Sitting of 4 December 1973

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

  CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY (HUNTERSTON ORE TERMINAL) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Earnings Rule
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, before the next review of the level of the earnings rule for retirement pensioners, he will institute an inquiry into the working of the rule.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): My right hon. Friend has no proposals to institute such an inquiry.
    Mr. Strang: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the regulations, a single woman who has paid full contributions for over 40 years, who wishes to carry on working part-time and earns £10 a week, does not have her pension docked but has it reduced altogether? Since this is a serious injustice, will he consider reviewing the regulation? Many Members on both sides of the House feel that there is good ground for ironing out the anomalies and for a general relaxation of the earnings limit.
    Mr. Dean: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He will recollect that the earnings rule was improved not
    1062
    very long ago, by no less an amount than £2 per week, but with scarce resources we have the dilemma of how much should be provided to improve the earnings rule and how much should be made available to the old, to the very sick and to widows who are unable to get a job.
    Mr. Fortescue: Has my hon. Friend any estimate of how many pensioners work for cash either in ignorance or in defiance of the rule? Does he accept that the practice is increasing rather than diminishing? Will he now give serious consideration to abolishing the earnings rule altogether?
    Mr. Dean: I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about this matter, but to abolish the rule would add about £130 million to the cost of pensions. We must ask ourselves whether, if we had that amount of money, we would use it in this way or whether we would allocate it to the very old, the chronically sick and those who are unable to work to supplement their pension.
    Mr. John Silkin: Does the figure of £130 million—I believe that it should be £135 million—include the amount of tax that the Government would get back by virtue of old people working?
    Mr. Dean: That figure is the actual cost. I accept that there would be some additional tax and that the net figure would be slightly smaller. But we have to answer this dilemma : if that amount of money were available, how much would be allocated to those who fortunately are able to work to supplement their pension, and how much would be allocated to those whose need is greater because they are not able to supplement their pension?
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will consider incorporating a review of the earnings rule within the annual review of pensions.
    Mr. Dean: The earnings rule is considered each year when social security benefits are reviewed.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I get something a little more positive out of him? I accept what he said earlier

    1063
    about the need for priorities, but as we are now approaching an era of full employment—subject, of course, to industrial peace—will he accept that on both social and economic grounds it is extremely important to persuade people to work beyond retirement age, and that eventually any change would be self-financing by tax?
    Mr. Dean: I assure my hon. Friend that we will certainly bear in mind her powerful advocacy for this cause when we are considering the very large number of very good claims on resources.
    Mr. Bidwell: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that support for increasing the basic national State retirement pension is not merely confined to these benches and is to be found throughout a considerable area of the country? Does he agree that there will have to be a much more substantial increase at the next annual review, having regard to the tremendous rise in food costs since the earlier awards were made?
    Mr. Dean: I hope that that will be possible. One of the interesting comparisons between the present Government and the last one is that we have managed to do a better uprating each year since we have been in office, whereas the Labour Party started with a fairly good increase but its record badly tailed off.

    Occupational Deafness
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of the report by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on occupational deafness, he will introduce a scheme for the pre-employment measurement of hearing levels among persons working in manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Dean: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend accepts the council's view that pre-employment tests of hearing levels would not be warranted for the purpose of compensating industrial deafness.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: I accept my hon. Friend's statement that the report related to compensation. But surely pre-employment tests would allow one to define the level of hearing of an employee before he was subjected to noise in manufacturing industry and would allow one to withdraw a person from that noise if subsequent tests warranted this. Surely prevention
    1064
    of hearing loss is more important than compensation for it.
    Mr. Dean: I agree with my hon. Friend's last point, but this is a matter of how best we can use the technical and medical facilities available. We felt that the first priority was to get the scheme into operation. That will take time and will make a considerable demand on the medical and technical resources available.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister take a much wider view and consult his Department about health hazards and the manpower available? Is he aware that, unless something is done rapidly to monitor factories, particularly in areas where the decibel rating is a health hazard, there will in some years' time be a considerable impact on the health service in providing aids and services for the deaf? Should not there be monitoring in areas of high risk throughout the whole of a worker's life?
    Mr. Dean: The report represents a significant advance in this area, where perhaps not enough has been done in the past. We must consider how best we can use available resources. We felt that the first priority should be those who are employed at present and who are known to be suffering deafness as a result of their employment.

    Battered Babies
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the problem of battered babies.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I have received a number of valuable suggestions about different aspects of this complicated problem all of which are being considered. Where appropriate they will be included in the further guidance which I hope to issue early in the New Year.
    Mr. Fowler: The whole House will recognise the grave difficulties in the way of a solution to this difficult problem. Is not one of the questions here the legal aspect? Is it not a fact that the legal rights of some children are too small whereas those of some parents are perhaps too great?
    Sir K. Joseph: I hesitate to give an affirmative answer to that very large question posed by my hon. Friend. On a

    1065
    narrow front, it may be necessary to ask the House to consider further powers.
    Mr. Bowden: When my right hon. Friend receives the report of the committee that he has established to inquire into the death of Maria Colwell, who lived in my constituency—an inquiry which is proceeding in great depth under the brilliant chairmanship of Mr. Field Fisher, QC—will he undertake that the House will be given an opportunity to debate it?
    Sir K. Joseph: What the House debates is not a question for me. I am sure that the result of the inquiry will lead to further widespread consideration by all of us, particularly by myself and my colleagues, of the lessons that may be learned

    Breast Cancer Screening
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive the report of the Joint Working Group on Breast Cancer Screening.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I cannot yet say ; but it is likely to be several years before sufficient information is available from the pilot screening projects to enable the working group to makes its final report.
    Mr. Dormand: Whatever the recommendations in the report, will the Under-Secretary give two assurances : first, that screening will be made more readily available than it is now, and, secondly, that there will be no penny-pinching in any new arrangements made following publication of the report? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is at present insufficient emphasis on preventive measures in medicine?
    Mr. Alison: I should need to weigh the hon. Gentleman's request most carefully. There will not be any penny-pinching, as he puts it, if we can be certain that the money spent is cost-effective for women. But whilst an element of doubt remains about this matter the scale of national expenditure, in terms both of equipment and of the scarce medical manpower involved on a large-scale programme, would be prohibitive unless it were to do undisputable good.

    National Health Service Staff Appointments
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will intervene with a view to assisting to resolve the difficulties which have arisen in making senior staff appointments to the reorganised National Health Service ; if he will consult the Staff Commission, National and Local Government Officers Association and other bodies concerned ; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. Eighty per cent. of the posts of area administrator, area nursing officer and area treasurer have been filled ; and a further 13 per cent. have not been filled because the applicant chosen preferred a similar post with another area authority, or for other personal reasons. As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) on 30th November, details of the unfilled posts have been circulated and the necessary guidance on the short-listing and other arrangements was issued on 15th November.—[Vol. 865, c. 247–8.]
    Mr. Pavitt: Why is the Secretary of State so reluctant to use his persuasive powers when faced with the possibility that he will not be able to start the new National Health Service on 1st April with 80,000 officers likely to be leaving the service? There is chaos, uncertainty and a good deal of disappointment at what has been going on with the Staff Commission and NALGO. Why have the Government decided that local government officers should be paid for extra work but that NHS officers should not be paid for it? Surely it is time that he came down from the Olympian heights and started to negotiate personally with the people concerned.
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is a great friend of the National Health Service and he does it no good by exaggerating the present understandable worries of the management staff concerned. The hon. Gentleman is greatly exaggerating the situation, though I recognise that there is much concern.
    As for the different treatment between local government and National Health Service management staff by way of overtime payments, I much regret that the Pay Board, discharging the duty laid

    1067
    upon it by Parliament, made a decision that precluded the Government from honouring their intention of making extra payments to some managers for overtime.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he started off on the wrong foot when he arbitrarily fixed the salaries of chief officers and that it was only after NALGO protested and saw the Prime Minister that an adjustment was made? Will he also bear in mind that, among the administrative staff of the National Health Service, there is grave dissatisfaction about the lack of consultation and information regarding salary scales, posts and methods of selection? Will he accept from my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) that people are leaving the health service to take jobs in local government which offer greater security and higher salaries?
    Sir K. Joseph: I reluctantly made a unilateral decision on salaries in the first place because of the exigencies of time. The Staff Commission has my entire confidence. I believe that it has published its answers to the comments made by NALGO.
    I think that the hon. Lady slightly misstated the situation regarding people leaving the health service. Some officers in local authority health departments are not showing keen enthusiasm to join the new health service. That would be more accurate than the way the hon. Lady described the situation of National Health Service officers flowing to local government.
    Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Speech Therapy Services
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what day he proposes to make his further statement about the future of speech therapy services.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the Quirk Report on speech therapists.
    Mr. Alison: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) on 15th May. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services hopes to make a further statement later this month.—[Vol. 856 c. 276.]
    Mr. King: Will my hon. Friend accept that in the meantime the rates of pay of these valued persons is absurdly low and that great harm will be done if they are not raised quickly?
    Mr. Alison: The pay and conditions of speech therapists are negotiated by the Whitley Council, as my hon. Friend knows, and the most recent review of salaries was effective from 1st April 1973.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when we debated this matter some months ago he said that they must fall within stage 3 of the Pay Code? Therefore, when he says that they are negotiated by the Whitley Council, he is pulling the wool over the eyes of hon. Members and people outside. What is the current rate of wastage and the current national shortage of speech therapists?
    Mr. Alison: It is impossible to give any realistic figure of the national shortage because it is not possible to determine exactly how much use of speech therapists local authorities or hospital authorities could make. All we can do is to go on the Quirk Report's figures, which suggest that we shall need about 2,500 speech therapists within the next 20 years as opposed to the present 900.
    The hon. Gentleman asked for wastage figures. I understand that in the 12 schools and one university we successfully train about 160 speech therapists each year. He can work out the wastage from that.
    Mr. Marten: While speech therapy for the younger generation is of absolute importance, may I ask my hon. Friend not to forget that older people who suffer from speech disabilities as a result of strokes would be more productively employed in life if they had speech therapy too?
    Mr. Alison: I understand and take my hon. Friend's point. The Department is as fully apprised as possible of the vital contribution that speech therapy makes to handicap generally.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the view of people in my constituency that we are desperately short of speech therapists and that this shortage is manifest particularly in the North-West? Does he also accept that, in the whole range of the para-medical service, the shortage of physiotherapists, radiographers, gymnasts and speech therapists is so great that unless action is taken now it will take three to four years for the gap to be filled? Does he further accept that reasonable people belonging to these organisations know of their own knowledge that there is no negotiation whatever on the Whitley Council? The tablets of stone are brought down from the Treasury and that is the end of the negotiation.
    Mr. Alison: When the hon. Gentleman talks about shortages, I hope he will understand that, as the awareness of the extent of handicap—with which he has been very honourably associated—dawns increasingly on the community and as knowledge of what can be done for handicapped people spreads, so there is an almost irresistible increase in the demand for these services, which is in itself healthy but cannot be met instantaneously.

    Little Sisters of the Poor, Manchester
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services why he refuses to exercise his power to grant financial aid to the Little Sisters of the Poor, Plymouth Grove, Manchester.
    Mr. Alison: Because, as has already been explained to the hon. Member, it is for the local authority and not central Government to provide any assistance considered necessary.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that, in telling me that he himself refused to provide loan aid for the redevelopment of the old people's home of the Sisters of the Poor in my constituency under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, he further added in correspondence that if Manchester Corporation
    1070
    was minded to help financially he would be reluctant to allow it to do so? Is this not, therefore, a meaningless answer that he has given? In view of the dedicated work of these selfless women, which saves the State hundreds of thousands of pounds which would otherwise be spent, will he look at this matter again?
    Mr. Alison: I shall certainly look again at any correspondence that the hon. Gentleman reminds me I have sent to him. But if any proposals for rebuilding the home were substantially in line with the standards that my Department requires for such building, and if Manchester Corporation was prepared to make a loan in respect of the work, my right hon. Friend would be willing to consider an application from the local authority for loan approval to assist it to do so.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does that, therefore, mean that the hon. Gentleman is prepared, in terms of his supplementary answer, to look again at this matter?
    Mr. Alison: I have already said that much, at least.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: In deciding whether to look at this question again, is the Minister aware that already the Little Sisters of the Poor, who do a splendid job in caring for the aged, have been obliged to close one of their homes in Newton Heath in my constituency as a result of the financial burden they carry in looking after people? Will he look at this question again, giving it serious reconsideration?
    Mr. Alison: I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will have referred this matter to Manchester Corporation, which, as I have indicated, has the primary responsibility for helping with the finance of local homes such as this.

    Christmas Meals (Pensioners and the Disabled)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will seek powers to provide a grant towards the cost of organising a scheme under which families will be asked to provide company and food for pensioners and disabled people who would otherwise be on their own and without a meals service over the Christmas period.
    Sir K. Joseph: No additional powers for such a purpose are required. I am sure that local authorities and voluntary organisations are well aware of the need to make suitable arrangements for meals to cover the Christmas period. But company for the elderly and the disabled living alone is a matter on which every citizen can make a contribution and I hope that as many people as possible will take suitable action on their own initiative.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Secretary of State aware of the action which Age Concern has taken so very successfully in Leicester of encouraging voluntary help to elderly and disabled people, who are so often lonely and hungry at a time when they should be so happy? If I provide the right hon. Gentleman with full details of this scheme, will he consider encouraging other authorities in other areas to adopt it?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am aware of the very many voluntary organisations, including Age Concern, which do continuously admirable work and try to reinforce that work over the Christmas period. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would explain more of what he has in mind by his reference to local authorities, I should be able to consider what he has suggested.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—I am sure he is—that many severely disabled people will be left on their own well before Christmas if the present chaos in the distribution of petrol continues? What representations has he made to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure adequate petrol supplies not only for disabled drivers but also for disabled passengers—that is, those who are too severely disabled to drive themselves?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is very close contact between my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry about the needs of disabled groups for fuel.

    Hallan Hospital, West Bromwich
    Miss Boothroydasked the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent the cuts in public expenditure announced on 8th October will affect the work being carried out on the new Hallan Hospital at West Bromwich.
    Mr. Alison: This work is not affected.
    Miss Boothroyd: I am delighted to have the assurance from the Minister that this important hospital will not be affected. Will he bear in mind the nurses' training school, because it is of vital importance in the Black Country, and will he commend it to other hospitals in the West Midlands?
    Mr. Alison: I am delighted that the hon. Lady is delighted, and I shall be delighted to bear in mind what she has asked me to bear in mind.

    Prescriptions (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will again consider the direct reimbursement to pharmacists of costs associated with the collection and delivery of prescriptions in rural areas of England and Wales.
    Mr. Alison: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 26th November.—[Vol. 865, c. 72–3.]
    Mr. Pardoe: It is now three years since the free collection of prescriptions was introduced in Scotland, two and a half years since the hon. Gentleman met the contractors' committee for England and Wales and two years since it sent him the evidence for which he asked. Does he not agree that the concept of a free health service is a total charade in areas such as Cornwall, when most of my constituents have to spend between 50p and £1 to get their prescriptions by bus?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the difference—perhaps it is understandable in the case of his constituency—between Cornish and Scottish doctors. Cornish doctors are able to dispense prescriptions for their patients if necessary. Cornwall is renowned as an area in which friends, relatives, neighbours, local tradesmen and voluntary organisations are willing to fetch and carry for those whom they serve.
    Mr. Fortescue: What has been the progress of the talks initiated four years ago between pharmacists and doctors about the right to dispense medicines in rural areas?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has raised another question. I shall write to him about it.

    Drugs and Driving
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to make it compulsory for drug companies to include on the label of proprietary medicines and tablets a warning if the product is likely to affect the ability to drive.
    Sir K. Joseph: The Poisons Rules already require medicines containing certain antihistamines commonly used in travel sickness remedies to be labelled
    "Caution. This may cause drowsiness. If affected, do not drive or operate machinery".
    In the case of a prescribed medicine that may impair ability to drive, it is the doctor's responsibility to warn his patient of the danger.
    Mr. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State keep a much more open mind on this subject than he has done hitherto? I do not say that in a derogatory sense. However, clear evidence is now emerging that more and more drivers are being convicted after having taken drugs which they were unaware would affect them when driving. The motoring organisations are very concerned about this development.
    Sir K. Joseph: The Government are advised by experts on the Medicines Commission. A committee is at present considering the scope of the warnings prescribed by the Poisons Rules. If the hon. Gentleman sends me any evidence of which he is aware, I will put it to the committee.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the resolution passed at the Council of Europe on this subject to see whether he should support it when it goes to the Council of Ministers?
    Sir K. Joseph: I shall certainly look at it.

    Domestic Heating Costs
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the cost of heating a three-up and three-down house in a smokeless zone where there is only one fireplace ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dean: It is not possible to give such an estimate because of the many variable factors involved.
    Mr. Spriggs: If the Minister cannot assess the cost of heating an average three-up and three-down house, will he take it from me that people, especially pensioners and those in receipt of social security payments, who live in what are now smokeless zones have no option but to purchase smokeless fuels? For example, Phurnacite is £1·43 per cwt. and Sunbrite is £1·23 per cwt. People must pay that price. Surely it is about time that the Department could give a correct assessment and, when applications are made by older people, make a payment under the social security regulations in accordance with the actual costs.
    Mr. Dean: I am advised that the price increase in smokeless fuels this year has been marginal. The hon. Gentleman will, however, know that the rates of pension and the rates of supplementary benefit take into account fuel costs. Furthermore, additional allowances are available where there are exceptional needs for additional fuel costs or where a household is changing over to smokeless fuel and may have to incur additional expenditure in so doing.

    Retirement Pensioners
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will agree to meet representatives of the retirement pensioners' organisations.
    Mr. Dean: My right hon. Friend recently met representatives of the National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Associations and he and other Ministers regularly meet representatives of pensioners' organisations in many parts of the country.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that just down the road at Central Hall there is a rally of all those pensioners' organisations at which several thousand pensioners are present and that there are scores of Labour Members of Parliament to support them in their plea for £10 and £16 pensions? Is he further aware that in the last four years the real value of the pension has gone up by only 15p—enough to buy a loaf of bread—whereas the Prime Minister has had an increase during the

    1075
    last year of £6 a week as a result of tax reliefs given in the Budget?
    Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman really must know that the real improvement in the pension during the last three-and-a-half years under the present Government has been at the rate of over 3 per cent. per annum. It was a good deal less under his Government. One of the worries which pensioners have at the moment is whether they will have enough coal and electricity to keep themselves warm and to cook a hot dinner. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help us on that.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that the pensioners in my constituency bitterly resent being used a a political football? They have had a special meeting and have turned down flat the invitation extended to them to accept a paid journey to the rally.
    Mr. Dean: I am grateful, but not at all surprised, to hear how sensible and realistic the pensioners in my hon. Friend's constituency are.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since his Government came to office food prices alone have risen by 45 per cent.? He said recently in answer to a question that pensioners were spending more on meat, butter, eggs and so on. Does he know how much they are, in fact, eating? Has he carried out any research into how much meat pensioners eat today?
    Mr. Dean: Yes. I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Lady, from the food survey figures which we now have for the third quarter, that pensioners are buying more of the basic foodstuffs than they were a year earlier, and—
    Mrs. Short: What are they eating?
    Mr. Dean: —that their diet is adequate and above the minimum standards laid down for reasonable nutrition.

    Pension and Family Allowance Books
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider issuing temporary pension and family allowance books to cover the period of administrative changes.
    Mr. Dean: Temporary order books are in fact used where final entitlement cannot
    1076
    be decided without delay but some payment can properly be made. Pensions are, however, usually paid in these circumstances by the issue of Giro cheques or by down-rating existing order books. Where a change of circumstances results in an increase in the rate of pension or allowance, the old order book is normally left in payment until a new book can be issued.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that when a married pensioner dies his surviving spouse, also a pensioner, has to return the pension book for adjustment and is sometimes left without it for as long as six weeks, without any money during that period? Will he accept that, whereas in all the cases that have been brought to my attention there has been a relative or a friend to help out, it is deeply disturbing to consider that there may be pensioners living alone who are too old and too infirm to make representations?
    Mr. Dean: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the case which she has brought to my attention, where there had been a delay which I regret. In most cases, however, when a woman becomes a widow she retains her pension book and any increase in pension to which she is eligible as a single person is paid later by Giro cheque. But if my hon. Friend has another case in mind where the system has broken down, I will gladly investigate it.

    Hearing Aids
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons skilled in dispensing hearing aids are employed in the National Health Service ; how many vacancies exist in this sector ; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: As I explained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) on 30th November, there were at 30th September 1972 376 physiological measurement technicians (audiology). It is not possible to make an accurate assessment of vacancies but I judge that the planned introduction over a five-year period of head-worn hearing aids will involve roughly a doubling in the present numbers of technical staff.—[Vol. 865, c. 246–7.]
    Mr. Redmond: How many of the people to whom my right hon. Friend has just referred have formal qualifications and how many are trainees? What will be the position when the new head-worn hearing aid comes into operation? Will there be an overload on the National Health Service? Will my right hon. Friend therefore reconsider his decision and allow the private sector to supply spectacles under the National Health Service?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is no central record of the number of technicians who have undertaken courses, but there are currently about 80 in the student grade. The Government accept that there needs to be an expansion of the number of trained audiology technicians. But I hope the House appreciates that the Government's purpose in providing a free ear-borne hearing aid is to bring many more people than now use the service for the deaf within the diagnostic treatment and rehabilitative services of the National Health Service. Valuable though the provision of ear-borne hearing aids by the commercial sector is, it cannot be expected to provide all those other aspects of service. That is why the Government are planning an expansion within the National Health Service, though they confidently expect that the private sector will continue to flourish.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what progress there has been in recruitment since he made his statement earlier in the year, so as to give the House an indication of what efforts are being made.
    Sir K. Joseph: It is too soon to make a judgment. Furthermore, we take statistics only once a year. The only fact I have which is relevant is that the 1972 figure, which I have given, was 10 per cent. up on the figure for a year earlier.

    Supplementary Benefits (Children)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the cost of supplementary benefits for children payable during the week ending 25th December.
    Mr. Dean: The latest available estimate suggests that the amount included in assessments will be about £2 million.
    Mr. Ashton: As that is not a very large sum and the Government have
    1078
    found money to give a £10 bonus to pensioners for Christmas, is it not possible—since these children belong mainly to widows and deserted wives—at least to double the supplementary benefit for that week and so help these modern-day Oliver Twists and Tiny Tims?
    Mr. Dean: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the allowances for children were increased in October, both under the National Insurance Scheme and under the supplementary benefit arrangements. We shall certainly consider the needs of children along with any other priorities, but we thought that the right priority was the elderly, particularly in the matter of a special payment.

    Hospitals (Staff Meals)
    Mr. Lambornasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage increase hospitals have been instructed to place on prices of staff meals since 31st March 1973.
    Sir K. Joseph: For meals supplied at nationally negotiated prices the only increase since 31st March 1973 has been in respect of value added tax. For other meals which are supplied at locally fixed prices, and are also subject to VAT, no increase was made during stage 1 of the counter-inflation policy but hospitals have been advised that prices could be increased to take account of rises in the costs of ingredients after 6th November 1972. The percentage increases vary from place to place.
    Mr. Lamborn: The right hon. Gentleman said that hospitals had been instructed that they could impose increases but my information is that they have been instructed that they should impose them. These have been interpreted as being 25 per cent., other than for the specially negotiated meals, plus 10 per cent. VAT. That is certainly the case in the hospitals with which I am associated. This has caused particular hardship for the student nurses, especially first-year student nurses, who are left with a little over £40 a month and can barely afford food at the prices currently obtaining in many hospitals.
    Sir K. Joseph: I certainly authorised advice to hospitals on the effect of increasing ingredient costs on the non-nationally negotiated meals. However, food prices have been rising and, unless

    1079
    the hospitals are to provide larger subsidies for all those who eat in them, they have to raise prices.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when the Whitley Council negotiates increases for nurses, it takes into account the certainty that the price of meals taken inside a hospital will increase immediately the nurses get their salary increase? If it does not take that into account, will he authorise it to do so?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think it is bound to recognise that some prices, whether taken inside a hospital or not, may at the time be rising.

    Area Health Authorities
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has replied to a letter from the London borough of Ealing concerning boundaries of area health authorities, dated 5th October ; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be seeing tomorrow a deputation from the borough as requested in that letter.
    Mr. Bidwell: May I express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the deputation? I shall be unable to be present but I hope that my Question today and others by my hon. Friends have been instrumental in arranging this meeting. There is considerable feeling on this issue and it extends beyond the Labour entity in the London Borough of Ealing.

    Kidney Patients (Allowance)
    Mr. John Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will extend the provision of the constant attendance allowances so as to provide for kidney patients receiving dialysis treatment.
    Mr. Dean: Attendance allowance is payable to all those who are so severely disabled physically or mentally, for whatever reason, that they satisfy the statutory requirements relating to attention or supervision. People receiving dialysis treatment at home qualify for attendance allowance in the same way as everyone else if they satisfy these conditions.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend agree that kidney patients, because they are receiving treatment on possibly three or four days a week, find themselves ineligible for the constant attendance allowance even though they require a great deal of attention by their families and their wives—perhaps amounting to 10 hours—for the cleaning up of the machine after use, providing special diets, injections and so on? Should they not qualify as of right for the special allowance?
    Mr. Dean: We all admire the courage of the way in which people who are having dialysis treatment continue to do valuable work within the community. However, it is for the board to interpret the statute. I assure my hon. Friend that where those who are on dialysis come within the regulations—in other words, require treatment for more than three days or nights a week—they are eligible for the allowance.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister take another look at the requirements for payment of the constant attendance allowance? I have a case of a blind diabetic suffering from heart disease who was apparently quite properly refused the allowance under the existing regulations. Does that not seem extremely hard treatment?
    Mr. Dean: I shall look at any case which is of concern to the right hon. Gentleman. The criterion is the amount of supervision or attention required. It is a fairly new allowance and we have recently extended it to a further group of people. We are anxious to learn from experience.
    Mr. Marten: Will my hon. Friend learn from the experience of one of my constituents who is on the machine for three or four days a week and from the enormous burden which is placed upon my constituent's wife on the other days, which makes it into almost a constant attendance case? Will my hon. Friend look at this again?
    Mr. Dean: I shall gladly look at the case mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: There is justifiable and very strong feeling on this matter.

    1081
    Is the Minister aware that praising the courage of these patients is not enough? if the regulations are to blame, something must be done, because hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see them made more flexible to help more of these patients.
    Mr. Dean: I accept the hon. Member's point but this is a comparatively new allowance, introduced in 1971. More than 100,000 hard-pressed families are now benefiting from it. We are anxious to extend and improve the arrangements and to learn from experience.

  NEWQUAY
  Mr. Pardoeasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Newquay.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that Christmas is the time when a Newquay hotelier's fancy turns to thoughts of next year's bookings and that 95 per cent. of Cornwall's holiday-makers arrive by car? In the present doubtful situation concerning petrol supplies, many of those potential holiday-makers might well opt for a package tour abroad rather than risk not being able to get to Cornwall next summer. Will the right hon. Gentleman say something to allay these doubts and fears?
  The Prime Minister: I take it that the hon. Member is mainly concerned with the A39 bypass. As he knows, a public inquiry will be held next spring—[Interruption.]—and, following that, we shall have to decide when the earliest work can begin. That probably will not be until 1975. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Pardoe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you have no responsibility for the content of a reply by a Minister or, indeed, the Prime Minister, but is it not an abuse of this House to answer a question that was never asked?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point for me.

  GOVERNMENT POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if the speech of the Home Secretary made at Carshalton on 17th November on economic matters represents Government policy.
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department at Carshalton on 17th November on economic measures represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department on Government policies at Carshalton on Saturday 17th November represents Government policy.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Skinner: In that speech at Carshalton the Home Secretary, speaking about the economy, used the phrase
  "these are the ingredients for success—not failure ".
  Will the Prime Minister say whether a £2,000 million trade deficit, a 13 per cent. bank rate, the lowest house building record for 20 years looming up and astronomical price increases constitute success? If they do, will he use his vivid imagination to describe failure?
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry to learn that the hon. Member does not agree with the policy of expansion of the economy, which the trade unions have urged upon the Government and which we told them frankly would mean a deficit on the balance of payments while the raw materials and additional plant and machinery were imported. The policy has had the result of bringing down unemployment by several hundred thousand in the last year. The Government's success in this sphere is welcomed by all those who work in industry and by the unions.
  Mr. Chapman: Since the volume as well as the value of our exports is on a strong rising trend, and in view of the deficit on the balance of payments, is it not all the more important that we should reduce to an absolute minimum the imbalance of trade between this

  1083
  country and, for example, the USSR? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that this is one of the subjects being raised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Moscow today?
  The Prime Minister: The whole question of trade between the USSR and this country is constantly raised with Ministers of the Soviet Union, not only here but in New York. It is also being discussed by my right hon. Friend in Moscow. It is true that this imbalance has lasted for about 20 years and each Government have successively tried to bring it into balance. However, the arguments for so doing have never yet been accepted by the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Meacher: As the Home Secretary painted such a rosy picture of expansion, why should not the miners receive an extra £1 above the present offer when, since they last had a wage rise, one man has gained an extra £20 million from keeping Centre Point open and the Government have now run away from trying to stop him?
  The Prime Minister: We have discussed in the House the very fair and generous nature of the offer to those in the mining industry by the National Coal Board. The Government believe that the stage 3 policy is the right one for the country to follow, and the code has been approved by Parliament.
  Mr. William Clark: As Labour Members are always asking whether various Ministers' speeches represent Government policy, would my right hon. Friend care to say whether the inflammatory speeches of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) represent the policy of the Opposition?
  The Prime Minister: I must leave that to the various leaders of the Opposition to sort out.
  Mr. Stonehouse: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has officially admitted that the 13 per cent. rate was imposed to prevent the pound floating further downwards, what is the point of having a floating pound? Will not the Prime Minister consider returning to a fixed rate soon?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think that the time is appropriate.

  TRADE STATISTICS
  Mr. Kaufmanasked the Prime Minister whether the broadcast of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on "The World at One" on Tuesday 13th November, on the trade figures, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Kaufman: Does the Prime Minister recall that in that broadcast his right hon. Friend attempted to explain away the staggering trade deficit by reference to unexpected arrivals of oil and diamonds, together with what he called the arrival of some very big tankers, but that in the same broadcast he failed to mention the £75 million computer under-recording of imports? Was that honest?
  The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend said was that three major factors accounted for a large part of the increase in imports during that month. If the hon. Gentleman scoffs at the question of tankers, I reply that the average import is £15 million and that last month it was £60 million, a substantial increase, which goes to account for the increase in imports. As to the industrial action at London Airport which prevented the completion of the figures by the date of publication, we have said that we shall announce those figures with the next trade figures. We shall correct the trade figures by the amounts which arrived at London Airport. That seemed to us the right way of handling the matter. I could have asked that the publication of the trade figures be postponed until we had the accurate figures for imports, but, as I had announced at the beginning of this year the dates on which all Government statistics would be published, so that there could be no question of their not always being published at the exact time, I decided to go ahead with the date of publication.
  Sir R. Cary: Does not the Question prove again that it is always unwise to take a single month's figures, instead of taking them with other months, some of which are more successful?
  The Prime Minister: That was what was always said by the hon. Member who

  1085
  asked the Question, when he was the Leader of the Opposition's Press Secretary.

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a second Treasury Minister to his Cabinet with responsibility for the curtailment of public expenditure.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer already has overall responsibility for the management of public expenditure, and its rate of growth is being successfully curtailed.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and for his decision on the appointment of the Paymaster-General. Is he aware that it will be widely welcomed as helping to lift some of the heavy burden carried by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for so long? However, has my right hon. Friend noted that over the past 15 years there has been a certain correlation between the periods during which the Minister with immediate responsibility for control of public expenditure has not been a member of the Cabinet and those during which the share of total resources pre-empted by the public sector, and hence inflation, has tended to grow?
  The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful words at the beginning, but I cannot agree with his thesis in the second part of his question. The Chancellor is responsible for Government expenditure, assisted by the Chief Secretary. That remains the position. The Paymaster-General is not responsible for that sphere of the Treasury's work. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has often explained to the House that Government expenditure was deliberately allowed by the Government to grow faster than the rate of growth, up to the middle of this year. It was then curtailed, and from 1974 onwards it will be less than the rate of growth in the country. That was deliberate policy carried out by my right hon. Friend and the Government.
  Mr. Healey: Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to quantify the reduction in this year's public expenditure due to the
  1086
  collapse of public building, referred to by a Treasury witness in a Committee yesterday?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There is no collapse of public building. The Government account for roughly 50 per cent. of the construction industry's activity. What the Government have done is to slow down the immediate demands to allow the construction industry to cope effectively with them.
  Miss Joan Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many ratepayers are not happy about the new salaries being offered to officials in the new local government areas and feel that there could be a curtailment of expenditure in that respect?
  The Prime Minister: That is a question for the local authorities themselves to deal with, within the grant arrangements made by the Government.
  Mr. Dalyell: Could the second Treasury Minister have a look at the through-deck cruiser programme, costing £110 million a ship?
  The Prime Minister: As I have said, the Chief Secretary is particularly responsible to the Chancellor for control of Government expenditure, and defence expenditure comes under his review.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I ask the Prime Minister, arising out of his answer to an earlier question about the planning of public expenditure, whether the Government deliberately planned for a public sector deficit amounting to about £4,000 million in the belief that it would assist the health and balance of the economy?
  The Prime Minister: I have said quite clearly that the Government extended expenditure beyond the rate of growth. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House at the time of the Budget his calculation of the Government's borrowing requirement. There have been recent indications that the borrowing requirement may not be as great as was earlier thought. That is a very clear position.

  DERBYSHIRE
  Mr. Rostasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to pay an official visit to Derbyshire.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Rost: If he does not visit Derbyshire soon, how will my right hon. Friend discover that many miners, despite provocative incitement from the Opposition, do not wish to bring the country to its knees or to man the barricades but would prefer a ballot so that they can accept the offer, because they understand that the country needs phase 3 just as desperately as it needs coal?
  The Prime Minister: I think there is public evidence that many of the miners would like to accept stage 3. The President of the NUM himself said after the meeting at No. 10 Downing Street that he believed the time had come for a ballot, but that was not the view of the majority of the executive.
  Mr. Whitehead: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Derbyshire are not on their knees, but that that is no thanks to the Government? Will he reconsider what he said and come up and make a jolly Christmas speech to the people of Derbyshire, telling them why an increase of almost 50 per cent. in food prices and of almost 100 per cent. in mortgages can be described as the problems of success? Will he tell them what he would have said in June 1970 if those things had happened in the last three years of the previous Government?
  The Prime Minister: The people of Derbyshire are benefiting from the Government's policies, the improved standard of living and the much higher level of employment, which is something the Opposition never achieved when in office.

  HOMELESS PERSONS
  Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Social Services in connection with the plight of homeless people.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) on 27th November. —[Vol. 865, c. 112.]
  Mr. Janner: Has either Department informed the Prime Minister of the number of families and single people now facing the winter without homes? If he knows the number, will he tell the House? If he does not, will he tell the House why he does not know?
  The Prime Minister: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman knows from his experience that it is very difficult to calculate the number of homeless. The Departments have worked together to provide the right guidance for local authorities to treat homelessness as part of their general housing problem. That seems to us to be the right approach.
  Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in order to help with this difficult situation, whether he thinks it a good idea to find out from local authorities what are their policies, so that we may be able to judge which local authorities are doing all they can to provide for the homeless and which local authorities are falling down on the job? I should like to know which are the good ones and which are the bad ones.
  The Prime Minister: I could no doubt obtain that information for my hon. Friend. The work has already been done because the Departments concerned have worked with the local authorities in a working party and have produced recommendations for dealing with this problem As I said, one of the main recommendation is that provision for the homeless should be part of the housing authority function. At the same time the Government have been helping with financial assistance for hostels to provide homes for single homeless people, and hostel accommodation can be provided either by voluntary organisations or by local authorities.
  Mr. John Silkin: Does the Prime Minister recall that under the National Assistance Act 1948 it used to be a duty laid on local authorities to provide for the homeless and that recent legislation has turned that duty into a power? In view of the tremendous increase in the number of homeless people throughout the country, is it not about time that the Prime Minister's right hon Friends looked again at the question?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of the change to which the right hon. Gentleman refers from the position of local

  1089
  authorities under the 1948 Act to their position under the 1972 Act. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a direction to maintain the local authority's duty to provide temporary accommodation in the circumstances envisaged in the Act.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Charles Pannell, on a matter of privilege.
Mr. C. Pannell: I wish to raise a matter of privilege, or rather of contempt of this House, by the Lord Chancellor. I start from a self-evident basis that you, Mr. Speaker, and you alone, are responsible for the Order Paper. What goes on it is a matter for you, and it is for you to rule a matter out of order if you think it is wrong. It is not for the Lord Chancellor, in another place, drinking and eating at the Carlton Glut)—[HON. MEMBERS : "Junior Carlton Club."]—last night, not in the House of Lords, to tell us what should be on the Order Paper, or to attempt to pre-empt the debate that will take place later today. For this purpose we have to make up our minds whether we are dealing with the Lord Chancellor, a Peer of Parliament or a leading member of the Conservative Party.
In this context it is worth remembering that when the order for sequestration was made against the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers it was signed and witnessed by Quintin McGarel Baron Hailsham of St. Marylebone. Having started that judicial process, it is reasonable that he should keep his nose out of the matter.
In asking you to make a ruling, I know that the position of a peer is not the same as that of other people. It is laid down in the 18th Edition of Erskine May, in page 169 :
"Hence it is that neither House can claim, much less exercise, any authority over a Member of the other. Neither House of Parliament can take upon itself to punish any breach of privilege or contempt offered to it by any Member of the other House. If any complaint is made against any individual Member or against any of the officers of the other House the usual mode of proceeding is to examine into the fact and then lay a statement of that evidence before the House of which the person complained of is a Member or officer."
1090
I am therefore asking you to rule, Mr. Speaker, whether there is enough evidence in the speech made by the Lord Chancellor last night for you to take action. I quote, not from the newspapers, but from the official hand-out of the speech :
"And what of a judge who has been so traduced unjustly, and by a motion every statement of fact in which is false, and could have been ascertained to be false at the time the motion was put down?"
We call ourselves "honourable" Members because we presume that there is honour in the House. Before signing that motion I scrupulously examined it and had researches made. Every statement in it was true. Therefore, the honour of a Member of the House and of all the Members who signed the motion, has to be set against the honour of somebody who escaped from this place by the grace of Wedgwood Benn and went to the other place to become head of the judiciary. What are we to say of anyone who holds forth on matters of proberty and integrity when this sort of thing is done?
The hand-out of the speech is far longer than the part I have quoted and it will have appeared in all the newspapers. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to say something about it.
That statement will brood over our debate today and I ask you to say at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Speaker, what rule of order you will seek to lay down to guide hon. Members on the Opposition benches, or to guard them from the capital that will be sought to be made from the Lord Chancellor's speech. If the speech is ruled out of order, it will have to be out of order for both sides of the House while you consider it.
This is a matter on which someone has attempted to lay down the law to you,Mr. Speaker. I can only wonder what would have happened if you had attempted to take such monstrous liberties with Members of the other place.
I raise the matter with great reluctance. We are always told to be very solicitous and never to refer to the other place in terms other than those of good will. During the 24 years I have been in this place, I have always observed that custom.
Mr. Tebbit: Humbug.
Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Gentleman who called out "Humbug" will rise in his place, Mr. Speaker will no doubt call him to order.
Mr. Tebbit Mr. Tebbit rose—
Mr. Pannell: I cannot give way for the submission of a point of order.
I shall be glad to see, Mr. Speaker, that you have the benefit of the statement and the copy of The Times which has given the speech full-length treatment, to say nothing of the lesser newspapers, so that you will be able so to rule.
Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish me to take into account the hand-out in considering my ruling? I have a copy of The Times. I have not a copy of the hand-out. Will he bring it to the Table?
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me a copy of the hand-out. In accordance with modern practice I will consider this matter carefully and rule upon it tomorrow.

BILLS PRESENTED
  SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Attorney General, supported by Mr. Terence L. Higgins, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. David Lane, presented a Bill) to prevent non-British subjects being prohibited from becoming or practising as solicitors ; to amend the Solicitors Acts 1957 to 1965 ; to make further provision as to the administration of oaths and taking of affidavits, removal from and restoration to the roll of solicitors, the powers of the Law Society to intervene in a solicitor's practice and the termination of a solicitor's retainer ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the first time ; and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow and to be printed [Bill 42].
MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Martin McLaren, supported by Mr. Alan Williams, presented a Bill to amend the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 : And the same was read the first time ; and ordered to be read a second time upon Friday 14th December and to be printed [Bill 41].

