorter, our working hours are longer,

1189
and our capital per man employed is less than in most of the countries we compete against. What have we to say about this? What do those noble Lords who are criticising the trade union movement say about this? I am very much in favour of improving and cleaning up British industry. I suggest that we begin by tackling the method of selection of our top executives and managements, all too many of whom are in the boardroom because they happen to know the right people.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is quite accurately representing most of the speeches on both sides of the House. I did not think anyone was blaming the trade union movement. We were trying to reinforce the trade union movement and pointing out that it was people outside the trade union movement who were causing most of the trouble.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is the old story—"We are only trying to help". But you are not trying to help when you are criticising in the sort of terms in which noble Lords and others have from time to time criticised the trade union movement and what happens within it. As I said at the outset, I do not pretend that disruptive elements are not to be found within the trade union movement. All I am saying is that we want to create the sort of economy within which they cannot flourish. That is the gravamen of my charge against management as I know it.
I think that what we have to do is to bring about a large expansion in the teaching of business and commercial subjects in our colleges, and particularly the teaching of the basic considerations in the management of industrial relations. If we want to see conditions changed so that the so-called subversive elements will not have a fruitful soil in which to grow and flourish, let us start by ensuring that the boards have enough members on them who really know labour relations from the ground up. I know that some boards have this knowledge. I had the great honour of being a member of a board for some time. I must say that we had on that board men who were appreciative of the fact that they had to understand human relationships in connection with industrial relations, and indeed always kept this consideration
1190
in their minds in everything they did but I rather think that board was the exception rather than the rule.
What we need at the top in industry are people who understand that trade unions are organisations of workpeople whose methods are to pursue what experience has shown to be likely to produce for their members the best results. That is the trade unions' job. What their history has shown them all too clearly is that satisfactory results are not obtained by sitting about and waiting for the crumbs to fall from the bosses' table. In order to bring about a change of method by the trade unions and their militants I can only suggest that you should change the experience of the trade unions. This can be done by giving industry the experience of true co-operation between employer and employee, and such co-operation produces better results for workpeople than militancy.
Locking over the whole field of British industry one would be hard put to find evidence of any initiative on the part of employers or their associations to pioneer improvements in industrial relations. The Fawley experiment was perhaps the exception. But the attitude of most managements to industrial relations is to say "No" to every claim put before them; and they say "No" until they are subjected to sufficient pressure to cause them to say "Yes". All too often they weakly concede to unofficial strikers concessions refused in peaceful negotiations, thus undermining the responsible national leader. I am sure that every noble Lord who spoke in this debate to-day will recognise that this is true, that this happens so often, and is undoubtedly a direct incentive to more and more unofficial strikes. The next time that I hear of management calling in trade union leaders and telling them of the increasing prospects of the company and of their desire to share their prosperity with the workers, with the shareholders, and with the nation through lower prices, will be the first! There may be a small undertaking here and there who might take up my challenge on this point, but they will be very rare indeed. Always when we hear of restrictive practices, it is of labour restrictive practices and seldom, if ever, about commercial restrictive practices. And they do exist. It is only almost by

1191
accident that we hear of the greed of a Kellogg's or the rapacity of a Roche Products. Their boards do not operate in the glare of publicity that surrounds the trade union board room. Their kind of fleecing of the public exposed recently by the Monopolies Commission is likely to do far more to encourage the subversive elements than all the militancy within the trade unions.
Too much emphasis is laid by observers of the industrial scene on the importance of the sinister activities of Communists and militants. As I have said before, I do not pretend that they do not exist, but to dismiss all agitation and strikes as indications of Communist plots is a complete nonsense. The pressures that build up and burst in industrial relations do not take place in a vacuum but only in situations ripe for discontent; usually it is a backlog of unsettled but not forgotten grievances. To suggest that Communists, et cetera, are behind all, or even most, of our industrial troubles is to award to them an importance far beyond their merit.
I thought to avoid discussing the ham-handedness of passing an Industrial Relations Act in the teeth of the advice of knowledgeable people, because I wanted to bring to the notice of the House considerations that are longer term. But it has been mentioned. I am bound to say that it seems to me to be a nonsense to have on the Statute Book an Act which the Government of the day are not prepared to use. The responsible employers are not prepared to use it and its only present effect is to act as an irritant and not to help to solve problems of industrial relations. I certainly do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, that we ought to try to place further restraints on the trade unions and to prevent what he called "constitutional strikes" and so on, by more laws. The present law has failed, and I suggest that there would be no point at all in re-enacting a law which died with the Donovan Commission Report, because that is really what happened.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I said "unconstitutional strikes". You cannot stop constitutional ones.