Ordered,
That the Unit Pricing Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Fox.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) to move the motion, I want to say this to the House. Certain inquiries and representations have been made to me about the scope of this debate. I do not in general believe in ruling upon hypothetical situations, but on this occasion however it might be helpful if I try to give some guidance.
Any Act of Parliament which the courts have to operate can be criticised as strongly as hon. or right hon. Members desire. It can be argued that a judge has made a mistake, that he was wrong, and the reasons for those contentions can be given, within certain limits.
I wonder whether I might read to the House what Lord Atkin, one of the great judges of this century, said some years ago on this subject. He said :
"But whether the authority and position of an individual judge, or the due administration of justice is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err therein : provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attemptng to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue : she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men."
That is very much the attitude of mind with which the Chair will approach this debate. Reflections on the judge's character or motives cannot be made except on a motion. No charge of a personal nature can be raised except on a motion. Any suggestion that a judge should be dismissed can be made only on a motion. As for today's debate, the only motion that can be debated is that in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. and right hon. Friends.
3.42 p.m.
Mr. Reg Prentice: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for the increasing damage being done to industrial relations and to the legitimate activities of trades unions by the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and the machinery for its enforcement which, following upon earlier instances of industrial disruption and harm to the economy, has now resulted in the sequestration and seizure of union funds subscribed for political purposes and a regrettable involvement of the National Industrial Relations Court in matters of political controversy ; and therefore calls for the total repeal of the Act.
I begin by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for the statement that you have made to the House. Any criticism I have to make of the judge will, I think, fall within the definition of "respectable, even though outspoken." That gives us a wide range for debate.
I would also like to welcome, and here I think I speak for the whole House, the new Secretary of State to this debate. He may find that debates on this subject get a bit rough and he may have a fairly early experience of such roughness. We all have a great deal of personal good will for him as he steps from one bed of nails to the other. I would add a personal note. He and I last faced one another on this subject in the months preceding the 1964 General Election when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and I was the assistant spokesman from the Labour benches on Ministry of Labour matters.
Then we managed to achieve what I could describe as a cheerful enmity. I would like to recapture that once again, but I say at once that it will be more difficult this time. It will be more difficult because of the different rôle which the Government see for the Department of Employment compared with the traditional rôle of the Ministry of Labour which still, by and large, held good under the Government in office until 1964.
In those days we had differences, there were criticisms and we divided on party lines on many matters affecting that Ministry, but, broadly speaking, in those days the Ministry was considered to be helpful to industrial relations throughout the community. It was helpful to both sides of industry in respect of industrial disputes and other matters. This is in stark contrast with the situation of the
1094
past three years. The right hon. Gentleman now inherits a Department that has had to operate according to entirely different rules. There have been three years of deliberate confrontation engineered by the Government, in which the Industrial Relations Act is the centre-piece.
The right hon. Gentleman has many friends and admirers in this House. I count myself as one of them. As such I say to him "For Heavens sake make it your first task to face your Cabinet colleagues with the urgent need for a change of course in industrial relations policy and especially with the need for the repeal, or at least the drastic amendment and modification, of the Industrial Relations Act."
The motion reiterates the demand made from these benches on many occasions. Some of the arguments which I hope to use, and those which my hon. Friends will be using, have been used before. But there is a new dimension to this debate and a new urgency about our demand for the repeal of the Act because of the recent events referred to in the motion, when we use the words :
"has now resulted in the sequestration and seizure of union funds subscribed for political purposes and a regrettable involvement of the National Industrial Relations Court in matters of political controversy".
I beg hon. Member opposite, not only Ministers but all who take part in the debate, to face up to the serious nature of the issues posed by the motion. I hope, although it may be a forlorn hope, that they will not try to duck out of that argument by pretending that the debate is about something else. This debate is not about whether the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers is right or wrong in its policy of refusing to recognise the Industrial Relations Court. In my view, it is wrong : in the view of some of my hon. Friends, it is right. There is a division of opinion on this which touches only marginally the central issue before the House.
Neither is this a debate on Motion No. 49, signed by a large number of my hon. Friends, calling for the dismissal of Sir John Donaldson. That is not for debate, although it may be referred to. Some of the material will overlap. I and many of my hon. Friends would not sign that motion for a number of reasons. We

1095
would not support it. We unanimously support the motion I have moved, and it is on that motion that we expect more constructive argument and more cogent replies from the Government than we have had in any of the series of debates on the Industrial Relations Act.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his deployment of the case, tell us what the evidence is that the moneys belonged to the political fund of this union, and will he tell us whether it is suggested that the sequestrators knew of this fact, and, if so, what is the evidence for that? Will he also tell us, if there was to be an act of sequestration, if it was not to come from the trade union's political fund, what other fund of the trade union it should have come from?
Mr. Prentice: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I will not follow him and try to answer those questions. Many points will emerge in the case I wish to make. I have a speech of some length prepared and I do not want to make it too long because other hon. Members wish to take part. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and address the House if he wishes. I am trying to suggest to him—and if he is not in the mood to take my advice he does not have to—that there are serious issues raised by this motion to which he and his hon. Friends must address their minds instead of trying to muddy the waters by raising side issues.
I put it to the House that the seizure of £100,000 from the political fund—and, of course, it was from the political fund ; it is not for me or anyone else to produce evidence to that effect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—was an outrageous development for two reasons.
The first and less serious—although still very serious—is that if a fine is imposed, for whatever reason, on an organisation with a large number of members, it is equitable that the fine should fall upon all the members and not simply upon some of them. What happened in this instance was a gross departure from all normal standards of equity. If the Attorney-General is to address the House later, I hope he will deal with this particularly.
1096
The political levy is paid by some and not all of the members of the AUEW. It is a paid levy from which members can contract out, and from which many do contract out, without any loss of other rights or status as members of the AUEW. The political fund cannot by law be replenished from the general funds. I put it to the House that it is indefensible for a fine levied upon a union as a whole to be levied on the political fund raised by some of the members on a voluntary basis.
The second and more serious point is that this whole episode breaches a constitutional convention of great importance—that the machinery of the State, and particularly the machinery of the courts, should not be used in order to tip the balance of political advantage between the political parties in this country. That, of course, is what has happened. The effect of this development is a serious weakening of the funds of the Labour Party. The court has acted in such a way as to strengthen the Conservative Party in relation to the Labour Party. Again, I ask hon. Members opposite to face up to that simple fact.
After all, £100,000 is a large sum of money. In practical terms, it has been taken away from the Labour Party—not taken from the union for any of its normal purposes as a union. It was money held in trust for political purposes which would have been used for the benefit of the Labour Party. The sum amounts to approximately one-fifth of the total affiliation fees paid by unions to the Labour Party in the last financial year. It amounts to approximately one-quarter of the sum that the Labour Party might have been expected to raise as a General Election fund for the purposes of the next election. So it is a serious and substantial sum.
In addition, it falls on us, and we are in the nature of things a party which is less prosperous than the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have more money than we do ; they get much larger sums from the rich backers of the Conservative Party than we ever get from our trade union friends. They get funds contributed by firms which originate from money spent across the shop counter by customers who have no right to contract out from that part of the price of the goods which eventually finds its way

1097
into Conservative Party funds. A party in that position should be ashamed of a situation in which this development has arisen.
Mr. David James: Would the right hon. Gentleman regard my constituency as fairly typical? With 10,000 paid-up members, we have no industrial subscriptions worth more than £10 ; all our money comes from private individuals.
Mr. Prentice: I have no idea—I am not terribly interested—whether or not the hon. Member's constituency is typical. When one adds up all the funds, national and local, of both parties, the Conservative Party is incomparably the richer party, with incomparably more support from vested interests in industry and commerce than we receive from the trade unions. Even if it were the other way around, the principle of my argument would not be altered, but it reinforces my argument.
I do not say that what happened was deliberate. It is not part of my case that Ministers or the court intended this to happen, but it happened as one of a chain of consequences of the Industrial Relations Act and its administration by the court. It is something which should give them reason for feeling ashamed.
If the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General were to accept nothing else in our motion and our arguments this afternoon, they should at least, in common decency, have another look at Section 154 of the Act with a view to some amendment which would extend the protection of earmarked funds against being used for damages to protection of those funds from being used to pay fines for contempt.
The House is bound to consider the part played by the court itself in these events. I dislike—
Mr. Eric S. HefferBefore my right hon. Friend moves from this point about the £75,000 and the political fund, I accept entirely his argument that it is a vindictive move to take this money from the political fund, but would he not also agree, irrespective of whether the money came from the political fund or from the general fund of the union, that this is a vindictive act because it is an attempt to weaken the union, at
1098
whatever level such an amount is taken from the union's funds?
Mr. Prentice: The way that I have been putting the argument—I think I prefer my own formulation to that of my hon. Friend—is that the Industrial Relations Act has very serious consequences on industrial relations and many other matters, and that what we are now witnessing is a further consequence—an unforeseen consequence but nevertheless a consequence—of the fact that the Act is on the statute book and that the other events flowed from it.
I was going on to say—
Mr. Wyn Roberts rose—
Mr. Prentice: I think I should get on. I intend to make a number of controversial comments in this debate and to tread on quite a number of toes on that side and occasionally on some on this side. I beg hon. Members not to interrupt me, because many others want to speak.
I was going on to say, for the third time, that the House is bound to consider the part played by the court itself in these events. I dislike criticising either Sir John Donaldson or any of his colleagues on the bench. I have always regarded the Government as our proper target in these matters, and so far as I am concerned they are still the main target in this debate. Indeed, it has been my view over the last 18 months that what is basically wrong is not the character and conduct of the president of the court but the existence of the court itself.
Any High Court judge presiding over that court and trying to interpret this wretched Act will inevitably become involved in judgments which become the subjects of political controversy and in conduct which brings the reputation of the law itself into disrepute. That is the inevitable nature of the job, rather than of the man who is doing it.
However, having said that, there are two criticisms which must go on the record in relation to these events. They are mild criticisms and do not add up, in my view, to a case demanding a motion for his dismissal. But they are criticisms that I feel bound to make.
First, the court took an unusual course in deciding that the sequestration should be under its own control and not that

1099
of the other party to the dispute. I am advised that normally the administration of a sequestration order is in the hands of the other party and that this is a very unusual, almost unique, procedure.
In his judgment, Sir John Donaldson gave two reasons for following this unusual procedure. First of all, he said, since an industrial dispute was involved and bearing in mind that the two sides had to work together in the period ahead, he did not want them to be at arms' length from each other over the collection of money. He thought it was better that it should be done by another technique. I am paraphrasing, but, I hope, accurately.
Second, he said, the public interest was more closely involved in industrial relations matters than in normal civil litigation and therefore he felt that he had to take a personal responsibility for the sequestration. Therefore, he gave instructions to the commissioners whom he had appointed to seize £100,000 of the union's funds.
The point that I make in criticism of Sir John Donaldson is that he should have included in those instructions a specific instruction not to touch money that belonged to any earmarked or protected funds. He should have told the commissioners to avoid the political fund and also the staff pension fund, which it would have been equally improper to take for this purpose.
It is not sufficient for him to say, as he said in his speech in Glasgow the other night, that he had no knowledge of any political fund or of where it was invested. Having taken this responsibility, he had a duty to be aware of the danger of this course of action, to safeguard against it and to anticipate it by giving instructions to the commissioners along the lines I have mentioned.
My second criticism is that it was improper of Sir John Donaldson to make a speech in Glasgow on 26th November to explain and defend his action. A simple principle is involved. If a judge feels that he needs to correct what he considers to be false impressions arising from one of his judgments, the place for him to correct those impressions is in open court. The parties to the action can then be invited
1100
to make representations to him if they choose to do so.
Sir John could have acted as other judges have acted in the past, and made clear the reasons for some previous action, if he thought that necessary in a manner which would have been subject to the ordinary processes of law. There is no appeal against an after-dinner speech. I suggest that to make an after-dinner speech of that nature was wrong and a bad precedent. We must all hope that other judges will not follow Sir John Donaldson's example.
I have sympathy with the argument that judges should not be criticised publicly, because they have no right of reply. That is one of the reasons which led me to decide not to sign the early day motion to which reference has been made. I believe that argument is weakened, however, by the kind of public speech made by Sir John Donaldson on 26th November.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that had the AUEW appeared in court in the first place it is possible that the fine would not have been imposed? Is it not totally illogical for him to suggest that Sir John should have made his speech to the two parties in court?
Mr. Prentice: I said earlier that my personal view is that the AUEW should appear in court. That is not the subject of the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) will take part in the debate. In the meantime, I put it to her that there is a chain of events leading to the sequestration of £100,000. It is not right for anyone to look at one link in the chain and say that that is entirely to blame. The chain begins essentially with the Act. One event in the chain was the action of the judge, which I consider to be inappropriate and unsatisfactory for the reasons which I have given. The hon. Member for Lancaster can argue, if she wishes; that the AUEW should appear in court. In another context I have made that argument myself. As I have said, that is not the subject of the debate.
The Con-Mech dispute is still not settled after all the heavy-handed manoeuvres of the last few weeks, after all the focusing of national publicity on a tiny factory with a handful of employees. It

1101
is a dispute which in the old days would hardly have rated mention in the local newspapers. Here we have in a nutshell our complaint against the Act. It causes many problems and difficulties, it causes enormous damage, and it still cannot solve a problem which should have been sorted out locally and in a much smoother fashion.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible for the AUEW to purge its contempt of the court once the men have gone back to work? If my right hon. Friend remembers the contempt arose from the refusal of the AUEW to order men back to work. Once they have gone back to work the AUEW cannot purge the contempt which was created. Is my right hon. Friend aware that before the money was sequestrated the court got in touch with the Government and discussed the matter with them?
Mr. Prentice: I have concentrated my remarks on what is wrong with the Government, what is wrong with the Act and, to some extent, what is wrong with the court. I do not want to start to discuss what the AUEW can or cannot do. I may be tempted to say what is wrong with the AUEW. I would rather my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) did not tempt me down that path. We take a different view of such matters. That is known publicly. We should not take the time of the House on that matter. That is why I will not be led down that path by my hon. Friend or Conservative hon. Members.
I shall reiterate briefly the general argument that the Labour Party has against the retention of the Industrial Relations Act. I can do so with brevity because we have ploughed over these furrows many times in the past. First, the Act has played a major part in the chaotic state of industrial relations in the past three years. The Act has made a reality out of the myth—it was a myth for many years—that the British working people were particularly strike prone.
By all the international comparisons which have been made by the ILO and other organisations, it is plain that Britain has had a low strike record for a long time. If we take the 10 years from 1962
1102
to 1971 inclusive, we were about halfway in the league table. We were higher in the league table than we need have been because of the increase in strikes towards the end of that period. In 1972, which was the first year of the Industrial Relations Act, Britain lost about 24 million days in industrial disputes. That was the highest total for any year since the General Strike of 1926. It was the highest total of any industrial country in the world in proportion to its population. That was a direct result of the confrontation policy of the Government both in terms of the Act and in terms of related policy.
The second general point is that whenever the Act has been used in any major dispute it has made things worse rather than better. During the railway dispute of last year the manoeuvres of the Government and the court to produce a cooling-off period and a compulsory ballot delayed for two months the settlement of the dispute. It was eventually settled in June on terms available to the parties in April.
The docks strike of last year was totally unnecessary. It arose from action in the Industrial Relations Court at the very moment when the Jones-Aldington Committee had practically concluded its work on settling the main issues in dispute between the two sides. I challenge Conservative hon. Members to tell me of any instance when the two parties in dispute have found the Act to be of help.
Conservative hon. Members will probably say that the provisions for unfair dismissal are a help. Of course they are. That is why they were in the Labour Party's 1970 legislation. That is why they were lifted from the legislation. Those provisions should remain. When the Labour Party talks about repealing the Act it is speaking about not that part of it but the rest of it. Everybody knows that, although some Conservative hon. Members try to pretend otherwise.
As a result of the dangers arising from the Act—for example, the railway situation and the docks situation—and because it has been seen to be so damaging, it appears that the Government now dare not use it. It seems that they have not dared to use it for some time in relation to any of the industrial problems which face Britain. Earlier this year we have

1103
seen the gasworkers' dispute and the hospital workers' dispute. The Government did not go for a ballot or a cooling-off period. In the miners' dispute, the electricity workers' dispute and other disputes now going on they are not going for a ballot or a cooling-off period—or are they? I challenge Conservative hon. Members to try to make a case for the relevance of the Act in the context of the real problems facing industrial relations in Britain.
The employers' organisations take the same view. In fact, every sane and rational employer stays out of the court. The Act which was supposed to bring in a new and better era of industrial relations is so dangerous and so explosive that neither the employers nor the Government who invented it are prepared to make use of its provisions.
My fourth point is that as long as the Act is on the statute book someone somewhere will be stupid enough to use it. That person may be a disgruntled individual such as Mr. Goad or a stupid employer such as the manager of Con-Mech. When they do so we have to go once again through the whole sequence of a tiny legal issue being blown up into a national crisis and causing disproportionate damage to industrial relations without even the original issue being solved.
My fifth point arises from a recent decision of the National Industrial Relations Court which merited more discussion than it has had. I refer to the court's decision on 20th November to award damages to General Aviation Services, those damages being payable by the Transport and General Workers Union arising out of the loss of General Aviation Services' business at Heathrow Airport. If the Con-Mech sequestration reminds us of the Osborne judgment, this decision takes us back to the Taff Vale case, and it follows the extraordinary decision of the House of Lords in the Heaton case last year. We are lucky not to have had more cases of this kind in the interval.
What is the doctrine of that decision which was applied recently in the GAS case? It is that any loss incurred by an employer or by another party as a result of the actions of shop stewards
1104
is the liability of the union concerned even though the union concerned had not endorsed or approved of that local action, and presumably even in cases where at national level the union concerned was unaware of the action. The concept enshrined in these decisions is that a union is a kind of army with the general secretary as a field marshal who can give orders to all those acting throughout the country—in the case of the Transport and General Workers Union, a vast union covering dozens of different industries all over the country—and that somehow the union at the centre has to be responsible for all those actions.
If that kind of decision is repeated and we get a rash of similar decisions we can expect the eventual break-up of effective trade union organisation. I ask the new Secretary of State to look especially at the GAS decision and to seek advice on what the consequences of it would be for the structure and the future of trade unionism, and he should ask himself whether he wants to go down that road.
My sixth and final point is that in this debate we should consider the effect of the Industrial Relations Act on our respect for the law. I do not wish to trespass on the matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), on which, you, Mr. Speaker, have promised a ruling tomorrow. I do not think that I am trespassing on it if I say that, having read the Lord Chancellor's remarks, I think that he is entitled to ask for the maximum respect for the law, and in general terms I support him to the hilt. However, he and his Cabinet colleagues have to ask themselves, what contribution this Government have made to respect for the law in the past three years. I put it to the House that the most damaging blow to our respect for the law was the passage of the Industrial Relations Act. If the law is to be respected it must not be an ass. This law has been proved to be an ass over and over again and at ever-increasing frequency. The Lord Chancellor and his Cabinet colleagues who introduced this proposal have to face their responsibility for what they have done to damage respect for the law.
Whatever else one may think of the episode last summer when five dockers'

1105
shop stewards went to gaol, no one can claim—or can they?—that it was anything else than bad for respect for the law that they went to gaol for contempt of court, that a few days later they came out of gaol without purging their contempt, and that they went straight back on the picket line and proceeded with the very actions for which they had been committed in the first place. I do not intend to discuss the merits of their actions or the industrial aspects of them, but an Act which is so manifestly absurd as to have those effects will diminish respect for the law.
I began by suggesting to the new Secretary of State that he ought to argue with his colleagues for a change of course, and especially for the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act. In the event—I am afraid, the likely event—that this does not happen, let me repeat the pledge that has been given many times from this Dispatch Box in the past year or two. It is that in the very early months of a Parliament with a Labour majority the Act will be repealed.
Let me repeat what I said recently in the debate on the Gracious Speech. The repeal should not be seen in isolation. This is not a negative act of policy. In the Bill that we bring forward to repeal the Act, which we have in an advanced form of drafting, we shall make provision for the establishment of a new conciliation and arbitration service appointed by the Government but thereafter independent from day-to-day political interference, available to give help at national or local level in the solution of disputes. That Bill will be followed by other Bills concerned with the protection of the worker and our measures to provide for an advance towards an industrial democracy.
Our concept is that the urgent repeal of the Industrial Relations Act should be seen as the first step to the development of more constructive and co-operative relationships in industry in place of the senseless confrontation into which we have been plunged by the divisive policies of the Conservative Government.
4.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. William Whitelaw): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) for his very kind
1106
welcoming remarks. He is right to say that together many years ago we debated similar Acts which I believe have gained considerable acceptance in the industrial affairs of our country. I have in mind the Industrial Training Act, the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act and the Contracts of Employment Act. There were differences on all of them, but over the years they have been seen to have made their contribution.
I understand that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is to wind up the debate. Nothing that he says about me in my new rôle will take away from my gratitude to him for what he said and did and the help that he gave me in my old rôle. But I quite understand that we are in a different place today.
I have no doubt about the gravity of the task which faces me. We are embarking upon a straight party political confrontation. That in itself is fair enough. Sometimes this House serves the nation well by bringing out and arguing all the conflicting views. But there are other occasions when a united House of Commons stands up for the interests of the nation as a whole. Sometimes in the past Ministers of all parties holding my appointment have received that backing, and often it has been in the interests of the nation as a whole that they should. But that is not for today. Today we are debating basically the Industrial Relations Act, on particular aspects of which the right hon. Gentleman laid great stress.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me for some cogent replies, and it is right that I should put before the House as I understand them the issues which divide the Government and the Opposition in what is undoubtedly a key area of social policy.
This debate also gives us the opportunity to remember and to reiterate the principles upon which the Act is founded and to test anew whether it can be held that these principles are wrongly based or that the law itself has no place in providing a surer basis for the conduct of industrial relations in the interests of the community as a whole, including trade unions and their members. Above all the debate gives us an opportunity to look at the facts about this Act and perhaps to demolish some of the myths.

1107
I think that it is commonly agreed throughout the House that this Government came to office at a time when there was a widespread demand in the country for an effective reform of industrial relations. There were widely evident situations in many industries where the energies of both managements and trade union leaders were being dissipated unnecessarily in almost ceaseless conflict, with the community often the shuttlecock, not only in the short term, but in the longer term, because of the self-inflicted economic damage.
The Opposition, when in Government, had made no different analysis of the situation—this must be accepted by Opposition Members—until they were dissuaded from taking action by pressures from within the trade union movement. They had seen no other alternative before that but to try to establish a rudimentary framework of law. There was clearly a desire on their part to provide for a greater certainty in the conduct of industrial releations in the interest of the community as a whole.
When the Government came into power, the need, as we saw it in a growingly complex and inter-related industrial society, was to provide for a surer framework of conduct strengthened by a clearer concept of mutual and inter-dependent freedom and obligation of a kind already established in many other countries.
It must be right in the context of the debate again to set out clearly what the Act does, and some of the things which it has achieved. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the motion calls for the total repeal of the Act. That is the motion which we are debating, and it must be looked at in that context.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: Nothing less will do.
Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman says that nothing less will do. But his right hon. Friend not only says that the Act would be repealed but adds that the Opposition, if in Government, would take certain other action. We must look at the matter in that context.
Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman inferring—since he is defending the Industrial Relations Act in so dedicated a way—that, bearing in mind
1108
events of the past two years, the Government would, if they were starting again, introduce precisely the same kind of Act?
Mr. Whitelaw: Before the right hon. Gentleman assails me on that point he had better listen to what I am about to say. I had said that I would tell the House what the Act does. I also propose to claim what the Act has achieved. It is important to look at the whole case as it stands.
First, let us look at what the Act does. It gives a clear recognition in law to the system of collective bargaining—no one can doubt that—as the surest means yet devised for individuals to come together to seek jointly to regulate with employers the terms and conditions of their relationship to common advantage. From this premise the Act opens further the way for trade unions to recruit and organise more extensively and represent their members' interests effectively. The Act also establishes new rights for individuals and extends other rights—for example, the right of fair treatment within a union, or on seeking to join it, and protection against unfair dismissal, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
The Act also seeks, on the voluntary agreement of the parties, to establish a greater certainty in the agreements which they reach together. It provides processes whereby some of the most bitter problems can be resolved by rational and peaceable means without the need for conflict. If Members of the Opposition think that that is not so, what about the recognition issues, the establishment of procedural arrangements and the protections against unfair dismissal? Are the Opposition saying that these things have not been achieved? They have been achieved.
The Act sets modest, but important, limitations on the use of industrial power by management or unions in limited circumstances when attempts to resolve an issue by force could be accounted manifestly unfair or unnecessary. As the gateway to the use of all the provisions of the Act and its full protection, the only requirement on trade unions was to register. There is no compulsion on registration. Trade unions have the democratic right to decide whether or not to register.

1109
But the questions to be asked are whether unions now affiliated to the TUC were wise in deciding not to register and whether they best served their own, and their members' interests, by adopting so negative a posture. The requirement of registration cannot be held to be onerous. All that is asked is that in voluntarily framing their own rules they should ensure, as responsible bodies, that members and potential members are treated in accord with principles of natural justice—that is, that the rules should guard against arbitrary or unreasonable treatment of individuals seeking membership and of individuals in membership. There is also the requirement that the rules should be framed to show clearly where decisions as to the possible use of their great strength rested. What can be wrong in all that? Nothing at all.
I turn to what the Act has achieved. It is very important, as the right hon. Member for East Ham, North said, that we should face up to the other side of the ledger and see what the Act has achieved. The right hon. Gentleman selectively produced a number of matters in which he believed the Act had not helped. I am equally entitled to produce some areas in which I believe the Act has had successes. Fifteen thousand individuals have sought redress for unfair dismissal and complainants have obtained remedies in about 40 per cent. of completed cases. My predecessor recently announced that we now propose, subject to consultations, to reduce the qualifying period for this protection from 104 weeks to 52.
The Code of Practice, as well as the Act's provisions, have forced management to rethink policies and practices and have, in many cases, brought about significant improvements in industrial relations. The Industrial Relations Court, which has been criticised, has had considerable success, mostly unpublicised, in resolving difficult disputes. Of more than 100 complaints of unfair industrial practice, about 50 cases have been settled, or withdrawn, after conciliation. In some of these cases recognition is being obtained without industrial action. I would have thought that these were considerable achievements.
Mr. Cyril Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate on which side of the balance sheet he places the 24
1110
million days lost due to strike action in 1972?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am putting on one side of the balance sheet some of those facts which many people like to ignore when talking about the total repeal of the Act. They ignore—conveniently from their point of view—many of the factors which have done much good for industrial relations.
Mr. Heffer: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that throughout the passage of the Industrial Relations Act the Opposition never at any time argued against the provisions relating to unfair dismissal? On the contrary, we argued that those provisions should be strengthened, and we pointed out that one of the basic weaknesses in the Act's provisions on unfair dismissal was that they included nothing that would bring about the reinstatement of workers. Yet this was one of the fundamental issues of unfair dismissal. We have never said at any time that we were not in favour of the provisions about unfair dismissal. While we say that the Act should be repealed, we have always argued that it should be replaced, particularly in relation to unfair dismissal.
Mr. Whitelaw: I will answer that simply by pointing out that the motion calls for the total repeal of the Act. If the Opposition call for total repeal, we are entitled to point out some of the good features of the Act which would be destroyed by repeal. That is a perfectly proper position to hold.
It can also be argued that the effect of the Act has been to do a considerable amount of good on many issues which have never been brought to court—for example, cases in which employers have settled when otherwise they would not have done. That is something which will receive the approval of both tides of the House.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Before he finishes will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which parts of the Act are open to negotiation by the Government? Which parts do they agree are defective and ought to be repaired?
Mr. Whitelaw: I will make my speech in my own way. I would not be fair to the House or to myself if I did not

1111
say that it is right that I should hear the views of the House. The Opposition have chosen a Supply Day on which to debate the Industrial Relations Act, and it is right that, on the second day I have held my new job, I should listen to the arguments—I hope they will be constructive—about the future of the Act. I am certainly prepared to listen to the arguments. That is any answer to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).
I turn now to the industrial court. No doubt some hon. Members in the debate will seek to cloud some of the central issues by endeavouring to show that the court, in some way of its own motion, has acted to the detriment of industrial relations generally and of trade unions as institutions in particular. It must be said at once to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North that the Government properly and rightly accept responsibility for the Act and are ready to receive and rebut criticisms of it. The court does no more and no less than administer the Act passed by this House. The proper target for attack is the Government, who steered the Act through the House and stand by it.
I do not believe that in this situation there is any justification for the Opposition attacking the court. To suggest that the court has a purpose of its own is both a contitutional and an actual nonsense. To seek to assail it, as some do, is a dangerous exercise. The right target—and the right hon. Gentleman said so—is Her Majesty's Government. That is the target—not the court.
The right hon. Gentleman then spoke about the Con-Mech case. No doubt much more will be said about it during the debate and about the action of the court. It is therefore right to recall exactly what did happen.
The AUEW not only neglected to represent its members' interests but also deliberately chose not to obey the court's order to end industrial action. The union being in contempt, the court had no alternative but to impose a fine.
It was a clear situation in law. No assets of any institution or any individual can be protected. What protection, can it be sensibly argued, should be provided by the law for the material assets of an institution which acts in defiance
1112
of the courts? To argue otherwise surely compounds the nonsense. This situation is not a consequence of the Act. It is common to any act of contempt against any ; court.
No doubt it will be suggested that in some way there was a deliberate decision to sequestrate part of the union's political funds. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will deal with that aspect in more detail, but if that argument is put forward then it is surely a contrived argument to obscure the union's responsibility for its own actions. Everyone in life is responsible for his own actions.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain, while he is on the Con-Mech case, why Sir John Donaldson has changed the rules of sequestration so that he is now solely responsible in future for the obtaining of all moneys in this regard? Why has Sir John Donaldson changed the rules?
Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that Sir John says it is in the public interest that it should be done by the court. My right hon. and learned Friend will reply to that point. I think it is proper that he should.
Mr. John Mendelson: It is not good enough to say that the Attorney-General will reply to the point. The right hon. Gentleman should have information about these matters before he makes condemnatory statements.
Mr. Whitelaw: I believe that I made a perfectly fair statement of the position—that people are responsible for their own actions—and I stand by it.
I now turn to the Opposition's view of why the Act should be repealed.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: rose—
Mr. Whitelaw: I have given way many times. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then no more.
Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman has quietly slipped away from Con-Mech. Can he tell us how he will solve the dispute there?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have not quietly slipped away from the Con-Mech case. I have quietly slipped on to the next point of my speech. I think that I

1113
should in all senses now return to the central point of the motion. There is something of a smokescreen about the motion in calling for total repeal of the Act. We all know that the motion was put down for other purposes. But that is what it says.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North has not put forward any detailed proposals. He talked about draft proposals being in an advanced state. It is right to say that we should consider those proposals when they come out, but he cannot expect us to comment on proposals which we have not seen. I am entitled to say to the Opposition, "Let us at least see your proposals." But as yet we have not seen them, and until the Opposition show them to us, we cannot comment on them. What the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech does not spell out a policy on industrial relations which would replace an Act totally repealed. It was rather surprising that the right hon. Gentleman should have returned to the old formula of saying that the Opposition have proposals in draft which they hope to bring forward soon. I can only reply that we must consider them when they are made.
However, it seems clear already that the Opposition are proposing greater institutional rights and are very ready to erode the rights of the individual in relation to them. Above all, it must be said that there is no sign that the Opposition contemplate any restraint whatever on the exercise of industrial power, whatever the objective, against whomsoever it might be directed, including trade union members, whether taken by democratic decision or within the rules of a union or not, whether reflecting members' wishes or not, and whatever the consequences to the community as a whole. This is the charge that the Opposition will have to answer, and it is one on which the country will again give a very decided verdict.
Mr. Neil McBride:rose—
Mr. Whitelaw: I have given way a great deal and am now going to finish my speech.
Mr. McBride: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Whitelaw: Very well. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then no more.
Mr. McBride: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman says that rules have to be changed by democratic means or within the rules of a union, he makes by inference a distinction invidious to the unions. He infers that they are not democratic, and as a member of the most democratic trade union in the world I resent that.
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think I made any such imputation. If I did, I withdraw it, but I do not consider that I did anything of the kind.
I wish to make clear the Government's position. We remain as decided as we were on the passage of the Act that this country badly needs a sure framework for the conduct of industrial relations. I do not believe it is doubted throughout the House that we need a better balance, not in terms of power but in the measured rights and responsibilities between the individual and his employer and union, between the powers which a union and an employer jointly can command and the obligations which the community as a whole can require. We continue to believe that the law has a rôle in industrial relations, as it has in a wide sweep of human activities, to provide a fair and acceptable framework of conduct. We remain convinced that the basic principles of the framework established by the Industrial Relations Act are right and necessary.
We are ready, in the light of experience of operation of the Act, to contemplate any sensible amendment. We never held that it would be possible, given our history, the acuteness of the problems and the complexity of industrial relations, to frame legislation necessarily correct in every particular.
Mr. Prentice: Is the Secretary of State saying that the Government will study amendments put forward by others, or is he reiterating what was said by his predecessor, that the Government despite all the experience of the past eighteen months, have no proposals to amend the Act?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have said that we are prepared, in the light of experience,

1115
to consider any sensible amendment. H we have some of our own, we shall bring them forward to the House.
Mr. James Sillars: Where are they?
Mr. Whitelaw: If I am asked by the Opposition, "Where are they?", I am entitled to say to them, "Where are the Opposition's proposals?" The right hon. Member for East Ham, North made it clear again this afternoon that the Opposition's proposals are still at a draft stage and we have not yet heard what they would do. We are told that their proposals are in the vaguest form. The Opposition know this to be true.
Mr. George Grant: The right hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the place of the law within the industrial relations framework. Do the Government realise one basic principle—namely, that one can drive a horse to water but cannot make it drink it?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. George Grant) and his right hon. and hon. Friends must appreciate that just before the 1970 General Election it was common ground among both Conservative and Labour Members that there was need for action on the law of industrial relations—action very much in the same form as that which was laid down in the original legislation. That was then the position. There are many right hon. and hon. Members who know that was the position then. There are others who did not take that view then, and do not take that view today. Their position is consistent. But those who change their minds are not consistent. We should at least face that hard fact, because it is true.
I believe that we in this country have to accept the simple fact that the vast majority of people expect a greater recognition in the trade union movement that they are of society and not apart from it ; that they are ready to contemplate a wider responsibility than they have done so far—to themselves, their members and the community. I do not doubt that the country will continue to support this view. I do not doubt that the trade union movement will eventually shoulder that responsibility. On that basis, and with that
1116
principle before us, I ask the House decisively to reject what I believe to be a bogus and smokescreen motion.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: I join with other hon. Members in saying how glad we are to see the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment back in the House. However, I do not know whether he is glad to be here in his new capacity, but at least we can say that he brings a fresh mind to bear on this subject.
I intend to get down to issues so that he can address his mind to the subject of this debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that every union was free to register. But it is just because the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers chose not to register that it landed itself in trouble and was mulcted of heavy damages. So much for freedom.
We must also bear in mind that this matter has evoked a great deal of indignation. I appreciate that it would not be in order to debate the other motion, but I should point out that 184 hon. Members have signed that motion on a matter which is seriously felt.
I want to turn to another part of the case. Sir John Donaldson, the President of the Industrial Relations Court, made a speech at the dinner of the Institute of Chartered Accountants on 26th November in Glasgow. It should be noted that he made that speech at a dinner, on a subject which may have been the subject of appeal, and a subject which was due to be debated in this House. The Guardian reported that Sir John Donaldson
"… did not understand the complaint—being made by some AUEW MPs—that the money was from the union's political funds and should not have been taken."
Had that been allowed to stand there is no doubt we would have had an issue of privilege before Mr. Speaker, because it is not for a High Court judge to reflect on the behaviour or actions of Members of Parliament. But I noticed that in the official hand-out there was no reference to "AUEW MPs" but to "some members of the union". Therefore, we must take it on its merits.
The Secretary of State for Employment speaks against a considerable background of experience. I watched with interest on

1117
television the profile on the right hon. Gentleman, as a result of which we came to know the right hon. Gentleman a little better. He responds according to his roots and is the sort of man who learns from his experience. I am the sort of man who has learned from my experience as a result of 55 years' membership of the AUEW. I have stood with my colleagues in the union in good times and bad, and I have a feeling of solidarity with them. Although it may be completely academic to say that my union should have gone to the court—although this is not contained in the motion—I can understand the steps and the train of thought that led them to their present situation.
It is worth remembering that the union represented people long before there was a franchise in this country. This was the union that first gave a Member of Parliament a salary—I refer to John Burns. It should be realised that from the time of the great Reform Bill to the foundations of the Labour Party the trade unions were the defenders of the poor. And they were more than that, for they defended the voteless proletariat and the peasantry. Whenever political fortunes turn against its members, they turn back to their old defences. After all, the strike weapon is still legal in this country. So it is with the miners. With this Government in power the only method of protest is to strike.
The Trades Union Congress laid down the law. It said that unions were free to register or not to register. My union, with most of the other big industrial unions, decided not to register. The TUC said that unions could go to the court if they wished. Some did. It was not said that they had to go to the court.
It is no use the president of the court arguing that he was not concerned with sequestration and that this was the responsibility of his underlings. No Minister could argue in the House that he was not responsible for his civil servants. Everyone, including the president of the court, must be responsible for the consequences of his own acts.
The president of the court has gone to a great deal of trouble to tell us how the court works. He described how the court sequestrates money and said that the powers of the court are not exercised
1118
by a single judge but by a bench of three consisting of a judge and two industrial members. Did he consult them about the sequestration? They are supposed to know something about industrial relations. He said that the court decided to appoint four eminent chartered accountants as sequestrators and instructed them to take possession of £100,000 of the union's assets.
Sir John Donaldson is not unused to controversy. He could easily have ensured that the fine was taken from the general funds of the union. Earlier the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) asked a question which I will now answer. He asked how we knew that the fine was taken out of the political fund. It is a separate fund and the cheque was made out to Hebburn UDC, so it was known. That is the simple answer. If Sir John Donaldson or Master Seaton were here they could not argue against the fact that that was the last investment that the union had made and that it was the easiest one to pick up.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for jumping in where his right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) feared to tread. With respect, that is not the answer to the question that I put. The question was : did the sequestrators know that it was part of the political fund? All they knew was that it was money out on loan at call to a local authority. The fact that the cheque was drawn to the local authority on the political fund does not of itself show that the sequestrators had that knowledge.
Mr. Pannell: My answer is that they had a flat duty to find out. They might have impounded the union's superannuation fund and put the benefits of aged members at risk.
Mr. McBride Mr. McBride rose—
Mr. Pannell: I will not give way to my hon. Friend. I have quite enough to do. I am sure that he will be able to make his speech later.
The sequestrators could have found out where the money came from. We cannot accept an infallible, remote judge at the top taking no notice of the consequences of his action.

1119
The reference to Con-Mech is worth recalling. The Department of Employment no longer conciliates. The great general secretaries of the trade unions now have no place to go. They have been pitchforked into the court. But with this adverse judgment and fine of £100,000, does anybody imagine that the unions will stay silent? When the Act was passed did anybody imagine that, as great constitutionalists, we would go back to our constituency Labour Parties, stay quiet, and not raise a bleep until the General Election? The majority of pictures around this place portray those who have revolted against the authority of this House. People do not take these things sitting down. They rise and go on strike.
What happened after this judgment was delivered? Quite freely, 1 million members of my union came out on strike. That was an unnecessary strike in the circumstances, but they rose, as men rose in the past, because that was their only form of protest.
I respect democracy in this place, but I suggest that the Conservatives, who were returned by about 47 per cent. of the electorate, should bear in mind the consequences of their own acts. Industrial relations matters go deep and almost into the past. Now, because of their blundering, they have impounded £100,000 of the Labour Party's money. Knowing the record of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and recalling the old days of the political levy, I imagine there is some smug satisfaction about that.
Mr. Peter Rees: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the ordinary member of his union should be prejudiced more because the money was sequestrated from the political fund than if it had come from the general fund?
Mr. Pannell: The answer was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). The general fund is contributed to by all members of the union. If any punishment is to be inflicted it should be inflicted on the whole of the union. The political fund is made up of contributions by members who have opted to pay into it. Therefore, if the punishment is
1120
inflicted on the political fund, not all members of the trade union are equally punished. That is the injustice of it.
The offending firm, Con-Mech, was found to be in the wrong by the CIR. The Secretary of State did not mention that. I think that in common fairness he should have done so. The court has taken no action to bring the parties together. Judges often bring parties together. It would have been easy for the court to say, "We will adjourn this case. The parties had better get together." But it blithely went ahead and slapped a fine of £100,000 on the union, almost peremptorily. The union merely wanted to meet the management.
Con-Mech consists of 30 to 35 men with an arrogant boss who thinks that he can run his own show completely. I met such situations in the old days. I met people who refused workers the basic trade union right to be represented, so I pulled them out. There was no difficulty. That was the rule. It was justice. It may have been rough justice, but it was justice. In this case we do not get justice. The matter goes on and the parties are not brought together. Sir John Donaldson could have brought them together. Week after week we read about cases in which a judge says, "I think the parties had better meet", and he defers the matter.
Sir John Donaldson did not do that. The fine goes on the union and the arrogant contempt of the court by Con-Mech is allowed. There was far more contempt of court by the boss of Con-Mech than ever there was by my union. My union's funds have been dealt with in many courts. But we considered that this court was a political court from the beginning and that a protest was to be made in the most exemplary terms.
A case could be made that we could have avoided this if we had attended the court and been represented. Had we done so I believe that we should have won the case. But the Government had better tell that to the Transport and General Workers' Union, which went to court and got fined £100,000. I cannot say too much about that. However, in passing, it does not strike me as being a just judgment.
With regard to the court's decision, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of

1121
State will remember that when we were discussing the guillotine motion I said that the Bill ought to have been five Bills and that every Bill deserved a protracted parliamentary sitting. Something that was never envisaged on either side of the House was the mischief that the court would do. We had long debates on other aspects of the Bill, but that was not one upon which we fastened. The industrial court suffered from the guillotine. The House did not discuss it at the time. In effect, even taking into account the House of Lords, in which things are more leisurely, the clause establishing the court was Clause 195, which was discussed in Committee on 27th May 1971, when amendments were moved by my noble Friend Lord Diamond. The discussion lasted for just under three hours in that place, where the wicked rest and the weary cease their suffering.
The schedule which concerned the court was discussed in the House of Lords on 8th June 1971 for about 70 minutes. There is not a great deal of industrial experience in the House of Lords—any more than there was in the intervention of a few minutes ago. Yet the court appears in a whole series of sections. It appears in Sections 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42 to 45 and 46 to 50. It hardly entered into discussion. Words had no significance beyond their meaning in the Bill. That is what we had here and the court, which has done more mischief than anything else, was not discussed.
I could continue to make a long speech about the mischief that the Act has done, about how it has literally promoted strikes and has lent itself to all sorts of doubtful artifices. When the Official Solicitor had to come in concerning the five dockers, we knew that this was a time of great danger to the country if there was a dock strike. But that was not settled on any legal basis. It was settled on a contemptible political stratagem to save the Government's face. We live in a world of charade and pretence. The motion was signed by 180 Members. I notice that those who have led off against them are the lawyers. This place needs fewer lawyers and more engineers. They are the weft and woof of this sort of place. The Government reckon without the real people in this country.
1122
This does not seem to be a realistic Act. I can only hope that when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State comes again to the House he will have refreshed himself in London, having got away from the bogs of old Ireland. I only hope that his successor, when trying to form with all the goodwill in the world the Council of Ireland, is rather better briefed than the right hon. Gentleman was this afternoon.
5.4 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I start by associating myself warmly and sincerely with the good wishes expressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the assumption of his important office, particularly so because I have followed his political career with affection and admiration since he started upon it all those years ago in the Department in which I was then serving. As Leslie Hore-Belisha remarked in a note which he was kind enough to send to me in somewhat similar circumstances, whether that be found to be a a matter for encouragement or otherwise is quite another question.
The motion is a compendium of criticism—criticism of the Act and of the court and its methods of enforcement. I propose to restrict my observations to that latter aspect. In that context, to see whether there is substance in the criticisms contained in the motion, we have to find the answers to three questions.
The first question is, was the order of the court a lawful order within its jurisdiction and duty to decide? The second question is, if it were so, was it disobeyed by a party under a legal duty to obey? The third question is, were the steps taken to correct and contain such disobedience lawful steps? If the answers to those questions are all "Yes". as I shall submit they are, there can be no legitimate criticism of the action of the court. That does not mean that there will be no criticism. I meant that there will be no justifiable criticism. After all, it is no surprise if unsuccessful litigants express dissatisfaction with the operation and even the institution of courts. I gather that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) disagrees. He is much too intelligent to try to present his observations from a sedentary position and in an incoherent way. If he can resist the temptation to rise I

1123
shall be grateful ; but if he insists, I shall give way.
Mr. John Mendelson: I did not want to delay the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I expect from him, as he showed during the long debates on the Act, the kind of contribution which does not start by making life too easy for himself. The shoddy accusation that what is involved here is merely the disappointment of unsuccessful litigants is not up to his usual standards.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is only one of my ancillary points. I have a great armoury of irresistible points. Indeed, I am a little disappointed. I like to have a weak case, because that is what calls forth the ingenuity of the advocate. Here I have a strong case, as will appear if hon. Members opposite will have the patience to listen to the analysis of the relevant questions which I have propounded.
Mr. McBride: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I should like to continue. However, the hon. Gentleman is an old friend, in everything except a parliamentary sense.
Mr. McBride: I was interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about disappointed litigants. He knows that I respect his view on the law and he knows that in law this political fund of my trade union is protected by two measures which are part of the statute law of this country. He cannot deny that.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to Section 3 of the Trade Union Act 1913, as frequently amended. I shall come to that point presently, but I should be serving the House better if I followed the pattern of my argument, which I have presented on the three questions. I want to take them in order.
As to the first question, there is no suggestion that the court, either in the Con-Mech case or in any of its predecessors, Heaton or the others, was not dealing with a matter which it had a duty in law to decide. The fact that one party chooses not to appear is unfortunate and unhelpful to the due processes of the law, but it is irrelevant to the question of the duty of the court.
1124
The second question can be dealt with equally shortly. The union not only admits disobedience of the order of the court but proclaims it and exults in it.
That brings us to the question whether the steps taken to correct it were lawful, and that needs a little more explanation. The Industrial Court is constituted as a Superior Court of Record under paragraph 13 of the Third Schedule of the Act, and that gives it the power to fine. Then under paragraph 27 we see,
"In relation to … the enforcement of its orders, and all other matters incidental to its jurisdiction under this Act, the Industrial Court shall have the like powers, rights, privileges and authority—(a) in England and Wales, as the High Court".
Those powers include the powers of sequestration, and sequestration as a method of execution has its origins deep in the roots of English legal history. It is one of the basic forms of execution set out in detail in Order 46 of the rules of the Supreme Court. Other forms of execution there may be which deserve the terms "exceptional" or "esoteric", but not, I submit, this one. There are others to which no doubt the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will address himself in his new-found enthusiasm for these matters. There are, for example, venditioni exponas, distringas nuper vicecomitem and capias ad satisfaciendum. Those might be considered esoteric and unusual, but the writ of sequestration is basic. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) fairly said, that normally its operation is at the initiation of the parties. But again, as he said, Sir John Donaldson gave in his judgment the reasons why in this case the court had to do this.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this is a fairly common form of execution, and indeed it is. But what was unusual in this case was that the court issued out the writ. In doing so, did it not transgress what was a fundamental precept of the Government in presenting the Bill—namely, that it was a civil court which would not exact penalties but would simply issue orders and see that they were enforced at the behest of the parties? If Con-Mech was not issuing out the writ itself and the court was issuing it, was it not thereby inflicting a fine, which

1125
the Government said they never intended should happen?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is going back to les travaux préparatoires, but we have to interpret the law as Parliament enacted it. I had already made the point—and the right hon. Gentleman already made it—that this was not the normal initiation of a writ of sequestration. The reasons for that are dealt with in Sir John's judgment already referred to—that the public nature of the issues in this court and the matters with which it deals means that if the court did not initiate the writ there might be no remedy when the court was held in contempt, and no court can exist on a basis such as that.
I come to the question of the property taken. The extent of the property that can be taken by sequestration is very wide indeed. It is described in Halsbury, which states :
"Under a writ of sequestration the contemnors property of every description may be taken, corporeal or incorporeal … including assets in land, whether freehold … or leasehold … and chattels … including money … and stocks … and whether the contemnors interest therein is legal or equitable."
When the justification for the remedy is so clear and the scope so wide, what is said against it? It is said that the wrong property was taken, because it was taken from the political fund. But we have not been referred to any express statutory protection from sequestration of that fund assuming that it was taken from that fund, as we have been told it was. The right hon. Gentleman used the expression "earmarked and protected". With respect, I accept the epithet "earmarked"—it is an earmarked fund. The superannuation fund is earmarked and probably protected in that sense because it is possibly held in trust for that purpose.
But, as I understand it, the political fund is not protected, if one has regard to the statutory provisions to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) referred a moment ago. If one looks at Section 3 of the 1913 Act, as amended, one finds that the protection afforded there is basically protection by way of limitation, to ensure that funds are not used for political purposes beyond what they should be—not the other way round ; not, for example, protection against the sequestration of a political fund.
1126
Indeed, logically, some might think that the political fund was a most natural source in respect of a contempt which was, at any rate in part, due to a politically motivated action. After all, if the sequestration was not levied against the political fund, it would have had to be levied against the general fund. I am assuming in favour of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, that they did not want it taken out of the pension fund ; that they did not want to put their election expenses ahead of the rights of the widows and orphans. I am giving them credit—
Mr. Norman Atkinson Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham): rose—
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am not refusing to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am merely giving warning to all the other interrogators and searchers for knowledge, that I must have an eye on the clock.
Mr. Atkinson: It is the failure of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to put to the House the difference between the political fund and the normal ordinary funds of the union that makes me want to point out to him that the political fund is irreplaceable for all sorts of reasons, including the rules of the union and the conditions under which political funds are collected. Therefore, what this court has done is to sequestrate political funds which are irreplaceable, and to deny the Labour Party the £100,000 for use during the next General Election. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that that is a good thing, and that the courts ought to be used to inhibit those who are politically opposing himself, then let us understand clearly what he is saying.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman, and any other hon. Gentlemen opposite, must not be under any misapprehension. I do not want to strike away any of the support which they have. I know that they need every bit of support they can dredge up from anywhere, if this House is to see them again after the next election. What I am asking is : if it had been the other way around—and I hope we are on common ground in thinking that the money should not have come out of the pension fund—and it had come out of the general fund,

1127
might there not have been an equivalent outcry, not from hon. Gentlemen opposite but from rank-and-file trade unionists ; for example, those who are not supporters of the Labour Party, because there are many engineers who are not. Some are Tories, some are Liberals and some have no politics at all.
Mr. Atkinson: You have not touched Tory money.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I did not shout out when he was questioning me, so perhaps he will be courteous enough to reciprocate and not do so when I am addressing the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker will not be pleased with me, because my speech will obviously be longer than it would otherwise have been.
But there would have been criticism either way, from whichever fund it was taken. It would have been said, "This has come out of the general fund. Why did it not come out of the political fund?" What we do not know—and I have had no answer to my repeated questions—is whether it is said that the sequestrators knew whether the money on loan, on call, to the local authority came out of the general fund or the political fund. Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman replies at the end of the day he will at last clear up that point.
I submit that this motion on the answers to these questions is fundamentally misconceived. But I consider it to be less odious than Early Day Motion No. 49, in that it lacks the ill-natured and ill-founded personal allusions of that motion to which I have an amendment on the Order Paper, supported by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not know whether the improvement is due to considerations of prudence or, as I would hope, to a more rational realisation of the position of Sir John and the court. In any event I am glad that the printed motion has not persevered in these personal attacks.
Sir John, I am proud to say, is a friend of mine—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: He is a good old Tory.
Mr. Ted Fletcher: He is a good party member.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: He is, like myself, a Master of the Bench of the Middle Temple, as is the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. William Wells), the right hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Sir A. Irvine), and the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), none of whom was present when the right hon. Member for East Ham, North addressed the House. Sir John is a friend of mine but a colder eye than that of friendship could not be blind to his qualities. He is a man of great ability and high integrity and a master of the judicial art. As such he brings to the difficult duties of presiding over the Industrial Court all that he has—and it is much indeed—of experience, judgment, fairness, receptivity and high judicial quality.
We are fortunate in the possession of such a judge and if he should feel the sting of unfair criticism I give him this message from this place—"Be of good cheer : those who by their intemperate criticisms seek to reflect upon you reflect only upon themselves". It is said that Sir John spoke in his own defence at a dinner. What a crime. He is the wicked animal of the French proverb, no doubt—when he is attacked he defends himself. Reflection has been made on his political background. Is it then to be a crime for a judge to have held political opinions when he was free to do so? Are we to demand as a condition of judicial appointment a certificate of apolitical immaculation like the certificates of virginity required in the marriage marts of some Oriental countries?
Mr. Peter Rees Mr. Peter Rees rose—
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I cannot give way because of the time.
Any such requirement would be wholly at variance with past practice and pre sent reason. An interest and involvement in the problems of the country is no bad part of a judge's apprenticeship and is in no way inconsistent with his subsequent detachment when he attains judicial office. I shall give two examples if the House doubts me. Another personal friend of mine and Master of the Bench of the Middle Temple was the late Lord Donovan. I first knew Lord Donovan when he sat opposite me in this House as a Labour M.P. He was made a High Court judge by a Labour

1129
Lord Chancellor and he became an exceptionally fine one. Did I criticise his appointment or his conduct of his judicial office on the ground of his Socialist background? Did I say when the last Labour Government appointed him chairman of the Royal Commission which looked at the question of the trade unions that his political beliefs and participation disqualified him from the fair and honourable discharge of his duties?
Mr. Orme: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, while recounting the record of Lord Donovan, when Lord Donovan, sitting as a High Court judge, ever went outside his court and referred to a case on which he had sat in judgment in that court.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I was not present at all of Lord Donovan's dinners.
I will give the House one further example. When Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas was appointed a judge, did I say that because in former years he and I faced each other night after night across these Dispatch Boxes during the passage of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, that because he was a doughty and respected controversialist of the Labour Party, he was thereby constitutionally incapable of the legal impartiality of the judge? I would have been ashamed to entertain, let alone to utter, such unworthy and unwarranted sentiments.
Therefore I am entitled to say now, and I say it with all the energy and emphasis I can command, let there in the name—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) should occasionally sit quiet and listen. He might learn quite a lot—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. A great deal has to be said and listened to and a great many hon. Members wish to speak. I think we had better listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I say therefore with all the energy and emphasis that I can command, let there in the name of fairness and decency be an end to this personal vituperation.
May I end with some slightly more general comments? This debate raised matters of fundamental importance in
1130
regard to judges and Parliament alike in the maintenance of the fabric of the law. Dicey in his famous classification identified as the twin pillars of our constitution the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law. It has been one of the glories of our country's achievements that without the limitations of a written constitution we have maintained that structure inviolate. How has it been done? It has been done not least by realisation of the clear dichotomy between the processes of law making and the processes of law enforcement. In the first judges play no part ; in the second Parliament plays no part. Only by a preservation of that dichotomy and a self-denying ordinance of respect on the part of all concerned can the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law continue to co-exist.
An illustration of that principle is given by the Industrial Relations Act. The law-making processes were vigorous and protracted. They took place in this Chamber and hon. Members, including myself, participated freely in them—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Salford. West with particular distinction. While I dissented from their conclusions, I gloried in their presentation. In playing their full, vigorous and constructive part in the processes of law making they strengthened the fabric of our law and democracy alike and enriched our constitutional heritage.
Yet with the passing of this Act we entered another and different position. What we then debated became the law of the land. It was not, like the law of the Medes and the Persians, unchangeable. That is not our democratic way. In this country the book is never closed. It is always possible to amend and even to repeal, but only by the same constitutional process by which a law was made. But while it is the law it may not be defied. That is a central requisite of the rule of law.
In that sense the law is indivisible. We cannot practise selectivity. We cannot adopt or reject laws, because that way lies anarchy. One man's preference is another's rejection and soon the whole edifice of the law will crumble. Soon we should be descending to lawlessness, to that state described in the Book of Judges where each man did what was

1131
right in his own eyes. Contempt of a court charged with the duty of enforcement is a defiance of the law and no words can gloss that over—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham, North would do much better if he sometimes took the advice of some sensible lawyers. It might make his contributions here much more worthwhile.
Mr. Arthur Lewis Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: We will talk about it afterwards.
Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must sit down.
Mr. Lewis: Why do not the Government prosecute company directors who are breaking the law?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: If I can make myself audible, I want to conclude.
British people have always been consistent in placing a high premium on the rule of law. Nobody has been allowed to defy the law or to set himself above it however powerful or whatever the strength of the forces behind him. It was not allowed to the king himself, or to the great feudal barons, such as the Warwicks and the Norfolks ; and what was not yielded to them, cannot now be yielded to the latter-day barons of the trade unions. I am sad that it should be necessary to have to remind any element in this House of this elementary but fundamental proposition. I am sadder still to think that there should be any division regarding it.
If nearly 30 years of experience of this House did not convince me of the futility of such exhortation, I would even now, at this eleventh hour, invite the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion and to make a unanimous reaffirmation of the great principles of the rule of law for which this House has traditionally stood. However, if the motion is to be proceeded with, certainly the House should reject it for the thing that it is—a discredited device of a divided and dispirited Opposition.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery): One could not disagree with the trite observations of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D Walker-Smith) about the rule of law at the end of his speech, on the rule of law and Parliament, but he did not deal sufficiently with the supremacy of Parliament. As he reflected on his numerous friends on the High Court bench I could not help thinking that he might do well to advise them that when they give after dinner speeches they should stick to entertaining and not talk about their cases.
In the main body of his speech it seemed that the right hon. and learned Member went out of his way to prove that what the court had done was lawful, whereas he should have established that it had tried to be just. It could be argued that in the case of the Tolpuddle Martyrs the indictment, trial, verdict and sentence were lawful, but the verdict of history is that they were unjust.
The sovereignty of Parliament comes into these matters. We are entitled to consider what the court is doing, particularly when Parliament has set it up, and to ask whether in the ultimate what it is doing is just. That is what the debate, with all its undertones, is about.
No one disputes that all kinds of things are motivating people on both sides. Everyone knows that the union members feel strongly about the Act and will do anything they can to destroy it. They are not particularly concerned about the methods that they use to achieve that objective. The Government are out to maintain the Act whatever happens, and are equally unconcerned about the arguments against it. It is unfortunate that in the country as a whole the National Industrial Relations Court is known only by a few cases and for a few actions.
Although I agree entirely with the Minister, whom I welcome to his position today, in particular may I add that I thought that if anybody was in need of protection from unfair employment, it was the right hon. Gentleman, who was plunged at short notice into this highly controversial debate. But he did as well as anybody could in the circumstances—which is not to say that he did very well.
Three learned judges sit in the Industrial Relations Court. The vast majority

1133
of cases that they deal with do not hit the public eye. Many of those cases are worth while and rewarding. No hon. Member can doubt that in the Act, whatever criticisms there are of it, there is much good material. On Second Reading of the Bill I said that one section of the Bill had been oversold during the election, and was presented as a panacea to solve all our industrial problems. Its value had been grossly exaggerated, and it had been equally grossly attacked by the Opposition who would not hear anything said to its advantage. We are now reaping the benefit of all its bitterness.
We have put the judiciary in an impossible position. We have asked a court to be both judge and industrial conciliator. The duty of a judge is to decide a case between two warring parties. When those parties are unable to agree, the judge brings the guillotine down fairly and reaches his decision. A conciliator on the other hand fulfils a totally different function. He is concerned with suggesting concessions here and there, finding common ground, not to reach a decision but to reach a conciliated agreement. The more I reflect on it, the more I see that the position is absolutely impossible. No one in his right mind can take pleasure from the involvement in matters of political controversy of any court in the country.
There are three ways in which a court can enter into political controversy. The first way is for judges deliberately to involve themselves in political controversy. The second is that Parliament or politicians show that they are determined to involve a court in political controversy, whether the court wishes to be involved or not. The third is that a judge may find it virtually impossible, by reason of the duties he is required to carry out, to keep out of matters which are politically controversial. It is right to ask about those reasons for political involvement. Perhaps all of them apply in this context.
I shall deal first with the question of involvement of the judges. I do not know Sir John Donaldson. If I do it is only cursorily. We may have sat on the Bar Council together for a short time. But his position as president of the court has been very difficult. However, no one would deny that any High Court judge who makes a speech at a public dinner and discusses a case in which he is involved
1134
is acting unwisely. I shall not put it any stronger for this reason : when a judge undertakes duties in a court—a court set up specially by Parliament, in an atmosphere of great controversy—the least he can expect is the protection of those who put him in office.
They should speak up to defend him. When I heard on the news last night that the Lord Chancellor had made a speech I thought it was high time a speech had been made by him on this matter—but not in a political context. We who remember the Lord Chancellor in this House have a warm regard for him. He is a warm-hearted character, but everyone knows that he needed and needs only the slightest provocation to embark on a political crusade at the drop of a hat.
A judge, a president of a court, has been under constant attack. I do not remember any other judge in this country being under such an attack. Yet has the Lord Chancellor defended him? Has the Attorney-General defended him? Has the Prime Minister defended him? Has the Secretary of State for Employment defended him? Sir John Donaldson has been the butt of political attack since being appointed to office. If the Archangel Gabriel had been appointed in this atmosphere he would have come under the same attack.
Mr. John Mendelson: It would have been better to appoint the Archangel Gabriel.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: He never applied for the job.
Mr. Hooson: The knowledge of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) on these angelic matters is so much greater than mine that I bow to his better judgment.
This is a serious matter. However detached his office requires him to be, any judge who is under constant attack, without those who put him in that position springing to his defence to explain to the public his position and what is happening, would be less than human if he were not tempted in the end to spring to his own defence. That is what has happened here.
The Early Day Motion selected the wrong target. The motion before us has

1135
selected the right target. The responsibility lies firmly with the Government, not with Sir John Donaldson, who would have been less than human if he had not eventually reacted as he did, although I think that he was unwise to do it at a dinner for accountants.
We must also consider the attitude of the trade unions. The second matter I suggested we should consider is whether Parliament and politicians deliberately, whether the judge likes it or not, want to get the judiciary involved in the row. We must be fair. There are hon. Members on the Opposition side who have made no bones about it—and they made no bones about it in the days of the Labour Government when "In Place of Strife" was introduced : they thought the law had no application in industrial relations. They fought against "In Place of Strife "and then, with greater venom and power, against the Industrial Relations Bill. They were determined to get rid of it, come what may. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about the guillotine motion. The truth is that if there had been no guillotine the measure would have been talked out.
Mr. C. Pannell: Quite right, too.
Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Gentleman says that because he is approving my point that hon. Members felt so strongly about it that they were determined to go to any lengths to kill the Bill.
The truth is that certain trade union elements are prepared to go to any lengths, including attacking the court and getting the judge involved politically, to try to break the Act. Most of them are prepared to admit it, and I accept it as one of the facts of life. It is one of the factors the Government should bear in mind in considering whether it is right to continue with the Act at all in the present atmosphere, because that is where it leads us.
Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. and learned Gentleman heard the Secretary of State say this afternoon that if amendments were put forward they would of course be considered. Amendments were put forward—
Mr. Heffer: Hundreds of them.
Mr. Fernyhough: Scores of them, at least. We debated the Bill for days. It left the House after Third Reading in exactly the same form as when it had its Second Reading. That was an indication that at that stage the Government were completely indifferent to any suggestion for improving the Bill and avoiding industrial strife, no matter where the amendments came from.
Mr. Hooson: I entirely agree that the Bill went through the House in an atmosphere the like of which I have not known in my parliamentary experience.
Mr. Atkinson: It was on roller skates.
Mr. Hooson: Both sides were entirely unreasonable about it.
The point I wish to come to is that when a court becomes involved in political controversy, as the Industrial Relations Court is, there is a third possibility, that Parliament has virtually made its position impossible because the function of the court is partially political. We have had three years' experience of the court, and it is right now to reflect on that experience a little away from the heat of the battle which was felt in the House when the Act was passed.
Therefore, I suggest to the Secretary of State, who returns from Ireland with a tremendous reputation for conciliation, statesmanship and judgment, that it is not right that we continue in the kind of atmosphere we have had in industrial relations since the Act was passed. I repeat that 90 per cent. of the Act is perfectly good, sensible law. But that 90 per cent. is overridden and obscured by the 10 per cent. which is a source of bitter political controversy, and which remains. It has poisoned relationships in industry. It continues a pattern of centralised industrial conflict.
There is a huge deficiency, as I forecast in my Second Reading speech on the Bill, in the means of enforcement. It is a very difficult matter to enforce.
The time has come for a complete review of the Bill. If it could take place in a different kind of atmosphere, if we could say that the Bill might be repealed and re-enacted with the 90 per cent. of good provisions but without the 10 per cent. which have left the law of the industrial jungle still as the law of the

1137
jungle, there might be a basic change in such provision.
My party has put forward its own proposals for changing the industrial relationship in this country by different kinds of laws altogether—the provisions for worker directors, for works councils, for much more local bargaining and so on.
There are some people in the country and the House who are determined to ensure that the law does not apply to industrial relations at all. For that view I have no sympathy and scant respect.
Mr. McBride: Will the Liberals vote for the repeal of the Act?
Mr. Hooson: Yes, although we think it would be right to re-enact a great deal of it. On the great controversial issues, we have come to the conclusion that it would be right to repeal it. [interruption.] On Second Reading we voted for the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has one great distinction. He never likes to listen to anyone but himself.
Mr. Heffer: I do. I have listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments.
Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I said that we would vote for the Bill on Third Reading if our basic amendments were accepted. They were not, and we voted against it.
I have come to the conclusion that an industrial relations court in any event should not be a separate and special court but should be another branch of the High Court. It should be an ordinary division of the High Court, and the judges should be left to judge. They should not be regarded as, or requested to be, conciliators in industrial relations.
Therefore, for reasons very different from those of some Labour Members, I intend with my party to vote for the motion.
5.48 p.m.
Sir Paul Bryan: I join right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the return of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and particularly his return to the Department of Employment, which he knows well and where he is well known.
1138
My right hon. Friend arrived back with an advantage and a disadvantage. His disadvantage is that after his admirable work in Ireland his stock is so high in the land that he will find it very hard to live up to his own reputation. His advantage is that in his last post he won the trust of both sides of the House and of people all over the country to an extent rarely achieved by a Minister. Over the coming difficult months that trust may well be his biggest asset.
As sometimes happens in the House, we are today having a valuable debate hung on the peg of a very poor motion. I shall argue shortly that this is an opportune occasion to discuss constructively the Industrial Relations Act and possible amendments to it, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has just done.
First, I will deal with the other parts of the motion. The motion is the expression, watered down for respectability, of the Left-wing theme that the citizen is justified in defying or rejecting any law that he does not like. I heard Hugh Scanlon say on television that his union was a law-abiding union, but he added that his members reject a law that will destroy the union. On other occasions he has said that the Act is impotent and is ignored by industry. I dare say that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) would say that Mr. Scanlon and his friends were merely conscientious objectors, and probably Mr. Hain would say the same.
Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has quoted one trade union leader who is at work at this time—Mr. Scanlon—as saying that the members of his union are perfectly law abiding. That the union is law abiding is borne out by the long history of the organisation. If the hon. Gentleman came to Sheffield I could take him to a humble place where one of the predecessors of the union, the scissors-grinders, in 1804, after the anti-combination laws had been passed in 1799, were as law abiding as they had been in 1797, but broke the law because they thought it monstrous that the anti-combination laws should be the law of the land.
Sir P. Bryan: I should enjoy a trip to Sheffield and I am sure that it would be interesting, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about what

1139
Mr. Scanlon said on television, and I am claiming that in relation to this Act the union is not a law-abiding union. To the rest of the community the members of the AUEW do not seem to be law abiding. They seem to be a group which is presuming a privileged position. If any other person or organisation is alleged to have broken the law they expect to attend the court to put their case. If they fail to do so they expect to take the consequences without looking round for sympathy. These trade unionists decline to attend and then they blame the judge for the consequences.
The motion says that the Act has resulted in the sequestration of particular union funds, but nothing of the sort has occurred. It is the failure of union officials to act like normal law-abiding citizens and attend the court that has resulted in this entirely predictable consequence. The union knows perfectly well that had it stated its case the fine would almost certainly have been less, and quite certainly it could have been paid from whatever fund the union wanted it to be paid. Yet the public are asked to be sorry for the way in which this powerful union has been treated. I have yet to find anyone who is.
Clearly, the Shadow Cabinet as a whole does not want to be hooked on the proposition that the AUEW should be supported in defying the law so it serves up a castrated edition of Motion No. 49. The motion on the Order Paper has been moved by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) who is known to have the normal respect for the law, but he was patently embarrassed by knowing that there were 130 people behind him who were at odds with his view, and even more embarrassed when he knew that the Opposition are to be represented in the wind-up by the chief instigator of Motion No. 49, the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who directly attacks the judge and demands his dismissal.
That is dangerous ground—and the Shadow Cabinet knows it—for a party that presumes to be the alternative Government. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North has done his best—rather an embarrassed best—to steer his party through and out of this minefield. I shall be surprised if the hon. Member
1140
for Salford, West does not push him back into it before 10 o'clock tonight.
Fortunately, the motion does not limit our debate to the grievances of the union, so I will turn to the passage dealing with industrial relations and the Industrial Relations Act. An outsider hearing some of our debates in the Chamber could be forgiven for concluding that the two major parties have not an idea or concern in common. But both parties have some common experience. Both parties claim to believe in free collective bargaining. Both parties found that free collective bargaining did not meet the economic situation at some period in their administration. Both favoured a voluntary incomes policy and both were driven to a statutory incomes policy.
In industrial relations legislation both parties also have some experience in common. Time was when both parties asserted that major industrial relations legislation was unnecessary. Nevertheless, within the last five years, both parties had legislated or attempted to legislate. It therefore seems certain that, whoever wins the next election, legislation will persist either in the form of amendments to the Industrial Relations Act or new labour legislation under another name, and the right hon. Member for East Ham, North has confirmed that this will be so.
After the election, legislation can take place in a different, more constructive, less emotional, less political atmosphere than that which we endured during the passing of the present Act, especially if constructive non-political thought can be given to it now. I acknowledge that no trade union leader could at this moment come and discuss amendments to the Industrial Relations Act with the Secretary of State. With an election in sight, this would be construed as an assumption of Conservative victory. Anyway, as the motion confirms once again, the trade unions have such a blanket curse on the whole Act that they dare not do anything to suggest toleration of even those parts of the Act which benefit their members, such as the provisions for unfair dismissal. I do not, therefore, suggest that direct talks between the Secretary of State and trade union leaders now are possible or could be profitable.
Mr. James Hamilton: Has not the Prime Minister stated that if

1141
the TUC puts forward amendments the Government would be prepared to consider them now? Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what is the CBI view of the Industrial Relations Act?
Sir P. Bryan: I cannot speak for the CBI, but successive Ministers have always said that they are willing to hear suggestions from the TUC. This is not a propitious time to go into details of the amendments, for the reasons I have given. However, I believe that this is the time for the new Secretary of State to commission a suitable group, including, I hope, trade unionists, to study objectively how the Act has worked in practice as opposed to how we on each side of the House claim that it has worked. That would be of great value to the next administration, not merely in saving time with up-to-date information but in showing the public that there is some genuine common ground between both sides of the House and that there is some hope and real desire on the part of the House to improve industrial relations rather than to use industrial relations as an excuse for a continuing political wrangle, which is what our proceedings must often look like to an outsider.
There is much to study. As a start we need to know more about the functioning of the court. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has truthfully said that we do not know what it really does. Even we, as Members of Parliament, glean most of our knowledge from newspaper accounts of its more sensational findings, impositions and the sayings of the judge. It is assumed that most of the court's time is spent dealing with cases of alleged unfair industrial practice and so on. In fact these are a small part of its case-load. The court handles many cases under the various collective bargaining provisions, some of which end up in a reference to the CIR. It handles hundreds of appeals from tribunals refusing redundancy payments.
I would like to know how the original idea of the court, that it would be far less formal and more industrially based, is working in practice. Despite the lack of trade union representation I have heard no suggestion of a lack of industrial knowledge. On the other hand, the informality is less evident. If a party appeals from the NIRC to the Court of Appeal it is obliged to employ counsel,
1142
with all the costs involved, especially if it loses its appeal.
I agree with the Industrial Society that no individual or organisation should be permitted to take a case to the court or to an industrial tribunal until domestic procedures have been exhausted and conciliation by an independent body or voluntary reference to the CIR has taken place. I have always been a believer in registration, but I would not go to the stake for it. The very word is now so emotionally charged that the Registrar is totally, and I would have thought permanently, unacceptable to the unions. The vindictiveness with which the TUC has treated the Seamen's Union and Equity, despite the justification of their case, proves my point if proof is needed.
Instead of registration, unions and other organisations could have their accounts audited and their electoral methods scrutinised by some independent body. This would confer tax advantages as formerly enjoyed under the Friendly Societies Act. The CIR, which has been neglected by the unions but which I believe still retains their respect, could be given a bigger rôle especially with issues concerning recognition and independence. Clearly the whole question of the closed shop would have to be re-opened. I consider that the post-entry shop should be made legal, with safeguards.
The Code of Practice has proved its value, especially in forcing companies to review their present practices. In the more co-operative atmosphere I am anticipating after the election I think that trade unions should take part in its amendment. It could be given much greater strength and a more important rôle in the whole industrial relations set-up.
Finally, the provisions against unfair dismissal, used and useful though they have been, could be improved. I am glad that the qualifying period has been reduced. It should be reduced again as soon as possible.
Finally, the working group should study to what extent the objectives of the Industrial Relations Act are being achieved. At the least, this would highlight what those objectives really are.
The net result of all our debates is that many people think that the Act was designed either to get at the unions

1143
or to solve industrial disputes or both. Indeed nearly all of the arguments from the Labour benches are on these two points. The primary object of the Act is to do something towards producing conditions under which those at work can themselves more easily settle and live with the day-to-day problems of their working lives.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: The hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) was Minister of State at the Department of Employment when the Industrial Relations Act began its passage through the House and it is refreshing to hear him say that there ought to be some changes to it. This is a wide motion and it is possible to drag all sorts of things into it. I intend to speak on one point, dealt with in the motion, namely the :
"involvement of the National Industrial Relations Court in matters of political controversy".
We have heard much from learned hon. Members with regard to what the law is but not so much about how the law should be interpreted, with wisdom and common sense. That is what has been lacking so far. The court was set up at a time when this House was in the throes of a terrible turmoil—about three years ago, after the General Election. Strikes were taking place and it was virtually impossible to have a proper debate about what was happening because the Government, very unwisely, took the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House.
Mr. David Mitchell rose—
Mr. Ashton: I will not give way, because many hon. Members wish to speak and interventions prolong the debate.
Mr. Mitchell: The Committee stage was taken on the Floor of the House at the request of the Opposition.
Mr. Ashton: It may have been. The Opposition connived at it, but it was a major policy mistake. Industrial relations is one of those subjects on which everyone thinks he is an expert when in reality very few people are. There was never any debate on the court. We debated for weeks questions of ballots and cooling-off periods, but we never got round actually
1144
to discussing how the court should be set up. Consequently, the Government were able to learn very little—as Governments can do—from the Opposition from the usual line-by-line discussion of an item.
We understand—the Attorney-General can confirm this—that the position of president of the court was offered to six people, all of whom turned it down. Perhaps the Attorney-General will confirm it. If I am wrong I shall readily withdraw. The rumour went round that six different judges turned the job down before Sir John Donaldson accepted it.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has mentioned some of Sir John's background. He mentioned his qualifications, but he did not mention some of the other background. He did not say that Sir John Donaldson had been President of the Tory University Students' Association—like the Prime Minister, two years earlier. He did not say that he was President of the Inns of Court Conservative Association, that he had helped publish a book, together with other Conservative lawyers, dealing with the unions and entitled "A Giant's Strength", or that he sat as a councillor on the Croydon Borough Council for the Independent Ratepayers' Association—
Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker: Order. This is exactly what I spoke about. This can only be construed as the imputation of political motive. This is what I definitely said would not be allowed.
Mr. Ashton: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I was replying to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, who talked at length about the judge and his qualifications. I do not wish in any way to be disrespectful or to say anything malicious. I sought merely to restore the balance in respect of Sir John's background.
I have been looking at the records in the Library dealing with the president of the court. As long ago as 9th June 1972 Sir John Donaldson said that the Press was free to comment responsibly on the National Industrial Relations Court. The Times said then :
" The press is free to comment responsibly … without the risk of being in contempt of

1145
court … Sir John's assurance came after a reply in the Commons by Sir Peter Rawlinson, QC, Attorney-General".
You, Mr. Speaker, ruled that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), when replying to the debate from the Labour Front Bench, could not refer to the president of the court as "a national disaster." That had to be withdrawn, and it was said that his decisions were a national disaster.
There were complaints, not by the House but by members of the legal profession. There was a complaint of intervention by the judge, recorded in The Times of 12th October, when Mr. Peter Pain, QC, complained of persistent interventions by the president while hearing a union case. The report says that Mr. Pain:
"told Sir John that his interventions made it very difficult for him to get his cross-examination over on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union. It had 'put the defence in an impossible position'."
Mr. Pain said that the president had shown :
"considerable impatience with questions he had put."
He said that the impatience must have been apparent to the president's fellow judges. Mr. Pain also said that certain "back-chat" at one point had "completely smashed" the effect of his questions. Mr. Pain said :
"I do not like saying this in open court, but it seems that I ought because of the atmosphere I felt was being built up."
So there is criticism of the court and its operations, not just in the House but outside, among other legal people, and there is consequent dissatisfaction.
One of our difficulties as trade unionists is the continual gagging we have had to face over the last three years. First, trade unionists, with their sound experience and common sense, were gagged by the Government's timetable. Then we had to put down a motion on the Order Paper. I shall not refer to it except to say that we had to use those terms, demanding dismissal, because no other motion would have been in order ; it could not have been done in any other way. Some of us had to seek legal advice in the House. We have spent many hours with law books up to our necks. One of the things that became apparent to us was that the lawyers have a better trade union
1146
than we do. It has been in existence much longer and in fact is more like the Mafia than a trade union.
Whenever we have tried to take action or to comment on these matters, we have been given the finest advice possible by the officials of the House, but every other sort of legal gentleman has said, "For God's sake no not get me involved." This is ridiculous. The time has come to examine the workings of the court. Learned people should cease being astonished that trade unionists should answer back. It might seem defiance and contempt of the law, but trade unionist MPs and union people outside have the right to question the official established bodies. It may be their right to say that they disagree with them, but if they disagree, they must be prepared to stand the consequences.
Industrial relations were summed up best two or three years ago in a short statement by Mr. Vic Feather, when he said that industrial relations were like marital relations. The boss and the worker will have a fight sometimes, and a strike may result, but that does not mean that there will be a divorce. It means that sooner or later they will shake hands and get on with the job. But once we bring in the Government, we are bringing in the mother-in-law, interfering, laying down rules and regulations and making things worse.
Now, we have not just the mother-in-law but the brother-in-law as well. As will as a third party, we now have a fourth party ; even the Government have to take a back seat while the fourth party does what it thinks is just and legal—no one denies that the court's actions are legal—but what in many cases is very unwise and shows a complete ignorance of the way in which trade unions function and what their purpose is.
I declare my interest—the AUEW is my union. Fifty per cent. of the salary of my full-time agent in Bassetlaw is paid for by that union. I do not get a penny. This means that if the court were to empty the kitty of the AUEW my agent would get the sack. It would not make any difference to my being elected, but we should not be able to pay him.
The union also pays part of our election expenses. In the debates on the

1147
Industrial Relations Bill, the Solicitor-General and the then Minister of State, Department of Employment, consistently and wisely resisted Conservative amendments to stop the political levy being paid. They knew that if that happened, when we were in power we would stop the Conservative Party funds in the same way. There was an understanding between the two sides, even under the guillotine, that political money should not be touched. When in Government we might provide for publication of the sources of Conservative Central Office funds, just as the sources of Labour Party funds are known, but we never tried to stop them.
It is easy for anyone to get a copy of a union balance sheet. I am willing to give a copy of my union's balance sheet to any Conservative Member. It sets out receipts and shows how many members pay the political levy, varying over the country according to job or factory. It shows where the money is invested and what it is used for. It has to be done in that way to meet the requirements of the Registrar-General.
If the court does not know that, its knowledge is sadly lacking. Those who set up the court should ask themselves how the present situation came about, how sequestrators, acting on the court's instructions, just as civil servants act on the instructions of the Minister, did not know that they were taking 25 per cent. of the Labour Party's General Election funds—a major slice of our income. Something is wrong if they did not know.
The Opposition have not pushed for a debate on Early Day Motion No. 49. There has been no great outcry in our party that we are not debating it. We realise the consequences. It is a very serious thing to table a motion calling for dismissal of a High Court judge and has been done only rarely in the last century. In 1843, Lord Abinger was criticised for sending some Chartists to the Knutsford House of Correction and the action was questioned in the House. Those men were put on the treadmills and exhibited on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons, instead of just on Wednesdays, for the amusement of lords and ladies. The Press then had more freedom, and one newspaper called Lord Abinger
1148
"… a valuable tool of the Tory Government, to whom no dirty work comes amiss."
That was an apt comment.
There have been allegations of a "department of dirty tricks" having been set up in America. I am not saying that that has happened in this country, but, by negligence of the court or negligence of the Government, a similar sort of action came into being. If that action had not been criticised, if trade union MPs had not kicked up a fuss and put down a motion, the court, in its benign ignorance, might have gone on to take every penny of every political fund of every union, and virtually bankrupted the Labour Party. So action had to be taken and this debate is the result, because of the reluctance of some legal people to push things to their ultimate conclusion.
It should not be said that it is not necessary to talk about these things. It has never been more necessary. When a third of the members of the AUEW—350,000 people—sacrifice a day's pay to make a point of political principle, that is no mean feat. The sacrifice of £8, or whatever it is, to protest requires great self-sacrifice by working people. It is no good scoffing that only a third of the membership protested.
The Government have acted the part of Frankenstein and created a monster which no one can now control. Three years ago, the Prime Minister used to jeer at the Leader of the Opposition that he ran away and chickened out of the confrontation with the unions, that he did not have the guts to see it through. We do not hear those jibes now, because if the Conservative Party was honest it would admit that the time has come for a long look at the Act. But a long look does not mean merely publishing a White Paper or setting up a study group or allowing civil servants and others to give their views. There is only one way in which the matter can now be analysed, namely, by a Select Committee. Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Jones would recognise such a Committee. Mr. Feather who has now retired, would probably have attended. It would be recognised by Len Murray. The employers and the legal profession would attend. Examination and cross-questioning could take place. The Committee could accept evidence and present a report of the workings of the Act.

1149
If such a Committee presented its report it should not be supposed that a political row would not follow. It might be said that this or that was wrong in somebody's after-dinner speech. Sir John's after-dinner speech was certainly not wise. It was foolish but not illegal. The only way in which we can solve the problem is by both sides realising the need for the problem to be set out. We need the lawyers to give the matter their consideration.
Let us be honest. We have in the trade unions today—we have always had them—a tiny minority who are against the present set-up. They are probably no more than a tenth of 1 per cent. For such people it is manna from heaven when a Government sets up an Act such as the Industrial Relations Act and judges take certain decisions. I have to defend Parliament when I meet such people. There are not many of them, but when I occasionally meet them I have to defend our system. I have to say that it is relevant, that it fulfils a need and that it is essential. I have to take that stand whenever these matters are debated and it is said that Parliament is irrelevant and that it is time we rid ourselves of it.
The minority to which I have referred suggest, "It is time we got rid of Parliament. Blow it up. Let us act like Guy Fawkes." When measures such as the Industrial Relations Act appear they are just the sort of thing for which these people are looking.
People in the trade unions who do not pay political levies choose not to do so not because they are Conservatives but because they are Communists. It never seems to dawn on Conservative hon. Members that it is manna from heaven for them to be presented with an Act such as the Industrial Relations Act. They can then say, "It is a waste of time paying the political levy. The judge will pinch the lot. You may as well keep in your pocket your subscription money or make a subscription to the Communist Party. You are in the wrong party. The Labour Party is a waste of time. You will get clobbered by all the parties." That is what is said by anarchists and others.
That attitude can be stopped only when the House, the Government and the lawyers admit that they have been wrong.
1150
Now is the time for all of them to admit that they have made mistakes and that they have been wrong. We shall never get industrial peace until that comes about. Let us take the advice of Mr. Vic Feather, who said that industrial relations are like a marriage between husband and wife. That is what it is all about. There will be rows on the shop floor but sooner or later the men and the bosses will meet each other in the market place and they will agree to work together. That is what we should be debating.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make an appeal to the House? I know that there are about a dozen right hon. and hon. Members who very much want to take part in the debate. If hon. Members who catch my eye will speak for a quarter of an hour or just a little less I shall be able to get them all in.
6.24 p.m.
Mr. David Mitchell: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his new position. I am not sure that he will find it any easier to reach agreement on the matters with which he will be dealing here than he did in Northern Ireland. Along with all hon. Members, I have watched with admiration my right hon. Friend's success in that direction.
As I listened to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman—the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice)—I recognised that he was not very happy with the task which he had, or with the disunited ranks behind him. I suppose that today's debate was necessary as a sign of his virility in meeting the problems within his own party. I shall not make it harder for him by praising him in any way. In any event, he made a series of weak points with great emphasis.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North referred first to the Con-Mech dispute and the fact that £75,000 has been taken from the union's political fund. He accepted that that was unforeseen. Nevertheless, he felt that it was wrong that the union's political fund should have been at risk. The union was fined basically for a non-appearance in the court. Am I right in saying that it was a political decision by the union not to appear in court? If so, it seems not unreasonable that the political fund of the union should be at risk.

1151
The right hon. Gentleman said that the union's political fund should not have been seized. He said that it was a fund which was earmarked for a particular purpose. Are we to understand that the other funds are not earmarked for important purposes? Does the union not have other reserves for a whole series of good industrial reasons, which it requires to enable it to carry out its proper trade union activities?
The right hon. Gentleman then told us that what is wrong is the presence of the court and not the presence or character of the judge. That point was taken up by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). It was at the special request of the trade unions that the National Industrial Relations Court was made a separate court and not part of the ordinary legal mumbo-jumbo—with respect to my legal friends—of the ordinary courts—
Mr. McNamara: Not at the request.
Mr. Mitchell: —with the red judge and all the rest of it. It was deliberately designed to be much easier for trade unionists or individuals to appear in the Court—
Mr. McNamara: Not at the request.
Mr. Mitchell: —with a far greater degree of informality than there would be in an ordinary section of the High Court.
Mr. McNamara: Not at the request. I refer to the statement of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) that the National Industrial Relations Court was set up at the special request of the trade unions.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has made a sedentary interruption which all of us have heard three times. Please let us get on.
Mr. Mitchell: The third point which was made by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North was that the number of stoppages illustrated the ill-effect of the Act. Is that true? I have looked up the number of stoppages and have found that the figures do not bear out the right hon. Gentleman's argument. In 1970 there were 3,906 stoppages. In 1971 the figure was 2,228. In 1972 it was 2,407.
1152
In the first nine months of this year there have been 2,090. That is a considerable drop from the 3,906 of 1970. The suggestion that the Act has increased the number of stoppages is not borne out by the facts. Indeed, it can be claimed that the number of stoppages is reduced and that that is an effect of the Act, bearing in mind the large number of small stoppages which normally take place over dismissal. There are normally many brief strikes over unfair dismissals. There is now a procedure for settling such disputes peacefully. Therefore, people are not driven to striking to get their fair dues. That is an indication of how the Act has led to a decline in the number of stoppages.
Labour hon. Members will no doubt draw attention to the number of days lost. It is true that the number has increased. In 1970 there were 10,908,000 working days lost. In 1971 the figure was 13,497,000 and in 1972 it was 23,812,000. This year the figures have fallen dramatically. In the first nine months the number of days lost was 5,462,000.
The dramatic increase in 1971 was almost all accounted for by political strikes against the introduction of the Industrial Relations Bill. The figures in 1972 were very much accounted for by the Government's policy of standing up to the unions and resisting inflationary wage demands. If the Opposition feel that that is wrong, they must say so. However, they cannot at one and the same time claim that it is the fault of the Industrial Relations Act that the number of working days lost has gone up when they recognise that it is the political activities of themselves and their associated trade unions in fighting the Bill which sent the figures up, coupled with the Government's action in trying to stop inflation by resisting inflationary wage demands.
I turn from that non sequitur in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to his next point, which was that the GAS dispute at London Airport had resulted in the Transport and General Workers' Union being asked to make up the losses which the firm suffered. The right hon. Gentleman suggested we compared the T & GWU with an army and its general secretary with a field marshal ordering his troops all round the country. But that is not the key point. The question is whether the officials of the union did their

1153
best to restrain the shop stewards at London Airport. The suggestion that the union is a vast organisation which cannot know what is going on everywhere has no relationship to—
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker This case is sub judice.
Mr. Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am merely commenting on the remarks today of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North. Can that be sub judice?
Mr. Speaker: About what case?
Mr. Mitchell: The GAS case at London Airport.
Mr. Speaker: If a case is sub judice, an hon. Member must not refer to it.
Mr. Atkinson: It has gone to appeal.
Mr. Mitchell: If it was not in order to comment on it, I shall say no more about it. I sought merely to comment on the remarks of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North, who, I am delighted to see, has rejoined us.
I turn to the right hon. Gentleman's next point. He condemned confrontation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, I am sure, that there is one very simple way of ensuring that the number of strikes and the number of working days lost fall away to practically nothing. It is an easy solution—give in to every wage demand, however inflationary and unreasonable. However, that is not a solution which will commend itself to the majority of the people. It is interesting to note that when the Labour Party was in power the overwhelming number of price increases in the shops were the direct result of wage inflation and the failure to confront. That has to be contrasted with the past 12 months, during which the overwhelming cause of price increases in the shops has been the increase in commodity prices outside this country. In other words, the cause of the first price increases was one within the control of the country. The other was outside the control of any Government.
The right hon. Gentleman attacked confrontation and suggested that the Government should not indulge in seeking to prevent inflationary wage settlements.
1154
In that, the right hon. Gentleman reveals all too clearly that the consequences of the Labour Party's policies are to mount on top of world inflation the disastrous and damaging effect of internal wage inflation.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman promised to repeal the Industrial Relations Act. I think that he confirmed the view of many people that one of the reasons why industrial relations are going through a very difficult phase is that so many people in trade unions feel that the Act is a temporary measure and that, come the next General Election, it will disappear. Feeling that, they believe that all that they have to do is to refuse to work it and to destroy its credibility. So I have a strong suspicion that not until the Act has been confirmed by a further General Election and the recognition by the trade unions that they have to deal with another five years of Conservative Government will there be any moves to live with it and work with it. Only then shall we be able to move on to amend it.
Having said that, I move on to discuss the amendments which I should like to see made to the Act.
Industrial relations are human relations. They are the way that men and management get on together. We are concerned with raising the standards of conduct by unions and employers, shop stewards and managements. Our desire is the orderly making and keeping of collective bargains, and that change is bound to be a long, slow process. But that is no reason why we should not start on it as soon as possible.
I ask the House to look at the provisions relating to registration, dismissed contemptuously by one hon. Member opposite as "the dog licence". I do not think that the terms relating to the registration of trade unions are onerous. As an ex-member of the Transport and General Workers' Union, it looks to me as if many of them have been lifted straight out of the rule book of that union. I cannot see why they should cause too much disturbance to the Opposition. Nevertheless, in an effort to secure changes which will mean a more ready acceptance of the Act by the trade unions, the registration clauses might be removed from the Act and made part of the code which does not have the force of law except in certain rare circumstances.