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, my Lords. I gather that I said "constitutional"
1192
where clearly the noble Lord referred to unconstitutional strikes. He was thinking in terms of gas workers, electricity workers, people working in water undertakings and so on. All I can say is that I think it would be a nonsense to attempt to do something which has died; and to resuscitate it would be merely to add a further irritant to the industrial scene. That is not what I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and the rest of the House would want.
To sum up, and trying to be constructive, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, if we are to achieve the industrial peace which all sensible people desire, we have to fulfil a few conditions. We have to bring to the board room not those whose sole qualification is of belonging to the "Old Boy" network, but to bring men and women knowledgeable by education and/or experience in labour relationships. Secondly, we must support the more responsible trade union leaders by not refusing to them reasonable concessions and then conceding them, under pressure, to the unofficial leaders—those about whom the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and others have complained. Above all, we must try to bring to those who operate industrial relations an atmosphere of harmony and true cooperation and not warfare, either concealed or open. My Lords, I end by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for moving a Motion which has enabled me to say a few things that I have been wanting to say publicly for a long time.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I am sorry that he was upset that I had not put my name down to speak. I assure him I would not have spoken had I not heard that the noble Lord, Lord Peddle, was to speak. I was looking forward to hearing from him. I think that there has been ample time allowed for good winding-up speeches.
6.36 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first of all I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing for having given us the opportunity to debate this Motion. I ought to say right away that his Motion is to draw attention to the methods used to disrupt and undermine

1193
industry. I am so glad that it has given the noble Lord, Lord Champion, the opportunity to say a lot of things that he has been wanting to say for a long time, but I am not certain that they are all very germane to the Motion. He said in effect: "Don't let us talk about the trade union movement; let us discuss management", and proceeded to do so. But as my noble friend was making clear, he was not attempting to discuss the trade union movement; that is not what he set out to do. He was attempting to discuss the impediments that are in the way of the trade union movement and in management together in enabling British industry to get on with its job. I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in congratulating my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, did not make a provocative speech and I hope that I shall not be provocative, either. I had hoped that this would be a debate that would be as free as possible from Party vituperation of any sort and I would only add that I have no intention of preaching to the trade unions to-night.
First of all my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing started by talking of the effects of such disruption, as opposed to the methods, and the bad reputation that we have abroad. There can be no doubt that stoppages such as we had last year in the pits and at the docks result in late delivery of our exports abroad. As for building strikes, they certainly do nothing to help the housing programme. So too the unofficial strikes and walkouts of comparatively small numbers can cause chaos in whole industries if they are prolonged. There can be no doubt that our reputation suffered last year, and I agree with my noble friend that our foreign competitors took care to make the most of their opportunities even though over the years our record of strikes is far better than those of many other countries. But I believe that the vast majority of people in this country now understand very well that we cannot afford the luxury or the calamity, whichever way you look at it, of such disputes very often. We all accept the right to withdraw one's labour and the right to organise the withdrawal of labour. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, that we must always link this also with the right to work.
1194
I would remind noble Lords that we on this side were the first to put on the Statute Book the right to strike, in the much-abused Industrial Relations Act. It is not, of course, an unqualified right. Few rights are. It would be wrong to confer an unlimited immunity on groups who combine together from the consequences of their own actions upon others. We all accept also the right to protest, the right to differ, as it used to be called immediately after the war, especially in the countries that had been overrun. We all accept that, which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, rightly claimed for himself and for all of us. But at the same time we are painfully aware that industrial action not only causes serious inconvenience, but adversely affects our balance of payments, our production and our standard of living. That is why it is so important that those who contemplate, who influence or participate in decisions about strikes or lock-outs need to balance carefully the gain they hope to achieve for themselves against the loss to their own enterprise and to the nation as a whole. That is why we need to regard industrial action as something that should be treated as a last resort when all else has failed.
Of course, anyone with the interests of his fellow workers at heart is free to seek election as an official of a trade union or as a shop steward, and to be strenuous, militant if you will, as strenuous as he likes, in furthering those interests. It is up to the membership to choose the wisest as well as the most active people to represent them. What my noble friend and all of us are concerned with is the existence of groups in this country who may or may not be concerned to further those interests but certainly have often much less innocent objectives as well, and I had thought that the Party opposite were just as concerned as we were. These groups are organised on a national level and sometimes draw their inspiration and often their instructions and their finance from outside this country. We often talk about militants. There are church militants. Militants are good if what they are militant about is good, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Champion, would agree with that.