1155
Then we ought to reconsider the situation on the closed shop. There may be a case for saying that, in itself, the closed shop is not such a disaster, providing that there is a right of appeal for the man wrongly treated within the closed shop. Here is an area for negotiation between the trade unions and the Government in which we might seek to find changed circumstances to make the Act more acceptable. I believe that there are circumstances which in due course could lead to an acceptance of the Act involving changes by the Government and an undertaking by the unions to work the Act.
I come finally to the Opposition motion. In my view it is a pity that the Government have not sought to amend it. It talks of
"the increasing damage being done to industrial relations and to the legitimate activities of trades unions."
I suggest that this is self-inflicted damage and that it results from the political activities of the trade unions. The motion goes on to talk about
"earlier instances of industrial disruption and harm to the economy".
I should like to see that phrase amended by the addition of the words
"by a militant politically motivated minority."
It is a case of mind over matter. They do not mind, and the public do not matter!
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I may clear up the sub judice point. The Chair cannot be expected to know the exact position of every case which is referred to in a debate. I understand that in this case a decision has been made but that an appeal has not been entered. Therefore, it was quite appropriate for the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) to refer to it.
6.39 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Lee: Earlier in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) gave the House a little history of the engineers. I recall that in his "Life of Gladstone", Philip Magnus told how, on 10th May 1864, the then leaders of the ASE, the forerunner of the present engineering union, met Gladstone to discuss the possibilities of investing in Government securities. They so impressed Mr. Gladstone that the following day he made
1156
his memorable statement that working men deserve the vote.
There are few certainties in politics. However, I can promise the Prime Minister that he will not receive any deputations from the leaders of the present engineers seeking to invest their money with him. We have reached the sad state of affairs in which agents of the Government are scouring the country, confiscating funds which the leaders of the present engineering union have invested. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) has re-entered the Chamber. It was from Hebburn, in his constituency, that £100,000 was taken. The small urban district council at Hebburn will now have to borrow money at a rate 5 or 6 per cent. higher than that at which it borrowed the money from the AUEW. Who will pay the difference? Is it to be charged up to Sir John Donaldson? Surely the ratepayers of the constituency will not have to pay what would be a pretty substantial sum as a sort of fine because of the judgment of Sir John Donaldson? This is a point of importance.
The lawyers have had a field day. They told us how wrong it was for anyone even to seek to defy the law. I shall not go into the finer points of it, but when I heard about the speech by the Lord Chancellor—a speech which has received 10 times more publicity than today's debate will receive—I began to wonder just where were we going. The Lord Chancellor said that :
"for the first time in very many years the rule of law is threatened and is threatened openly. I think this country is facing moral and constitutional issues of the gravest order."
What utter piffle that is. What did the Lord Chancellor have in mind when he spoke about it being a long time since this terrible issue had confronted the British people? Had he, as a member of the Tory Party, in mind that it is the only political party which has ever threatened civil war in this country during this century against the constitutionally elected Government of the day. Was that what he had in mind when he spoke about a long time ago? The threat to which I refer happened within my lifetime and his.
Those of us who have put our names to a well-considered Early Day Motion are

1157
now indicated as people in the same category as Carson, Bonar Law and F. E. Smith—"Galloper" Smith—the leaders of the Tory Party of years ago. We object to this slur on our characters. We have carefully examined the only constitutional way in which a judge could be removed from office. That Early Day Motion was the beginning of what we hoped would be the setting up of a Select Committee of both Houses which would pass a motion which could result in the judge being removed from office. That would be the only constitutional way to remove the judge. The public may think that when monarchs were deprived of the divine right of kings this right was given to judges. It is an absurd situation.
I hope that a man vested with the great powers of the Lord Chancellor will not use those powers to cast a slur on a large number of hon. Members of this House.
I shall take the coincidence a little further. Following the attempted civil war in Northern Ireland the Tories in this House moved a motion of censure upon the Liberal Government four days after the ship the "Mountjoy", arrived in Larne. One of the members of the Liberal Government at that time was Winston Churchill, and he described the motion of censure as being like a vote of censure by the criminal classes upon the police. I think he had something there.
We are now facing a situation in which we are being indicted merely because we have tried to represent the view of millions of people in this country about the Industrial Relations Act. We have tried to show—and I do not think that it is now in dispute—that the entire trade union movement utterly detests the Act. I also claim that the organised employers are treating the Act with contempt—I do not use the word "contempt" in its legal sense. No employer who is a member of the CBI will touch the act with a barge pole. The Government themselves are treating the Act with more contempt than anyone else. In every dispute where the Government could have invoked the Act they have refused to do so. They have gone to the stage where, rather than invoking the Act, they will bring in a state of emergency. There cannot be much more contempt than that.
The Government did not inherit this Act. It is their own Act. Each time we ask questions about the Act we get the
1158
stock reply from the Prime Minister that the Government are willing to consider amendments from the TUC. What kind of childish politics is he playing? Once the TUC begin to suggest amendments the Government will say that this proves that the TUC accepts the Act in principle and merely wishes to amend parts of it.
The trade unions detest the Act, organised employers will not use it, and the Government treat it with contempt. Who is keeping the Act on the statute book? Is the Act being retained for use by 19th century zombies or by a few get rich-quick people who want to cash in on it? It is for the Government—not for us—to say on whose behalf the Act is being kept on the statute book.
Burke once talked about liberty being the basis of law and law being based on morality, but there is no morality left in an Act of this kind. The Government will not use the main provisions of the Act and they are keeping the Act on the Statute Book not for morality but out of pique, spite and viciousness in order to take money from the trade unions concerned. This is no basis for keeping the Act on the statute book. It is not for us to tell the Government how they should amend the Act. It is for them to show why they are keeping it on the statute book despite the fact that no one, including themselves, wants to use it.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. Edward Gardner: I join with hon. Members from both sides who have extended a welcome and good wishes to my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), in opening the debate, said that he thought that seizure of political funds of the AUEW was outrageous, indefensible and a breach of constitutional convention. I should like to remind the House—I hope that the House will think it worth while that I should do so—in the briefest way possible of the undisputed facts involved. There are disputed facts, but I am concerned with the undisputed facts.
On 27th September this year the National Industrial Relations Court was composed of a bench of three. The president was Sir John Donaldson, a judge of the High Court, and there were two industrial

1159
members of the court—Mr. Arkell and Mr. Kenrick. The court, with that composition, ordered that the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers should stop unlawful industrial action at Con-Mech, in Woking. It is equally undisputed that the union decided not to obey the order but to ignore it. The result was that on 10th October the same court, composed of a bench of three, was faced with a deliberate act of defiance, by the union, of the court's order. The court had to make up its mind what to do about that. The court decided unanimously to order the sequestrian of £100,000—that is the seizure of that sum of money.
Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. and learned Gentleman used the word "unanimously'' There was no unanimity. The court itself does or does not do something. There is no unanimity issue, because the president of the court supervenes.
Mr. Gardner: With respect, that is not right. The court is composed of a bench of three. Each member of the court has the right, if he wishes to exercise it, to state a dissenting judgment. There was none in this case.
The writ of sequestration was for £100,000 from the assets of the union. The court appointed four commissioners of sequestration. They were accountants. These four had the duty to take possession of assets, up to the value of £100,000, from the union's funds. By the terms of the writ of sequestration from which they derived their authority the commissioners were left to make up their own minds, according to their own discretion, how and from what sources that £100,000 should come.
The commissioners discovered that the union had lent more than £100,000 to the Hebburn Urban District Council. They discovered it by going through the files of correspondence which were held by the union's stockbrokers, and there was nothing in any of the letters in those files which indicated in any way that that £100,000 had been allocated by the union for a political fund.
Mr. Pannell: They should have found out.
Mr. Gardner: There was no duty on the commissioners to find out. There was a duty on the commissioners to take
1160
possession of £100,000. They took possession of that £100,000 from the council. After the clerk of the council had handed over the money, no attempt was made to suggest that it had been allocated for political purposes. In fact, as we know, seven members of the council were members of the union—
Mr. Fernyhough: One was a Tory.
Mr. Gardner: So be it. Seven members of the council were members of the union and a telegram was sent from the council to the president of the court. In that telegram there was no reference to any allocation of these funds to party political purposes. In fact, the telegram claimed that the £100,000 belonged to the citizens of Hebburn, and no claim was made then or later, either by the council or by the union, that the money had been allocated for a particular purpose.
Mr. Pannell: The cheque was endorsed to the political account. The hon. and learned Gentleman is making this case for Sir John Donaldson. He is reading a brief.
Mr. Gardner: I do not accept that. In my submission there was no document and there is no document showing that the funds were allocated for political purposes. Documents were not signed by the union. They were not forwarded by the council. No oral representations were made by either the union or the council to the effect that these funds were allocated for political purposes, and neither the president of the court nor the four commissioners of sequestration who had been appointed by the court knew or could have known that these funds were intended—so it was said—for political purposes.
The complaint that the money was allocated for political purposes and that because it was so allocated it should not have been made the subject of sequestration or seizure is something which is not altogether difficult to understand, but I think it would be right to make clear—and I hope that the Opposition will make clear—whether it is being said that if this case had concerned other funds, such as the general purpose fund to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred, there would have

1161
been no complaint if they had been sequestrated? Is the only complaint the fact that political funds were sequestrated?
I bring to the attention of the House what may be known to both sides but which should be rehearsed in the debate. On 2nd November, a letter was sent from the solicitors who were instructed by the four commissioners of sequestration—one copy to the council and another to the union. It was later released to the Press, so that the public could understand exactly what was going on. The letter made plain that the discretion as to the manner in which the sequestrators could get hold of the £100,000 was to be left entirely to them. It was also made clear to both the council and to the union that neither the court nor the commissioners had any knowledge that the funds, so it was said, had been allocated for political purposes.
If either the council or the union had any reason to challenge any of the steps taken by the four commissioners, they knew the name and the address of the solicitors who were acting on behalf of the commissioners and they could have started proceedings. They could have replied to that letter of 2nd November. There was no reply to it. No proceedings were started.
What has happened—and I hope I do not put this too emotionally, or too strongly—is a campaign to attack the court and the president of the court. In the result, the president of the court made a speech to chartered accountants at a dinner in Glasgow. He has been criticised.
Mr. C. Pannell: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman defend it?
Mr. Gardner: I go some way with the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that on occasion it may be unwise for a judge to involve himself in after-dinner speeches, but unless we are going to condemn Her Majesty's judges to the rôle of dumb, intellectual eunuchs the moment they leave their courts, it is difficult to see what possible harm he did or what possible rule the judge in this case transgressed in merely stating the admitted facts of the case.
1162
If a union, by the very magnitude of its membership and influence, and its ability to enlist those who represent its interests in this House to support it, decides to defy a court which tries to administer a law that it does not like, one is bound to ask, where is this likely to end? Are litigants to be encouraged or allowed to raise their fingers in contempt of any court that rejects their claim?
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said in a speech last week that we should watch out for politicians who pretend to be judges. I suggest that he would have spoken more appropriately if he had told the country that we had better watch out for those politicians and unions who defy the law for their own ends.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Neil McBride: I shall not dwell on the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), but clearly he knows nothing about trade unions.
Mr. Gardner: That is quite wrong.
Mr. McBride: Equally certain is that the brief from which he spoke was not founded on fact. It has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt in this debate that the Industrial Relations Act is not the deed of title to democracy and is certainly not the recipe for good industrial relations. Indeed, the Act has exacerbated industrial relations beyond belief. The operation of the Act has brought about a tragic state of affairs, since good industrial relations are an intangible but priceless asset to the economy of the nation. No large employer, no personnel director looks on the Industrial Relations Act with any degree of friendliness—and indeed the great majority of employers exclude the measure entirely from their discussions and any agreements effected with trade unions. I applaud their view.
It is inescapable that the hotch-potch importation of segments of American law which form the basis of the Industrial Relations Act have proved to be a signal and costly failure, as they were in the land in which they were legally spawned. The awful disposition of political funds of the AUEW—my trade union, to whom my loyalty runs wide and deep—is clearly defined in Section

1163
3 of the Trade Union Act 1913. This is reinforced by Section 154 of the Industrial Relations Act.
We have a situation in which the very Act itself is breached by a learned judge who has ignored the legal diktat that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The learned judge said that he did not know whether the sequestration of assets involved real or personal estate. It must be said that the sequestrators—the four members appointed—do not require to have any qualifications whatever. They do not require to know the law of the land. This is what is laid down, and what a sorry state of affairs it amounts to.
The disposition of the ordinary funds in trade unions is equally well known. The legal position of a union as a collector of a political levy is defined and set out in the last part of Section 3(5) of the Trade Union Act 1913. Thus, the nature and legal disposition of the two funds raised by the AUEW are clearly defined. According to the terms of the Trade Union Act the funds collected as political levies cannot be disposed of except for political purposes ; they are protected by law. I do not know the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench very well. I have not seem him many times before. He may be a Law Officer.
Mr. Heffer: He is the Solicitor-General.
Mr. McBride: Then he will know that the purpose of past legislation was to protect union funds from legal attach-ability. This prevents any court from seeking to take any such action. The political funds of the AUEW are undoubtedly protected by the two pieces of statute law which I have cited. This was not denied by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), for whom I have a profound respect. As a distinguished Queen's Counsel, he did not deny it.
The moneys concerned are not collected for the day-to-day operational activities of my trade union. Therefore, I regard this action by the court as a blatant attack on the Labour Party. If any Conservative denies that, let him get up and say so.
The motion which was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) justifiably condemns the Tory Government and the
1164
damage done by the Industrial Relations Act as laying a terrible financial burden on unions. The new Secretary of State for Employment was right to say, earlier in the debate, that it is the Government we should attack. I remind him that the political honeymoon in the transitional period between the two jobs will probably take as long as does the journey from Ireland to Westminster. If it is said that a political court should not be involved, the Government should not have created this Act. The Government were warned about this, time and again.
Sir John Donaldson made a cardinal error in delivering his speech in Glasgow on 26th November. Not only has it caused people to denigrate his court but, by inference, in terms of the involvement of the court in political controversy, it has tended to denigrate the whole judiciary. Sir John Donaldson should not have acted in that way ; he was foolish to do so.
I believe that the protection of the political funds of my union is covered by the words in Section 154(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, to the effect that
"under the rules of the organisation property which is or has been comprised in that fund is precluded from being used for financing strikes, lock-outs or other industrial action."
Therefore, I believe that the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde did not know what he was talking about.
Another important aspect involves the abrogation of a contract between a willing lender and a willing borrower. My union and Hebburn UDC freely and legally concluded an agreement which was ignored in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde, despite the inescapable proof produced showing that the money came from funds to be devoted entirely to political purposes. How often in this House and elsewhere have I heard Tories talk about the sanctity of contract. But in this case the sanctity of contract was not held up before us. An ignorant sequestrator and an equally ignorant judge did not observe the proper section of the law relating to this state of affairs. It is a blatant attack on the Labour Party, because, as one of my hon. Friends said, this would help considerably in propagating the intents, objectives, policies and programmes of the party that I am proud to represent in this House.

1165
The Tories have created the necessity for trade unions to register. At the election they decided to do something about them. Surely the lawyers must agree that no Bill is so perfect that it does not require amendment. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, of their own free will, voted against every amendment that we sought to make to the Industrial Relations Bill. They cannot run away from that charge. It is on record.
If it was a cardinal error to attempt to shackle free collective bargaining with the rigidity of law, why has no attempt been made to bring to book the rogue employer, Con-Mech? Nothing has been said about that firm by the defenders of political faith. Why is absolution freely granted to this firm and swingeing fines imposed on my trade union? There is a sense of precision and logic in law, but of imprecision and logic there. That is the inherent weakness of the Act. Even one so politically dense as the Prime Minister must be aware, if only dimly, of the incalculable cost to the British nation of the harsh legal rigidity and repressive nature of the Industrial Relations Act.
We in the trade union movement have a great belief in and respect for the law, but the Lord Chancellor, in his accusation last night—in a phrase to which he has the sole prescriptive right—went stark staring bonkers.
The objectives must be for the Government to restore free collective bargaining. No legal commandment or instruction will effect a bargain so soundly as one that is negotiated freely across the table, one man to another.
Let us keep the judiciary entirely free from politics. We believe that with the repeal of the Act we can restore industrial relations to a sound basis in order that this intangible, priceless component of British industry can help the Labour Party, when it comes to power, to restore our nation to economic greatness. We did it before. What we did before we can do again.
7.13 p.m.
Mr. Charles Simeons: I trust that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) will understand if I do not follow his argument but go on to the general theme behind the motion which calls for repeal of the Industrial Relations
1166
Act. I appreciate that a number of Opposition Members would like this to happen, and wish that it should not be replaced, but before coming to a conclusion I suggest there is merit in considering the law relating to behaviour in other areas.
The law has been found necessary for comments that we make and write about each other. The law intervenes in our behaviour towards one another. The law upholds respect for other people's possessions. The law comes into joining people together in marriage and during separation. If it is necessary for the law to be brought into these domestic spheres, surely in our behaviour at work, which is the only sphere not covered, there must be some protection, as there is in the home. True, in the home the behaviour of the individual is involved, whereas at work we have collective responsibility, but most of us know that when groups of people collect together, whether in this House or at a football match, they often behave slightly differently from the way that they behave when they are alone.
I should be the first to accept that the law does not make us like each other. It will not make bad managements good and it will not stop people intent on industrial anarchy refraining from that action. That is because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) suggested, all these are matters of human relations.
An hon. Member mentioned the number of strikes and days lost, but he did not refer to the nature of those strikes. There is one great difference between industrial relations in this country and in other countries. For example, in the United States people know when strikes are going to take place. They can budget and adjust their production for them. This ritual dance is understood, and the unions and management go hell for leather at each other trying to get the best bargain. But here, so often no one knows when a strike is to take place. Not only does it affect a firm considerably when it has taken place but it has a devastating impact upon many people employed in other industries.
One need look no further than the motor car industry. I am not suggesting that all disruptions have been lightning strikes. Some have been genuine clashes

1167
between management and unions. However, production of 400,000 motor cars has been lost to date this year and, in terms of wages lost, the effects have been quite catastrophic for the families involved.
It is difficult to understand why people in industry do not wish to have their agreements binding by law when, as individuals, they are only too prepared to have such agreements. People are willing to have binding agreements for mortgages and for hire purchase. What is more, they intend to stick by them.
Mr. F. P. Crowder: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I suggest, in particular to Opposition Members and in general to trades unionists, that it is a great pity that the National Industrial Relations Court is not adorned and arrayed as a court of law. Trades unionists in this country have always accepted the rule of law and the judgments of British courts. But a judge and counsel should be properly adorned in wig and gown even in a court dealing with industrial relations. It is a great mistake that Sir John Donaldson has been allowed to sit on a kind of semi-conventional oasis. Let it be the law of England or nothing else.
Mr. Simeons: It is worth while comparing some of the anomalies that take place in industry. It is my belief that the British managements of United States-owned firms have far better industrial relations than do American managements of American-owned firms over here. Small firms with fewer than 300 employees have far better industrial industrial relations than do large firms. It is a question of good communications. Looking at separate factories within large companies—I have two in my constituency—it is interesting to see that whilst in Luton there is little confrontation and few strikes at the Vauxhall works, at Ellesmere Port it is a rare occasion to find the factory working continuously. I suspect that there are reasons for that. They are not to be found in relationships between management and workers, but in the area of Ellesmere Port the people have been used to being unemployed and there is a fear that this will happen again. Therefore, they are receptive to those who wish to create industrial strife.
1168
Often, however, there is a problem of attitudes. I should be the first to point out the shortcomings of some managements. On 1st May I was quite surprised when large numbers of trade unionists approached me asking me to get in touch with those factories in Luton which had decided to shut. The majority did not shut, and about 90 per cent. of their workers went to work. But two factories did shut, and consequently there was no possibility for the silent majority to show their will.
Some unions are at fault. Instead of fulfilling their rôle of bettering conditions, the workers involved find themselves bound up in disputes from which they suffer great losses of wages. Most of them are bewildered. To a great extent the remedy is in the hands of the silent majority—provided that the management does not choose to lock them out on the one occasion when the silent majority can show its will. The Act is a basis for hearing disputes and ventilating them. I believe that the Act is right in those sections dealing with unfair dismissal, that contracts of unemployment should be clear and that union affairs should be seen to be up to a standard. But perhaps the greatest virtue is the code that goes with the Act. If it did nothing else, it forced employers to examine their procedures and make certain that they were conforming to the code, because otherwise, when the question of unfair dismissal arose, they would be seen to be at fault and would probably suffer as a result. It is not surprising, therefore, that the unions should be considered in the same way. I am sure that many unions also conform with the code, though many did not need to do so because their procedures were excellent anyway.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke in having doubts about the loss of the closed shop. In the motor industry particularly there is great virtue in management dealing with as few unions as possible—unions which are able to speak for everyone. Had the loss of the closed shop come about it would have made life much more difficult.
Registration is a complex question. I find it very difficult, other than in an emotive sense, perhaps, to understand why anyone should resist standards, or

1169
being registered. We see young doctors, young dentists, young accountants and young lawyers flocking to have their standards recognised. Indeed, anyone who wishes to set up a company clamours to have this recognition and to have its standards accepted, so that it can be registered. The suggestion that the Industrial Relations Act was the result of bad industrial relations misses the point that it is no more nor less than one could say about the divorce legislation having been the cause of unhappy marriages. To say that the Act is a failure because most hourly-paid people do not become involved totally overlooks the fact that they need not be involved. They go about their daily work quite happily. One can draw a parallel and say that the divorce legislation is a failure because so few take advantage of it. We do not want people to take advantage of the Industrial Relations Act, because we hope that they can get on without it. But it should remain as a long stop.
For the individual, industrial relations generally are good. Basically, the individual wants continuous employment. At the same time, he wants his rights upheld. Sadly, there are some who do not seek this and do not always work in the interests of other union members. We have seen, as the motion shows, that there have been political occasions when the seizure of funds was not necessary. I find it very difficult to believe that the definition of this particular fund was other than an accident of book-keeping. If any of us appears in court and is fined, the magistrate or judge does not say to us, "Is that your holiday money that I shall be taking, or the children's Christmas money?" He fines us. If we believe that he is being unfair or taking money the loss of which will make life impossible, it is for us to say so. If we do not, we go on our way and he assumes that all is well. I see no reason why trade unions should be treated differently from their individual members or from anyone else in regard to appearances in court.
Whatever the argument may be, I believe that some law is necessary to regulate the way that we behave at work so long as laws are still necessary to regulate our behaviour towards each other.
1170
Those who claim otherwise are really saying that when we act collectively we are better behaved than when we act individually towards each other.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The debate has raised a certain amount of emotion. As a result, it has produced some outstanding speeches, particularly those from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee). Each of them expressed the sincere revulsion that they felt as trade unionists about both the Act and the way in which it has been applied.
Nevertheless, the debate is a tragedy brought about in some measure by both sides. It is a tragedy mainly brought about by the Government. For that reason, I wholeheartedly subscribe to the motion. The Government must learn, as they apparently have not, that law is no sacred white elephant. We live in a society which has to be based upon a respect for law. As a lawyer, I know full well that law is not necessarily equated with justice. But equally, I do not believe that in a civilised society we can have justice without law. There would be only anarchy, in which the strong would rule the weak. I do not want to see our society become like that.
Therefore, I subscribe to the view that we ought to do all in our power to try to encourage respect for the law and to abide by the law. But that means that we as legislators must be sensitive to the will of the people for whom we are legislating. It is not enough to say that we come to power with a majority won at a General Election and that that gives us a mandate to do whatever we wish to do despite the ingrained resistance sincerely felt by many people who may represent a majority of those to whom the law is intended to apply.
For just that reason, when the Labour Party was in Government it was not able to legislate for spot checks in relation to road safety. The vast majority of motorists who would have been affected by that felt deeply that it would be going too far. Therefore, even though we had the democratic right as the majority party in the House to pass such legislation, we felt that it was wrong to do so.

1171
The present Government came to power with their mandate to produce the Industrial Relations Act. There was, I fear, a misunderstanding about the kind of people with whom they had to deal. I was cured of that a long time ago. I remember a Labour Party meeting at which I sought to try to explain why the stipendiary magistrate of Leeds had fined a political agitator, who was not even a member of the Labour Party, for standing outside Leeds town hall, gathering a crowd and refusing to move when a policeman asked him to move on. I tried to explain to the impassioned audience of 300 members of the Labour Party the legal reason for that. They did not want to listen to the legal reason. It offended so fundamentally against everything that they believed about free speech that they wanted to put aside any kind of legal objection.
The same thing is true of the Industrial Relations Act. I give the Government the credit for believing sincerely that if the Act had worked effectively it would have improved industrial relations. But the Act never had a chance of acceptance. It was so deeply offensive to the kind of people to whom it was to be applied that one could not have expected them to accept it.
Therefore, it was a mistake to have it and it is a mistake to keep it on the statute book. Everybody, including the Government, recognises that it is unworkable in present circumstances. The Government do not try to operate it and nor do the employers. The only people who want to operate it are one or two lunatics such as Con-Mech, who seek to use the courts for their purposes.
What I find a tragedy from this side of the House is that this whole issue had to be ventilated by means of the Early Day Motion, couched as it was. I do not blame my hon. Friends. They were advised, and rightly advised, that the only way of criticising a judge in this House was by that kind of motion. But I think that it is deeply to be regretted. In my view, it is right that judges should be criticised from time to time. It is right that they should be brought up against the kind of criticism with which politicians are faced on occasion when their judgments are markedly out of line with popular feeling at any given moment. There ought to be some method
1172
whereby they could explain their judgment, and that method ought to be a formal one—perhaps a statement in court, if need be. Therefore, I am not so sensitive about criticism of judges as some people.
But I think it is wrong to encourage the view that if one dislikes a law intensely, as clearly my hon. Friends and members of the trade unions do in this case, one should be able to break the law ; that one should be able to criticise a judge when he inflicts punishment for breaking the law ; and that, if he then responds in a way that is perhaps unusual, one should be able to move that he be dismissed. I understand why that happened and I sympathise with the feelings that caused it to happen. But this adds to the growing feeling in the country, which worries me immensely and which makes democracy unworkable, that in the final analysis it is left to the individual to decide which law he will accept and which law he will not accept.
Of course there is an honoured tradition in our country, which should continue. When a man feels deeply that to accept a law goes against everything he believes in, when a law offends his basic principles, when a law offends his conscience, then we have no monopoly of John Hampdens from the Civil War. Of course he must say that, in those circumstances, he will not obey the law. But if he—
Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Lyon: I am trying to keep my speech short. But if a man offends in this way, then he must take the consequences. In the final analysis, that is what all the law breakers who established our freedoms were prepared to do.
In this case, there is room for criticism of the judge and of the court. It is true that High Court judges are sometimes appointed from former practising politicians of all three parties, but it was perhaps a little insensitive to appoint to this particularly sensitive court a judge who had been a practising Conservative politician. I do not suggest for one moment that that has affected his judgment—
The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The hon. Gentleman has

1173
said that the judge was a practising Conservative politician, but that is not so. He was at one time a member of the Federation of Conservative Students, but he was not a practising Conservative politician.
Mr. Lyon: It is fair to say that he was a councillor, calling himself a ratepayers' councillor. But anybody who believes that he was not a practising Conservative politician is more removed from reality than I thought. I do not suggest for one moment that his antecedents have played any part in his judgments in this court, but they lay him open to that kind of charge, and for that very reason it was insensitive of the Government to put him in that situation.
Secondly, instead of allowing Con-Mech to ask for a writ of sequestration to enforce the judgment, he himself, as the court, issued out the writ of sequestration. In so doing, he moved outside the perspective of a civil court and acted as if he were a criminal court, himself seeking to penalise the wrongdoer. If he had left it to Con-Mech, it may be that in the situation that obtained in that particular industrial dispute Con-Mech would not have moved and then the whole issue would not have arisen.
There is another factor, too. If Con-Mech had moved for a writ of sequestration, then the firm would have been coming to the court with dirty hands, because it has been condemned by the CIR as the main reason why this dispute has arisen, and it has refused to accept the CIR judgment and to apply union recognition in this area. In those circumstances, the firm would have had dirty hands and the court could have said that in those circumstances it was not right to enforce a writ of sequestration. Therefore, I take the view that there is some room for criticism there.
Whether there is room for criticism of the judge for going outside the court and speaking at a private dinner is, perhaps, a little debatable. Clearly, in these rather heated circumstances, he felt that he needed to explain what had happened. But it would have been better—and here I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)— had he done so in court. He could have easily done so. He could have easily reinstated
1174
the case before the court and issued a formal statement, setting out the kind of reply that he gave to the accountants in Glasgow, and it would not have caused such offence.
But, in the final analysis, this judge acted in relation to this dispute as he was intended to act by the Government. He made on order, which was inevitable when the defendants refused to appear before the court, the order was not accepted by the union and it was therefore in breach. Then, their being in breach he was bound, if the complainant moved for a writ, to issue out a writ of sequestration and therefore to use union funds.
I do not think there is much justification for the complaint that this money came out of the political fund. It is true that that, again, was an insensitive act. It would have been far better if the judge, or the sequestrators, had made sure that the funds which they were to use came from the general fund. But the Act itself states that in punishment for contempt, as distinct from compensation for damages, a fund of this nature can be attached, and there is nothing in the 1913 Act which makes it impossible so to attach. So that, even though it was an insensitive act, the sequestrators were legally entitled to take the political fund, and the judge was entitled to take it even had he known, which he probably did not.
But in those circumstances one still asks : was it a wise thing to do, knowing full well that the upshot of this chapter of events would be that his court had pursued a policy of political victimisation, not only of the union but of the Labour Party? I think that the judge lacked a certain amount of sensitivity, and that it would have been better had he proceeded differently. But, in the final analysis, he is put in this position because the Government insist upon having this Act on the Statute Book, and the only way of getting out of this situation, where decent men such as my right hon. Friends the Members for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) and Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who have a constitutional respect for the law deeply ingrained in their bones, are now being forced into a situation where they can countenance law breaking, is to take this Act off the statute book. It is that kind of tragedy that is forced upon us

1175
by this inept and futile Act, and it is about time that it went.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Ian Percival: I start by echoing the good wishes expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I wish him well both on personal grounds and for the practical reason that if he is successful in these matters he will achieve something which I believe that most hon. Members on both sides of the House want, namely, an improvement in industrial relations.
One of the features of today's debate has been that the tone has been rather less bitter than that of many of the debates we have had on the subject. A good deal of it has been given to searching—or perhaps at this stage it is only groping—for some common ground rather than a desire to be at loggerheads over everything. I, for one, appreciated those parts of the speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) which were on those lines. He was good enough to point out some of the arguments on both sides rather than concentrate on one side, and I am anxious to make a similar contribution.
I have to start with a point that may be a little controversial, however, for I do think it was most useful for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) to give us so much detail of what has happened. The judge, as we knew, had nothing to do with deciding which funds were seized in pursuance of sequestration. If what my hon. and learned Friend says is right, neither did the commissioners know that those funds were allocated for political purposes.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that the unions must be entitled to comment on what goes on in the courts. Of course they must, just as much as anyone else. However, I hope that the hon. Member will accept the corollary of that, which is that they, just as much as anybody else, must base their comments on facts. If it is the fact that not only the judge had nothing to do with the seizure of those funds in pursuance of sequestration but neither did the commissioners of sequestration have any reason to believe they were political
1176
funds, then to say as did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), that this was a blatant attack on the Labour Party is flying in the fact of facts.
Certainly we should criticise a decision if we disagree with it, but let us criticise it according to the facts.
Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. and learned Member is taking his hon. Friend's interpretation as representing the absolute and correct facts—
Mr. Percival: No.
Mr. Orme: That is what the hon. and learned Member is asking the House to assume. The only way we shall really get the facts of this matter is through a Select Committee which can examine independently.
Mr. Percival: That is one way but I do not for a moment accept that it is the only way. A Select Committee would be taking a steam hammer to crack a nut. We must be able to get at the facts more easily and more speedily than that.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde has given a detailed account of what he says the facts are. If he is wrong the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) must say what information was available to the commissioners when they seized the funds. All the information available at present is that they had no reason to know it was a political fund. If those are the facts, the criticism is wholly unjustified. There is a tendency now to say : "My mind is made up, do not confuse me with the facts." We must not fall into that error. We must look at the facts and make up our minds upon them.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw says that everyone thinks he is an expert in industrial relations. I do not and I do not know any lawyers who do, except those who have been intimately concerned in industrial relations. I do, however, know quite a lot about the law relating to industrial relations, and enough about it to know that it is quite a different subject from industrial relations themselves. Every lawyer I know who has interested himself in the subject—and I know many who have—has drawn that distinction very clearly.
May I now say briefly what I consider to be the place of the law in industrial

1177
relations? Of course, the law cannot produce good industrial relations. Good industrial relations depend upon man's behaviour to man—the behaviour of management to labour, labour to management and both of them to the public at large. Of course, the law cannot produce good industrial relations, but it is equally silly to say that there is no place for the law in industrial relations. If there were no special industrial relations law the first people to howl would be the trade unions, and I should understand that, because most of the law relating to trade unions has been to give them the protection which enabled them to go about their lawful and accepted business of combining to defend the interests of their members. That is perfectly proper. So, to say that the law has no place in industrial relations is as silly as saying that it can produce good industrial relations.
What then is the place of the law? I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) said. In principle, it has the same place in industrial relations as it has in any other part of our lives. If we are not to revert to the jungle we must have laws which say what can and cannot be done and we must have courts which are there as an instrument of last resort for people who cannot decide their legal rights between themselves. These two things are quite indispensable if we are to have a civilised society and not a jungle existence.
These are the rôles which the law plays in society. The law is the servant of all and the master of none. The lawyers do not make the law, the laws do not make the law, and the courts do not make the law. We have a common law, and the rest of the law is made by Parliament. The courts are there to administer the laws. But if the laws and courts are to be good servants they must be obeyed by all. That is what is meant by the rule of law. That is a phrase we bandy about in this House, and we understand what it means. Some people outside may wonder what on earth we are talking about. They may sometimes think we are talking about lawyers ruling the world, but they could not be more wrong. The rule of law is a short phrase we use to describe "obedience to the law by everybody"—
1178
lawyers, trade unionists, parliamentarians, and so on.
Once we get down to the elementary propositions everyone would surely then agree that industrial relations is the last field in which we can afford to say we do not need any of these guidelines and assistance, we do not need these servants but we will struggle through on our own. That is so foolish. It is equally foolish to talk about throwing out the Act lock, stock and barrel. I cannot believe that is what anybody wants. The right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) shakes his head. I must keep within my time, which means I cannot expand the points I am making. But does he really want to throw out all the provisions of this Act and go back to the jungle of laws relating to the protection of trade unionists in their lawful activities which we had before this Act? Does he want to go back to Section 3 of the 1906 Act? He must want to go back to some kind of protection. If he were saying that this law should be scrapped and that trade unionists will stand in the civil courts alongside every other man and answer for their interference with contractual relations just as any other man, that I could understand. Many people would go along with it, and say, "You can have that tomorow." But it is not what the hon. Gentleman wants—and I can see that it is reasonable for him not to be prepared to go entirely back like that.
At the moment many of us think that the protection given to trade unionists in their lawful activities is considerably wider under this Act than the protection given by Section 3 of the 1906 Act, particularly in the sensitive area of sympathetic action. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite really want to lose that and go back to the less effective jungle of Section 3 of the 1906 Act? I do not think that that can be what they want.
Do they want to get rid of the provisions for unfair dismissal which have proved useful to so many people? Do they want to get rid of the new provisions as to "recognition"? Whether the unions register or not, steps are open to them to obtain recognition which they never had before. If they would just go that bit further and register they could have decisions of the CIR enforced. That is why the AUEW is losing out all round on the Con-Mech dispute. If it had

1179
registered—what is the price of registration?—much friction could have been avoided. And it costs nothing to register. But it seems that loss of face is what people are worrying about. Surely that is a minor consideration.
The price of registration is having one's rule book looked at. If it is a good rule book, why worry about someone looking at it? If the AUEW registered it would cost it nothing but give it much in the Con-Mech situation. Not only could it take advantage of that part of the Act of which members of Con-Mech have taken advantage, but, having obtained the decision it did, the union could have taken further steps to take advantage of that decision
Does the hon. Member for Salford, West—and his hon. Friends—want to lose on that? I cannot believe that they do because these are benefits available to the trade union movement. What then, is it that they want? Is it, as some union leaders have indicated, that in some areas, especially, perhaps the area of unfair industrial practices which has caused most of the trouble, they would prefer disputes to be dealt with in the High Court and, if summoned to appear in the High Court, they would do so and plead their case? If that is what they want—some have indicated that it is what they want—is not this the time to say so? If they do, they might find that they have more support for their view than they thought. For instance, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has indicated a view about that.
I end with a plea. If I am right in judging that a little of the bitterness has gone out of the situation and that we are now, albeit haltingly, groping for common ground, I hope that we may put bitterness to one side and make every attempt to seek common ground. It does not seem much to ask. If we disagree, let us disagree on questions of fact and principle, not through bitterness.
Is not this the time when, on all sides of the House, we should be putting into the pool our ideas about how the Act can be changed, abandoning this foolish talk of scrapping the whole lot, which does not make any sense. We should seek, with all the force and good will that we can summon, to find larger and
1180
larger areas of common ground. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today repeated that he is willing to consider all suggestions for amending the Act. I beg all hon. Members opposite to take up that offer.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. Paul B. Rose: During recent weeks the House has witnessed remarkably unseemly postures by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last week performed feats to which perhaps even Mr. Uri Geller would not aspire. The right hon. Member did not bend metal but he certainly bent the facts when he blamed the incompetence of the Government over the economy and industrial relations in a period of four years on what was, at that time, four nights without overtime by the miners.
The Prime Minister's contortions are not merely verbal. He crawled on his knees to lick the oil from the boots of the sheikhs while simultaneously kicking the miners in the teeth. That puts him in a class of his own. His contortion is to suggest that the fault does not lie with the Government. But the former Secretary of State for Employment was responsible for the Industrial Relations Act. Perhaps even more responsible was the former Solicitor-General, who had so much to do with its drafting. It is the direct result of their activities in 1971 that we now face the present situation. The former Solicitor-General is now the chief window-dresser for the Government's bankrupt stock. We know his record with regard to the consumer.
Today Sir John Donaldson has come under attack. It is right to recall that he is no more than a paid servant of an institution and a code of law which, from the start, was doomed. It was doomed to exacerbate tensions and heighten bitterness in industrial relations. The hon. and learned Member for South-port (Mr. Percival) is wrong because the bitterness is as strong today as it ever was.
The late Nye Bevan had something apposite to say about the organ grinders and monkeys, and that is the attitude I take. As Parliament is supreme, it is up to Parliament to right a wrong. If a wrong has been done, as I believe it has, that can be put right by the House.

1181
Let the Government not say that they were not warned about the situation. I remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) and I repeated over and over again from the Opposition Front Bench warnings of the sort of things that would come to pass if the Bill became law. I remember the first time that I addressed the House on the subject, when I said that the heartland of the case against the Bill was that
"The existing agencies are to be placed within the context of the National Industrial Relations Court. … It is the injection of this legalism into the hitherto voluntary framework of industrial relations … that is perhaps the most objectionable feature of this irrelevant and irresponsible assembly of trans-Atlantic abstractions".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January 1971 ; Vol. 809, c. 934–35.]
That was a reference to Taft-Hartley and Lindrum-Griffin.
The bitterness injected by the Bill was already becoming evident. Since then we have had some curious spectacles. We have seen the NIRC being over-ruled by the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal then being over-ruled by the House of Lords on what was basically an issue whether trade union officials are agents of their members or whether they are policemen expected to keep their members in line. The Transport and General Workers' Union, which, unlike the AUEW, did go before the NIRC, suffered as a result to the tune of £55,000. In addition, perhaps to the advantage of my profession, it must have incurred hefty legal costs as well. We had the farcical spectacle of the Official Solicitor in another case being summoned to get the courts off the hook on which the Government had impaled them. It was the fault of the Government. We saw men going to gaol although we were told time and time again during those debates that that would not happen because of the Act.
We were told, ironically, that it would strengthen trade unions and negotiations. In fact, it has led to fragmentation, to spurious breakaway bodies which seek to compete on a terrain where the unscrupulous have a registered advantage as against genuine trade unions.
1182
Many thousands of pounds are now being spent on footling and futile litigation. Recently in another place there was a hearing lasting about three weeks caused by a breakaway body in the Post Office. There is another case in the pipeline that is likely to last just as long.
That is why even people such as Lord Robens rejected what he termed the icy, iron precision of the law. He said that flexibility and pragmatism could not be reflected in a court, however informally constituted. Incidentally, one hon. Member seems to think that if only Sir John Donaldson would wear a wig and gown all would be saved. That was irrelevant.
Somehow the Government seek to turn the criticism from the Frankenstein's monster they deliberately created three years ago on to those whom they sought to enmesh in the tangled web of the Industrial Relations Court. Having apparently protected trade union funds by Section 154, under which they are not to be used in furtherance of a trade dispute, they then permitted the courts to use the law of contempt to vitiate that very protection, so that the unions are no longer protected when the law of contempt is invoked against them. If Hugh Scanlon is in breach of the letter of the law, the NIRC has acted contrary to the spirit of the law, unless—and this may well be the case—the spirit was always intended to allow for just that sort of punitive and vindictive action against lawfully constituted bodies which were not prepared to act out a rôle for which they were never formed.
The NIRC—has—nobody suggests that it intended this—sequestrated funds that were not so much those of the AUEW as of the Labour Party. Whether or not that was the intent, it is the result, and the Government should do something about it.
There is no breach of law in refusing to register or refusing to attend a civil hearing if one is prepared to accept the consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), for whom I have a great deal of respect on a wide range of issues, has been somewhat ill advised to suggest that trade unions are breaking the law when in fact they are asserting a right under the law—the right not to register and not to attend a court. There is nothing wrong in that. It is not breaking the law.

1183
The consequences of that action are accepted.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that point in his speech, when he said that there was no compulsion on trade unions to register.
Mr. Rose: Of course there is no compulsion. But unfortunately when one fails to go to the court the lack of compulsion is then diluted with a fine of £100,000.
Mr. Dudley Smith: What are the disadvantages of registering?
Mr. Rose: There are many. The hon. Gentleman knows them full well, because he introduced them in the legislation. I could give a whole list for the next 10 or 20 minutes, but it would be tedious.
My point is that a union is not breaking the law by not registering, though it cannot have the agency shop and loses the protection of sections that would otherwise give some protection. It is a measure of the feeling of the trade union movement that it is willing to forgo those so-called privileges because of the unions' feeling about the Act.
During the passage of the Act I said of the creation of the NIRC that it challenged the sovereignty of Parliament, that judges would assume responsibility for the interpretation of some very imprecise definitions, that the court would have the remarkable task of interpreting 140 pages of legal mumbo-jumbo. The only difference today is that there are many more than 140 pages. Their number has expanded much faster than the economy, almost as fast as the rise in prices. We forecast then all that has happened since. I did not sign the motion, but the passionate feeling of my hon. Friends who did sign the motion in the name of my hon. Friend for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) are a result of the fact that, as I said then,
"so much of the legislation to be enforced by the NIRC is unenforceable that it will severely damage the prestige and reputation … that our courts of law have".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January 1971 ; Vol. 809, c. 940.]
The irreparable harm we then forecast has been done. Sinister things are happening. The Registrar has been registering spurious unions with curious credentials.
1184
I am told that the county courts are enforcing judgment debts against funds that are protected under Section 154 of the Act, on the basis of actions in respect of a judgment debt. If that is true, it is an attempt to avoid the protection of the section and it must eventually be reversed on appeal.
There are times when I believe that the unions should go to the NIRC, expose its fallacies and put the Government in the dock. The results of the railway-men's ballot and the miners' ballot have exposed that piece of nonsense.
In a free society, unions have the right, even if they are ill advised, to be as bloody minded as the Government have provoked them into being. They are victims of a doctrinaire and arid imposition of a legal straitjacket that is subject to one interpretation after another, and a marked tendency, which is worrying many of my hon. Friends, to make a new law ad hoc as the need arises.
The result of the use of a wrong instrument to deal with human relations in industry is the Government's singular failure to cut down the number of days lost in strikes. Instead, they have taken it to record proportions, beyond anything we have known since the year of the General Strike. They have brought about a confrontation at a time when the nation can least afford it. Sometimes I wonder whether that is not precisely what they intended.
I only wish the Government would stand by their allies abroad in the fuel crisis, just as they stand by the decisions of the NIRC ; that they showed the same unyielding resistance to blackmail elsewhere as they do in respect of those who risk their lives every day in this country by going down the pits, risking silicosis and other hazards, destroying their health in the pursuit of coal. The Government are willing to stand up to like men to them, but not to blackmail from abroad. A prescription for the Government might be a month at the coal face.
Mr. Fernyhough: I am sure my hon Friend does not wish to convey the impression that the miners are trying to blackmail the country.
Mr. Rose: Of course not. My right hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I said that the Government were willing to yield

1185
to blackmail from abroad and yet were not willing to pay the miners what they deserve for doing a hazardous job, one in which they daily risk their health and their lives. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would not mistake my meaning.
The courts are unsuitable because they decide between claims. They do not conciliate. They do not arrive at compromises. It is interesting that the fine inflicted on the AUEW coincided with phase 3 of a disastrous and manifestly unfair economic policy that has hit at wages but not at prices, profits, fees or speculation. In this context the Act is a prescription for chaos. In its leader on 23rd October The Guardian asked :
"Can there be any doubt that this dispute concerning the refusal of a small firm in Woking to give trade union recognition affecting 35 employers is potentially the most divisive event since the case of the imprisoned dockers?"
Some of my hon. Friends have been provoked into attacking the judge of the court and they have been counterattacked by the head of the judiciary. This raises the constitutional issue whether law officers should be associated with politics. Many people are puzzled and learned judges are at loggerheads as a result of the Act that has been thrust upon them. They are in the position of accountants who are asked suddenly to become sociologists. The result has been not to reduce by a single day the time lost in strikes.
The real fact of the matter, as the New Statesman underlined in an editorial on 9th November,
"is that the Government have produced one of the most disastrous and unmanageable pieces of legislation to reach the statute book in half a century."
That legislation has poisoned the political and industrial atmosphere throughout the lifetime of this Parliament.
It is time for the Government to admit that they made a catastrophic blunder which they can do by abolishing the NIRC—the central pillar of an edifice that is already half in ruins. The tragedy is that the debris from that edifice threatens to block the mines, railways and factory floors, and the fault lies fairly and squarely on the Conservative Government.
8.12 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), which could have been made with better effect some years ago—
Mr. Rose: It was.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: That was my diagnosis—I find that it confirms my main disagreement with the motion that the villain of the piece today is still the Industrial Relations Act. That possibly was a sustainable case from the point of view of the Opposition when the Act was originally introduced, but once the Government adopted their new position of being ready to negotiate on every part of the Act, it could no longer be cast in the rôle of the villain of the piece. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite call for the repeal of the Act holus bolus, but everyone knows that there would still be trouble with industrial relations even if the Act were repealed tomorrow.
We have made a great mistake in trying to align the motivation in British industry with the motivation in American industry. For example, the trade unions in America are sold on the proceeds of the capitalist system, whereas ours are not. That is a root of conflict between management and men, whatever may be the legal system, and it will continue until we really sort out what we want to make out of this twentieth century and its opportunities.
Moreover, any Government must reckon on finding groups of politically motivated men in the establishment of most industries, and they will not necessarily be won to the concept of a steady, sane, rational development of their industry backed by a nice framework of law where everyone knows where they are. They are revolutionary, and unless the Government strike them as being more revolutionary and effective than them they are not likely to be impressed or to deviate from their programme.
I was not surprised by the public and sustained reaction to the Industrial Relations Act. I thought that some of it was justified by the original attitude of the Government and their unwillingness to negotiate, but it is not justified now and it was not all justified by the law then.

1187
The first strike that took place in my constituency after the passing of the Act was possible only because of the passing of the Act. Until then unions could not get recognition. Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches are concerned about their law-abiding friends being forced to break the law, because it is such a bad law as they think, but many of my constituents who are not members of the big battalions of the trade unions wonder whether it is the law which has driven them to this predicament or the build-up against it.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) spoke of the benefits which have come to his constituents from the Act. He does not represent a similar constituency to mine. In my constituency, in which there is a strong trade union movement, the position after the passing of the Act is the same as it was before. No one has taken steps to prosecute any of my constituents who in their thousands have been acting in contravention of the law.
I am sure that the Treasury Bench know why. It is because the large employers—ICI, the National Coal Board and the heavy electrical engineering industry—have decided, together with the large trade unions, that they will contract out. Neither the employers nor the unions are invoking the law. Therefore the Government are embarrassed because only the smaller industrialists and smaller unions are using the court.
It was to my constituency that the sequestrators went. It was from a council in my constituency that the £100,000 was taken. The AUEW has millions of pounds, a substantial part of which is invested, but out of all those investments it was decided to take the £100,000 to pay the fine from a Labour-controlled council on which there are seven AUEW members. Although one of the seven was elected as a Tory he joined in the unanimous vote of the council against the money being handed over.
Why was Hebburn Council chosen? Is it because it is such a strong Labour council? Is it because seven of its members are members of the union which was fined? Is it because it has done one of the best slum clearance jobs in the
1188
country? Is it because it has done a marvellous job with revitalisation and with improvements to the environment?
Hebburn Council is being fined. It borrowed this money at a substantially lower rate of interest than it has had to pay for replacement money. Why should the 25,000 people in Hebburn who have done no wrong, broken no law, be the victims of this Act?
When I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what he would do to compensate the council and ratepayers for the additional expenditure that was involved—because of the necessity to borrow money at a rate higher than that at which it had borrowed the money which has been filched from it—he said that it was only his job to sanction loans. Hebburn Council believes that it has a moral obligation to repay the union. It is seeking legal advice as to how that can be done. Will the Secretary of State for the Environment allow it to raise a loan to meet what it believes to be a moral obligation?
It says that it borrowed this money from the AUEW and wants to repay it. Why should it not be allowed to do so if it has a better sense of morality than the Treasury? One of the interesting features of this debate has been the way that everyone pretends that the Act is working well. People say that it has done marvels and worked wonders. Yet at the same time the Government say, "If you have amendments we are willing to listen to them". If it is working well, if it has done its job, why should there be any need to amend it?
If the Government think that, why do they not re-read the debates that took place during the passage of the Act?
If they were to re-read some of the amendments we moved and were then willing to adopt them we might get rid of some of our troubles. We have troubles and will continue to have them as long as the trade unions feel that they are being made to be scapegoats. It is a very funny thing. Everyone knows about the scandals of property and land speculators, of the banking and financial world which are revealed every day. The Government are like Nelson, only they have two blind eyes. They cannot see anything that happens in banking, property or in commerce. They can see only

1189
the wickedness of the very people upon whom the foundations of our society depend.
At present 1 per cent. of the working population of the country—the miners—is engaging in what some would term, having regard to their contracts, an unfair industrial practice. The Government will not and dare not do anything about it. If they had any sense they would say to all these people who are infuriated over the unfairness in our society, "We will deal with the things which you demand should be dealt with on the basis that you will likewise play the game."
Until the Government are prepared to deal with the matters I have mentioned, firmly and resolutely, are ready to shackle and cripple such undertakings in the same way as they seek to cripple, hamstring and shackle the trade unions, there is no hope. The Secretary of State has made a great name for himself as a consequence of what he has attempted in the past 18 months in Ulster. There he came to recognise the realities of the situation. He realised that all of the troubles in Ulster were not due to a few wicked Irish people, but that there were elements on both sides who needed their heads knocking together.
He made a platform. He brought both sides together and made it possible, by shifting his ground and taking a line completely different from his original approach, for progress to be made. I want him to do with industrial relations what he has done for Northern Ireland. I want him to try to bring some common sense into this Act. If he does that he will have done something which will make possible a fairer society and will give us hope that the "One Nation" and "A Better Tomorrow" of which the Tories talked during the election could become a reality not in this Government's lifetime but in the lifetime of the next Government.
8.27 p.m.
Mr. Adam Butler: There are many good reasons why we should reject this motion, not least because it is Early Day Motion No. 49, pre-Christmas wrapped in transparently clear polythene. Many of my learned Friends have mentioned this and no doubt the Attorney-General will have more to say. I say no more about it. It is the real reason for the choice of this debate. I want to address my remarks to the Act. Despite what the
1190
right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) said, there is no doubt that this Act has worked in a number of ways.
First, there are a few thousand good reasons for its success, personified in people who have appeared before industrial tribunals and had their cases fairly tried and in some instances have been compensated by their employers for unfair dismissal.
Many unions have gained recognition under the Act. Many more employers have put their houses in order as a result of the Act, or possibly more particularly because of the working of the Code of Practice. This has been a measure of what they should be doing. It was based on good industrial relations practice which has happened and still happens, thank God, in so many industries, companies and factories. But those who were not practising what the code suggested have set their minds to it and have gradually given more attention to industrial relations. The code, as an appendix to the Act, has therefore also been successful.
Some unions have used the Act to very good effect, through the back door, perhaps, using individual members to fight the case of the unions. This will continue to happen because those unions have realised the benefits of the Act, but because they do not wish to go against TUC policy, they have had to find ways around the provisions in order to get the benefits that the Act allows them. One of the original criticisms of the Act was that trade union membership would suffer. But if the agency shop provisions have worked there can be no doubt that union membership must benefit. Those provisions are there to be used.
It would be equally right to admit that the Act has not worked as well as the Government expected. It would be fair to argue that they expected opposition in the early days but expected that good sense would prevail. Unfortunately, this has not happened. The reason that it has not worked as well as one might have hoped is that it has become an enormous political football, the hide of which has been nearly kicked off.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) admitted that the number of days lost through strikes increased sharply in 1971

1191
and 1972, but drew attention to the fact that this was largely the result of strikes for political reasons. That is what one means by a political football. Legislation of this sort and the whole area of industrial relations are too vital, too important, to be debated in a prejudiced political atmosphere such as prevails today.
In the light of experience—those who were on the Front Bench at the time would be the first to admit that experience was bound to influence some points of detail in the Act—and in the light of opposition by some sectors of organised labour, there must be amendments. To list a few, there must be definite amendments to the registration provisions, to the emergency powers of the Secretary of State. It is wrong to require the Secretary of State to make out a case to the court, because, in emergency situations, politics is the most important criterion. The Secretary of State should be given powers to act without reference. The reason for this provision was to give legal backing to such acts, but that was probably wrong.
I should certainly want to add to the Act proposals on employee participation. They exist to a limited extent in the code, in the recommendations about consultative committees, but probably the code is not the vehicle for a further move down this road. It is an enormous subject, and I hope that in due course we shall have a chance to debate it.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman did not vote for the amendments that we put down at the time on every issue that he has raised.
Mr. Butler: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is referring to employee participation or to some of my earlier remarks.
Mr. Heffer: I moved the amendment.
Mr. Butler: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the code he will see the broad area to which I refer. I am saying that we must go further down that road. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about registration provisions, he should think back to what I said at the beginning of my speech, namely, that not only in the light of experience but in the light of the
1192
opposition from certain sectors of the working community, it is necessary to rethink. That is a reasonable thing to do.
Comparatively few organisations have put forward their suggestions for amendment. Some of them may have been premature. The Industrial Society, which was quoted earlier, is an organisation to which we should listen. However, I should not expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to listen just to one group of people. My advice would be that the door should be opened to all representations. Until those who are most qualified to comment have made their recommendations, there should be no change. I refer specifically to the trade union movement. The door must be open to it to make its recommendations. Until it does and until it feels able to do so in an atmosphere which is not so politically hot as it is now, I ask my right hon. Friend to take no action.
I am totally opposed to the repeal of the Act. At the end of the day I believe that the Act, amended as necessary, will be welcomed by the Government, by the Opposition and by the people. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) compared industrial relations to marital relations. He said that husband and wife can have an argument, make it up and carry on together. That was a poor analogy. Industrial relations are more similar to the relations between neighbours. Such relations must be carried out, and are generally carried out, in a non-legal atmosphere. There is tolerance, give and take, and a willingness to live together. When those relations become strained, when one neighbour takes a totally unfair action against the other, the law can be called in.
The Industrial Relations Act provides a framework of law within which industrial relations can function. They can function in a non-legal atmosphere. I believe that all reasonable people accept the need for that framework as they accept the law in their everyday life. Therefore, the Act must remain on the statute book.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) finished his speech with an analogy and a reference to the law. He will forgive me if I do not make a further

1193
analogy. In the remaining time I shall concentrate on what the Secretary of State said and on what the Attorney-General might wish to say later. I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Bosworth, to whom I listened with great care.
The Secretary of State began his speech with a review of the past. I found considerable fault within that review. I am not the only hon. Member who felt that way.
We were reasonably gentle with the Secretary of State today. After all, it was his maiden innings in his new post. But he will know that he has a task before him in which he will be well advised to discard a great deal of the tired history which he gave us today. We all want the right hon. Gentleman to succeed in his task. Party differences apart, there is no right hon. or hon. Member on the Opposition benches who does not wish the Secretary of State to succeed, because most of us take the old-fashioned view of Ministers of Labour. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) referred to the time when a Minister of Labour was in a special position among the members of his Cabinet, in that he was the chief conciliator in the State. What has been wrong over the past few years is that Ministers of Labour, under whatever name or title, have moved away from this useful tradition.
I say that the right hon. Gentleman should discard all this faulty history and start afresh. For example he told us, and through us the country and the trade union movement, that there was common ground on the need to introduce legislation of this kind after his Government were elected in 1970. That is not so. The country had been preoccupied for many years with what were called territorial disputes—in other words, disagreements among members of different trade unions about who should do which job. By the time that the present Government were framing their legislation we had passed through that period successfully. In recent years, disputes of that kind have become a matter of history. The situation was put right by the trade union movement, which saw to the solution of the difficulty through individual unions, the General Council of the TUC and, not
1194
least, its immediate past General Secretary, Mr. Victor Feather.
The Secretary of State has been given a great deal of faulty history by his Department. He must unlearn it and have a real look at the situation. He will find that the legislation framed by his Government after they were elected in 1970 was historically unnecessary and merely followed a commitment which his party had given its members at a number of Tory Party Conferences. On our television screens in recent years we have all seen people at those conferences going to the rostrum to attack the trade union movement—[Interruption.] I notice the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) laughing. It is quite probable that he took part in some of those tirades. If he did not, he has probably had to sit through a number of them waiting to speak in other debates.
Nothing was more dangerous and futile than the inflammable propaganda against the trade union movement which the Tories worked up before the 1970 election. Thus, they became the prisoners of their own propaganda when they began framing their legislation.
Their other fault was in sending one of their Ministers to the United States of America. It was his proud boast that he toured 13 States studying the Taft-Hartley legislation. He came back thinking that it was the last word in industrial relations legislation. It was the tirades at the Tory Party Conferences and the Government's desire to imitate the Taft-Hartley legislation which produced the Industrial Relations Bill, and it was recognised immediately to be likely to result in nothing but trouble.
I come now to my second correction to what the Secretary of State had to tell us. He said that those of us who demanded the total repeal of the Act showed thereby that we did not want to put anything in its place. When he has learned a little more about his new job he will realise that that is poppycock. We were voicing nothing more than the responsible statement of the General Council of the TUC, which said that it wished to see the Act repealed but at the same time it wanted new legislation introduced to provide the advantages and protections to trade unionists and working people that we have desired for many years. It will not merely be re-enacting

1195
what the present legislation contains. It will be improved legislation, including the right to reinstatement, which a Labour Government would put on the statute book at the same moment as they would repeal the present Act.
I turn now to the third statement made by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Norman Tebbit rose—
Mr. Mendelson: There is no time for me to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have made no reference to him. Many other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and I do not wish to prevent at least one other hon. Member from doing so.
The Secretary of State committed himself to saying that it was up to my right hon. Friend and not the Government to propose amendments. What an abdication of the duty of government, and what a ridiculous statement for a man who is a senior member of the Cabinet and has just been appointed to a new job. The Attorney-General knows the position. The Government have now agreed, by implication, that there are grave faults in the legislation. Industrialists throughout the country will not use the legislation, and responsible employers do not want to go anywhere near it.
The fact that so many employers have taken this view is clear evidence that the Act ought to be abolished or seriously amended, but the Government are not bringing forward any amendments—not even in response to the request of my right hon. Friend. They are adopting the diplomatic position that someone else should produce amendments. That is a load of nonsense. If the Government are convinced—and it is obvious that they are—that there are grave faults in major parts of the legislation, they should produce a set of amendments with which they should approach the TUC General Council, and ask for serious negotiations. The Government have not done this.
There is something else that the Government have never done. One night this week there was a late night television programme—a sort of run-up to this debate—featuring a flash-back to the original discussion about the Act. In the programme a member of the University of Birmingham was showing the influence of television on social life.
1196
Among the people in the programme was Mr. Victor Feather. In reply to a question by a professor from the London School of Economics, Mr. Feather said that when the Government were framing their legislation the TUC had never been consulted on the principles of the Act. That was the statement by the immediate past General Secretary of the TUC.
We have never been able to get the Prime Minister to agree to this simple fact, nor did we get the right hon. Gentleman to agree to it. He may genuinely not have known. I imply no irony or satire in saying that. But the Attorney-General must have known that the trade unions were never consulted on the principles of the Act. Therefore, the legislation was faulty from the start.
I turn now to the argument about the majesty of the law. It is generally accepted that there is not a more law-abiding section of the British public than the members of the trade union movement. It is generally known that, as they form so large a part of the nation, carrying forward all the year round the work of the nation, most of them never listen to agitators. Most of them are concerned with their skill and work. That is no less true of the engineers.
Mr. David Waddington rose—
Mr. Mendelson: I have no time to give way. The trade union movement has always adopted the same tradition as the rest of the nation, namely, that in framing legislation we must take due regard of fairness and reasonableness. That is why all the talk about the majesty of the law is so much propaganda and poppycock, not least in the mouth of the Tory orator who is now Lord Chancellor.
The rest of the nation has always recognised that when legislation is framed it must be fair and reasonable. The legal and constitutional history of our people is full of striking examples in which people have said not only that they will try, by debate and criticism, to get legislation overturned, but that they are not going to be a party to a piece of legislation by working it themselves.
Here I take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North, who, I thought, made a striking and excellent speech, particularly strong in its

1197
middle passage. It is true that the majority of the trade union movement decided not to ask its affiliated unions not to appear in front of this court. It is true that they passed no decision that everybody should appear in front of it. There is no issue on that between my right hon. Friend and myself. But what he under-valued, and what should be put on record, at least from this side of the House, is that when the engineers decided not to work this legislation they were acting in the long, honourable tradition of many people in this country over the years who have said, "We are taking no part in this", and were in no way acting illegally in making that decision.
Mr. Waddington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mendelson: No. While the general attitude of the trade union movement in attacking this legislation was always clear, for my part I believe that history will say that it was indeed the work of the trade unions and the attitude of the AUEW which showed up the absurdity of this law.
During long periods of British history—including when Lord Eldon was Lord Chancellor ; this may not be a bad day on which to refer to him—periods of which now every after-dinner speaker is particularly proud, it has been necessary to show that a law was absurd and oppressive by not taking part in its working at all at any stage at any time.
I am not a member of the AUEW, but I believe that it will be proved right. I believe that it has acted honourably on behalf of not only the whole trade union movement but all those who care for liberty in this land. That is why all this talk about the majesty of the law and law-breaking is completely faulty. Earlier, in an intervention, I tried to show that in years gone by the scissors-grinders in Sheffield did break the anti-combination laws, but I did not wish to indicate that there is a parallel in the present issue. The AUEW is not breaking the law ; the scissors-grinders did, and they have an honourable place in the history of the trade union movement.
Today, the law is not being broken. The Opposition motion has been much criticised. When my right hon. Friends put it down I was proud to add my signature. It will be regarded as an important
1198
part of the history of this period, when that history is written. Nor is it an attack on the majesty of the law. The Lord Chancellor forgot about the law when he was making his attack on those who signed the motion. He made a political attack on them and was abusing the majesty of his office in doing so. He acted like a party politician and not as the senior officer of the judiciary.
Hon. Members opposite should have been able to study the face of the Secretary of State when one of my hon. Friends said today that the Lord Chancellor was likely to fly into a tirade at the drop of a hat. That is known in other circles. It is known that the Lord Chancellor himself felt criticised because he made the appointment of Sir John Donaldson.
Here we come to an interesting point. People say that one must not at any time move towards critique of a judge as a person. How silly that is, and how much against the traditions of the history of freedom in this country. Time and again one has not been able to divorce the administration of a court from the person of the judge involved, and while we may not be able to ask for dismissal of a judge unless by a substantive motion, critique of a person administering a court has always been regarded as right, and part of our tradition.
We come to the person of the judge. I say to the Government and in particular to the Lord Chancellor, who made the appointment, that when one appoints a judge for a new, highly sensitive court which is bound to bring the judge into question and into almost weekly conflict on matters which a large section of the population regard as oppressive legislation—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Member should be rather careful. This matter is sub judice. Up to the moment we are within the rules of order, but we are coming perilously close to the edge of them.
Mr. Mendelson: I shall do my best to stay within the confines of order, as I have done hitherto, according to your statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
When the Lord Chancellor appointed a man to that position he had to consider the administration of justice—this has nothing to do with the majesty of the court—which is properly our business.

1199
Would it not have been much better to have picked for this sensitive appointment not a former Tory political candidate but someone far removed from such conflict? I ask that as a question of wisdom.
In the making of this appointment we have had the extraordinary spectacle of the same judge making a speech outside his court—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Member is now out of order.
Mr. Mendelson: In that case I will not pursue this any further.
I tell the Government, that the way in which someone in this high office conducts himself is part of the case we have to examine, and the Attorney-General must not merely skate over these things without giving us precisely related statements on the political implications of the legislation as well as the pure letter of the law.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well, as do the Government, that it has been the tendency of this Government, and of the Prime Minister in particular, to engage in various policies, to enact a code and then to face the trade unions and say to them, "If you do not accept what we have said in this code you are breaking the law".
The Prime Minister is trying it with the miners. We had almost to coerce him the other day, on a Thursday afternoon, into an admission that the miners had not broken any law whatsoever in refusing to work overtime. It is the repeated technique of this Government, led by the Prime Minister, knowing that the British people are law abiding, to use this kind of propaganda, to confuse what is legitimate activity of an organised working class group with breaking the law, to try to make it appear that everybody opposing the will of the Prime Minister is thereby opposing the whole law-making process if he adopts towards legislation attitudes not acceptable to the Government. This has been a growing tendency.
If they think that that propaganda will work with the people of this country the Government have another think coming. They are gravely mistaken. People are
1200
seeing through what they are doing. This is not the first period in British industrial history when Tory Governments have tried to create the impression that the law is what they say it is when they have framed legislation and administered it in a way deliberately directed against the industrial working class—when they allowed an immense increase in the cost of living and said that people could not have wage increases because the law said they could not. None of this will wash.
This is an historic debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North, who initiated it, has done a service to both industry and the country. The country knows that this legislation is futile, useless and hostile to the best interests of industrial relations. The sooner it is swept away the better it will be for everybody.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Stanley Orme: As my hon. Friend the Member for Penis-tone (Mr. John Mendelson) said, this has been a historic debate. Before the debate began it was thought that the Government would be on the attack, with the Opposition on the defensive. But the rôles have been reversed. I believe that the case we have made out in this debate has been proved.
It is an interesting fact that although the Conservatives allowed not a single amendment to be made to the Industrial Relations Bill in 1971, today in one speech after another they have spoken constantly about amendments. They do not go into detail as to what exactly those amendments should be, but nevertheless they talk about them. They are on the defensive in terms of the Act.
The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, appeared in this morning's issue of The Times under the heading, "Rule of Law Threatened". I want to examine who is threatening the law. The National Industrial Relations Court, Lord Hailsham, and the President of NIRC have more to answer for than anybody on this side of the House or the trade union movement.
It is worth remembering what were some of the main arguments when this legislation was introduced. The guilty men are not present this evening to answer for their past misdemeanors. The

1201
right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary, who as Secretary of State for Employment took this legislation through the House, took as his main theme the fact that it was aimed at dealing with wildcat strikers. This was nothing to do with normal trade union relations, or with good trade union leaders or good employers, but was to deal with the wildcat strikers. There was, we were told, a certain section of the community which had to be controlled. Therefore, we had to have the Bill, with all its paraphernalia, imposed on the country—and imposed in the teeth of bitter opposition both inside and outside the House.
The legislation created a new type of court which for the first time in a generation divided the community. That is the sort of setting in which we are dealing with this Act. When Conservatives ask, "Are the trade unions opposed to the law" and "Do they want to be above the law?", the truth is that trade unions have always observed the law. They have gone to the courts and have operated under the British court system as it has always existed. Indeed, the trade unions have taken their internal differences to the courts. The only time I have appeared in a court related to the hearing of a trade union case when I gave evidence on behalf of a member of my union who was then in contest with the executive council of the union. We all accepted the judgment of that High Court.
But we are not dealing with that type of High Court matter in our motion. The legislation with which we are now dealing is not the normal sort of legislation that one would expect trade unions to encounter. This is legislation which enters directly into the sector of free collective bargaining, and this is something which the Government tried to impose upon the trade union movement. They have failed in that legislation and we have had phases 1, 2 and 3, again backed by the might of the law. That in itself does not resolve anything.
Has this Act done anything to improve industrial relations? What about the electricity workers and the railwaymen? In the case of the railwaymen, the Government thought it right to conduct a ballot, but they have decided that they do not want a ballot of the miners. Therefore,
1202
they bend the law to suit themselves. It is not an impartial law. It is a law that is manipulated and manoeuvred.
I should like to mention here the Transport and General Workers' Union and Heaton's Transport. Let us consider how the courts have been used. The Secretary of State told us how the courts are being used. One way is by small groups of men forming breakaway unions and trying to break the organised strength of the trades unions—not least the Union of Post Office Workers.
Much has been said today about the AUEW and Con-Mech. I think something should be said about that matter in more detail. Hon. Members know, because reference has been made to it, that Motion No. 49 on the Order Paper deals with a different aspect of that matter. We are not discussing that tonight, but that motion will remain on the Order Paper until we get justice.
In the AUEW /Con-Mech situation we are talking about a union facing a fine of £75,000 and sequestration of £100,000. What is it all about? It is about 31 men who want to join a trade union in 1973. It concerns a bad employer, backed by a previous Member of this House, now a noble Lord in another place—apparently we did not teach him enough about industrial relations when he was here—and 31 people wanting to join a trade union. They banded together and formed a branch of that union. The management's action was to sack not only the shop stewards who were elected but the men themselves. When the AUEW tried to negotiate and meet the management it met all kinds of difficulties. The union wanted to resolve the matter. Indeed, Hugh Scanlon, both on television and in the Press, said that the Executive Council of the AUEW wanted to resolve the matter. But no, Con-Mech went to the National Industrial Relations Court.
Mr. Ashton: For damages.
Mr. Orme: For damages, as my hon. Friend said. That decision has not yet been resolved. The union was fined £75,000 for trying to organise workers in 1973. Is that the type of justice that we should ask trade unionists to accept? Is that the type of justice that trade unionists will accept?
The National Industrial Relations Court and its actions, particularly flowing

1203
from the Heaton's and Con-Mech cases, is creating a separate identity and is beginning to operate its own rules within our legal system. That is very dangerous indeed. We on this side uphold the law. We want the law to be paramount in our society. But that law must not be bent when it suits certain people to bend it. In my opinion, the law has been bent.
A great deal has been said about sequestration and where the new rules came from. In the Con-Mech judgment Sir John Donaldson said :
"The use of these powers"—
that is, sequestration—
"in the High Court almost always occurs in the context of a private dispute between two litigants who hope and intend never to cross each other's paths again.… All this is quite different in the field of industrial relations.… We have therefore considered whether there may not be jurisdiction for the court to issue the writs of its own motion upon being satisfied that the contempt of court is proved.… In our judgment the public interest requires in industrial relations cases such as the present that the court itself take the responsibility for issuing the writs of sequestration to the commissioners and that the complainants shall not be involved. The form of order will reflect this conclusion."
That goes for every case coming out of the NIRC. I have talked to lawyers about this issue. They feel that it is a matter of grave concern that the normal law that appertains in the normal High Court is not applicable in this court. In consequence we take the strongest exception to it.
Many odd things have happened in this case. I have with me the correspondence of Clifford-Turner and Company when it arranged to pick up this money. Incidentally, I do not think that anyone will ever have seen so-called British justice act with the speed that it acted in this court. To try to get £10 out of anyone through the High Court would normally take 12 months. This court got £100,000 in a week. We have the curious matter of the clerk at Hebburn in telephone conversations—this was not done by letter—talking as follows :
"It was agreed that a cheque would be available for collection by a representative of the Commissioners on the 18th October, 1973. The cheque would be dated the 22nd October."
The company said :
"We asked that the cheque be dated earlier than 22nd October, 1973 and in the event it
1204
was dated the 19th October. It was duly collected at approximately 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18th October, 1973 by a representative of the Commissioners."
There was no room for manœuvre there. The clerk to the council did not even inform the local authority, his own elected representatives, that he would hand over this money. What about the carrying out of the law in that regard?
Mr. Russell Kerr: That is a different law. It is Tory law.
Mr. Orme: When we see how this took place—the correspondence is extremely iluminating—let us not forget what has happened to Hebburn. The council borrowed money at 8¼ per cent. If it wants to get money now on the open market, that could cost it 14 per cent. This has damaged the local authority. The clerk has now had to leave his job. That is the sort of trail that has been left by the Act.
Is all this because 31 people wanted to hold a card of the AEUW? They did not want to strike or to take industrial action, but wanted simply to hold a card in their hands. When considering this sort of measure and the size of the fine, we must realise that this was a deliberate decision, as it was in the Heaton case, of the president of the court to assert his authority over the trade unions and to bring them to heel. That is what the £100,000 fine is about. That is what the trade unions are facing at present.
When Sir John Donaldson decides to come down into the market place and to argue his case, he must take what is coming to him. I believe that he has acted wrongly. He has made a major miscalculation in this particular case. If he is not satisfied or if he feels that his court should not be criticised, he should either give up the job or take the appropriate action within his court to answer the case and deal in detail with the AUEW case, and not go to Glasgow to make an after-dinner speech.
Many other things have happened in this court. For instance, there has been a change in the rules of evidence. No lawyer on the Government side of the House has mentioned that today. But by Schedule 3 paragraph 18(5) the rules of evidence have been waived. In the Heaton case a statement of a general secretary of a trade union which was reported in the Press was used in the court

1205
as evidence without any qualification or any examination as to its validity. When the case finally reached the House of Lords, the Lords quoted what the general secretary had said as if he had been in the court and given evidence himself.
Then there is another gentleman attached to this court at whom we ought to look—a gentleman by the name of Master Seaton. He was in charge of the sequestration and instructed Clifford-Turner to raise the money. But Master Seaton happens to be the secretary of the court, so he is in a direct line with the president of the court. When Sir John Donaldson went outside the court and said, "I gave no instructions that the money must be taken from the political fund of the AUEW", he also did not give instructions that it must not be taken from the political fund of the AUEW—and that is the crucial point.
I ask the Attorney General, what other High Court acts in the manner of this court? What other High Court allows its president to have negotiations with the Engineering Employers' Federation? What other High Court allows someone like Master Seaton to brief the Press and to seek out judgments of selected Press men?
I do not ask these questions without considered judgment, or without the knowledge that this has taken place. These things are happening in the name of British justice, and they must be exposed. They have been used to support the court—and, in the main, the newspapers are backing the court. In consequence, the trade union movement is not able to get over its point of view and its case. The evidence speaks for itself.
I want to deal for a moment with the political fund of the AUEW. During this debate we have heard a lot about the 1913 Act. We all accept that in cases of contempt no funds are protected, and that any funds are liable if the court so decides. But although any of that political fund money may, if necessary, be put to general use, the 1913 Act prevents a transfer from the general fund into the political fund. This is where the decision directly impinges upon the Labour Party, which is the party supported by those AUEW members who pay the political levy. They do that freely and openly, and it is an absolute disgrace
1206
that this outrage has been perpetrated on the British Labour Party.
People may argue about whether the AUEW should have attended the court. There is no clear evidence that if the union had gone to the court it would have had a better judgment. I ask hon. Members to look at what happened to the Transport and General Workers' Union. In one case, the union went to the court and was fined £100,000; and, in the other case, the union did not go to the court but was still fined £100,000. How are trade unionists to assess what has happened? How are people who normally respect the law, who are the backbone of our society—the trade union movement, which is the democratic base upon which the working class in this country operate—to assess the situation? [Laughter.] Let hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh. They do not understand the situation.
On top of all this, the CIR report completely vindicated the union. It said that it was right and that it should be the sole organising body. My union contacted the employers immediately after that decision, but they have still not accepted that the trade union movement should be recognised. This is the key issue.
Was the Government's intention to allow the Con-Mechs, the anti-trade union employers to exist, to allow the Mr. Goads to exploit the situation? Was it to allow the Heatons to operate or to help the GAS company? These employers are in the twilight of industrial relations. They come out from under stones and they are opposed to good industrial relations. They are poisoning industrial relations—and I advise the Conservatives not to laugh at this because the trade union movement is in no laughing mood.
Many major firms have actually gone to the court and used it. Vauxhalls had a dispute and could have taken it there but they did not. The same goes for the National Coal Board. Nevertheless the Government have allowed the Act to remain on the statute book and they have enabled these people to creep out from under the stones and poison our industrial life. It is an absolute disgrace and it should be ended.
Mr. Adam Butler Mr. Adam Butler rose—
Mr. Orme: I cannot give way. I pose the question who is breaking the law? Who bent the law in regard to the five dockers who should never have been released on the contempt charge? Why do not the Government use the Act to deal with the miners? What about the change in the law that has brought the Taff Vale judgment back to bear on the trade union movement which will create havoc with compensation for any industrial dispute that takes place? These are the questions we are asking and which have to be answered by the Government, and I believe that we are right to pose them tonight.
Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was referring a few moments ago to the position of the 31 men. Will he agree that before the Industrial Relations Act they had no right to recognition? Under the Act they have the right, as the CIR has established.
Mr. Orme: The straight answer to the question is that before the Act this dispute would have been settled in a couple of days. It would not even have made a paragraph in the local paper.
I charge the Government that they have created a separate court, which is operating outside the normal confines of the High Court, which was introduced into a divided House and a divided country, and which is putting trade unionists in an impossible position. Everyone says that the AUEW is breaking the law, but the union is not attending the court, which is its right, just as trade unions have the right not to register. Nevertheless it is putting the trade unions in an invidious position.
These are difficult times for industrial relations, as I think everyone recognises. Neither the Industrial Relations Act nor the statutory incomes policy will resolve the situation at the moment. It needs far more than that. It needs an indication from this Government that there will be social justice in this country, that there will be a redistribution of wealth and that the people who create it will get their just reward. We can do without the property speculators but by God we cannot do without the miners. That is the issue. If we try to dragoon the people who produce the wealth we shall be in a great deal of trouble.
1208
What Lord Hailsham said last night was interesting, but in my opinion political action is now being impinged upon the legal system by the Government—not by us—and in consequence those of us who have upheld the law—and the trade unions are most interested in this point—have not always considered that the law is on their side and have felt that High Court judges were isolated and distant. But they have obeyed the law ; they have fought for changes in the law and they are great respecters of the law. But the law is now creating a situation which cannot continue.
Compliments have been paid to the Secretary of State. We recognise that his job in Northern Ireland was very difficult. We obviously still wish him success. We supported the manner in which he carried out his duties over there, particularly his rôle in connection with the Executive and the Council of Ireland. He had time to study those problems. I accept that he has not had time today, and recognise his difficulties in making his speech.
When the right hon. Gentleman examined the problem of Northern Ireland he realised that there was only one answer, to sweep away the past and to put something new in its place. If he wants to do any good in his new rôle in industrial relations, he must do the same here. That means getting rid of, or putting on ice, the Industrial Relations Act. If he does that he will feel the sigh of relief from the trade unions, because they do not welcome the present confrontation. They are being forced into it.
One of the right hon. Gentleman's last actions before returning from Ireland was to appoint two people to key positions—one as chairman of the committee concerned with human rights and the other as Parliamentary Commissioner. He appointed two trade unionists, one of them Mr. Vic Feather. He comes back here and finds the Government of which he is a member acting in exactly the opposite way, looking for a fight and a showdown with certain trade unions.
The Opposition say that there is no easy, simple, universal answer to the problem. The motion is supported unanimously by the Labour Party, and we shall vote for it. We are committed to repealing the Act. It is the first thing a Labour Government will do. I tell the

1209
right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) that we shall have legislation ready to put in place of the Act, to allow a normal procedure to operate. We shall return once again to free trade unions and free collective bargaining in a free society. We will not tolerate the present legislation one minute longer than necessary.
If the Secretary of State does not take action over the law he will be in difficulty. We did not welcome tabling a censure motion on Sir John Donaldson, but we felt that we were right and that today's motion is right. Conflict has been created in our society by the Government through the Act and the court. We must get rid of the court and the Government and replace the Act by other legislation. If the Government do not take heed of that they will be responsible for the industrial problems that follow.
9.30 p.m.
The Attorney-General(Sir Peter Rawlinson): No one can sit through a debate on such matters as we have been discussing, let alone take part in it, without appreciating the feeling and passion that arise.
We have had a contrast between the Opposition's opening speech, by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), and the Opposition's closing speech, by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I have heard the hon. Gentleman many times. No one can listen to him without realising the passion he feels about these matters, which is acknowledged on both sides of the House, But the House will recognise that there was a difference in approach between the two speeches.
I do not think that anyone who took part in the debates when the Act was going through Parliament, or was present, will ever forget it. Many hon. Members have probably not forgotten their speeches, because some of those speeches were repeated today.
No one doubted the immense task which Parliament was giving to a new court in establishing the National Industrial Relations Court. It was accepted and understood that there would have to be a presiding judge and that other judges would have to be appointed.
1210
I was glad that the right hon. Member for East Ham, North said that the attack should be directed at the Government. Of course it should. That is the courageous and straightforward way to attack in the matter. The proper target is the Minister and the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment accepted as he stood there presenting a very good target this afternoon. It is intolerable if the opposition to Government policy is directed towards the judges. That is bad for Government, bad for Opposition and, above all, bad for Parliament.
The National Industrial Relations Court and its judges, not only because of the atmosphere in the debates but because of the very nature of the matters they had to decide, had a difficult task. They are entitled to be judged on the whole of the record since December 1971. Of course, they have been in the centre of several storms but, contrary to the impression of some, most of what the court has had to do has been the ordinary, prosaic, unexciting, un-news-worthy matter which is usually dealt with by courts or Parliament. Only in a few cases have storm centres occurred. Only when the court has been faced with confrontation has its work been the subject of publicity and headlines.
Despite that, the court has dealt with a vast amount of solid and effective work which, whether Labour Members like it or not, has affected many thousands of people who went to it. It has achieved a great deal, as much by settlement, agreement and conciliation as by judgment or order. None of that has been publicised, but if this law is to be critically examined by the House the whole operation of the court should be taken into account.
When it established the court Parliament made clear that its prime purpose was to bring about agreement between parties who came to it. Therefore, its success can be measured more by the cases it settled than by those it decided.
The hon. Gentleman criticised part of the procedures and methods which the court adopts as compared with various divisions of the High Court. But Parliament stated that it should regulate its own procedures. It was to exercise its jurisdiction so as to enable parties to use conciliation officers. It was to avoid

1211
formality and was not to be bound by the strict rules of evidence. Anyone was to be represented at it. The hours of sitting were to be fixed to suit the parties, for however long they desired, and there were to be adjournments, discussion and conciliation whenever required. That is why the court's procedures are totally different from the procedures in the various divisions of the High Court.
Mr. John Silkin: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House of any other court in the history of these islands being established against the wishes of an Opposition?
The Attorney-General: I was not in the House when the Court of Star Chamber was established, or when the ordinary criminal courts were established. But the right hon. Gentleman knows that the NIRC was established to deal with industrial relations cases in an entirely different way from that of any other court in the land.
As I said, it is right that the areas in which the court has been operating should be examined and that we should see what it has achieved. More than 11,500 original applications have come to this tribunal under the Act. There have been 566 appeals to the court on points of law. These are areas about which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen do not care, but there are many people who do care about them. The appeals are concerned with unfair dismissal provisions. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North approved the new law on unfair dismissals, and presumably he will include similar provisions in his proposals when he unveils them, so that we can see what is his idea of an industrial relations law.
Nineteen applications for the approved closed shop have been dealt with by the National Industrial Relations Court. There have been 60 applications for recognition of sole bargaining agencies. Those applications have necessarily arisen, in the main, in the developing area of trades unionism because the unions concerned are often small. The hon. Member for Salford, West spoke almost contemptuously of the developing areas of trades unionism, but they should not be overlooked.
1212
A year ago there was a recognition strike by the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs which threatened the Christmas holidays. The employers complained that there had been a strike without notice. The union complained of victimisation. As the employer was unwilling, the court asked the Secretary of State to intervene and industrial action ceased. The recommendation of the CIR was that the ASTMS should be recognised, and a recognition agreement was signed. That is one example of the work of the court. There have been many other cases in which the court has declined to interfere with established bargaining.
Then there are complaints of unfair industrial practices. I know that hon. Gentlemen are not anxious to hear this. [interruption.] There have been 115 cases of alleged unfair industrial practice. [Interruption.] The court—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Really, this is not tolerable. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who wound up for the Opposition, was heard in comparative silence. This is a place for debate, not for noisy interruptions.
The Attorney-General: I was dealing with cases of alleged unfair industrial practice. I cite the Royal Doulton case in which ATAMS was involved. It went on strike without notice. The GMWU refused to support it. There were pickets and 300 men were laid off. A complaint was made to the court but before the hearing of the case officers of the company and the union conferred on the court premises. They discussed and solved the problem. The men went back to work within two days after a strike which had lasted six weeks.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. The court has been effective and has done good work which is appreciated by the unions and the individuals who have appeared before it. Scores of unions have appeared before it. They obey the law and the orders of this court. Many have proved successful in proceedings before it.
Mr. Ashton: If the court is doing so well, why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not refer the miners' dispute to it?
The Attorney-General: That is not a matter for me. It would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if and when he felt it appropriate.
Mr. Ashton: Ask him. He is sitting beside you.
The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Salford, West referred to the Transport and General Workers' Union. It appeared before the court in a case called Cory v. the TGWU. In that case the company claimed that its remedy lay in the High Court and not before the NIRC. The defendants, the TGWU said :
"that it would be very advantageous to have the matter dealt with by the Industrial Court where there is valuable machinery for conciliation."
This was the Transport and General Workers' Union saying that it did not want that case dealt with by the High Court but wanted it transferred to the NIRC, where there was valuable conciliation machinery. That shows that the union believes that the court has a valuable system of concilation not enjoyed by other courts. It demonstrates that the union thought that the court's practice and procedure was preferable to that of the ordinary courts.
When the court came into existence it was faced with hostility on the part of the major unions. Within three months of its establishment the TUC decided that it should be left to individual unions to decide whether to defend their interests at the court when under attack.
Thereafter, all unions save the AUEW have done so. In May 1972, in the railway's dispute, the unions were represented. In the same month, during the docks dispute, the TGWU was represented. At the TUC conferences this year a motion calling for a total boycott of the court, moved by the AUEW and the Fire Brigades Union, was rejected. The Fire Brigades Union now attends the court and takes part in its hearings. The EUEW stands virtually alone in its attitude, even in matters of unfair dismissals. It does not even pay compensation awarded to its own workers by industrial tribunals for unfair dismissal from the union's employment.
The fact that it stands virtually alone is perhaps the reason for the trouble in the case of Con-Mech. I should like to
1214
confirm the version of the facts given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). It is worth dealing with these facts, one section of which was given by the hon. Member for Salford, West. He said that it was a small engineering firm with 67 employees. On 18th September, two employees began soliciting the others for membership of the union. On 19th September they demanded that the company recognise the AUEW as the sole bargaining agent. The company declined because it did not believe that that was the desire of the majority of its employees. This was followed by a lightning strike.
On 20th September—all this took place in 24 hours—the district secretary wrote saying that the union endorsed the action. Picketing was established and placards announced that it was an official AEWU strike. As a consequence, suppliers, haulage contractors, even postmen and milkmen, were turned back from the premises.
On 26th September, an application was made to the court to restrain this industrial action under Section 101 and one relating to recognition under Section 45. On Thursday 27th September, the court made an interim order restraining the industrial action, but it was specifically stated that it would not come into operation until Monday 1st October to permit the parties an opportunity to get together. But no notice was taken by the pickets, so on 9th October, a hearing on the disobedience of the interim order was held by the court. Again the union refused to appear. It was its deliberate policy to boycott the court.
Thus, on 10th October, there was an order as to the contempt of the order made on 27th September. That was defied by the union and the writs of sequestration were issued to the four commissioners. But the court did not levy the fine then, as it might have done ; it said that it would give further opportunity to the union to think again and to come to make representations if it were so minded. The court said that it was taking an exceptional course in delaying and that this was an opportunity for the union to think again.
But there was no action by the union, so writs of sequestration were issued to the four commissioners, from the chartered accountants, Messrs. Price, Waterhouse.

1215
There was a standard form requiring those officers to take in the property of the union up to £100,000. After that procedure, the court took no part in any consequential procedure.
Mr. Fernyhough: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to me, in view of the fact that the union has other investments, probably some in Government funds and some in private industry, why the commissioners decided to take £100,000 from a Labour-controlled council with seven AEWU members on it?
The Attorney-General: If the right hon. Gentleman will listen, I will go through the story of what happened.
On 10th October, the court considered who should take steps to enforce its order. It heard argument. It was clearly shown that the court had an inherent right in a civil action—not only in a criminal action, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) thought—and in certain circumstances a duty, to issue writs to ensure that the orders were effectively enforced, that it was exercising jurisdiction in the public interest, and, as it thought and held in the industrial relations case, that the public interest called for it so to do.
The writ of attachment, the concept of which is found in the ordinary concept of contempt and the effect of which is the binding of the property of a party as a means of compelling obedience to the court order, operates against property only. It is in the form of a command in the same way as a writ of attachment to a sheriff to bring a person to the court.
The writ of sequestration goes to the commissioners to seize or get in the property until the party clears its contempt. Once the court issued the writ, which was the only method which the court could employ to enforce obedience to its order in face of defiance, the duty of the commissioners was to seize or take in the property of the defiant party to meet the provision for penalty for disobedience.
If the union had objected to the writ—the union, of course, knew of the writ—, it could have appealed. However, the AUEW did not do so. The consequences which flow fall on its head alone.
Mr. McBride: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about sequestration. It will be within his knowledge that powers of sequestration apply only to the property or the estate of the party in contempt. That being so, will he deny that two statutes—the Trade Union Act 1913 and the Industrial Relations Act 1971—provide complete protection to the political funds of my trade union, the AUEW, and that the fund was not attachable in law?
The Attorney-General: I do deny that. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) is incorrect. I shall deal with the 1913 Act. If the union objected to the writ it could have appealed. Accordingly, the independent sequestrators or commissioners were obliged to exercise their duty. The court had no part to play once the writ had been issued. As the General Secretary of the AUEW had been informed the commissioners thereupon called for production to them of correspondence in possession of the union's stockbrokers. From the union's stockbroker's files and documents it was discovered that a sum in excess of £100,000 had been placed on deposit with Hebburn UDC. There was no reference in the union's chief accountant's letter that the money was from the political fund. The commissioners demanded and required the council to pay them £100,000. The commissioners had no knowledge or reason under the law to inquire as to the allocation of the use of the money deposited with Hebburn UDC.
Mr. Prentice: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has six or seven minutes left. He has given us a long and turgid account of facts which we already know. When will he begin to answer the debate and deal with the merits of the situation as he sees it, in which a seizure takes place of £100,000 which was held in trust for the Labour Party and which represents a completely improper intervention into the political life of the country by the machinery of the law?
The Attorney-General: The right hon. Member for East Ham, North was equally turgid in opening the debate. He knows perfectly well that under Section 154 of the Act, which he played some part in debating, there are procedures

1217
with regard to contempt. Funds are, of course, sacrosanct regarding compensation for damages, but not when a union is in contempt of court.
The facts have been distorted by many Labour Members to the disadvantage and unfairness of many people. In fact, there was no reason for the commissioners or the court to know what the funds were or what they were in respect of. At no time were the commissioners informed by the union that the Hebburn UDC money was part of the union's political fund. It was not so claimed in Hebburn's telegram to the court. There was no means of discovery, and the identification of the separate fund was entirely within and internal to the union's accounts. The court did not know and could not discover the allocation of such funds. It could have known with the co-operation of one person, and that one person was the general secretary. If he had wished, he could have informed the court and the sequestrators.
A letter was written on 2nd November setting out all the facts. It said that doubts had been expressed in the Press, and it offered to discuss the matter. No answer came from the union. If both sides in this case had acted like reasonable and sensible people, none of these difficulties would have arisen.
Every opportunity was given to the union to appear before the court. Why is it so contrary to the obligations of conscience and the policy of the engineering union when it is not contrary to the obligations of conscience of the Transport and General Workers' Union or of the UPW to appear before the court? The answer is that it is not a question of conscience. It is a question of power and of face. If that union had appeared before the court and used the court machinery, a peaceful solution could have been reached.
Mr. Rose: Now answer the debate.
The Attorney-General: When a dispute arises over representation, to most people it is only sensible and just for someone to inquire into and to assess what the employees want. But, in the meantime, the company is allowed to trade. In such circumstances what is wrong in going before a court and arguing the case, as many trade unions do?
If the members of the AEUW had appreciated what their officers were about and that they were failing as a matter of pride or principle to appear before the court, I do not think that they would have supported those officers.
No society can tolerate the defiance of the rule of Parliament. No society can tolerate a situation where a group of people say, "Do what you will. Make laws which touch others, but do not touch us." Many Acts of Parliament are bitterly opposed on moral, ethical, social or political grounds and are repugnant to many people. But no responsible body yet seriously challenges the right of Parliament to act and its duty to enforce. Parliament has interfered in the rights of people, whether they be in trades, whether they be in organisations of one kind or another, and whether it be in the expression of their views or the expression of principles with regard to such matters as race or religion. No organisation has ever defied the law. If this union continues on this course and sets itself above the law it will be challenging not the court, not the law, but Parliament.
The hon. Member for Salford, West revealed that it was the intention of the Opposition not to debate the motion on today's Order Paper because that motion disguised the real motive of the Opposition. Their real motive was to discuss their other motion, which this House must reject.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 298.