The fact that these groups are not large does not imply that they are negligible. We know and they know how

1195
much damage can be wrought by comparatively small minorities, as my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said, in our complex and interdependent society, There are, as my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said, the Communists, the Trotsky-ists, the Maoists, the International Socialists, the Anarchists and others. The Communists' numbers, said my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, are only a fleabite, but if I may parody something said in a different connection—some flea, some bite! Their principal method is to infiltrate and to work hard so as to get themselves into key positions. But I must say that I do not believe they are nearly so successful—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will agree—as Mr. Lou Lewis made out. If 80 per cent. of shop stewards were Communists, I doubt whether we should be seeing the higher standards of living and higher growth that exist at the present time.
But it is evidently true that having done so they take every opportunity to light or to fan the flames of discontent. One International Socialist said:
"We do not claim to have caused strikes. We simply use them."
I must say this to the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I simply cannot accept that if only the country was better run (and any country can always be better run), there would be no dissension. There will always be grievances, real and imaginary, and those grievances will always be exploited by those who are out to exploit them. This international socialist went on to say:
"They are fertile grounds for our political aims of destroying the capitalist system."
They are not prepared to accept any bounds to their total freedom of action. As one of them has recently put it:
"There is no question of accepting any restriction, voluntary or otherwise."
Yet if ever they were to achieve power by constitutional means, they would be most unlikely to extend to others the freedom that they claim for themselves. Meantime, extremists do all they can to prevent workers reaching fair and reasonable settlements. They also promote or encourage groups with innocent or even beneficent sounding names to operate on
1196
their behalf, and these groups are proscribed by the Labour Party.
The Communists, I understand, have an advisory committee for each industry. They may not favour violent methods, but their propaganda is inflammatory and can easily lead to violence. Other groups are not so restrained. The Anarchist magazine of the same name said:
"Sabotage has a long and honourable history … sabotage is an essential part of the formal revolution".
Why then do we not ban such organisations? My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard seemed to be anxious that we should, or at any rate that we should encourage the trade unions to ban them from office. The reason is that we are a free country, and freedom, like the quality of mercy, is not strained. Everyone is free to say what he likes and to write what he likes, provided he keeps within the law. Even if, as some of these organisations do, they deluge workers in disputes against their employers with copies of Socialist Worker Specials, they are free to do so, as they would certainly not be free to do so in Socialist countries.
My Lords, I said, "workers in disputes". But too many strikes in this country nowadays do not arise out of industrial grievances. When men withdraw their labour because of disagreement about pay or working conditions we may deplore it, but we recognise it as their legitimate right. When they do so, for example, over demarcation or recognition it is doubly regrettable that it cannot be settled without striking, but it is at least industrial action on industrial issues. But that is not true of political strikes. Such strikes are attempts so to interfere with the economic life of the country as to force the Government to change their policies, often on matters with little or no connection with the industry concerned. Pushed to the extreme, they are in effect attempts to force a change of Government.
No such attempts, with either aim, can be allowed by any Administration to succeed. The place for political action is in Parliament and in our democratic electoral processes, not in factories, in the mines, on building sites or on the railways. I could only wish that the Opposition would acknowledge that

1197
openly, as the Government do. Increasing numbers of workers of this country have shown in recent weeks that they are not willing to be manipulated into strike action for political ends. Some of the more responsible trade unions have had the courage to declare their intention not to take part in the proposed day of protest on May 1, the chosen day, as the Communists call it. We would very much welcome from the Labour Party an unequivocal statement that they are against any strikes that are obviously political.
One of the methods, obviously, of causing disruption is through picketing, and this is something which my noble friends Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Massereene and Ferrard have spoken about this afternoon. During the three major strikes last year there were many reports in the Press up and down the country of so called picketing activities which went far beyond the limits of peaceful picketing. Millions of people saw such incidents with their own eyes on their own television screens. It was reported that bus loads of men, some of them, so it was said, having no connection with the industries concerned, descended on sites in what can only be described as raids, and that their conduct was anything but peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to obtain evidence on which to prosecute. Nevertheless, in the coal miners' and docks disputes, combined the police in England and Wales made 327 arrests. I think my noble friend said 350, but the figure I have is 327.
In recent months Ministers have repeatedly drawn attention to what is permitted during picketing. We are all, I believe, at one, not only in recognising that in any democratic society there should be freedom to demonstrate and persuade, but also that every individual is entitled to go about his business free from harassment or intimidation. The right to picket as set out in the Industrial Relations Act is limited to the peaceful communication of information and to the peaceful persuasion of a person to work or not to work in the circumstances of an industrial dispute. I believe that everyone would agree broadly with this, even if there are differences of opinion on detail.
As to mass picketing, I cannot do better than quote the words of my noble
1198
and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who emphasised that
"… if by sheer numbers you seek to stop people getting somewhere where they have a right to go, this is not peaceful picketing within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1906 Act"—
the protection of this section other than for picketing a person's home is repeated by Section 134 of the Industrial Relations Act—
"because what is sought then is not to convey information or the like, but to physically obstruct people from doing a thing which they have the right to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15/2/72; Col. 64.]
But protection for peaceful picketing is not unlimited. Even where picketing is perfectly peaceful, a liability may still exist. For example, in the important case of Piddington v. Bates, where a picket was arrested and convicted of obstructing the police, it was made clear that his actual behaviour on the picket line was peaceful. Nevertheless, he was guilty of an offence. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said,
"It is not true that everything that you do which is not peaceful and which you choose to call picketing is legalised by that section".
Picketing, even though peaceful, may thus be an unfair industrial practice under the Industrial Relations Act: for example, if in certain circumstances it induces someone to break a contract; and there may be a liability under the Common Law for such civil wrongs as trespass or nuisance.
Because of the widespread concern at the incidents to which I have referred, the Government have undertaken a review of the law on picketing. A number of suggestions have been made for changes in the law. I do not propose to discuss these suggestions to-day, because I do not want to anticipate anything that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary may say in another place, and I am afraid that I cannot tell my noble friend Lord Nugent, who made such an admirable speech, when he may say it. In any event, I believe that the problem is essentially one of enforcement and of the effective application of police resources. The responsibility for enforcing the law rests, of course, with chief officers of police. It is their task to secure proper observance of the law, while acting impartially between those who picket and those who wish to work.

1199
It is gratifying that the great majority of picketing is carried out in a peaceful and orderly manner, as was illustrated by the behaviour of pickets during the gas and hospital services disputes. When picketing is not peaceful, it is essential that the police should have all the facilities necessary for them to intervene effectively. The Home Secretary has had discussions with chief officers of police which ranged over the whole field of picketing. Among the subjects discussed was co-operation between police forces—I cannot tell my noble friend whether flying squads were discussed—and improved arrangements for mutual aid between police forces have now been made. This is a matter of obvious importance, in view of the invasions from one area into another which I have mentioned; and if men are minded to indulge in these methods in future they may find things rather more difficult than in the last year or so.
Inevitably, I think, reference has been made to the Industrial Relations Act. On picketing and all the other matters, the usual answer is that it is all the fault of the Government's Industrial Relations Act. I should say right away that the number of working days lost last year cannot possibly be blamed on the Act. Ninety per cent. of the working days lost were due to disputes over pay. The Act was never intended to deal with pay disputes as such. But in their calmer moments, even the most savage opponents of the Act admit that there is some good in it. For example, since it came into operation and the Code of Industrial Relations Practice was introduced, both sides have been critically examining their procedures for dealing with industrial relations to an extent never seen before in this country. This is very significant. Perhaps I should say it again to the noble Lord. Since the Act was introduced, both sides have been critically examining their procedures for dealing with industrial relations to an extent never seen before in this country.
The Industrial Court itself has had considerable success in its prompt and constructive work of making voluntary settlement of problems possible. It has also paved the way for a thorough investigation of difficult issues; for example, as in the C. A. Parsons case. In addition, over 10,000 complaints of unfair dis-
1200
missals have been referred to conciliation officers. This has provided those concerned with a remedy which they have not previously enjoyed. Over half the cases were cleared at the conciliation stage, and I understand that one-third of the complaints were upheld. A number of unions, too, have used the provisions of the Act to gain recognition where it had previously been refused, and to negotiate agency shop agreements to the benefit of their membership. These alone are substantial achievements for a new piece of legislation.
We have never claimed that we got the Act absolutely right first time, nor can we agree with those critics who say that we got it absolutely wrong. We have always said that when the Act had had a reasonable period in which to operate as it was intended to do, we would be open to suggestions for improving it from both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. This offer is still open and I very much join with my noble friend Lord Nugent in hoping that both will take advantage of it. If reports of the T.U.C.'s dealings with the Labour Party are correct, it seems that the T.U.C. envisages some legislation in the industrial relations field. I notice that Mr. Scanlon recently spoke in terms of amendments, but the only authoritative body representing the trade union movement is the T.U.C. and it is from the T.U.C. that we should like to hear. I hope we shall. Meanwhile, I must say that we have no immediate plans for amending the Act, let alone for withdrawing it.