Division No. 16.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Barnes, Michael

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Albu, Austen

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Barnett, Joel (Haywood and Royton)

Booth, Albert

Allen, Scholefield

Beaney, Alan

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Beith, A. J.

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Ashton, Joe

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Atkinson, Norman

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Bradley, Tom

Austick, David

Bidwell, Sydney

Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Bishop, E. S.

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

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Horam, John

Oswald, Thomas

Buchan, Norman

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Padley, Walter

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Huckfield, Leslie

Paget, R. T.

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Palmer, Arthur

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Cant, R. B.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Pardoe, John

Carmichael, Neil

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Hunter, Adam

Pavitt, Laurie

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Janner, Greville

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Jay. Rt. Hn. Douglas

Pendry, Tom

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Perry, Ernest G.

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Cohen, Stanley

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Prescott, John

Concannon, J. D.

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Conlan, Bernard

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

Probert, Arthur

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Radice, Giles

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Cronin, John

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

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Richard, Ivor

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

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Judd, Frank

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Dalyell, Tam

Kaufman, Gerald

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

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Kelley, Richard

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Davidson, Arthur

Kerr, Russell

Roper, John

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Kinnock, Neil

Rose, Paul B.

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lambie, David

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lamborn, Harry

Rowlands, Ted

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Lamond, James

Sandelson, Neville

Deakins, Eric

Latham, Arthur

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Lawson, George

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Delargy, Hugh

Leadbitter, Ted

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

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Dempsey, James

Leonard, Dick

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Doig, Peter

Lestor, Miss Joan

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Dormand, J. D.

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Sillars, James

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Silverman, Julius

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lewis Ron (Carlisle)

Skinner, Dennis

Driberg, Tom

Lomas, Kenneth

Small, William

Duffy, A. E. P.

Loughlin, Charles

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Dunnett, Jack

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Eadie, Alex

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Spearing, Nigel

Edelman, Maurice

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Spriggs, Leslie

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

McBride, Neil

Stallard, A. W.

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

McCartney, Hugh

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Ellis, Tom

MacDonald, Mrs. Margo

Stewart, Rt, Hn. Michael (Fulham)

English, Michael

McElhone, Frank

Stoddart David (Swindon)

Evans, Fred

McGuire, Michael

Stonehouse Rt. Hn. John

Ewing, Harry

Machin, George

Stott Roger

Faulds, Andrew

Mackenzie, Gregor

Strang, Gavin

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Mackie, John

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

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

Mackintosh, John P.

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Maclennan, Robert

Swain, Thomas

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Foot, Michael

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Thorpe Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Ford, Ben

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

Tinn James

Forrester, John

Marks, Kenneth

Tope Graham

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Marquand, David

Torney Tom

Freeson, Reginald

Marsden, F.

Tuck, Raphael

Galpern, Sir Myer

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Urwin, T. W.

Garrett, W. E.

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Varley, Eric G

Gilbert, Dr. John

Mayhew, Christopher

Wainwright, Edwin

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

Meacher, Michael

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

Golding, John

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Walker Harold (Doncaster)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Mendelson, John

Wallace, George

Gourlay, Harry

Mikardo, Ian

Watkins, David

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Millan, Bruce

Weitzman, David

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wellbeloved, James

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Milne, Edward

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Molloy, William

Whitehead, Phillip

Hamling, William

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Whitlock William

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Harper, Joseph

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Williams Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Hart Rt. Hn. Judith

Murray, Ronald King

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Hattersley, Roy

Ogden, Eric

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Hatton, F.

O'Halloran, Michael

Wilson William (Coventry, s.)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Oram, Bert

Woof Robert

Heffer, Eric S.

Orbach, Maurice

TELLERS FOR THE AYES :

Hilton, W. S.

Orme, Stanley

Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

Hooson, Emlyn

Mr. James A. Dunn.

1220

1221

Adley, Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

McLaren, Martin

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Fortescue, Tim

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Foster, Sir John

McMaster, Stanley

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Fowler, Norman

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

Astor, John

Fox, Marcus

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Atkins, Humphrey

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

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Awdry, Daniel

Fry, Peter

Madel, David

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

Maginnis, John E.

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Gardner, Edward

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

Gibson-Watt, David

Marten, Neil

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Mather, Carol

Batsford, Brian

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Maude, Angus

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Bell, Ronald

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Mawby, Ray

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Goodhart, Philip

Maxwell Hyslop, R. J.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Goodhew, Victor

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Benyon, w.

Gorst, John

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Gower, Raymond

Miscampbell, Norman

Biffen, John

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

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

Biggs-Davison, John

Green, Alan

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Blaker, Peter

Grieve, Percy

Moate, Roger

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Molyneaux, James

Body, Richard

Grylls, Michael

Money, Ernie

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Gummer, J. Selwyn

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Bossom, Sir Clive

Gurden, Harold

Monro, Hector

Bowden, Andrew

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Montgomery, Fergus

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

More, Jasper

Bray, Ronald

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Brewis, John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Morrison, Charles

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Mudd, David

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Neave, Airey

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Harvie Anderson Miss

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Haselhurst, Alan

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hastings, Stephen

Normanton, Tom

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

Havers, Sir Michael

Nott, John

Buck, Antony

Hay, John

Onslow, Cranley

Bullus Sir Eric

Hayhoe, Barney

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Burden F. A.

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Heseltine, Michael

Osborn, John

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

Hicks, Robert

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Carlisle, Mark

Higgins, Terence L.

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hiley, Joseph

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Cary, Sir Robert

Holland, Philip

Parkinson, Cecil

Channon, Paul

Holt, Miss Mary

Peel, Sir John

Chapman, Sydney

Hordern, Peter

Percival, Ian

Chichester-Clark, R

Hornby, Richard

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Churchill, W. S.

Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Pink, R. Bonner

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Cockeram, Eric

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Cooke, Robert

Hunt, John

Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

Coombs Derek

Iremonger, T. L.

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Cooper, A. E.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Cordle, John

James, David

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

Jenkin. Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)

Raison, Timothy

Cormack, Patrick

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Costain, A P.

Jessel, Toby

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Critchley, Jullan

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Redmond, Robert

Crouch, David

Jones Arthur (Northants, S.)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Crowder, F. P.

Jopling, Michael

Rees, Peter (Dover)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Joseph Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Rees-Rt. Hn. Sir David

Dean, Paul

Kershaw, Anthony

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Kimball, Marcus

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Digby, Simon Wingfield

King Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Ridsdale, Julian

Dixon, Piers

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

Kinsey, J. R.

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Drayson, Burnaby

Kirk, Peter

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Kitson, Timothy

Roderts Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Dykes, Hugh

Knox, David

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Lamont, Norman

Rost, Peter

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lane, David

Royle, Anthony

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Russell, Sir Ronald

Le Marchant, Spencer

St, John-Stevas, Norman

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

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sainsbury, Timothy

Emery, Peter

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'field)

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Eyre, Reginald

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

Scott Nicholas

Farr, John

Longden, Sir Gilbert

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

Fell, Anthony

Loveridge, John

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Luce, R. N.

Shersby, Michael

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Simeons, Charles

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

MacArthur, Ian

Sinclair, Sir George

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

McCrindle, R. A.

Skeet, T. H. H.

1222

1223

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

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Ward, Dame Irene

Soref Harold

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Warren, Kenneth

Speed, Keith

Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

Weatherill, Bernard

Spence, John

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Sproat, lain

Tilney, Sir John

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Stainton, Keith

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Stanbrook, Ivor

Trew, Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Wilkinson, John

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Winterton, Nicholas

Stokes, John

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Sutcliffe, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Tapsell, Peter

Vickers, Dame Joan

Woodnutt, Mark

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Waddington, David

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

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

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Younger, Hn. George

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

TELLERS FOR THE NOES :

Tebbit, Norman

Wall, Patrick

Mr. Walter Clegg and

Temple, John M.

Walters, Dennis

Mr. Hamish Gray.

Question accordingly negatived.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
Ordered,
That Mr. Humphrey Atkins be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and that Mr. Bernard Weatherill be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jopling.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of the recent appointments made to the board of the Forth Ports Authority and to raise very forcibly the events leading to those appointments.
May I say at the outset that I am deeply disappointed that the Minister for Transport Industries is not here this evening to answer the serious charges that I shall lay against him and have laid in writing to the Prime Minister, who in turn has passed them on to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The appointments took place against the background of the board of the Forth Ports Authority being restructured and reduced in number from 14 to nine members.
First, I will deal with the Minister's decision not to reappoint the retiring chairman, Sir John McWilliam. It is astonishing that the Minister should choose to issue a Press release praising the work of Sir John McWilliam in the following terms :
"The retiring chairman is Sir John McWilliam, who has been chairman since 1969. His four eventful years of office have been a continued year-by-year rise in traffic and the progress of the Authority to a considerably improved financial situation through robust measures to cut costs and improve revenues ; the construction of the new £10 million entrance lock at Grangemouth, now well on the way to completion ; the emergence of the Forth Ports, and Leith in particular, as important centres of activities related to offshore oil and the successful negotiation of the Authority's undertaking in mid-April to construct Hound Point Terminal on behalf of British Petroleum at a capital cost of £9 million ; and the reconstitution of the Authority on their own initiative following Public Inquiry before Parliamentary Commissioners on April 2."
One could almost add and hear the Minister say, "But, despite all that, I have decided not to reappoint Sir John McWilliam as chairman".
1226
It is astonishing that a man with such an outstanding record, who turned the Forth Ports Authority from a difficult situation—I put it no higher—into a prosperous organisation, should at the end of the day be thanked in that way by the Minister and yet be dismissed or certainly not be reappointed as chairman of the new authority. Absolutely no consistency has been shown by the Minister, first in acknowledging the worth of the chairman and secondly in taking the action that he eventually took.
I am well aware that this appointment, like the others to which I shall refer later, was made after consultation with the National Ports Council, but surely consideration should have been given to the fact—I emphasise that it is a fact—that all who were involved in the ports on the River Forth—the businesses that have used and still use them, the men and women who work in the ports and the trade unions representing those workers—were unanimous in their confidence in Sir John McWilliam and expressed the view that he should have been reappointed.
I should make it clear that in all I am saying in the House and in all I have said or written outside the House I have been most careful not to criticise the new chairman. I emphasise that I am in no way criticising the new chairman, because I recognise Mr. Elliot's business ability, his interest in shipping and all the other attributes that are required of someone who is appointed to the board of the Forth Ports Authority. I want to make that perfectly clear.
I want to give the Under-Secretary time to reply to the allegations which I am making and to the questions which I shall ask. Therefore, I turn rather quickly to the appointments to the new board. The Under-Secretary will be aware that I wrote to the Prime Minister on 7th September this year asking him to make the fullest possible inquiry into the actions of the Minister responsible for the appointments and the events leading up to the appointments to the new board. I asked the Prime Minister in particular to call in evidence minutes of a special meeting of the Forth Ports Authority which had taken place on 6th July. I maintained in my letter that those minutes should be examined.

1227
I have a copy of those minutes. I have a very difficult task this evening, because by nature I am not a person who gets involved in witch hunts. I am certainly not involved in a witch hunt now. Those minutes reveal, however, that at that special meeting the future of the general manager of the Forth Ports Authority was under discussion. It must also be said that at the end of a two-and-a-half-hour debate, by six votes to five, it was decided that no action should be taken in respect of the general manager and the charge laid against him. There were subsequent events, to which I shall refer shortly. But the significant thing arising from those minutes is that, with one exception—it was very difficult, if not impossible, for the Minister to avoid appointing the one exception—those appointed to the new board were, by and large, those who voted in favour of retaining the services of the general manager.
This is a very serious matter of public concern. Was the Minister in possession of knowledge of what went on at the board meeting on 6th July? I have a letter from the Secretary of State for the Environment which contains an indication that the Minister was aware of it. If the Minister was aware of what occurred, I contend that his decision must have been influenced by a desire on his part to preserve the future of the general manager. The Under-Secretary will have a chance to answer that allegation.
There were subsequent incidents, however, which eventually led, on 23rd July, to the suspension of the general manager until 16th August. Here again, it grieves me to say that the whole issue is clouded in deep suspicion. The general manager was given an opportunity to prosecute his case and to present his defence to a special panel which had been set up by the board in order to examine the matters on which the manager had been suspended. I am sorry to say that the general manager declined that invitation. It seems astonishing, but subsequent events would appear to point to some contact being made.
I ask the Under-Secretary whether there was any direct contact with the Minister responsible for making those appointments, either by the general manager or by someone acting on his behalf,
1228
which gave the impression, rightly or wrongly, that there was no need for the general manager to defend himself against the accusations which had been made against him. I am not taking sides as to whether the accusations were well-founded or ill-founded. I am talking strictly about the events surrounding the appointments to the new board of the Forth Ports Authority.
There was also a rather thorny request from the Minister for Transport Industries that the old board, under the chairmanship of Sir John McWilliam should take no action whatsoever—I emphasise those words—in respect of the future of the general manager and that this matter should be left to the new board after it had been appointed. I regret to say that it is from here that the suspicion arises, because three of those appointed to the new board had voted on 6th July in support of the general manager. It is not unreasonable to assume that, from that stage onwards, the die was cast.
We now have a situation that there is knowledge that those three members fully supported a man in a very difficult position, and because of the new structure of the board, which also includes the general manager himself and two other senior officials, the secretary of the board and the chief engineer—no one in his right senses would pretend that those two individuals would dare to vote against the general manager—six out of a board of nine are committed to support the general manager.
I have not enjoyed the task which I have set myself this evening, but in the two and a half years that I have been a Member of this House I have regarded myself as a parliamentarian with a duty to protect the public interest, and in this matter the public interest—I weigh my words carefully—has been betrayed.
I pose these questions to the Under-Secretary and hope that he will answer them. First, did the Minister know how individuals on the board voted at the special meeting on 6th July? Secondly, did the Minister know how individuals on the board voted when the decision was taken on 23rd July to suspend the general manager until 16th August? Thirdly, was any direct approach made to the Minister, either by the general

1229
manager himself or by someone acting on his behalf, to represent the defence of the general manager to the charges made against him? Fourthly—this is a very serious question—was the Minister influenced in his decision by his knowledge of the events to which I have referred?
The Minister might well argue that all he was seeking to say was that it was time for a change. I do not think that that defence can be sustained because, if it was time for a change, it is surely passing strange that the only change that was made was in the chairmanship and that all the other appointments to the new board were made from members who had served on the old board.
To conclude on a broad general note, I am a relatively young politician but I am not naïve and I am very much aware of the problem of political patronage. I believe that it has played a great part in the appointments to the board of the Forth Ports Authority. I know that my own party has something to answer for in this respect, but in this Adjournment debate I hope to sow the seeds of a future solution to the very thorny problem of political patronage.
I respectfully suggest to the Under-Secretary that he should convey to his right hon. and hon. Friends and to all who hold positions in which they can make appointments that they should look closely at the new regional and district local government set-up under which the new local authorities are to be elected and use them to the greatest possible extent in drawing upon their membership to make appointments to boards of this nature. We would then have people who were at least answerable to the electorate every four years, and there would be much more democracy in those appointments than has hitherto been the case.
I am not so naïve as to believe that this Adjournment debate will reverse what has happened. I do not believe that it will. But I must face my responsibility to my constituents, particularly in Grangemouth, to raise and ventilate this issue and bring it out into the open so that it may be held up to public examination. In that way all the innuendoes being expressed behind the scenes may
1230
at least be looked at and, if there is justification and a reply to them, the Minister will have an opportunity to justify what has happened and to make that reply.
10.31 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) is disappointed that it is I and not my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries who is to reply. In this case I think that the hon. Member is very much on the wrong track.
I very much welcome this opportunity of explaining something of the philosophy underlying the current programme of re-constitution of the major public trust ports. As the hon. Member knows, the board of the Forth Ports Authority is the first to be reconstituted under this programme.
Most of the major British ports, with the exception of Mersey, Bristol, Manchester and the British Transport Docks Board ports, are run by independent public trusts. Typical examples are London, the Forth, the Clyde, the Tyne and the Tees. The constitution of these ports was one of the subjects considered by the Rochdale Committee, and following its report in 1962 a number of reorganisation schemes were carried out in the 1960s. As a result of these schemes, the boards of the major public trust ports have usually numbered about 15 or so. Though nominally appointed by the Secretary of State, the members of the boards are mostly nominated by such specified bodies as local authorities, trade unions, associations of shipowners or traders and so on.
In recent years there has been an increasing element of competition between individual British ports and between ports in this country and on the Continent. In my Department we regard this as a healthy sign and recognise that trust ports, through quasi-public bodies, are responsible for operating important commercial undertakings. The Government believe, therefore, that the boards of the trust ports should be structured on commercial lines.
In 1971 my right hon. Friend invited the National Ports Council to draw up a programme of action which should include changes in the boards of the major public trust ports in the direction of smaller

1231
boards with more executive members. The National Ports Council accordingly circulated a discussion document to the ports industry which was published in February this year entitled "Reconstitution of major port trusts—proposals for discussion." No doubt the hon. Member read it. The main features of these proposals were that boards should be smaller with eight to 10 members compared with 15 or so at present, that the specific right to representation of particular bodies and interests should be abolished while non-executive members continued to be drawn from an appropriate range of expertise, and that more full-time executive members should be appointed.
The Government accepted the National Ports Council's proposals as a general guide to reconstitution, though they recognised that some variations would be needed to fit the circumstances of individual ports. A number of proposals for reconstitution are in progress—for example, for London, the Clyde, the Tyne, the Medway, Aberdeen and Ipswich—and some other ports have the matter under consideration.
Normally individual port authorities initiate harbour revision orders after consultation with the National Ports Council. In the case of the Forth, the order was promoted under the Harbours Act 1964 by the authority in the usual way. It was advertised and objections were lodged by local authorities on the north side of the Firth of Forth. An inquiry was held in April 1973 before Parliamentary Commissioners under the special Scottish parliamentary procedure. They endorsed the general principle of the reconstitution but amended the order to require the Minister to take account of the circumstances of the areas north and south of the Firth of Forth when making appointments.
The new board, which came into being on 1st September last, consisted of nine members compared with 14 on the old board. These included the chairman plus five other non-executive members, appointed by my right hon. Friend after consultation with the National Ports Council, the general manager and two other full-time officers appointed by the authority.
It is important to bear in mind—and I am glad we can put the record straight
1232
at least on this—that appointments made under the old constitution would have run to the end of 1975, but that the members were informed when appointed that the terms of their appointment would automatically expire if and when a new constitution came into being. That happened on 1st September, and there is therefore no question of resignation or dismissals. I am glad that that has been acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman tonight.
My right hon. Friend gave much thought to the question of a chairman for the new authority and eventually decided that the time had come for a change. The hon. Gentleman made a number of allegations about what did and did not happen at various meetings. It is a matter for debate how much one should meddle in the internal affairs of the authority. It was known that relations between the chairman and general manager were not the best, to put it mildly.
My right hon. Friend met the then chairman of the authority at least twice in July, but what they discussed must be a matter for them and remain confidential. One of the meetings was fairly early in July and the other was later. I cannot go further, because I was not present at the meeting, and in any event it would not be right to break the confidentiality of those discussions.
In making his decision to appoint a new chairman, my right hon. Friend was fully supported by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the National Ports Council.
Mr. Alex Eadie: As part of the hon. Gentleman's case relies upon the question of consultation and meetings, will he say whether the general manager was met?
Mr. Speed: That is not part of my case. It is not a question of consultation. The hon. Gentleman is referring to various matters that took place within the authority at that time. I am telling him that my right hon. Friend met the chairman of the authority twice in July. It is not a question of consultation as such. As far as I am aware, he did not then meet the general manager. I also said that there were difficulties between the chairman and the general manager. No

1233
one could deny that. But I cannot comment, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment, on the merits of the personalities involved. I must stress that the day-to-day business of the port and the relations between the board and its full-time officers are and must be matter for the authority, not my right hon. Friend, whose powers are limited to those laid down under statute.
One of those powers is the appointment of the chairman and the non-executive members of he board. The appointment of the executive members is a matter for the authority. I must also make it clear that the choice of the new chairman, Mr. Elliot—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman paid him the tribute he did—was in no way influenced by political motives or considerations. It is true that, when Ministers of any political party make appointments, charges and countercharges are often made.
Mr. Ewing: I did not bring politics into my reference to the new chairman, but now that the Minister himself has done so it should be placed on record that the new chairman is a senior Conservative in Scotland. He is chairman of the Leith Conservative Association and has many political connections.
Mr. Speed: I am making the point not only of the chairman of the authority but of all the appointments made by my right hon. Friend under statute that political considerations do not enter into the matter. After all, my right hon. Friend has made appointments of other people—
Mr. Ewing: Dear me!
Mr. Speed: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that from a supine position. I give him that firm undertaking. Whether or not he accepts it is a matter for him.
My right hon. Friend has the fullest confidence in the new chairman—I am glad that the hon. Member has not criticised him tonight—and in his board, and he hopes that they can now be left
1234
to get on with the job of running this important port.
Any hon. Members who have seen the November issue of "Forthlink" will have no doubt about the spirit of optimism and confidence which pervades the whole undertaking. I would have thought that it was in the interests of hon. Members, of Scotland and of those who work in the ports that this should continue. In the past the hon. Member has criticised appointments because a particular interest or area was no longer directly represented on the board. As he knows, this criticism overlooks the basic character of the new constitution which is that it is non-representative.
In selecting the non-executive members of the board, my right hon. Friend has had no political considerations in mind but has been mindful of the requirements laid down by the Harbour Revision Order. The management of a modern port calls for part-time members, chosen for their ability and experience, and for senior full-time executives familiar with the needs of the industry. Board members should not be in a position in which they concern themselves about whether important decisions are acceptable to the institutions they represent.
The whole question of the general principle of representation in the case of the Forth was fully ventilated at the inquiry before Parliamentary Commissioners last April. I must tell the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that their criticisms of the way in which appointments are made by my right hon. Friend, which stem from personalities mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and what might be termed political considerations, are completely without foundation. It is certainly my view and the view of my right hon. Friend that the time has come to let the board get on with its job. I for one am confident that the results it will have to show will be heartening to us all.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  Abortion
  Abortion
  Computerisation
  Computerisation
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
  Heart Operations (Liverpool)
  Heart Operations (Liverpool)
  PRIME MINISTER (OVERSEAS INVITATIONS)
  PRIME MINISTER (OVERSEAS INVITATIONS)
  GOVERNMENT STATISTICS
  GOVERNMENT STATISTICS
  NEWSPAPER EDITORS (CONFERENCE)
  NEWSPAPER EDITORS (CONFERENCE)
  MINISTERS' SPEECHES
  MINISTERS' SPEECHES
  PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST INTERVIEW)
  PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST INTERVIEW)
  ROCHDALE
  ROCHDALE
  FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
  FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
  CBI AND TUC (TALKS)
  CBI AND TUC (TALKS)
  No. 10 DOWNING STREET
  No. 10 DOWNING STREET
  INDUSTRIAL REHABILITATION ALLOWANCE
  INDUSTRIAL REHABILITATION ALLOWANCE
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Advisory Services
  Advisory Services
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
  Beef (Production Costs)
  Beef (Production Costs)
  Slaughterhouses (Wales)
  Slaughterhouses (Wales)
  CUSTODY OF CHILDREN (COURT ORDERS)
  CUSTODY OF CHILDREN (COURT ORDERS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Shipbuilding (Industrial Disputes)
  Shipbuilding (Industrial Disputes)
  Tyre Fitters
  Tyre Fitters
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Industrial Rehabilitation Allowances
  Industrial Rehabilitation Allowances
  Building and Construction (Lancashire)
  Building and Construction (Lancashire)
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Training (Pembrokeshire)
  Training (Pembrokeshire)
  Handicapped School Leavers
  Handicapped School Leavers
ENVIRONMENT
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Pedestrian Accidents
  Pedestrian Accidents
  Railways (Disabled Passengers)
  Railways (Disabled Passengers)
  Portswood Link, Southampton
  Portswood Link, Southampton
  Local Government Officers
  Local Government Officers
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Safety Helmets (Motor Cyclists)
  Safety Helmets (Motor Cyclists)
  Railways (Investment)
  Railways (Investment)
  Rail Freight
  Rail Freight
  Railway Policy
  Railway Policy
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Railways (Land Speculation)
  Railways (Land Speculation)
  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Local Government Boundary Commission
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Probation Officers
  Probation Officers
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Tax Avoidance
  Tax Avoidance
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Tax Credit Scheme
  Tax Credit Scheme
  Industrial Productivity
  Industrial Productivity
  Beer
  Beer
  Road Fund Tax
  Road Fund Tax
  Travel-to-Work Allowances
  Travel-to-Work Allowances
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Arab Countries (Investment)
  Arab Countries (Investment)
  Companies (Government Interest)
  Companies (Government Interest)
  Maplin
  Maplin
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Rents
  Rents
  House Purchase
  House Purchase
  Industrial Dispute (Harland and Wolff, Ltd.)
  Industrial Dispute (Harland and Wolff, Ltd.)
  Detention Orders
  Detention Orders
SCOTLAND
  Hawick Working Party Report
  Hawick Working Party Report
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Shale Oil Industry (Scotland)
  Shale Oil Industry (Scotland)
  Shell Italiana (Sale)
  Shell Italiana (Sale)
  Steel Production
  Steel Production
  Petrol Ration Books
  Petrol Ration Books
  Petrol
  Petrol
  Baldness Cures
  Baldness Cures
  Atomic Energy Authority
  Atomic Energy Authority
DEFENCE
  General Service Medal (Ulster Defence Regiment)
  General Service Medal (Ulster Defence Regiment)
  Police
  Police
  Bircham Newton Married Quarters
  Bircham Newton Married Quarters
  Oil Conservation
  Oil Conservation
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Independent Schools (Lancashire)
  Independent Schools (Lancashire)
  Building Programme (Nottinghamshire)
  Building Programme (Nottinghamshire)
  University Students
  University Students
  "Tom a Lincoln" Manuscript
  "Tom a Lincoln" Manuscript
  Schooling Costs
  Schooling Costs
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  HMS "Conway"
  HMS "Conway"
  Student Grants (Wales)
  Student Grants (Wales)
  Students of Teaching (Wales)
  Students of Teaching (Wales)
  Rent Scrutiny Boards
  Rent Scrutiny Boards
  Land Development
  Land Development
WALES
  Farm Tenancies
  Farm Tenancies
  School Milk, Meals and Clothing
  School Milk, Meals and Clothing
  Teachers and Pupils
  Teachers and Pupils
  School Places
  School Places
  Schools (Ancillary Staffs)
  Schools (Ancillary Staffs)
  Educational Expenditure
  Educational Expenditure
  Physically Handicapped Pupils
  Physically Handicapped Pupils
  Schools (Books and Equipment)
  Schools (Books and Equipment)
  School Building
  School Building
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Telephones (Elderly Persons)
  Telephones (Elderly Persons)
  Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre, Preston
  Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre, Preston
  National Dried Milk
  National Dried Milk
  Spain (Reciprocity)
  Spain (Reciprocity)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Health and Nutrition
  Health and Nutrition
  Disregards
  Disregards
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Voluntary Bodies (Liaison)
  Voluntary Bodies (Liaison)
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Disablement Income (Review)
  Disablement Income (Review)
  Mental Hospitals (Beds)
  Mental Hospitals (Beds)
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Remedial Professions
  Remedial Professions
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  Children's Dental Health (Survey)
  Children's Dental Health (Survey)
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Battered Babies
  Battered Babies
  Disabled Persons (Car Allowances)
  Disabled Persons (Car Allowances)
  Heating Allowances
  Heating Allowances
  Travel Expenses (Hospital Visits)
  Travel Expenses (Hospital Visits)
  Hospitals (Smoking)
  Hospitals (Smoking)
  Pregnancy Advice Bureaux
  Pregnancy Advice Bureaux
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Ambulance Drivers
  Ambulance Drivers
  National Health Service Reorganisation
  National Health Service Reorganisation
  Benefits (Young Persons)
  Benefits (Young Persons)
  Community Nursing
  Community Nursing
  Central Middlesex Hospital (Nurses)
  Central Middlesex Hospital (Nurses)
  Health Services (Manchester)
  Health Services (Manchester)
  "Housewife's Allowance"
  "Housewife's Allowance"
  Birmingham (Payment of Benefit)
  Birmingham (Payment of Benefit)
  Otological Services
  Otological Services
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LULWORTH R.A.C. GUNNERY SCHOOL
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: 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 have reached a decision on the future of the Royal Armoured Corps Gunnery School at Lulworth.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the proposal to move the R.A.C. Gunnery Range from Lulworth to Castlemartin was made in the Report of the Defence Lands Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Nugent of Guildford. The Report was published in July and a period was set aside for public comment on and discussion of its recommendations. This period still continues and the Government have not yet reached a decision; as the Prime Minister stated in October in answer to a Question in another place, it is hoped to make an announcement early in the New Year.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that the desirability of getting an early answer will be of help to the Army; that the majority of those who made representations were in favour of this gunnery range remaining where it was, and that the societies dealing with archæology and with birds were equally keen for it to stay where it was? Lastly, is my noble
434
friend aware that the cost of the move is well in excess of £14 million?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, there is at least one noble Lord, whom I suspect we shall be hearing from in a moment, who would not agree with everything the noble Viscount said. It is precisely because there is a certain amount of local dissension that the Government feel it would be better to take a little further time for consultation.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us appreciate the way in which the Minister of Defence has consulted local opinion? Is the noble Lord aware that the evidence before him indicates that a large majority of residents in this area desire that it shall be freed from Army control? May I ask him whether in any decision which is reached he will consider not merely the beauty of the area but its unique ecological, architectural and wild life value?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that all these considerations are very much in my noble friend's mind. As I understand it. the problem is that some of the truly local people are in fact very much in favour of retaining the range at Lulworth.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that there are many in Pembrokeshire who have no wish to have any extension of Castlemartin, which is the alternative proposed for Lulworth? Apart from this local problem, would not the noble Lord agree that if everyone is to be consulted it would be a good thing if we could have a debate in this House on the Defence Lands Report? Everybody is being consulted, apparently, except the Houses of Parliament.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady White, that my noble friend is only too well aware of the feeling at Castlemartin. So far as the question of a debate is concerned, I will take this up with the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance that if Lulworth is abandoned

435
the Crichel Down rules will apply, and that on no account will it be permitted that land which belonged to local families for hundreds of years will be stolen to satisfy the political theories of fanatics?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not seriously think that the noble Lord expects me to give an affirmative answer to that.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is the proposed removal of this gunnery school being considered in conjunction with the removal of the Shoeburyness experimental establishment, which will have to be moved if the Maplin Airport proposal goes forward?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, it is not necessarily being considered in conjunction, although it is part of the same basic pattern. The Nugent Report suggests that Lulworth should be removed to Castlemartin, independent of the removal of Maplin to Scotland.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, this is a complex question, but is my noble friend aware of the fact that the longer one gives consideration to it the greater are the burdens of those employed by the military establishment in wondering whether their jobs will last, as well as the anxieties of those living at the other end of the projected journey, in Castlemartin, who will be wondering if their amenities will be diminished? Is it not possible to expedite the process of decision-making?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think we have to balance the disadvantage of the uncertainty of people in doubt against the need to have adequate consultation before a decision is taken.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that I hope this proposal does not mean further pressure on the gunnery at Tain where we having a bobbing range? We do not want a gunnery range.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, my noble friend is aware of the resistance to putting ranges almost anywhere else. The curious thing is that the local inhabitants at Lulworth want to retain their range, or at least some of it, and I have already said that
436
the proposal to move Maplin to Tain is basically independent of the proposal to move Lulworth to Castlemartin.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind, when considering the Crichel Down precedent, that personal pledges in writing were given to the tenants in this area as well as to the landlords, and that a number of those tenants are expecting that the pledge that they will be allowed to return will be met?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am sorry I cannot give a specific answer to that question, but I am quite certain that any Government would want to stick to the pledges given to any tenant by landlords.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, could the Minister say why it should cost £14 million to move this gunnery school? Could he say what there is to move that would cost so much money?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, in the same way as the noble Baroness, I was surprised at the figure. The answer is principally barracks, gun emplacements, access and communications equipment.

TRADE WITH RUSSIA
2.43 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 steps are being taken to correct our heavily adverse trade balance with Russia, which in 1972 amounted to £140 million.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, as I informed the noble Lord on April 2, 1973, we cannot expect to have an exact balance of trade with every country, but Ministers and officials of the Department of Trade and Industry have frequently found occasion to express disappointment at the stagnant level of Soviet imports from Britain. There was substantial discussion of the subject at the second

437
meeting of the joint Anglo-Soviet Commission in April, and it may be expected to feature prominently at the third meeting which is expected to be held in May next year.
Meanwhile, the text of a new long-term Agreement on the development of Economic, Scientific, Technological and Industrial Co-operation was initialled on November 5 and we expect it to be signed in the near future. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is to-day in Moscow and is emphasising once again the strong desire of Her Majesty's Government for a substantial increase in British exports to the Soviet Union.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that while our requirements from Russia are largely raw materials, when it comes to manufactured goods, such as automobiles and tractors, containing a high proportion of labour at a low cost, it is quite a different thing when trade is unreciprocated?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, of course the conditions are different in the two countries and the pattern of trade follows those differences. It is a fact that if we make allowance for our imports from the Soviet Union, notably diamonds, other minerals and furs which are substantially re-exported from this country, the imbalance of trade is very substantially diminished.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl say what the Export Board has done in terms of promotion of British trade to the Soviet Union, and how much in terms of Government financial assistance has been available to the various organisations for development of our sales to the Soviet Union?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, exporters enjoy the same ability to use the range of services provided by the British Overseas Trade Board as exporters to other areas. There are, of course, special exhibition which, as the noble Lord well knows, are the central method of promoting trade there, which receive full assistance on these lines.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, has the Export Board made any specific effort in the field of Soviet trade? Further, can the noble Earl say how
438
much in cash has been made available by the British Government, say during the last 12 months, for the development of trade with the Soviet Union?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: No, my Lords, I cannot give that answer without notice. It depends on the demands for the services made by individual exporters.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, since my question largely referred to manufactured goods and my understanding was that the Minister did not answer the question, may I ask whether he would not agree that there is urgent need to produce more reciprocity on high labour content exchange of goods? Secondly, would he not think that perhaps there would be advantage in a trade union mission to look into conditions of work and rates of pay in the Soviet Union, as has recently been done in such orderly manner by the mission of the Trades Union Congress to South Africa?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, there was recently, as I think my noble friend is aware, a mission to Russia from the Trades Union Congress, and doubtless this was the type of question they would have explored. As regards the nature of the trade exchanges, it is a fact that the products from the Soviet Union which we have the greatest need to import are the raw materials which form the bulk of their exports to us.

OIL SUPPLIES AND RELATIONS WITH ISRAEL
LORD SEGAL: 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 would be prepared to consider breaking off diplomatic relations with Israel in order to ensure their supplies of oil.
EARL. FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made it abundantly clear that they are not to be moved from policies they believe to be right by threats to our oil supplies.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, if that is the case, would Her Majesty's Government say what steps they propose to take

439
in order to help the Netherlands, which is firmly resisting the blackmail that is going on, to maintain her position in so far as oil is concerned?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my right honourable friend and his Department are always ready to have proper consultations and discussions with those concerned. This is what is happening.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, may I take it that the reply of the noble Earl is a definite negative: that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to consider breaking off diplomatic relations with Israel to ensure their supplies of oil?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the reply was in the negative.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that what is wanted in order to safeguard oil supplies is a peace in the Middle East based upon the principles of justice, balance of forces and an agreement which is acceptable throughout the world? Would he not agree that we shall not get that by using emotive words like "blackmail" when we are talking about the same kind of action which is highly respectable when we call it "sanctions"?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I go along wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and particularly with the first part of what he said. This is an entirely difficult and delicate situation; as everyone knows, it is one in which we are vitally concerned to see that justice is done. The only real answer to the noble Lord's question is that there should be a full and proper peace settlement in the Middle East, and that is the aim of my right honourable friend.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, does not the noble Earl think that this is blackmailing the world, and is it not time that the civilised nations of the world got together and tried to stop this kind of action, because if he is faced properly a blackmailer never succeeds?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not been subjected to blackmail, and do not propose to be subjected to it.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government now
440
totally dedicated to a policy of appeasement, and have they lost all sense of national honour?
EARL FERRERS: No, my Lords, to both questions.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Earl be good enough to try to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and his Zionist friends, that the interests of this country must be paramount in the consideration of this matter, and that it is no good talking loosely about "blackmail" because there is no blackmail involved here? Peace in the Middle East can be furthered to-morrow if the Israeli forces were to move back behind the Mitla Pass.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can understand the point of view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and one realises that this is a point of view held by many people; but the real point is to try to get a peace settlement. In answer to Lord Wigg, I would go along with him and say that I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and others would not, despite their great concern, be too keen on pressing Her Majesty's Government on this matter because our one object is to enable delicate negotiations to come to a fruitful conclusion.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, in view of the very difficult situation that exists there, with the Arabs saying that the Israelis must move back to given lines, would the noble Earl publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT of this House what were the original boundaries defined by the United Nations when they set up the State of Israel? What part of the West Bank, what part of the Golan Heights, were allocated to the Arabs, and what parts allocated to Israel? This would help us to get a real balance as to where trespass is occurring.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, at a time when great concern is being exerted to effect not just a cease-fire but a peace treaty. I do not think that the publication of that kind of document in the OFFICIAL REPORT would be helpful.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in view of the statement made a moment or two ago by my noble friend Lord Wigg, may I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that so far as Israel is concerned she

441
wants peace, and that it is in the interests of the civilised world, including ourselves, that that peace should be obtained on a proper and real understanding? Is he also aware that any threats by anyone else to try to disturb the possibility of a settlement between the two peoples themselves, such as the blackmail threat—and I call it a blackmail threat—over oil, is something which interferes with the possibility of such a peace? Holland recognises that to be so.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, of course the Israelis wish to have peace; so do we, and so do the Arabs. However, there are differing points of view, and our efforts should be concentrated on trying to reconcile these different points of view.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, is not the answering of this Question turning itself into a debate? Do we really want that in the conduct of the Business of this House?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords. I think that there is a great deal in what the noble Lord says. Starred Questions are not supposed to lead to a debate. I have not intervened on this Question up to now because I know, and acknowledge, as does the House, the strength of feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and others on this matter. We have discussed it on a number of occasions and I am sure that we shall discuss it again in the future. But if your Lordships feel it appropriate to move on to the next Question now I think that we should do so.

CHILE: BRITISH EMBASSY AND REFUGEES
2.54 p.m.
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 on what grounds the British Embassy in Santiago declines to provide safety to political refugees in Chile.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it has been the long-standing practice of successive British Governments not to give asylum in Her Majesty's Embassies to the
442
nationals of other countries: this is a general principle which is applicable to all our Embassies in all countries.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that Answer, may I ask him whether the attitude of Her Majesty's Government can be summed up in this way: that while it is not consistent that we should provide refuge to opponents of a Government with which we have relations there are many precedents where that has been done? Is it not a fact that every other European Government in Santiago has provided this refuge for those who have been standing for political democracy in Santiago? Is it not entirely exceptional that our Government should refuse refuge to those who have been standing for political democracy?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I cannot answer for the actions of other Governments, but I can tell the noble Lord that the principal function of an Embassy is to maintain relations between Governments, and it would be an abuse of their proper role if Embassies came to be used as refuges for opponents of the very Government with which we were trying to maintain relations.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that this sounds very much like Munich?
EARL FERRERS: No, my Lords.
LORD HALE: My Lords, does not the noble Earl recall that in the dark days of Budapest the British Embassy won the plaudits of the world by providing the sacred right of sanctuary to refugees in a very dangerous situation from Russian guns and among them my friend the late Peter Strasser, a member of the Austrian Parliament, and his bride? If it could be done then, why are persons seeking sanctuary from persecution finding the door barred against them under the Union Jack?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can only repeat to the noble Lord that the purpose of an Embassy is to maintain relations between ourselves and the country in which the Embassy exists. It would not be the proper function of the Embassy to open its doors to grant asylum to people who are opponents of the particular régime at the time.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would the noble Earl consider publishing in Hansard a list of the Embassies in Santiago which have admitted political refugees during the recent crisis and those which have not?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can only tell the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that what other countries have done is a matter for themselves, but that does not necessarily affect what we have done.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Embassy admitted refugees on any scale during the previous Marxist leadership in Chile?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, not to my knowledge.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether Her Majesty's Government, as a result of their representations, are satisfied that the Government in Chile is now taking a more reasonable attitude towards refugees? Are the Government satisfied with the reaction of the Chilean Government?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we made representations to the Chilean Government and explained to them the very strong feelings in this country over the death of President Allende and others, and the many people who were arrested. The Chilean Government offered us assurances that it would deal in a humane manner, in accordance with the due processes of law, with all those who were in detention and with those in political opposition. So far as I know, our Government were the only Government which obtained a public assurance of this kind from the new Government.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Government obtained a public assurance, but can the noble Earl answer my first question as to whether the Government are satisfied that the obligations undertaken by the Chilean Government have been fulfilled?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Chilean Government can only operate within the Chilean law, and it would not be appropriate for the British Government to intervene.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl please answer my ques-
444
tion, which was quite simple: are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that the obligations given to them by the Chilean Government are being fulfilled?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that it would be improper for Her Majesty's Government to comment on the internal affairs of another country.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, then there can be only one construction following the noble Earl's reply.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, are the Government aware that something like 13,000 refugees who are not Chilean at all but citizens of Uruguay, Bolivia and other South American countries were attracted to Chile by the Allende Government? Would it not be an act of humanity on the part of the British Embassy to offer refuge to those citizens who are not Chilean subjects and desire simply to find sanctuary from persecution by the existing Chilean Government?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if any Chilean wishes to come into this country he can apply to do so and his application will be dealt with in the normal way, but I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Segal, that a time when we are in fact restricting the entry of people who are members of the Commonwealth might not seem the most appropriate time to allow a large influx of people from other countries.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl refer to the speech made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I think last Wednesday in the debate on refugees? The noble Lord the Leader of the House then gave us a much more helpful reply than the one the noble Earl has now given.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Again, my Lords, we have had a very full discussion of this important question. I did refer to this matter in winding up the debate on refugees, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to it when he opened from the Opposition Front Bench. I think it will be seen that what I said is in substance the same as what has been said by my noble friend today, but the tone and the atmosphere of the House was somewhat different.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the question put from the

445
Liberal Benches, asking for a list of the countries which have accepted refugees, would the Minister agree that the following European countries have accepted refugees in Santiago and retained their embassies: Sweden, Italy, Belgium, Holland, France, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Austria and Switzerland, in addition to countries in other parts of the world?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for providing that information. I shall certainly be quite happy to draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the strength of feeling which has been expressed in this House.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
3.2 p.m.
First Report from the Select Committee considered.
The Report was as follows:
1. FUEL ECONOMY
The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod reported on the measures which had been taken to reduce fuel consumption in the building by approximately 10 per cent. The Committee invite all Peers to help save fuel by turning off lights and radiators when leaving their rooms.
2. APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
(1) The Committee agreed that the rule (agreed to by the House in 1971) that members of the Committee should retire by rotation after three years' services should in principle also apply to Sub-Committees, but that the rule should be applied in such a way as to preserve continuity and to avoid the simultaneous retirement of too many members of a Sub-Committee at any one time.
(2) The following members of the Committee were appointed to the Sub-Committees as follows:
(a) Administration Committee

E. Listowel.

E. St. Aldwyn.

V. Hood.

L. Amulree.

L. Champion.

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.

L. Nugent of Guildford.

L. Strang.

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(b) Library Sub-Committee

L. Amulree.

L. Champion.

L. Maybray-King.

L. Wilberforce.

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(c) Refreshment Sub-Committee

E. St. Aldwyn.

L. Amulree.

B. Gaitskell.

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.

L. Nugent of Guildford.

L. Strang.

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(d) Sub-Committee on the Parliament Office

V. Hood.

L. Champion.

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
The Committee recommend that Lord Mancroft be appointed a member of the main Committee in order that he may continue as a member of this Sub-Committee.
(e) Finance Committee

E. Listowel.

E. St. Aldwyn.

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.