We have heard a good deal this afternoon about subversive elements within trade unions and about infringement of the law on picketing. Those activities, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, implied, are in no way representative of the way in which the great majority of trade unionists of this country conduct themselves. I often think that we on this side have more faith in the sound common sense and sense of responsibility of the trade union membership as a whole than the Party opposite has. It may be curious to noble Lords opposite that the Industrial Relations Act was based on that faith and on the desire to ensure that sound common sense would be given full scope for expansion.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, spoke about reasonable concessions, as

1201
I think did the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. But unless the T.U.C. will come forward, how are we to know what are the reasonable concessions that they want? But given that they themselves admit that there is good in the Industrial Relations Act, why not let them come forward and put their suggestions as to what the reasonable concessions should be? I must say that I did not agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said about supplementary benefits for strikers' families. Any family in this country which is in need is entitled to supplementary benefit; and it may well not be the fault of the wife and family that a husband has gone on strike; if indeed it is a fault at all.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord thought of his noble friend's speech. Can he say what he thought of the contribution of his noble friend Lord Ferrier, about these cars which fall to pieces when you pull the choke out? Which subversive element was the cause of that? Does he agree that that is the state of affairs in the motor industry?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was very sorry to hear about my noble friend's experience. I have driven nothing but British cars all my life, and I am glad to say that I have never had an experience of that sort. My noble friend may have been unlucky, but he has expressed his experience and I cannot say more than that. I should be very sorry to think that anybody would take the experience of my noble friend Lord Ferrier as being in any way typical of British cars, because I am sure that it is not. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for reminding me of that point.
My Lords, I want to conclude by saying this. The way forward—and I think we all agree with this—must be through co-operation between the Government, the Trades Union Congress and the C.B.I. If there is something wrong with the whole system, then let us put it right by co-operation. Let us know what is wrong and let us seek to put it right. We are convinced that a strong, responsible and well-informed trade union movement in regular and constructive consultation with employers and the Government is the best safeguard against
1202
subversion and against the very small minority of extremists within trade union ranks. I think this debate has served a very useful purpose. It has allowed some people to say what they wanted to say, and I think it has thrown up a great many ideas, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, which perhaps were a little more outside the main stream of the debate than he realised. I would only say to him, on works councils, that this is something which is being closely studied by the Government at present, and the Government are also reviewing company law. I do not think it would be right to pursue this very far to-day, but many suggestions of great value have been put forward. I can only once again thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate, and above all the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for having given us the opportunity to discuss this subject.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I just say that he has in fact quoted me incorrectly? I said that supplementary benefits should be paid to strikers' families where cases of hardship could be proved; but when it is a question of a strike it is the job of the unions to pay the people on strike. My goodness!, the unions are colossally wealthy. They are among the biggest operators on the Stock Exchange, as noble Lords opposite know. Let them pay the strikers, not the poor wretched taxpayers.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I may answer my noble friend, of course this has always been so: that the families of strikers get supplementary benefits, as anybody else gets supplementary benefits, if they need it. They do not get it if they do not need it.
7.3 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I must first thank everyone who has been so patient as to listen to this debate. As I think almost every one of your Lordships has said, this is a serious matter and it is appropriate that we should debate it at a time when our industrial organisation is threatened and disorganised, to put it at its lowest, by militants operating—and I should like to make this point once again—outside the trade union movement. I served for five years as P.P.S. to Walter Monckton and

1203
for another five years as an active member of the Conservative Labour Committee, so I have throughout my Parliamentary career taken a special interest in this matter. Therefore, I know the difficulty which respected trade union leaders have had in dealing with the militant upthrust from those who cause trouble to the ordinary organisation and to the democratically-elected leaders. I count some of them among my close friends, and many of them are in this House now; so I hope I am absolved from any criticism that I have not taken an interest.