L. Amulree.

L. Champion.

L. Nugent of Guildford.

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(f) Works of Art Sub-Committee

V. Hood.

M. Cholmondeley.

L. Amulree.

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
3. YEOMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
The Committee were informed of the temporary appointment of Group Captain R. M. B. Duke-Woolley, D.S.O., D.F.C., as Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms during the absence of Colonel C. L. Sayers.
4. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the appointment of:

(a) Miss Marguerita Marion Pedder, O.B.E., as Head of Establishments from 15th October 1973; and

(b) Mr. Brendan Patrick Keith as Clerk from 1st October 1973.

The Committee agreed to the regrading of one post of Assistant Clerk of the Records as Deputy Clerk of the Records; and to a reconstruction of the Office Assistant grade, involving a rearrangement of duties and the creation of certain new posts. The Committee authorised the rates of pay for the posts affected and the creation of an additional post of Executive Officer.
5. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Estacode Circulars:

(a) EC/125: dated 21st August 1973—Pay of Higher Civil Service

447

(b) EC/119: dated 15th August 1973—Pay of Cleaners

to Officers and staff of corresponding grades in the House of Lords.
6. HANSARD STAFF
The Committee took note of a further report by the Clerk of the Parliaments on his consultations with the Pay Board and his negotiations with the Staff Association on their claim on behalf of the Hansard staff. The Committee authorised the Clerk to make an offer of an ex gratia payment to Editors and Reporters in respect of additional duties performed during the summer of 1972.
The Committee authorised the employment of an additional Sub-Editor from the 20th November until the end of 1973.
The Committee also sanctioned the payment of increased charges under the agreement with Haynes Secretarial Services for the supply of typists for the reporting of Debates.
7. ATTENDANTS
The Committee authorised the employment of:in additional Attendant during the period from 29th October to 6th November 1973.
8. ESTIMATES
The Estimate for the House of Lords for 1974–75 was laid before the Committee and approved.
9. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following Superannuation awards:

(a) Preserved pension and lump sum to Mr. David Dewar, Senior Clerk, who was seconded to the European Parliament on 4th September 1973.

(b) Preserved pension and lump sum to Mr. Michael Ffrench MacTavish, Senior Office Asistant, who resigned on 31st July 1973.

(c) Pension and lump sum to Mr. John Edward Holden, Attendant, who retired on 6th November 1973.

(d) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. Frances Ellen Tarrant, Housemaid, who retired on 9th September 1973.

(e) Short service gratuity to Mrs. Bridget McCullagh, Housemaid, who resigned on 28th July 1973.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As I think
448
I told the House before, this is a pure Consolidation Bill. Part I consolidates certain enactments relating to legal aid in civil proceedings and to legal advice and assistance, principally the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 and the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972. Part II consolidates certain enactments relating to legal aid in criminal proceedings and proceedings under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. I need hardly remind the House that this Bill will be referred to the Joint Committee in the usual way, and I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

BUSINESS
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I inquire of the Chief Whip whether dinners will be available to-night?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to assure the noble Baroness that she will not go hungry to-night.

SAFETY OF SPORTS GROUNDS BILL [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT HOOD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to designate large sports stadia requiring certificates under Act]:
Loan STOWHILL Loan STOWHILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, after ("order") insert ("at such time in the case of each sports stadium as after taking into account all such circumstances as in his opinion are relevant including the financial resources available or likely to be

449
available to those responsible for the management and conduct of such sports stadium").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment, and I do so for the following purpose. A good deal of the discussion on this Bill during its Second Reading centred upon the question whether the various grounds and stadia that might be designated for the purposes of the Bill would be financially in a position to carry out the changes that were made necessary for the purpose of complying with the safety certificate that might be issued in relation to the stadium or, should the provisions of the Bill be extended under Clause 9 to grounds, to any particular ground. One starts from the finding in paragraph 59 of the Report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, with regard to the financial situation of a number of sports stadia and grounds. If I may cite what the noble Lord says in that paragraph, the passage reads as follows:
"The gate receipts of many if not all of the clubs apart from a select band are not sufficient to keep the clubs alive. They are dependent upon such imponderables as transfer fees and financial support from development clubs, supporters' clubs and the like to remain viable".
Later on it says:
"If such clubs were faced with heavy expense in ground improvements some of them would have to close down. Football is a national sport, and if this were to happen it will be a tragedy."
The purpose of the Amendment which I move in those circumstances is as follows. It is designed to make certain, in the first place, that the language of subsection (1) of Clause 1 is appropriate to provide that the designation process which is there described shall be a phased process. There is, I would submit to the Committee, room for some slight ambiguity on that point. It could, I should have thought, just be said that the Secretary of State was placed under a duty to make some kind of general designation order. I know from what Ministers said on Second Reading that that is not their intention, but it seems to me, so I would submit to the Committee, that it is of such crucial importance (because, in particular, of the financial situation of so many of the clubs that would be involved) that the Secretary of State should be called upon by the wording of the clause only to designate individual clubs from time to time as it
450
seems appropriate in the case of that particular club; in other words, that it should be made pelucidly plain that the Bill does not provide for anything like some general designation order. That might spell bankruptcy for a number of the clubs that would be involved. Therefore, the first object of this Amendment is to put beyond any possibility of doubt the question to which I have referred, and to indicate that the Secretary of State will, one by one as the particular circumstances of that club seem appropriate, designate that club.
The second objective I seek to achieve by the Amendment is that when deciding whether or not to designate a club he will have regard in particular to the—and I quote from the Amendment—
"financial resources available or likely to be available to those responsible for the management and conduct of such sports stadium".
That is the object of the Amendment. It is, as I believe I am right in saying, entirely in accord with the purpose of the Government, and I submit it is desirable to put at rest any possible doubt that there could be on this score. In those circumstances, I beg to move (a) to remove doubt and (b) to make sure that the Secretary of State, when deciding in the case of a particular club whether or not to designate it, will have the financial situation of that club particularly in mind in coming to a decision with regard to that club. I beg to move.
3.10 p.m.
LORD WIGG: I am in some difficulty about this Amendment. On second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, very charmingly said:
"I am afraid that, whether the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, likes it or not, we do not see any reason to depart from the very well established principle that people who put the public to risk in the course of their commercial enterprises must bear the necessary cost of removing those risks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/11/73; col. 976]
Clearly, the noble Viscount meant that if there is a risk, it has to be put right. The question whether the club can find the money or not is neither here nor there. If they cannot find the money then the Government wash their hands of the matter, and the club simply goes out of existence.
The size of the problem is great. In the British Isles there are no fewer than 162 clubs which could be designated. Any one

451
of them, or the lot, could be faced with an enormous bill, and if the club had no money it would be finished. In their suggested new clause after Clause 5 the noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment and his noble friend Lord Garnsworthy have solved the problem. They have put forward their solution, which is that the Government should find the money. I think that the question of who finds the money goes right to the heart of the problem. Noble Lords on both sides of the Committee will agree with the Government that the public must not be put at risk, and if the public is put at risk, sooner or later we shall get another Ibrox. I believe that we shall have another Ibrox, because I do not think that the provisions of the Bill go far enough. I seek from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, or from my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy, an answer to the question whether, with this Amendment, it would be better to debate the principle laid down in the proposed new clause, because that clause refers to the question of where the money comes from. The Government have said, virtually in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stowe Hill, "Not a penny. Those who put the public at risk have to foot the bill whether they have the money or not." It seems to me that we should save a lot of time by discussing the two matters together. I am willing to go on and debate the new clause, but I do not want to be out of order in a House which has no real Rules of Order.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that your Lordships' House has very real Rules of Order which it insists on enforcing upon itself from time to time. But I am entirely at the disposal of the Committee. If noble Lords would like to discuss the whole of the financial situation at this stage, I am happy to do so. If they would like to discuss it bit by bit as each Amendment comes up, I am happy to do so. I will take any combination which is offered. If noble Lords who have put down the Amendments would like to give an indication of their feeling in the matter I daresay that other Members of the Committee would be glad to listen to them. I think that this Amendment raises slightly different issues
452
from others, but that need not in any way prevent the Committee from discussing them all together. I think that it is up to those noble Lords who are to move the Amendments.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. This Amendment raises a different issue from the Amendment which I intend to move later. I think there might be merit in keeping the principle of my Amendment to be dealt with by itself. I should be interested to hear what the noble Viscount has to say in reply to this Amendment. It could make quite a difference to the other matter.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I take that as an invitation from the Committee to deal with Amendment No. 1 by itself, and that we should come on to other equally weighty matters later. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, foreshadowed what his noble friend Lord Wigg said, in a way, by reading out the final sentence of paragraph 59 of Lord Wheatley's Report.
"Football is an international sport and if this were to happen—"
that is, if various grounds were closed down—
"it would be a tragedy."
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said that if we were to have a repetition of the Ibrox Park disaster it would be a tragedy. He is absolutely right. Every time one of these crowd disasters has happened (they have mostly been in connection with football matches, though there was one on an Underground station during the war) everyone has considered it a tragedy, and that it was up to someone to put it right. Therefore I think we must, with great sobriety, remember that we are endeavouring to safeguard the lives and limbs of spectators who go in large crowds to watch football matches; though the provisions in the Bill are capable of being applied also to other sports.
I suggest to the Committee that the way of approach in this Amendment is not really apt to meet the problem. Certainly it is not the right way to attack the financial side of it. I may also say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, did not read out that part of

453
paragraph 59 which says that clubs receive allocations of money from their associations and leagues
"all of whom readily made available to me their most recent accounts to show what money they had and what was distributed to clubs."
I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is aware that this money does exist and is distributed. The designation procedure and what is to follow from it is not really meant to work in quite the way that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, presented it to the Committee. We are, after all, as he said, doing this in phases, and in a flexible manner. As I told the House on Second Reading, designation will be done by reference to individual grounds. In the first place, it will be done to international stadia in the First and Second Divisions in England and Wales and in the First Division in Scotland; but it will be done by reference to individual grounds. I think that it is not at that stage, on choosing the grounds, that we ought to look at the financial implications. We have, as it were, the criteria already written into the Bill; that is, that there is to be no designation for a stadium where the accommodation is for fewer than 10,000 people. That is the figure which we put, as it were, at the floor level. That is not the stage of flexibility. It is equally true that designation, of itself, is not going to, is not intended to and will not, cause any club to close down.
The argument arises out of the second stage of the process. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, was adamant that we need a licensing system. I do not think that anyone can duck the clear implication, the clear recommendation, that emerges from his Report that we want a licensing system. He said that it ought to be phased, and it ought to apply to all these clubs. He did not in any sense suggest that a club should escape designation on financial grounds because it was not viable; because it could not put into effect some measures which might follow from that move. Instead, what he suggested, and what we have embodied in the Bill is a second phase whereby the local authority looks at the matter pragmatically and on the ground. That is where the flexibility comes in. That is where the financial capability of a club is relevant. It is not relevant
454
from the point of view of the local authority directly, because the job of the local authority is to ensure (I am sure this is entirely within the spirit of the Bill and Lord Wheatley's Report, and is what everyone in the Committee would want) so far as it can that the physical condition of the stadium is such that the number of people who are let into the stadium on any given occasion will be safe there. That is the point of the whole exercise. The question that therefore arises is how many people will be safe? What is the maximum number of people who may safely be allowed to come into a ground in any given state of condition?
Financial viability therefore arises in this fashion: suppose that a club says, "We are broke; we are 'skint'; we cannot put up one further crash barrier; we cannot employ one further attendant; there is nothing whatever that we can afford to do to our stadium". The local authority will look at the stadium as it is then and say, "In that event, if that is what you say, we have to take your word for it and we have to take account of the fact that you are not going to spend a brass farthing on your stadium; in which case we would suggest that the maximum number of people that it is safe to let into the ground in this condition is x". I should have thought that this was a reasonable approach and one which would be acceptable to any decent and conscientious football club; because they must know that if they try to pack in people beyond what is thought to be the safety limit, they are putting people at risk. That is not the end of it because there is an appeal system. So I say that it is only in the first instance where the local authority may lay down their maximum.
What is much more likely to happen comes into a further series of exercises in flexibility. Take the case where the club say to the licensing authority, "For this year we can do only a very small amount, but we think that in the course of the next twelve months we can raise the finances to fix up this stand or that set of terracing. What we propose to do is this, that and the other, and at the end of that time we will come back to you and ask whether we may have our licence I amended so that we may have x thousand

455
further people". This, of course, is perfectly admissible under the Bill and will be done with the greatest of ease and flexibility; and so on throughout the process of improvement of grounds.
What I think is more likely to be the truth than either of those propositions is the one that I put forward at Second Reading of the Bill. Rather than finding that we have large numbers of grounds which are grossly unsafe for the numbers of spectators who customarily pack themselves into them, I think we have to take account of the 25 years of voluntary exercise of a code of safety which was first initiated in 1948. Which are the clubs—and let them stand up and admit it—which have paid no regard whatever to the advice of their professional associations for 25 years? Which are the clubs which are still allowing crowds to pack in in circumstances of the greatest possible danger whereby they may be squashed to death or get themselves crushed? Let those clubs speak and say who they are who over 25 years have failed to spend one brass farthing in favour of the safety of their spectators. I do not think many will stand up and say that. It is much more likely that they will say, "Over the period of 25 years we have done a great deal in order to comply with the voluntary code laid down by the Football Association and the Football League; and our club and our ground will very happily stand up to scrutiny by the most rigid of local authorities waving their green book". I think that is what is going to happen in most cases. Maybe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, thought that this was not universally so, but, as I said on Second Reading, the clubs which cannot say they have taken substantial steps forward in this field ought frankly to be ashamed of themselves. I do not believe there will be many who are found to be in that position.
In that case, the system that I have outlined whereby we designate and leave it for bargaining between the local authority and the club to say what, in the given condition of their ground, is the maximum number of people who can go in, is a thoroughly flexible one, and it can be altered as further improvements take place. I do not think it is right to lay upon my right honourable friend
456
in the initial stage of designation a financial criterion which detracts completely from the whole principle underlying the thought and the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley. This does not say anything about where the money is to come from; I said that was a different point. In view of what I have said, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, will appreciate that it is a different point. That is why I thought, and would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that it was worth discussing on its own. That is the attitude of the Government towards this matter. I feel it is a fair way of dealing with what is a matter of the safety of the public, without imposing a dreadful financial penalty on any football club.
3.25 p.m.
LORD WIGG: I must confess that I do not agree that it is a different point from the question of who provides the money. The noble Lord who has just spoken makes the case which would be all right if he were writing an essay on the subject. But let us leave the essays behind—the polished briefs from Whitehall—and let us have a look at the reality of the situation. Who are the clubs who will not stand up, or are ashamed to stand up, and say, "Our grounds are in difficult conditions"? They are in those parts of the country where a group of public-spirited men, men who may be, if you would like to describe them for some reason as vain, and find some great merit in describing themselves as directors of football clubs have struggled—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I did not say, "Let them stand up and say 'We are in difficulties'" I said, "Let them stand up and confess 'Our grounds are grossly unsafe for the spectators who come in'"
LORD WIGG: If I might be allowed, in my own poor way, to make my own speech as I want to make it—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord was quoting from me.
LORD WIGG: —I should be much obliged. If it would help the noble Viscount, I will put it in the form that he wants. Who are the directors who will stand up and say, "Our grounds are unsafe"? Well, were not the directors of

457
Ibrox public-spirited men? Until that day when, in the closing minutes of a match at Ibrox, part of the crowd tried to turn back, that ground had been safe over the years. Many of the other grounds are safe until a special set of conditions arise. Such conditions may come and go; they may have come and gone on many first-class grounds, and nobody knows anything about it.
The truth is that football is a game that is played all over these islands and it is carried on in very difficult circumstances. I assert that not a dozen of the top clubs are financially viable, in the strict meaning of that word. They are carried on through the generosity of the directors, and they do the best they can. If the best they can is also combined with a little hope that nothing will go wrong, well, that is one of the frailties of human nature—until, of course, the dreadful day comes when their hopes are put to the test and it goes wrong.
I tried to argue this on Second Reading, and I tried to put it into practice during the five years I was chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, and the twenty years I was actively associated with the administration of another sport. Football grounds are in the centres of urban areas, just as racecourses are in centres of areas easily reached by the population. It is quite selfish, unutterably selfish, and it is a shameful thing, that racecourses should be used for only 20 days of the year, and then the gates are locked, when round about there are thousands of youngsters who want to kick a ball and who have to kick it round in the streets. Racecourses should be used: they are public property. Of course they should be used for racing, but when they are not being used for racing they ought to be used by the community as a whole. Likewise with football grounds. It is a fact that these grounds, if they were sponsored—that is to say, if money were made available—could become the centres of social activities, not only in the training of footballers but in many other activities for every night in the week and over the weekends. That is what I want to see. For the Government, on the morrow of great disaster to set up an Inquiry, under the chairmanship by one noble and learned Lord, to produce a Report, and for that Report to be limited by the fact
458
that when he went to the Treasury the Treasury said "No money", means just as night follows day, that you will have the kind of argument that we have had from the Front Bench to-day.
I am sceptical of the Government providing the money just like that out of the public purse; and I am very sceptical that it will produce the necessary results. Equally, I reject the concept that has been put forward by the noble Viscount that if here we are going to go through the process of designation, it will be limited in the first instance to the First and Second Division clubs. When it is found after examination by the local authority, or some responsible person, that a particular ground is perhaps not capable of safely holding 60,000, but that it can hold 40,000, it is condemned; the word goes round, and large parts of the terraces are shut off because they are not safe. The reason why they cannot be put right is because the gates are not big enough: and if the word goes round that the ground is unsafe, the gates will fall still further. What is already something that does not meet with approval will gradually go down hill and will meet with even less approval.
So we are really considering a Bill which is a stop-go. The Government decided from the very start that they were not going to provide a penny. Over the years they have done nothing. I go further and say that if Ibrox had not occurred they would not have done this much. We got the Wheatley Report only following upon Ibrox, and it is a stopgap before the next disaster. One of the reasons why I spoke on Second Reading, and why I intervene today, is that I am certain that we are going to get a disaster sooner or later on a racecourse, for the reasons which I have described, and because nobody is looking at the situation. This is the by-product of a laissez-faire society which only faces up to problems when it cannot escape from so doing; and when it is forced to face up to an unpleasant set of facts, what it does then is to provide a solution which does not cost much money and certainly does not add anything to the taxpayers' bill. So we grovel along.
Here is a great opportunity. I think that £20 million a year injected into British sport—and as to how it should be done is open to discussion—would

459
revivify sport where it matters, for the participants, for the young; but, at the same time, it would give us football stadia, and in the great centres it might give us a few more swimming baths which are up to Olympic standards. At the moment we are not even tenth-rate in our provisions for sport. One can go to country after country, even underdeveloped countries, and see facilities that exist there for young people that are just dreams here. And we have a speech like the one we have just had from the Minister, who uses the word "shamefaced". I describe his speech as pitiful.
3.33 p.m.
LORD LYELL: I, too, spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and I are very much in the same boat, in that we both spoke on possibly parallel lines. I do not think we are going to converge. I spoke about, and am still very keen on, the matter of crowd behaviour at sports grounds being such as to lead to risks. So far as I can understand, much of what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said has to do with finance, although he has brought in other points of importance. He has spoken about racecourses and given us a retailed survey of the risks at racecourses. But I would submit that these risks are not necessarily associated with crowd behaviour—not to mention the behaviour of spectators in aeroplanes and elsewhere. That is not quite what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, or anybody else has in mind when dealing with this Bill. I think the noble Lord has got a little off the ground that we ought to be discussing when he advocates what I believe is open-handed generosity to football. He talked about 162 clubs. I do not quite know what he meant: whether he meant professional football clubs only, or athletic clubs—
LORD WIGG: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I meant exactly what I said. There are in these Islands 162 clubs which have a capacity of 10,000 and upwards.
LORD LYELL: Would I be right in thinking that that includes stadia of the calibre of Wimbledon and Lords, and other athletic stadia the names of which do not spring immediately to mind?
LORD WIGG: I got the figures from the Football Association. There are 162 football clubs.
LORD LYELL: The Football Association, I understand, covers England, and does not cover Wales or Scotland. We are discussing professional football in the Football League of 92 clubs. The noble Lord spoke about 10 to 12 clubs. I have done a considerable amount of research into the finances of Football League clubs in England, and I have comparable figures for those in Scotland which are under the aegis of the Scottish Football League. I agree that there are about 12 to 14 clubs which either make profits or have the prospect of being profitable in the next three or four years. At the same time, I think everybody must agree with the Minister when, on the question of the public being put at risk, and where finance is a bar to improving safety and lessening the risk, he says that we cannot just expect openhanded finance. I think this question of risk is one which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, considered.
Further, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, pointed out that gates have gone down and are going down at professional football grounds all over Britain. I spoke on Second Reading of one club in the North. I have not yet had an opportunity of going to see the ground, but I read in the newspaper on the day following our Second Reading debate—and I have confirmed this briefly with the club's secretary—that there could be a financial outlay of £100,000 to make one particular section of their stadium safe—safe, that is, in the broadest sense of the Green Code. So far as I know, this club has not had any crowd trouble or any risk of trouble since the 1946 Bolton disaster. Yet if this Code is to be interpreted rigidly, this club is liable to have to spend £100,000. Somehow, I do not think the Code is going to be so rigidly interpreted. I think there will be ways and means of lessening risk, although one cannot entirely eliminate it. But if this club, which took £800.000 from gate receipts last year, is faced with the probability of having to spend £100,000, then clearly there is a corresponding risk that other clubs are going to be landed with the same sort of financial obligation. But, unfortunately,

461
about 80, and possibly more, of the Football League clubs do not make a profit in the broadest sense of the word.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has also pointed out that football is involved with national prestige. Following the elimination of the English football team from the World Cup, the great cry was one of falling gates. I cannot see that the Government and the Treasury should provide open-handed generosity to a national sport which has declining gates. Also football is played by these 92 Football League clubs, once or perhaps twice a week in their stadia. Football, of course, does not consist just of those 92 clubs but of every game played all over the land. I believe it would be wrong to divert any Treasury finance from the possibility of improving facilities for the broad mass of players and participants to making stadia more safe and more attractive, when these stadia are, at best, filled to only One third or one half of their capacity. I believe that the Bill certainly has all the provisions in it to meet any sudden influx of spectators that may occur, at best, once or twice in a year.
LORD WIGG: I do not want to trouble the Committee much further. I am not optimistic enough to believe that my lines of thinking will converge on those of the noble Lord who has just spoken, but I should like to make it clear that I am not advocating open-handed generosity from the Treasury. In the case of racing, £34 million was put into the sport as a result of the Levy Bill, and that Bill came about because a group of noble Lords put pressure on the Government and forced them to set up the Peppiatt Committee, and that Committee recommended a levy. Later on in our discussions I will say more about the levy and how it worked, and why I think it should not now be repeated. There was no generosity on the part of the Treasury. What the noble Lord does not appreciate is that as a result of the Levy Bill the next stage was reached and the Government were enabled to put a tax on turnover—something which Mr. Churchill, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had tried and failed to do. However, it was done and it has produced £88 million in the current year for the Exchequer.
462
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, was quite right when he replied to his noble friend Lord Westwood during Second Reading and told him that the Government had not taken £72 million out of football. That is correct. That amount of money has been taken out of the pockets of those who bet on football, which is a rather different thing. But the Government could never have got their £88 million of taxation from racing, nor could they have got the £72 million from football, but for the existence of both sports. Therefore the Government are doing very well indeed, thank you very much. The trouble comes about because there is a bifurcation in Government policy. It existed under the Labour Government and it is still there now. The Minister responsible for this Bill is concerned with the social aspects and with the safety of life and limb of those who attend football matches, but in the Treasury there are those who are concerned only about the money they take out of the sport and who have no responsibility for the social consequences. This leads to the impoverishment of our national life. I entirely agree with the Minister: I support him 100 per cent. when he says that steps should be taken to make it unlawful for people to be able to attend any sort of sports ground, be it cricket, football, tennis or tiddlywinks, if they are put at risk. I will explain later why I think it is unwise to seek to give this money and to raise it in the same way as the betting levy was raised.
I should also like to say this—and this is why I am taking up your Lordships' time. I believe, with absolute certainty, as a result of my experience, that if the Government pass this Bill and it becomes law and they do nothing else, then a great opportunity will have been missed, because it is possible by injecting money to help football—which incidentally would help the Revenue—and also to improve facilities for those who witness football. Nor is that all. I should like to return to the first stage—and here I repeat myself. When the noble Lord, Lord Butler, as the then Home Secretary, revised the betting laws in 1960, he did not do it because he was concerned about the wellbeing of racing. He was concerned with the social consequences that

463
were spreading like a cancer all over these Islands because of illegal betting. He very largely got rid of illegal betting and enabled racing to be put on a firm basis, which eventually enabled it to produce large sums for the Revenue. I would say that in every aspect of sport—swimming, lacrosse, tennis, squash, cricket and the like—what we in these Islands need is to get away from this laissez-faire concept of society and say that the Government have a responsibility to all sections of society, and particularly to those sections who do the work and live in unpleasant surroundings, to provide them with the facilities which all modern States, except Britain, provide. That is all I wish to say at the moment. Perhaps it is too much to hope that our lines converge; perhaps they are not dented.
LORD LYELL: Not at all, I am afraid. The noble Lord has diversified a little and I believe we are getting rather too far away from this Amendment. The noble Lord mentioned the sum of £20 million, and certainly he is quite practical in suggesting that figure. But if he seriously thinks that once that starts flowing out of the Treasury it will be the final amount, I fear he is mistaken. I believe we can easily add on an extra nought, within years, for something which, as the noble Lord says, is a national sport. Nevertheless, it is £20 million from the Treasury. I should like to know: what it is going to? Is it going to professional football or is it going to every form of sport?
LORD WIGG: This is becoming a dialogue. I have said every aspect of sport. If a Bill were enacted that roughly followed the lines of the Bill which set up the Tote Board and a levy, it would give them power to borrow. If it is wisely administered, there could be a minimum of £20 million. Certainly it would probably rise, but you could not spend large amounts in the first four or five years. After all racing has had only £34 million over ten years, and it was left with a legacy of two centuries of neglect. That has been very largely put right, and I do not think it wants more than £7 million a year. £20 million a year to start with would make an enormous difference. It would give confidence, particularly if there were borrowing powers at the same time; because once you get into an area
464
of expansion some of the difficulties would disappear. What I want the Government to do is to use the Ibrox disaster—
LORD LYELL: May I just interrupt the noble Lord? I think that is the tenth time this afternoon he has referred to "Eebrox". The name, as I understand it and as it is pronounced in Glasgow, is Ibrox".
LORD WIGG: I am a poor Sassenach, with three grand-daughters who are Scots, so I pronounce it as Mr. Churchill pronounced "Nazi"—in the way that comes naturally to me. I will leave it at that. I was trying to meet the points made by the noble Lord, and if he wants to correct me on pronunciation every time I mispronounce something, he has a hell of a job on!
3.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I say just one word about this? The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, began the first of his speeches on this Amendment by saying that we do not have any Rules of Order. I do not in any way wish to upset the Committee, but I think it was really agreed—and I believe it was suggested to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy—that what we were discussing was the first Amendment and not the general financial situation on, as it were, a Second Reading basis. I may be forgiven therefore, I hope, by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, if I do not answer any single point on what he has said, because with respect, not one of them has anything to do with the Amendment.
3.50 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: The Committee have listened to a most spirited and interesting exchange between the two noble Lords who have spoken from opposite sides. I am sure we have greatly enjoyed it and feel inspired by it. I apologise to the Committee if I come down to rather a pedestrian note, and I apologise for prolonging the debate, but I think it is desirable because the point affects a large number of people. What I do not understand, even after reading again the speech of the noble Viscount on Second Reading, how this dual system will work. One starts with designation of stadia which are constructed to accommodate more than

465
10,000 spectators. That process is initiated by the Secretary of State. When he has designated a stadium, then, as the noble Viscount told us, there starts in effect a process of negotiation between the local authority and those responsible for the conduct of the stadium. A safety certificate is issued. It may be changed from time to time, and it probably would be changed as the situation and circumstances of the particular stadium altered.
The second part of process is clear; it is a useful exchange of view, a process of negotiation, in the case of each stadium, between the local authority and those responsible for the conduct of the stadium. It results in the issue of a safety certificate adapted to the circumstances of the particular stadium and subject to change perhaps, although not necessarily, from time to time as circumstances alter. That will be perfectly clear to all those many people who are involved in this practical question. What I had not understood was how the first part of the process worked.
When I listened to the noble Viscount on Second Reading I thought he was clearly intimating to us that the first part itself was a phased process; that it was not the Government's intention that there should be anything like a blanket designation of stadia which accommodated more than 10,000 spectators; that was not what was intended at all. But it was the intention of the Government that the Secretary of State should from time to time look at individual stadia and decide that it was proper to designate them with the intention of starting the process of negotiation between the local authority and those who conducted the business of the individual stadium.
I press the noble Viscount further only in order to have clarity as to how precisely the Government intend the process to work. I put down the Amendment because I thought it made it perfectly clear that the process was to be a phased one; the designation was to be related to particular stadia because of the circumstances of each particular stadium. As the question of finance, whether from public or private sources, was so very important a feature in the whole picture, I thought it would be right to require the Secretary of State to take into account the financial situation of those responsible for each particular stadium. That is why I included in the
466
wording that my noble friends and I chose a reference to "the financial resources available".
The main purpose of the Amendment is to elicit from the noble Viscount a little more detailed statement as to how the first part of this process is to work. Am I right in thinking that the Secretary of State is to look at individual stadia up and down the country and, having regard to ail the circumstances, to decide whether he should or should not designate a particular stadium and, by so doing, start this process of negotiation with the local authority; or is something much more general in scope intended? Is it to be some process of designation which broadly affects all stadia which can accommodate more than 10,000 persons in the judgment of the Secretary of State? I think it is right to say that a great many people responsible for the conduct of stadia would like to know where they stand on the matter and would welcome elucidation on this slightly obscure point.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am extremely glad to respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. This is a most important point and I should like to get it right. I wonder whether he has with him a copy of the Report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley. If he has, and if he were to look at paragraphs 56 and 57, he would find that the policy of the Government is remarkably closely modelled on what the noble and learned Lord recommended. There are four categories of stadia set out in paragraph 56. What we propose to do in the first instance is deal with category No. 1. That is the first designation order that we propose to make under this Bill, unless among that list—and it would be dealt with ground by ground—there was one stadium which did not hold as many as 10,000 people. But I should be surprised if that were so among the clubs in the First and Second Divisions in England and the First Division in Scotland, or the international grounds as set out. If there was such a ground, there are no powers tinder the Bill to designate it, anyway.
The reason why I object to this Amendment is because I do not think that what it proposes is right. I go further, and I suggest that it is positively mischievious, to try to impose a financial criterion on

467
the designation process. Supposing, for the sake of argument, one finds among this list of what are presumably the top pullers of football crowds a ground owned by a club in a rather poor state of financial viability, it would be wrong to fail to designate that club for that reason. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg—and here it was entirely relevant. We are very much in favour of looking after life and limb of people who watch football matches, and indeed other sports. If we were to exempt a club from designation because there was some financial disability in its way we should be frustrating the whole of the exercise. I hope that I have explained even more fully what we have in mind, and that is why, when I explained earlier the reason why I did not like this Amendment, particularly the financial aspect, I shifted the whole of the financial argument on to the second stage, which is the negotiation that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, set out with complete accuracy, will go on between the club and the local authority.
We want to designate the clubs in Lord Wheatley's category (a)—and they will all be listed—and start work on the application of the Green Book to them, and then issue the licences to see how this works. This is a new exercise; it has not been done anywhere else, and we must try it out. As we gain experience it will be possible to consider designating other football grounds; but Lord Wheatley's category 4 will never be designated under this Bill because grounds with a capacity of below 10,000 are, in any case, exempt. There are also powers—and we shall be talking about these later—to deal with matters other than stadia, pure and simple, as defined which have seating accommodation around the ground. That is the way the designation will work.
I hope that that clears up the doubts in the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I hope it may also convince him that we have the financial considerations fitted into the right place in this process, in which case it may be that he will not wish to pursue this Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most indebted to the noble Viscount for his further statement which makes the position perfectly clear. The object of the
468
Amendment was to invite the Minister to enlarge on what he had said before. In those circumstances if I may have the permission of the Committee I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD AIREDALE: There is one small point that I should like to raise on Clause 1. The clause refers to "members of the public", as also does the Long Title of the Bill. Does that mean "people"? The Minister himself called them "people", and if that is what we mean cannot the Bill use the word "people", and thus use one word instead of four?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I should think not because, speaking off the cuff (and if I have it wrong I will tell the noble Lord, Lord Airedale), what we are interested in is the arrangements for the safety of the people who come in, as it were, through the great wide gates and not people who come in, say, to the directors' box or the players' changing rooms or as trainers or as policemen or as sidesmen or something of that sort. I should have thought it is probably right to define the people whom we are trying to protect on the terraces and in the stands as "members of the public", in order not to confuse them with other people who come in, as it were, for professional purposes. If I am wrong about this I will tell the noble Lord.
LORD AIREDALE: Perhaps we could settle for "spectators".
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: I think probably "members of the public" is the best way of expressing it, because although the police may be there primarily to keep law and order—and so may other people—I suspect that they are also spectators and are rather enjoying it.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Is there another stage of the Bill at which we can discuss this point, because I thought the remarks just made by the Minister must surely be totally out of keeping with modern feeling. The word "people" really covers everybody: policemen; Brian Clough; everybody. But what the Minister was doing was saying that there

469
are some people who are superior to some other people—oh yes! I am sorry; but he was. The noble Lord just below me is wagging his head laterally, which presumably means that he thinks I am wrong, but I am not. I am right. The noble Viscount was saying that if they come as policemen, or as Brian Cough or Peter Taylor, they are rather superior types of fellows who cannot possibly be described as "people". I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale: we must all be people. If he is willing to settle for "spectators", then so, reluctantly, am I. But we really must have them all described the same way. A policeman is "people". With great respect, one cannot really speak about "members of the public", although I would have accepted that term if the noble Viscount had not said that it did not include those who were in the directors' box or the policemen. Members of the public just means the "P.B.I." who stand on the terraces. With very great respect, even in this day and age, I do not think we can quite accept that. Therefore I ask the Minister whether, if there is another stage of the Bill to come, he will please go back and ask his " P.B.B." (by which I mean the poor so-an-so bureaucrats) to find a term which includes all of us.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: As I was accused of "wagging my head laterally" to indicate dissent from what the noble Lord said about the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Cuirass, may I explain that I was trying to indicate that I had not understood the noble Viscount to say that the people who were not members of the public were necessarily either superior or inferior; that a policeman, for example, is not necessarily either superior or inferior. That was my only purpose in wagging my head laterally.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, is quite right. Perhaps I may just say to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, that, as in another place, we shall be having several stages of this Bill. There will be a Report stage and I shall be delighted to discuss this point if the noble Lord would like to table an Amendment. But if he were to look at the little green book (and I will see that he gets a copy, so that he may study it) he would see that the sort of code we are discussing, which is a safety code
470
that we are trying to import into the grounds, is designed primarily to deal with the stands and the terracing where the members of the public (if I may continue to use that term) go. We are not speaking about precautions in the changing rooms of the players; we are not speaking about the precautions immediately around the touchline where the policemen go. I do not think we would normally take into account, in dealing with the code under this Bill, the people working in the bars or the restaurants, because they are covered under other statutory provisions already in force. Therefore we are dealing here with a code for the people who pay for their tickets and go through the turnstiles, and we are not seeking statutory regulations on the showers, in the tunnel leading out on to the pitch or on the staircase up which the policemen go, or something of that sort. Therefore it is a limited area of the ground with which we are trying to deal, and that is why in the Bill we use the term "members of the public" The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, is shaking his head, but perhaps he would like to study the book.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: I dealt with the point flippantly just now, but I will try to deal with it seriously. If you go on to a football ground—my natural one is Upton Park—the terraces, as the noble Viscount calls them (he obviously is not a regular attender) you find that the seats are behind the directors' box, and if anything goes wrong behind, then, happily enough, in the present state of West Ham, the directors will get the consequences—and in view of the way they are running the club at the moment I would not be against that. But if the noble Viscount had ever been on a football ground he would know that we are indeed all "people" now. I am not talking about the bar. I am not sure that I am not talking about the tunnel, because if it were to fall in—and if West Ham go on playing as badly as they are doing now there is just the chance of somebody falling in upon the tunnel, which is just between what the noble Viscount insists upon calling "members of the public" —then we shall indeed all be "people".
I do not need to see the little green book: I have already seen it. I am on to a serious point, even although I am expressing it flippantly, which seems to

471
suit the mood at the moment. It is a serious point. On a football ground we are all "people". One cannot divide the areas of danger, meaning those who throw bottles, as at lbrox Park and the other place up there in Glasgow, and those who do not. We are indeed all "people". The risks are pretty fairly spread and the Bill must apply to everybody. If the term "people" will not do—though I should have thought it would—I will settle for "spectators". But whatever word is used it must apply over the whole ground; and if the noble Viscount will accept my invitation to come with me to West Ham he will see exactly what I mean. It is impossible to divide one set of people from another, so I beg the Government: please, between now and the next stage of the Bill, put in something which does not divide the sheep from the goats. The reason for the precautions applies equally right across the ground.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: They are all sheep, but some will be protected by this Bill and others by other legislation. We will certainly look at what the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, says, but I think the Bill is right. However, when he raises a point like this, it deserves to be looked at.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [General and special certificates]:
4.11 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("likely to be").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. Clause 2 deals with the issuing by the local authority of general and special safety certificates. The interpretation of "local authority" is dealt with in Clause 16. In Greater London the "local authority" will be the Greater London Council and in England, outside London, it will be the county council. In Scotland it is the regional or islands council. Clause 2(5) lays down:
"When a general safety certificate is in operation for a designated stadium in their area, the local authority, on the application of a person who satisfies them that lie is a qualified person, may issue a special safety certificate for the stadium to him."
I turn again to Clause 16 for the definition of a "qualified person". At the top of page 12 it says:
"'qualified person' has the meaning assigned to it by section 2(7) above;".
That is the subsection to which this Amendment refers, and it states:
"In this Act, 'qualified person', in relation to a safety certificate, means a person who is likely to be in a position to prevent contravention of its terms and conditions."
It seems to me that the use of the words "likely to be" introduce an area of uncertainty that ought, if possible, to be avoided, and one wonders, indeed, why they have been used. It seems to me that an applicant for a safety certificate should satisfy the local authority very positively and definitely that he will be "in a position to prevent contravention of its terms and conditions". The local authority is very limited, or so it seems to me, in its powers to cancel a certificate. I base that statement on the wording of Clause 5(7), which reads:
"The local authority may cancel a safety certificate if the holder dies or (being a body corporate) is dissolved, or if the holder appears to the local authority to have ceased to be a qualified person."
That seems to me to be the only power the local authority has to cancel the certificate. So there would seem to be need to avoid the use of the words which have been introduced, and which have themselves introduced a note of uncertainty where clarity is desirable. I beg to move.
LORD WIGG: The use of the words in the Bill, of course, is another proof that the Government are looking for an alibi. The first explanation given by the Minister in reply to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill is that in regard to paragraph 56 of the Wheatley Report the Government will seek sections 1A, 1B, 2, 3 but never section 4. Of course in the timetable it works something like this: the accident at Ibrox occurred in February, 1971, the Report came out in May, 1972, and we are now nearly at the end of 1973 before the Bill sees the light of day. If anything happens at the moment the Government can always say, "Well, we had to wait for the Wheatley Report; we had to consider the Wheatley Report, and we have a Bill, and we are proceeding stage by stage". They could appoint the village idiot to the job; and if it was found out that he was the village

473
idiot, then the Government could always say, "Well, so far as we knew he had a conversation with an architect, and so far as we knew he was quite 'likely to be'". In other words, what this wording is intended to do is to provide the Government after Ibrox with an alibi against something happening, an alibi in order to satisfy public opinion.
The use of the words "likely to be" are quite indefensible in logic. Their only justification, if in fact, as I believe, this Bill is nothing more nor less than a dummy in the shop window, is as an alibi that a Minister can trot out if he is placed in a corner. But there is really no justification whatever. In a society like ours the Minister has a duty to designate, but he then shuffles it on to the local authority to negotiate, and the person who will take the decision is someone "likely to be" This country is strewn with professional organisations, any one of which could be asked to designate someone to do the job. There is not an area in the country where there exist football clubs covered by categories 1, 2 and 3 where some 70 professionally qualified people cannot be found to do the job. The use of the words "likely to be" is a move away. I congratulate my noble friends Lord Garnsworthy and Lord Stow Hill on putting down this Amendment. I very much hope that if the Government resist them, they will take it to a Division.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I think we can read rather too much into these words. The main purport here really concerns a technical point in the initial stages of getting the Bill moving. Indeed, I believe the purport of these words is precisely the opposite of what the noble Lord was talking about, in so far as it is designed to enable the procedure to get going rather than to hold it back.
The point about "likely to be" is that in the initial stages there is no one who technically can be said to be immediately and obviously qualified "to be". The words in Clause 2 and Clause 10(2) are specifically included to meet the point. Before the certificate is issued and this becomes known, no person can be said with certainty to be "in a position to prevent contravention of these terms and conditions". The stage to which Clause 2 applies is the preliminary stage. The local authority has to decide under sub-
474
section (4) whether the applicant is a qualified person so that they may proceed to consider his application. The certificate will not have been issued; the local authority will have to make a judgment as to the capacity of the applicant in the future to "prevent contravention of its terms and conditions". That is the real reason why the words are there.
LORD WIGG: If the noble Lord will telephone the Horserace Betting Levy Board at 405 5346, and ask for the Secretary, he will be given a list of half a dozen firms with many qualified people who, in regard to the essential category 1, can provide the answers about the safety from a crowd point of view of a particular stand or structure. In the initial stage you are not finding your way because nobody is about. Ours is a highly complex technical society. This is common knowledge. There are numerous people who specialise in this field. These are not cannibal islands; we are not hunting grouse in Scotland. We are in the midst of a technological system. Of course you can find the people if you want to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I do not think we are dealing here with a technological question, but with the managerial responsibility of the people we are seeking. I believe it would be a great mistake to take out these words. The Government feel quite strongly about this question.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I take note that the Government are not inclined to accept the Amendment. May I say I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wigg for the contribution he has made in the consideration of this Amendment. I do not propose to press the matter to a Division this afternoon, but in asking leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment may I say we shall study very closely what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: When the noble Lord. Lord Garnsworthy, does that, would he also consider another point, because it would be convenient, I think, for him to have all these things together. We are talking here about the person who applies for the certificate. He is to be prima facie the man who runs

475
the stadium, not of course, the architect, not the engineer, not the person responsible for the safety provisions, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, quite rightly said, are available everywhere. We are talking about the chap who runs the ground. When the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, looks at this point again, perhaps he would turn to Clause 10. He will see there that we are talking about offences. There are a number of offences, one of which is breaking the conditions of the certificate. It is not only the person who is the holder of the certificate who is liable to be prosecuted. If your Lordships look at the end of Clause 10(1), you will see that "any responsible person" can be prosecuted, and "any responsible person" is defined in Clause 10(2). So the mere fact that in the initial stages Mr. A goes along and says, "I am the qualified person to apply to the local authority for this certificate", and he is considered by the local authority to be likely to be in such a position, does not subsequently, if he is then given the certificate, confine any enforcement actions to prosecutions against him. If they should find out, after all, that he is not the person responsible for the running of the club or in control of the club, any other responsible person can also be prosecuted under the terms of Clause 10 and the enforcement provisions. I think the noble Lord may find some comfort in this. He will see that the local authorities are not in the position of having their hands tied, as they may be thought to be simply by looking at Clause 2.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for that intervention. He will not be surprised if I say on that particular point that it is a matter that we shall study closely; and he will not be surprised if I say that I shall need to take advice. He would not expect me to say anything other than that. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, we shall consider the matter and perhaps come back to it again at Report stage, and I think particularly that I should reserve the position in regard to what the noble Viscount has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Applications for safety certificates]:
4.23 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 4, after ("the") insert ("Sports Council and to the").
The noble Lord said: We all of us desire that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will achieve its objective; that is to say, that the safety of the public attending sporting events will be secured. Obviously it is essential, when an application for a safety certificate for a stadium is made, that the local authority, as provided in this clause, should consult with the chief officer of police, the building authority and the fire authority for the area in which the stadium is situated. The Bill is concerned not solely with stadia, but, as I think the noble Viscount made quite clear when we were discussing the first Amendment, with grounds also. At the moment we do not know its limitations or its full extent. We have the Wheatley Report to guide us, but I think we are all of us aware that it may go further and that there is a point at which it will fail to meet the situation. Twice on Second Reading, when I touched on the question of the scale of the Bill, when I used the words "would" and "will" in so far as application of the Bill was concerned, he intervened to say "could". The noble Viscount was quite emphatic about that. That left us in little doubt —it certainly left me in little doubt—that all sports could, even if not necessarily, come under the umbrella of the Bill.
I think few would doubt that crowd behaviour varies from sport to sport. For instance, crowd behaviour at Epsom on the racecourse is very different from the crowd behaviour at Wembley at a football match, and particularly, if I may say so, in the stands at Epsom or the stadium at Wembley. The point I wish to make it that since the standards of safety are not defined in the Bill but are to be governed by a code of practice, and since sporting events with very different patterns of crowd behaviour are involved, it is desirable that there should be consultation not only with the special parties I have mentioned but with those