I thought, also, that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, was a little unfair. As I find it, we have a great benefit in this House in having a batting order. I think this is desirable, because in another place you sit on the edge of your seat for forty minutes wondering whether you are going to be called or passed over. We do at least know when we are likely to speak. Also, our speeches are roughly half the length they would otherwise be. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, always spoke for fifty minutes in the other place: he now speaks for only twenty-five minutes here. Therefore, this, too, is salutary. It was also a little unkind, I think, to say that there was no space—we still have another seven minutes, even now—for people to come in, listen to the debate, feel they have some useful contribution to make and to make it, in a modest and sometimes very constructive manner, as Lord Hankey did to-day. I hope that that was not a criticism of the method. I think Lord Champion said that they should at least have put their names on the list of speakers.
LORD CHAMPION: That is it.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, that is a view. I am newer to this House than the noble Lord is, and I personally find it very refreshing to get a fresh mind—somebody who has listened to the debate, who wants to make a contribution and who then makes an interjection in a short speech.
A NOBLE LORD: Short debates are new, too!
LORD ORR-EWING: Yes, my Lords, short debates are new, too; that is quite right. I was rather sorry that the Front Bench of the Labour Party did not come forward with some constructive ideas as to how we could deal with this problem. I mentioned the Communist Party, but I by no means single them out. They are the best run organisation, but there are a whole host of others, which I listed in my opening speech, which act outside the Communist Party and sometimes well to the Left of the Communist Party. So it is not just the Communist Party; it is people outside that organisation.
I am rather sorry that Lord Champion did not take the opportunity to say how he felt the Labour Party and the trade union movement were going to deal with this problem. I quite understand: we all have stored-up speeches which we have not had an opportunity to make, and he rightly said that he had been longing to make a speech against the industrial Relations Act and mat this atlorded him a wonderful opportunity. I am not going to take up, although I should be delighted to do so, some of the benefits. I would mention that in an organisation of which I am chairman there has been a non-union firm for 50 years. As a result of the Industrial Relations Act, we now have a union organisation in our midst. Whether that is good or bad, I do not know, but it is certainly good for the trade union movement. When we see the figures—we have only got them up to 1971; they were declared yesterday in the House of Commons—I think it will be found that the 10·9 million trade unionists will have increased very considerably in number as a result of the Industrial Relations Act. So that is one good thing so far as the trade union movement is concerned.
I should just like to say, reiterating what my noble friend said in his masterly winding up speech, that we have a problem in this country. Everyone recognises this; and it is only going to be solved if some bridges of understanding are built and some tables are got round by the C.B.I., the T.U.C. and the Government of the day. I hope very much that we shall now begin to see a constructive approach. How can we amend this Act? It is not perfect. It might have been rather better if there had been

1205
less filibustering in the House of Commons and rather more debate on important clauses. Many of these clauses were taken straight out of Barbara Castle's Bill and popped straight into what is now the Industrial Relations Act. It seems surprising that the whole of that approach has been condemned by official Labour spokesmen from the other Front Bench when so much of it, so many of the ideas, originated in the previous Labour Government. I think we all recognise that this is a problem which has got to be solved. I thank noble Lords very much for their patience and for the trouble that they have taken in taking part in this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SEX DISCRIMINATION BILL [H.L.] (FORMERLY ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL)
Second Special Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed: Bill reported with Amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
  PRICE COMMISSION AND PAY BOARD SALARIES
  PRICE COMMISSION AND PAY BOARD SALARIES
  E.E.C.: TRANSLATION OF COUNCIL'S PROCEDURE RULES
  E.E.C.: TRANSLATION OF COUNCIL'S PROCEDURE RULES
  GIBRALTAR AIRPORT LANDING CHARGES
  GIBRALTAR AIRPORT LANDING CHARGES
  GIBRALTAR AIRPORT: PROPOSED RUNWAY EXTENSION
  GIBRALTAR AIRPORT: PROPOSED RUNWAY EXTENSION
  GIBRALTAR: NORTH MOLE AREAS LEASED TO GOVERNMENT
  GIBRALTAR: NORTH MOLE AREAS LEASED TO GOVERNMENT
  GIBRALTAR: UTILISATION OF DOCKYARD
  GIBRALTAR: UTILISATION OF DOCKYARD
  E.E.C.: ALIENS RESTRICTION (AMENDMENT) ACT
  E.E.C.: ALIENS RESTRICTION (AMENDMENT) ACT
  E.E.C. SOCIAL FUND
  E.E.C. SOCIAL FUND
  STABLE YARD METAL GLOBE
  STABLE YARD METAL GLOBE
  LEAD POLLUTION
  LEAD POLLUTION
  IMMIGRATION: REMOVAL OF PEOPLE FROM THE U.K.
  IMMIGRATION: REMOVAL OF PEOPLE FROM THE U.K.