477
who can speak for the club or for the sport concerned, and it seems to me that it could be a minimum help, to avoid confusion and different standards throughout the country, if this Amendment were accepted. It ought also to reduce to a minimum any question of misinterpretation of the code.
It would seem to me that the Sports Council, which was established by Royal Charter in 1971, is the appropriate agency for consultation in this regard. The advantage that would follow is that there would be proper guidelines laid down, based on co-ordination at national level. Further, it would surely be advantageous if local authorities are required to consult with sporting interests or those who speak for them—in this case I am suggesting that it should be the Sports Council—before using their powers to close down or severely restrict the use of a major sports ground. The Amendment is designed to secure consultation with the Sports Council, and if incorporated in the Bill would, I know, give considerable satisfaction, with the added possibility of close co-operation from the Sports Council. I am quite sure that acceptance of the Amendment would give a very great deal of satisfaction. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think it might be helpful to the Committee if I were to intervene at this stage. What the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said is in itself of great assistance, and it gives me an opportunity to say some things which I think really need to be said at the beginning of the Parliamentary passage of this Bill. The noble Lord has suggested' that we should amend Clause 3 to ensure that the Sports Council would be consulted about each application for a safety certificate for an individual stadium. I hope the noble Lord is able to follow this argument. It is fairly involved. What we are involved with, of course, is the detailed application of the agreed Green Book to football stadia. As the Bill stands at the moment, I think the noble Lord would probably agree that to consult the Sports Council about how many crush barriers there are and how wide the staircase should be, whether the telephones are adequately placed and whether the lighting is right on each individual ground that is licensed by a local authority, is
478
to bring in the Sports Council at the wrong stage.
I think the noble Lord was saying—and in this I entirely agree with him—. that we ought to have two things. First of all, we ought to make certain that before any individual sport, and the grounds upon which it is played, are brought under the umbrella of the Bill, there has been the widest possible consultation to make certain that the way in which it is going to be done and administered is suitable for that sport, for the behaviour of the people who go and watch it, for the sort of grounds on which the sport takes place, and all the other peculiar features special to that sport. I entirely agree with that. I do not know whether the noble Lord remembers, but in my winding up speech on Second Reading I put in a little passage in which I promised that before anybody contemplated applying this sort of thing to horse-racing courses there would be consultations with those who know all about horseracing courses. Indeed, since then there has been correspondence with my noble friend Lord Ward of Willey who is interested in greyhound racing, and we promised him that before we applied any of these proposals to greyhound racing we would consult with people who know about that sport; and so it would be wherever application of the terms of this Bill was considered to any sport beyond football which is at the present moment in our minds. That is probably a more satisfactory way of dealing with it than to bring in the Sports Council as such.
What we wish to do is to make sure that, to take an entirely different sport like greyhound racing, the equivalent of the little green document that we have for safety standards as applied to football grounds is agreed between those who know about that sport and the local authorities, the fire authority, the police, and the other people who would be interested in licensing it. That is what happens with football, and that is what we want to happen again. We need to consult the specialists who run the particular sport before we produce another non-statutory document of this sort. I think that I am carrying the noble Lord with me so far.
The procedure would then be this. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 14 of the Bill he will see that one can

479
extend the provisions of the Bill to other sports grounds. One can extend it not only to sports stadia but to other sports grounds as well, and that would include I know not what. If one looks at the definition of sports grounds in Clause 16 one sees that it is a fairly wide definition: it requires open air and some artificial structures, or natural structures modified, on which spectators can stand or sit and watch the sport. But when an order is made under Clause 14 extending the provisions of this Bill to another sort of sport, one can adapt all the provisions of the Bill in the application order. One can adapt the people who have to be consulted, say, in the initial stages, or indeed at the stage when one is applying for an actual certificate for a sports ground. One can adapt all the provisions of the Bill, and it is all subject to the Statutory Instrument procedure set out in Clause 14(2). What we have done is provide a system whereby the right people will be consulted at the earliest stage before we are even ready to extend the provisions of this Bill by Statutory Instruments to another sport, so that we have the equivalent of the little green book ready for that sport, agreed upon between the people concerned and ready for use by the local authority. I know that that is what the noble Lord wants.
The way that we think that his last point on consistency is going to be dealt with and enforced is twofold. First of all, we think—and I repeat this—that we ought to have an agreed code for each sport, like the green book for football, that lays down the guidelines that the noble Lord was talking about. We then think that we ought to have an appeal procedure, which we shall come to in a minute on an Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, whereby there is a central appellate authority which will be finally responsible for seeing that appeals against conditions, refusals, and that sort of thing are handled in a standard way so that there are not divergencies between what happens in one local authority area and in another. Therefore, we have the two stages for consistency as well the initial consultation over the code, and the appeal system. With that armoury already in the Bill, the noble Lord may think that to bring in the Sports Council at the
480
rather late stage of the application of the provisions of the green book to each individual stadium is to misuse the limited amount of resources that he has, and if he is going to be involved at all it is better to be involved much earlier in the process. Therefore it would not have to be put in under Clause 3 at all.
4.36 p.m.
LORD WIGG: If I heard the noble Viscount correctly, he said that if it is necessary to consult, for example, on greyhound racing, he would presumably consult the National Greyhound Association, or on racing the Racing Authority, and that you would not go to the Sports Council because you would not want to consult a non-statutory body. That is what I understood him to say. It seems to me that he misunderstands the functions of the Sports Council. The Sports Council is a governmental body borne on the Vote of the Secretary of State for the Environment. I do not know whether my noble friend realises it, but by putting the Amendment down here he was asking that one Government Department should consult another. The answer that the noble Viscount has given is utterly convincing if the Sports Council was what he appears to think it is, a body comparable to the Greyhound Association.
Personally, I should be opposed to the Sports Council being consulted for just that reason: because the Sports Council is borne on the Vote of the Secretary of State for the Environment and those who run it are civil servants. I was questioned about this matter on the radio—and I had better use the same words about the Sports Council—and I said that the Ministry of the Environment in relation to sport as a whole has about the same dynamic as a week-old rice pudding. They can do only what their Minister, or the Permanent Secretary will allow them to do. We know that that is a spent cartridge, if ever there was one. Nothing is going to come from that source. Why my noble friend should want to go to the Sports Council in any case is utterly and completely beyond me. Amazed as I am at that, I will resist it and vote against it. I am completely nonplussed by the answer of the Government, but perhaps it may be that the noble Viscount has got a little misled on his brief, as he was on Second Reading when he thought that the noble and

481
learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, had said that the Government should not provide any money for the Bill.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said. I am sorry that I did not listen to my noble friend when he was speaking about this subject on the radio. Had I done so, I should have the better known his mind before coming into this Committee this afternoon. We have enjoyed his intervention and learned something from it. The Amendment has served a useful purpose because it seems to me that the noble Viscount has given a very full undertaking, although it would have been a good thing if we could have had something more specific in the Bill. We may need to look at it further, but in the light of his undertaking and what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.39 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 13, at end insert—
("() The local authority in determining what terms and conditions ought to be included in a safety certificate shall have regard to such generally accepted international standards relating to safety as seem to them appropriate.")
The noble Lord said: The activities carried out in the stadia which will come under this Bill are international in character, in that the sports are sports which are carried out in several countries and in which, from time to time, there are international events when individuals or teams from more than one country meet at these stadia. Large crowds of spectators follow their team or their competitors, especially nowadays when people can travel very quickly by air. When one of our football teams plays a football team from the Continent, for example, there may be as many as 10,000 spectators from the Continent on the ground. It follows that in these circumstances any Government who have in mind the welfare of their citizens must be concerned not only with the conditions of the stadia in their own country but with the conditions of the stadia in other countries. In those circumstances we are very likely to have recognised international standards. The whole purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that if we have recognised
482
international standards they will at least be recognised by us. I beg to move.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I thank the noble Lord for moving this Amendment. Of course, we are not going to be so jingoistic as to say that we have nothing to learn from people playing the same game in other countries —indeed, I think the record shows rather the reverse—and there have of course been disasters in football stadia abroad. But the short answer is that, so far as we know, there are no international standards. We are also led to believe that in the majority of the stadia overseas most of the spectators are seated, whereas of course a particular feature of the British stadia is the terraces—indeed, this is where the particular problem arises. We have the advantage that in this way we get cheap accommodation for larger numbers of people, but it is precisely here that problem; seem to have arisen. I can go further and say that not only do we not know of any international standard, but there is not a British standard; and if there were a British standard it is likely that those responsible for it would be aware of the international standards, and would be more likely to be aware of the international standards than the ordinary local authority would. Moreover, international standards would probably be more concerned with new stadia, whereas this Bill is largely concerned with improvements to existing stadia.
I think I should end by saying—and we shall he repeating this several times this afternoon—that the whole essence of the Bill is to keep the position as flexible as we can. Having said that, perhaps I can underline it by saying that if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, or any other noble Lord can make the Government aware of any international standard, or indeed any national standard which would be relevant to us, we shall be very glad to hear about it.
LORD JACQUES: Surely, if a sport becomes more international and more people travel from country to country to watch or take part in it, then the positions in the different countries will have a tendency to be standardised. It is true that sports grounds in the different countries vary, but it is also true that as the sports become more international these countries will learn from each other and there

483
will be a greater similarity between the grounds; and when you get that similarity there will virtually be international standards. There is one final point. If there are no international standards at the moment, what harm can there be in having this provision in the Bill? If this provision is in the Bill and we eventually get international standards, then the provision will be here and we shall respect those international standards.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: On the noble Lord's last point, I think that I would really stand the argument on its head and say that this is already a fairly complicated piece of legislation and we need to feel our way; so the less complicated we can make the life of local authorities the better pleased we shall be. But I agree that ultimately we shall clearly have to come to international standards, and the green booklet can be amended at any time; but I think we should prefer for the time being to keep it as uncluttered as we can.
LORD JACQUES: I am not at all satisfied with that reply, but it is not worth dividing the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Amendment, replacement, transfer, surrender and cancellation of safety certificates]:
4.46 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert ("or if a term or condition has been contravened.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is partly probing in character, but not entirely so. It is probing in the sense that it invites, or is designed to invite, Ministers to say why, in the scheme which they have embodied in this Bill, there is no provision for a safety certificate to be cancelled if its terms and conditions are not complied with. I am sure that that is a deliberate omission, and I should be grateful if I might hear from the Minister why they have made that omission. May I remind the Committee of the relevant clauses in
484
the Bill? The only wording in the Bill which provides for the cancellation of a safety certificate is that which is contained in subsection (7) of Clause 5, and that is the wording which I seek to amend. The relevant part of the wording is:
"The local authority may cancel a safety certificate if the holder dies or (being a body corporate) is dissolved, or if the holder appears to the local authority to have ceased to be a qualified person".
One comment I would make on that at once is that a local authority may take the view that a holder certainly has not ceased to appear to be a qualified person; he is still a qualified person in every sense of the word because he looks likely to be able to secure compliance with the terms and conditions. But a qualified person may, for one reason or another, perhaps by way of protest or because of a view which he has formed that a local authority is being unreasonable, say. "Certainly I could secure compliance with this condition, but I choose not to because I think you are being unreasonable". If he takes that attitude, then under the wording in Clause 5 there would be no power, as I read it, to cancel the certificate, which seems to me to be rather ridiculous.
If one looks elsewhere in the Bill to see what power there is to bring a certificate to an end, one finds that there is literally no power—and I mean no power. One goes to Clauses 9 and 10. Under Clause 9(1), the public can be kept from a stadium which is:
"a designated stadium in respect of which a safety certificate has not been issued"—
that will not be applicable—or
"a sports stadium which is not a designated stadium".
Neither of those applies to a sports stadium which has been designated and in respect of which a safety certificate has been issued the terms of which have been breached. In Clause 10(1)(c) one finds that a person responsible for conducting a stadium commits an offence if he does not comply—I am using loose language—with a term or condition in a safety certificate. He may be convicted for failure to comply if he has not one of the defences set out in the later parts of Clause 10, and he can be fined quite substantially; but all the court can do under Clause 9(2) is to say that until the particular condition is complied with the public shall not be

485
admitted; there is no power to cancel the certificate.
It seems to me that the whole scheme is in that sense a bit illogical, and I cannot understand why it does not include a simple provision, such as one would normally expect to find in legislation which enables certificates to be granted, empowering a local authority, at its discretion, to cancel the certificate if the terms and conditions contained in that certificate are not fulfilled. One would have thought that a logical and tidy pattern would require that, a certificate having been issued by a local authority, if those responsible do not comply with the terms and conditions contained in the certificate then the local authority should have the power, in its discretion, to cancel it. As I read this Bill there is nothing to that effect contained in it. The noble Viscount nodded his head when I suggested that it was omitted deliberately. I am sure that it is. It would not have been an accidental omission. But I should like to hear why it is that this particular provision, which I suggest ought to be incorporated in the Bill, has been omitted from it.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I will tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, why, and I hope that he will be satisfied. May I just deal initially with the subsidiary point about the person who receives a certificate with the terms and conditions in it and who does not like one of them and thinks that it is absurd. I do not think the way to handle it is to set about ignoring that term and condition. A responsible club would appeal against it under the provisions of Clause 6. So we need not worry about someone who has received a certificate with what he considers to be unreasonable terms. He would be foolish not to take up his right of appeal but simply to choose to flout the terms of the certificate.
What is more likely is that there will turn out to be some dispute between a club and a local authority. One has to remember—this is why we have dealt with the matter rather carefully—that there can be, I suppose, no more awful a sanction for any club than to be closed down, for the purposes of playing football or anything else. This would be the ultimate and most dreadful fate that could befall any club. We thought, there-
486
fore, that we would leave it to the courts rather than allow a local authority to do this; and certainly if the Bill were amended in the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord they could do it for the most paltry failure to comply with a term or condition of the licence —they could do it because someone has not put up the requisite exit sign or something like that. We thought it better that this should be a judicial matter rather than something which was done—if I say at the whim of a local authority, I am not suggesting that local authorities lightly have whims, but their proceedings are not normally in public or susceptible of argument on either side, as are proceedings in court.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was right to look further on in the Bill to Clauses 9 and 10 to see where are the powers. He was right in picking out Clause 10(1)(c) and Clause 9(2). If a club fails to comply with the terms of the certificate—that is, a designated stadium—it could be prosecuted, either in the magistrates' court or on indictment in the Crown Court, or in the two Scottish equivalent courts or the High Court. In the latter case (and I suggest this is right, because this is so serious a sanction and should occur only when there is a serious prosecution on indictment) the court can use powers under Clause 9(2). It is true that the way it is phrased does not expressly allow the court to cancel the certificate. I am not ciuite sure why this is so; I am prepared to look at it again. I suggest it is because the local authority do no! appear before the court. It would be the local authority who issued the certificate and the draftsmen might have thought it would be better not actually to involve the local authority in the process. But I am perfectly prepared to look at this point again.
In fact, the powers of the court come to exactly the same thing. Those powers, under Clause 9(2), after a conviction on indictment are powers to prevent to order that no member of the public shall be admitted to the stadium or part of it for such a period as may be so specified, which, for all I know, may be for ever. Plainly, it would not be, but it could be for any period the court thought fit. It is therefore equivalent to cancelling the certificate. Indeed, it is worse, because it is a court order and I suppose that to

487
ignore it would be punishable by contempt, or injunction, rather than merely by a subsequent prosecution for running a designated stadium without a certificate, which is what would happen if the certificate was cancelled. I think it arguable that by doing it this way the court is given even more extreme power, followed up by the ordinary powers of enforcement for people who do not obey the orders of the court. That could not be done if the local authority were to cancel the certificate on their own account. There is also the opportunity for a person threatened in this way to argue before the Crown Court whether or not it is right. I leave it to the noble and learned Lord, but I hope he is convinced that this is the right forum to consider so serious a thing; that we have the powers in the Bill to deal with it and indeed more powers under Clause 9(2) than if we had this Amendment. Moreover, there is an opportunity for people to argue the issue out before this terrible fate overtakes a club. That is the way we see it. If the noble and learned Lord does not think that is satisfactory, the drafting could be looked at again, but we think this a good way to handle what would be a severe penalty.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, but I am sorry to have to tell him that I do not feel satisfied by his answer. He has said that he will consider the matter and, that being so, I propose in clue course to ask permission to withdraw the Amendment. But before doing so, may I leave with the noble Viscount one or two thoughts for when he reconsiders the matter? First, he says that the local authority might cancel a certificate for a trivial and unsatisfactory reason. Having had that in mind I have put down a further Amendment, No. 11, in page 5. line 6. The noble Viscount will see that in order to deal with that situation I seek to amend the Bill by providing that if there were a cancellation under the clause as amended by the Amendment for which I ask, there would be a right of appeal. So I think that disposes of his first point. Regarding the second point made by the noble Viscount, under Clause 9(2) the court has a power which is virtually commensurate with that which I am seeking to put in the Bill. Why on earth not give
488
the court that power in terms? I should have thought the most ridiculous result might ensue if, there having been a conviction under Clause 10(1) of a number of people responsible within the meaning of that subsection and they, having refused to comply with the court order, were under Clause 9(2) sent to prison for contempt of court, as the noble Viscount envisages, nevertheless the licence still remained in being. That seems to me a wholly illogical and quite indefensible position.
One way to approach the problem, as I suggested a moment ago, would be to say that the court should not only be empowered to order that the public should not be admitted but also should be entitled to cancel a safety certificate. That would make the position a little more logical. I should have thought it preferable, before getting to the stage of criminal proceedings, to enable a local authority, if it thought there had been a breach which could not be overlooked, to cancel a certificate, and, as I seek to do in a subsequent Amendment, give persons aggrieved by the cancellation a similar right to appeal as is given by the Bill as it stands in the other circumstances outlined in relation to appeal. I prefer that as the more logical solution, but I submit that at least the court should, under Clause 9(2), be entitled to say not only that the public were not to be admitted but also that the certificate was to be cancelled.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Before the noble and learned Lord withdraws the Amendment, may I ask him a question for clarification? If the circumstances which he described had arisen, surely the situation would be that the holder of the certificate would have ceased to be a qualified person, because he was not succeeding in having the terms and conditions applied. That is the condition of a qualified person. So he would cease to be a qualified person, and the licence would be cancelled on those grounds.
LORD STOW HILL: I think that is one of the difficulties of the type of drafting that my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy referred to when he moved his Amendment. He will still remain a qualified person. He might be a person able to see that the condition was enforced but who chose not to do so. So he would remain a qualified person, but he would

489
be guilty of a criminal offence just the same. I think that we are getting into the most illogical waters—waters cannot be illogical; perhaps I have been illogical in using that simile. But it is a very untidy position, and I hope the noble Viscount will think it out very carefully and try to tidy up this aspect of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
5.4 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
(" . The Secretary of State may out of moneys to be provided by Parliament make available such sums whether by way of grant, loan or otherwise and on such terms as he thinks appropriate after consultation with the Sports Council to those responsible for the conduct and management of any designated sports stadium to enable them to comply with the terms and conditions contained in any safety certificate issued in relation to such sports stadium.")
The noble Lord said: I think this is probably the Amendment that a number of noble Lords are very anxious to discuss. I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Wigg wanted to cover this ground when we were dealing with the first Amendment. I think it will be useful if we can keep this issue as clear as we possible can. My Amendment is to insert after Clause 5 a new clause in the words set out on the Marshalled List. The new clause makes provision whereby help may be given to those responsible for the conduct and management of any designated sports stadium where it can be shown that they lack the resources and the ability to comply with terms and conditions contained in any safety certificate issued in relation to such sports stadium and for which they are solely responsible.
I want to make the point now, in view of what was said a little time ago, that there is no question here of an open hand. The intention is that there will be proven need on the basis of the club being able to show that they cannot carry the cost of what they are required to do. We had some discussion on that point at Second Reading, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, made
490
it very clear that the Government's mind was not very open. But I should not like to think that it was completely closed. If it is, then many sporting activities will be in very serious trouble because the cost of implementing the provisions of this Bill will be beyond the means of the governing bodies concerned. I asked on Second Reading whether the Government had any idea as to what costs would be involved in implementing this Bill. We have been given no guidance. I think we all know that the cost is going to be very heavy indeed. The 10.000 limit means, as I understand it, that every Football League ground, all Rugby League grounds, many Rugby Union grounds, and all major sporting club users will be, or could be, at some time subject to and bound by the Bill. I understood the noble Lord to make that perfectly clear when he intervened at Second Reading and emphasised the word "could".
The noble Lord, Lord Westwood, stated at Second Reading, as he is reported at col. 952 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of November 20 last:
"Out of ninety-two professional Football League Clubs in England there are only eight, or perhaps ten, clubs which make a profit."
I do not recall anybody disputing that statement when it was made, and I do not believe that there has been any question as to the general accuracy of that statement since. I am very glad the noble Lord is here in his place this evening because we all know that not only is he knowledgeable but that he is an expert in this field with his very close association with football. If the statement is reasonably accurate, even if it is only approximately accurate, it must raise grave doubts as to the ability of the majority of clubs to find the money that would be needed to provide the required safety measures. I want to stress that this is not only Association Football. I think it is perhaps a pity that there are not more Members of your Lordships House keenly interested in Association Football. But I would stress that that could include Rugby, Rugby Union or any other sporting activity at all. So, although at the moment the main concern is with regard to Association Football, the day may well come when other sports are involved.
All of us want safety—there is no question about that. And I take it that all

491
of us want the game to go on—although I confess that, in the light of what has been said, I sometimes have doubts whether there is very much enthusiasm on the Government Benches to help those clubs that are struggling with adversity. But if it is a fact that we all want the game to go on, I do not think that we can afford to be unmindful and unconcerned about where the money is coming from. It is not good enough to say that the club which has money problems should deal with the matter itself: not good enough to say that the club which is struggling should struggle a little harder, and struggle more successfully. A great many of them are already struggling to the utmost of their ability. Although they may not be in a financial sense successful, I do not think anybody can doubt that they are giving a tremendous amount of pleasure in the areas in which they are operating, even if they are not able to draw the very big crowds.
We have heard this afternoon about falling "gates". If we want sport to survive, and if want the kind of sporting activities that take place on Saturday afternoons to continue, and to be successful, we must be prepared to see that they have the means whereby they can do the things that Parliament tells them they must do. It is not enough to say that they have had opportunity since 1948, and that they have not done all that they might have done. We are dealing with the present time, and we are dealing with the future. Whatever the shortcomings of the past 25 years, I think it would be a good thing if we could all resolve that we are going to do what we can to ensure that this country maintains—to mention, for example, Association Football—the game here to the greatest possible credit not only of those who play it, but of the country as a whole. In these days nations compete at sport, and that is much better than nations competing at war.
This Amendment does not ask for a subsidy from the general body of ratepayers. There was some dispute at Second Reading as to the amount the Government receive from football by way of the betting levy. I do not want to talk this afternoon about the betting levy. I asked the noble Viscount at Second Reading whether information could be provided about the amount of
492
money the Government get from V.A.T. paid by football clubs and other organisations that may be covered by this Bill. Maybe he will give us this information to-day.
I have made inquiries and I am told the Football League estimate that from V.A.T. the Government are collecting, by way of gate money and transfer fees, a sum in excess of £1 million. In view of the figures mentioned with regard to the betting levy, that may not seem to be a very large sum, but I want to ask this afternoon, having regard to the fact that the Government are getting this money by way of V.A.T. whether it is not reasonable that the Secretary of State should ask Parliament to make available some reasonable proportion of that total from which help, by way of grant or loan on such terms as he thinks appropriate, could be made available to those clubs and organisations which are able to prove inability otherwise to comply with the safety requirements, these grants or loans to be made after consultation with the Sports Council as is set out in the Amendment. When we ask that it should be the Sports Council, I do not think anybody can say that we are suggesting a body which has no responsibility to the Government.
LORD WIGG: If my noble friend is asking for the Sports Council he is saying that the Government should give it to the Government to spend.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am trying to make the point that if the Government are worried about the control of this money, if they are worried about doling money out to clubs, then in fact the Amendment is extraordinarily reasonable in the body it suggests should be responsible for dealing with the matter. Maybe the matter could be better dealt with by allocating money to the Sports Council to meet cases of obvious hardship and so avoid undesirable ground closure or restriction. I am suggesting they should have at their disposal a proportion of what is collected by way of V.A.T. and should be free to make grants or loans as they think fit on the basis of proven inability to meet the safety requirements that will follow this Bill.
My purpose is to help in the speedy achievement of what the Bill sets out

493
to do. This Amendment is intended to secure provision of some means to help those who while wanting to co-operate with the aims of the Bill, lack the means. My Amendment may not be perfect in its wording, but it will provide the Committee with an opportunity of putting into the Bill what is now lacking. The Bill I think gives us almost all that we can ask in the way of saying what safety standards shall be and how they shall be accomplished, except that it does not take into consideration that those who will be called upon to achieve those safety standards while not lacking the will may lack the money to do it. It may be suggested that instead of paying a transfer fee of, say, £150,000 to acquire a player they would do well to spend the money on the safety of the ground. I know of one club that has spent a tremendous amount of money, something approaching £800,000, on doing this very thing; but the clubs cannot, because they have better grounds, attract bigger gates, It is not the ground that attracts the gate, it is the quality and standard of the players; and it would seem to me that the most important thing for the clubs to do is to attract larger crowds. The only way to do that is by providing a better team and thus building up the gate money and, as they build up the gate money, the Government will get more by way of V.A.T. I suggest that the Amendment is so modest that the Government would do well to give it serious consideration. If not, let me say at the outset that I think it is a matter that the Committee itself ought to determine at this stage. I beg to move.
LORD WESTWOOD: May I remind the House that on the Second Reading of this Bill I declared my interest by informing your Lordships that I was the chairman of a well known First Division English football club. May I hasten to add that it is an unpaid appointment as no director of an English Football League club is allowed to accept any directors' fees whatsoever—which may seem strange when you listen to my accent. However, I trust that this Amendment will be given very serious consideration by the Minister. On the Second Reading debate I stressed the quite farcical situation between the huge sums of money which the Government receive by way of the betting tax on the foot-
494
ball pools and the financial position of most of the football clubs in this country. It is so very serious that there is a grave danger of some of the clubs having to close down.
It is strange that this Bill should have emanated from the Home Office—this may be information to some of your Lordships who are not in a privileged position, as I am, though my use of the word "privilege" may not be correct—as the Home Office are responsible for the payment of the police. To give your Lordships one example of the way in which club costs have escalated recently: police charges have increased so much that the cost of supplying police at my club's ground in Newcastle is frequently more than the cost of the team, and very much more should there be a mid-week match in addition to the game on Saturday. This is just one aspect of the problems which Football League clubs are facing. To make matters worse, attendances have been falling rapidly, with a consequential loss of revenue. It may be interesting to note that on Saturday, November 24—that was before the snow arrived—the attendance at a First Division Scottish League club match was 1,890 people, and yet the Government say that that club should find the money to make all these improvements to their ground.
It should be borne in mind that the fixtures used by the football pools are the copyright of the Football League. Without them there would be no football pools and the Government would lose a very large amount of betting tax which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, estimated on Second Reading at about £72 million a year. What does football get from the Government by way of help?—nothing. With the advent of V.A.T. the position is a lot worse. My own club, we estimate, will be paying over £40,000 of V.A.T. this season, and we have very little to put against that as a set off. An estimate from the Football League clubs on V.A.T. this season is well over £1 million. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect the Government to return some of that money, maybe indirectly as a betting tax from the pools promoters.
Should the Government repent and agree to help football, I can assure your Lordships that the money will not he wasted or squandered on permitting clubs

495
to spend it on large transfer fees. As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said, it could be handled by the Sports Council and could be spent on improving facilities, improving the ground and the seating and, most important of all, safeguarding the public.
The Horserace Betting Levy Board has proved a saviour to the Sport of Kings. Horseracing is the only sport that I know which benefits from Government subsidies. In nearly all countries, and especially in the Common Market, football pools are run by the Government, who plough back the money into the game. Football is an industry, and no one can deny it. Surely, then, an industry which is vitally important to the country's morale and economy must not be allowed to die.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Perhaps my noble friend would allow me to interrupt. Can he say in what way horseracing is subsidised or helped financially by the Government?
LORD WESTWOOD: So far as I am aware—and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, may be able to answer better than I can, because I never go to horserace meetings—new stands have been supplied by money from the Levy Board.
LORD WIGG: It is a question of terminology. The noble Lord, Lord Westwood, is referring to the levy. It is not a subsidy. It is actually raised under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. The noble Lord who intervened is also technically right. It is only a question of terminology. What the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, describes as a subsidy is the levy.
LORD WESTWOOD: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
There is one point that I should like to put to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, which was raised on Second Reading: the money that goes from the betting tax into public funds cannot be taken out and used. We all remember the uproar year after year about the income from the Road Fund Tax. The motorists say, "All that money that we pay for the discs on our windscreens should be used to provide new roads." But the answer is that it goes into the
496
public fund and can be used for other purposes. That may be. But, as I understand it, all the money that goes into parking meters is used to provide off-street parking, it does not go into the public fund. Recently the Government have agreed to a charge for admission into museums, and the museums are to be allowed to keep the money. That is not going into the public fund. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount could answer some of these points, and I hope that he will be able to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy.
LORD STOW HILL: Perhaps I might rise on what is, in effect, a point of order to ask the permission of the Committee to make, quite shortly, on this Amendment the case in favour of the next one. My reason for asking permission so to do is that the next suggested new clause really seeks in another way to achieve the objective of the two noble Lords who have spoken on the present new clause. We have listened to two most powerful speeches making the general case, and the next new clause provides simply that if the general case is accepted, one way of meeting the position would be to give the capital allowances provided for under the Capital Allowances Act 1968 in the case of industrial buildings to works carried out in a stadium in order to comply with the requirements of a safety certificate. If I may have the permission of the Committee shortly to make the case for this alternative approach, perhaps I may explain how the second new clause would work.
The Capital Allowances Act 1968, which was in a sense a consolidating measure (I say this with humility in the presence of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer who has just joined us), provided, as your Lordships will know, for initial allowances and other capital allowances for industrial buildings and structures. The new clause which I speak to seeks to add in Section 7 of the 1968 Act to the definition of "industrial buildings or structures", works carried out and appliances provided so as to become part of a stadium which has been designated, which works or appliances are provided in order to comply with the requirements of a safety certificate. If it can be shown by those who manage the stadium that what they have done was done because the

497
stadium was designated, and because those new works were required by provisions of the safety certificate, then the cost of providing those new works will, under the new clause I am discussing, qualify for the capital allowances provided for in Part I of the Capital Allowances Act 1968; namely, the initial allowance.
That is the case that I would make in support of the second new clause, but of course it depends entirely on the question of whether the Committee accept the general argument which has been advanced by the two noble Lords who preceded me.
LORD WIGG: The words which were not mentioned by my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy but which seem to me to be of fundamental importance in the new clause are:
"The Secretary of State may out of monies provided by Parliament…"
That of course will have to be accepted in another place, and it will depend upon a Money Resolution. As I see it, it goes right to the heart of the problem that we are discussing. The Government's position, as I understand it, was made clear in the words that I read out earlier, used by the noble Viscount. Lord Colville of Culross:
"I am afraid whether the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, likes it or not, we do not see any reason to depart from the principle that those in this position have got to pay the bill."
That of course is straight, pure, unadulterated laissez faire, which until a few months ago was the current philosophy of the Conservative Party. Whenever things are going well, that is their approach. It is the negative approach to the function of Government. But under pressure they depart from it.
As I have indicated earlier, there was an occcasion when they departed from it. A number of noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber made it clear, through the usual channels, when Mr. Butler (as he then was: now Lord Butler of Saffron Walden) was Home Secretary that they were not going to let him have his legislation unless he produced the money for horseracing. This is the genius of our race. When we are pushed into a corner we can do the most dirty things under the most pious resolutions and then walk around in a white sheet as if we had been doing good all the time. They appointed a Committee under Sir Leslie
498
Peppiatt—and racing will never realise what it owes to the noble Lord, Lord Craythorne, who was a member of the Committee and who managed to twist the arms of all the other members, including the Chairman, to recommend a levy. I trust that I helped him a little. I gave evidence, and I should like to believe that it was not perjured. I said what I thought, which was that racing ought to have a levy.
But what happened? When it came before the other place there was one Member who opposed it in principle and I believe he was right. It was Mr. Enoch Powell. Mr. Enoch Powell was my neighbour. I do not talk to him; I do not see him; and I am far too lowly these days for his shots to do anything but pass over my head. His case was this. He said:" " This is taxation. It is wrong in principle to take taxation and hand it over to private individuals without some measure of control. If in fact you want to help racing, do it—but do it from the Consolidated Fund. Don't do it the way you are going to do it, because it is (I do not know whether he used the word) "hypothecation". This is something that from the 18th century onwards the Treasury have set their faces against—and I think rightly.
I should not like noble Lords to think that I have changed my views about the value of the levy for horseracing. That was invaluable, and what racing would have been like had it not been for the levy it received I do not know. But that is the exception that makes the rule. It was something which worked in relation to racing; but it brought something in its train, and for five years I was the victim of it. I had been in my job as Chairman of the Levy Board for only a short time before I was arraigned before the Senior Steward of the Jockey Club and told in no uncertain terms that it was my job to raise the levy. The question of raising it was a job for me, as a pleb, the ex-lance-corporal; but for him, the aristocrat, was the pleasure of spending it. I told him, in language which would be understood in the barrack room—perhaps I can best translate it as, "Go and get stuffed!"—that I was not having anything to do with that. I told him that there was an Act of Parliament and that Section 25 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act requires that the money

499
to be raised by a levy—the "subsidy" mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Westwood—should be spent only on one of three purposes, under schemes approved by the Secretary of State.
Noble Lords should know what happened. When I became Chairman of the Board, what did I find?—that from 1961 to 1967 that Act had been almost completely ignored. The Levy Board was ultra vires in almost every action it took. They had not sought the authority of the Secretary of State, and my battle with the Jockey Club, and also that of my predecessor, consisted of saying that this was public money which was being taken from one set of public pockets and put into another; and, further, that the job of the Board was to carry out functions laid down by Parliament. Let me say here, in the presence of two members of the Board of which I was Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, that they did more than could have been reasonably expected of them to support me in a difficult task. But it took me until 1970 to carry out researches to submit the scheme to the Secretary of State and get his signature—and only when his signature was obtained was it lawful. What worried our 18th century ancestors, and what caused the trouble in the 17th century, was that there must be no taxation without redress of grievance; no taxation without representation. If any one man or group of men can get their hands into the public purse, they may start out with the noblest of intentions. It may be that they want to help racing or football, but at the end of the day, whom do they help?—themselves.
I hold the view that the Government will not wear a levy at any price. I have given all the advice I could to the Football Association, and I recall on numerous occasions talking about this matter with my dear friend Ellis Smith, who was the late Member for the constituency where I lived. We, and other friends, often discussed how there could be a levy for football. There can be no levy for football. It is my belief that the Government can no longer raise a levy for activities as they did for racing, because if they did so they would be ultra vires the Treaty of Rome. Whether or not we like it, what the noble Viscount,
500
Lord Colville, means is that there will be no help from Government funds and no levy, so that in those circumstances not only football but sport as a whole will be left in a parlous state.
I do not believe there is any Member of your Lordships' House who would not agree that a great deal of money could be usefully spent on activities which would be to the benefit of the young, would cut down hooliganism and would help to make their lives more worth while. That means more money. How can it come about? The figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, are correct —and I must say, with all modesty, that they are not my estimates. I try to do my homework, and those figures were contained in a Customs and Excise report. The estimated current revenue from football pool betting is £72 million. The increase in pool betting is quite staggering. I believe that the noble Viscount is quite right, and perhaps I might take the liberty of putting his thoughts into my language. He thinks that the Football League and the Football Association are "a crowd of wets", and so do I. I think that they should talk to each other one February 29 and agree that they have a common interest and that they will go along to see the football pool promoters and say to them: "Look, chums, the Government and the Home Office have put a limit on bingo (because you can only win so much at bingo) but there is no limit on the prizes to be won on football pools." That is because the football pools' promoters are among the heaviest subscribers to the funds of the Conservative Party. Noble Lords can search the record and they will search it in vain to find any example as staggering as Mr. Maudling's Budget in 1963 when, by a stroke of the pen, he put paid to fixed odds coupons in the interests of football pools promoters. Therefore the Football Association and the Football League should go together to these gentlemen and say: "Four of your major prizes out of a whole season equals the total sum that you give us, and it is our copyright that you are using. Don't start talking about £2 million. We want £20 million this year as a start."
The way to get it is this: the maximum to any pools winner should be £250,000,

501
and the balance should go to help football. That is the way it can be done. If that is not done, then the noble Viscount and those who speak like him can say, "You are a crowd of wets" and he has the right answer, because the Gods help those who help themselves. "You go along and screw their arms first of all". Over the heads of noble Lords, this Bill will be debated in another place. It is said that the Labour Party are looking for policies, although some say they have too many. Well, here is one: start producing a policy of helping our fellow-countrymen to cope with what well may be a consequence of the Government's economic policy—too much leisure time. They must produce a policy for the use of football grounds, greyhound stadia, cricket grounds and racecourses which would enable those places to be used all the year round, every day, for the community at large. They should become centres of community life. That will require a great sum of money to be put into it.
The Arts have now been taken up by the aristocracy and the upper middle-class. There was a time when I used to think of culture as something far removed, before I read T. S. Eliot, but now I know that it is something to do with the way you eat fish and chips, whether you live in Land's End or John o'Groats. If a culture has its roots in the ground we should further it with public support. We subsidise opera, and I do not dissent from that. I spent a large part of my life trying to further adult education. If we can spend £50 million on the Arts Council, at least we ought to consider spending a comparable amount on a Sports Council. If I may quote the late Mr. Augustine Birrell to my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy:
"his bleeding heart ran away with his bloody head".
The Sports Council will not do the trick; the Sports Council is part of the Ministry of the Environment. You must not have a Government agency to do this job. I am by no means sure how it should be done, but it should not be done by direct Government agencies. Those of us interested in racing do not want the Home Secretary to sit down one morning and decide whether the two-year-olds should run over five furlongs or six. That would be terrible. We want to leave sports to
502
run themselves. Probably again the genius of our race could find an answer through the University Grants Committee, or something like the Arts Council, in which the money goes from the Treasury and is buffered through the Arts Council or University Grants Committee and goes out to sport.
Basically of course there must be a fidelity check; the money must be spent properly and honestly. The people who should decide what is best for football are not people like me but people like the noble Lord, Lord Westwood. There might have been a time, before I suffered from senile decay, when I might have been consulted about what is best for racing, but that is no longer so. Those who are concerned with running football, racing, lacrosse, table tennis, and all the activities which young and old are longing to take part in, should decide these things. In the modern nation state, every country, not only the Eastern bloc but our partners in the Common Market too, if I can call them that—our so-called partners, anyway—are putting their shoulders to the wheel. That does not mean asking the Duke of Edinburgh or Princess Anne to open some great occasion; it means Government, and only Governments can do this. Governments do do it: they did it with racing, when they were forced to do it, and in the same way the pools promoters will do it when the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, lines up with his friends and forces them to pay in order to use their copyright. The Government ought to have the vision to see at the latter part of the 20th century what as a nation we need. We do not want to wake up again, as we did in 1914, and find we are a C.3 nation because our young people have only streets in which to kick a football. Now the facilities ought to be provided; and they can be provided. What is wanted is not only imagination and good will, but resources.
The reason I make this speech is because I believe the levy worked for racing, and the levy for racing should be allowed to continue. It does its job in special circumstances. On the fundamental issue, I believe that Mr. Enoch Powell was right. I must in conclusion say this as a safeguard: I have not joined Mr. Powell's Party. I believe Mr. Powell has the great capacity to think clearly;

503
he can diagnose. I am not always sure that his remedy, his prescription, is as good as his diagnosis; but his diagnosis was right and justified in my experience. To-day it would be unreasonable to expect that the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, could do any more than make the same noises that he has already made and say, "Whether you like it or not you are not going to get any money". Thank goodness this Bill will go to another place! In another place the Labour Party, and I believe a considerable number of Members on the Conservative Benches, will see the merits of this argument and will force the current Government, or, if not the current one, the next one, to do what I have pleaded for to-day.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The noble Lord said, "You cannot have taxation without representation." I should like to point out to the noble Lord that in this House that is just what we do have. We have taxation without representation; we have no vote. We can advise but we cannot control fiscal matters, so it cannot be so dastardly a thing as the noble Lord thinks to have taxation without representation.
LORD WIGG: The reason noble Lords do not have a vote is because when they had it they abused it; hence the Parliament Act of 1911. It is written in the Scriptures:
"The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children."
The noble Viscount, and his successors, have a big bill to pay.
5.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I never cease to be amazed at the astonishing range of subject matter that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is capable of covering in his speeches. He has ranged over three centuries and over more topics than I could begin to count. I hope he will forgive me if I do not try to pick up each and every point. I agree with him that I have no indication whatsoever from my right honourable friends that the Government would like to have another Levy Board scheme. But equally I have to tell him that I have never heard even the most ingenious person who is keen on this subject say that the reason
504
for it is something to do with the Common Market. I am therefore obliged for yet another astonishing piece of information which no doubt—
LORD WIGG: If the noble Viscount—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: —could be expanded, but perhaps not on this occasion. This is not the time to go into the full details; we might save that for a broader debate.
I hope I can also prevent the Committee from using its ingenuity to get involved in some very dirty work this afternoon in agreeing to accept either of these Amendments. I do not take the point that financial privilege is involved in this. We must discuss this subject and I am not going to try to take the Money Resolution point, though obviously we have money which is being paid out and strictly it is something which probably we ought not to be talking about. But the Bill starts in this House and we must deal with it as it comes. Let us get on with the merits of it. I am not absolutely certain that I know what the Labour Government or another place would do if they were to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, but I think I know because I believe I can put together what the noble Lord said today and what he said on Second Reading. I believe the noble Lord is very much in line with Government thinking, save probably that he does not think the sum large enough.
What we are asked to do here is to provide the money from public funds for those who have to make the necessary arrangements to comply with certificates for the safety of their grounds. I am afraid there is no chink in the door here so far as the Government are concerned. We consider this is a matter of principle; indeed, a matter of a large number of principles. I will try, as quickly as I can, to spell them out. I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, what the cost of compliance with this Bill would be, for two reasons. First of all, it would depend on the way the code was interpreted; but, much more important, if one is dealing with a club where the gate (and this is my noble friend Lord Westwood's figure and I hope I have it correctly) is 890 people for a football match, I cannot believe that a club which regularly had a gate of that sort would

505
have to spend one single solitary penny on any safety certificates, because I think the spectators could stand five yards apart and never get into any possible danger at all. It would be an extreme case and is obviously a most undesirable situation to have arisen.
I made the point earlier that there is no requirement on any club to bring up its premises immediately to a standard whereby the maximum number of people which could be physically fitted in could be so fitted in, in compliance with a safety certificate. They could accept a much lower number or a marginally lower number, or anything they thought fit. Therefore it is impossible to give any estimate of cost, because one does not know what bargain the clubs will wish to strike with the local authorities when the certificates are being discussed with them. It does not by any means follow that any clubs would have to pay at all, not only for the reason that they have no gates but also, as I said before, because I believe a substantial number of them will already have done the necessary work, since they will do what the governing bodies of football have been adjuring them to do for a long time.
We are really in a situation where some of the arguments, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said, have been getting very near hypothecation of taxes. I do not know for how long this has been anathema. I know that Sir Winston Churchill got into awful trouble about road tax. I do not think anybody has continued to argue in recent times that this hypothecation of road tax or anything else should be adopted. Indeed I think all Treasury Ministers have objected to it, and I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Westwood that the museum charges and parking meters are not a good analogy because they are charges and they go to the authorities who provide the service and collect the charges. They are not therefore in the same form a tax on the public such as we are talking about in this case—but they would be if we were talking about taking money out of the betting levy.
The fundamental principle underlying the Government's attitude is that we have never provided public money whereby commercial undertakings of any sort can comply with this kind of safety require-
506
ment. There is no example where that has been done. It has always been held by Governments of most complexions that if somebody wishes to run a commercial show or a fair or business and invite people to enter, whether to an hotel, to a football ground, to a funfair or anything of that sort, public money is not provided in order that they can fulfil safety requirements so that the people they invite in do not get hurt. That is an absolutely fundamental principle and I do not know of any exception to it; and I am afraid that there is no room in this case for the Government to consider making an exception.
It is not altogether true that the clubs are going to be "done down". There are advantages. Some of these matters can be set off against tax.
LORD JACQUES: Only if there is a profit.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I entirely appreciate that it is only if there is a profit; and that, I imagine, is entirely dependent upon the situation of the club in any given year and also upon how the books are made out. I am not an accountant and I do not know enough about this, but I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I set out on Second Reading, at column 978, the matters which qualify for tax purposes. They include fire-fighting equipment, flood-lighting, removable seating, communications equipment and facilities of that nature, and the replacement of existing equipment such as crush barriers.
There is also no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has put a very much more frank version than I hinted at during our Second Reading debate, about our suspicions as to the contractual arrangements between the League and the pools promoters. As I have said, it is not for us to interfere in what is in fact a contractual arrangement, but I am surprised at the disparity in the figures and I should not have thought it was entirely beyond the wit of the football authorities to do something about that. I believe they have, to some extent, recently negotiated an increase and I should have thought there was room for them to make some inroads into their financial difficulties, such as to distribute to the clubs which need it most the money which is acquired in this way, rather than what was suggested by my

507
noble friend Lord Westwood, which was an equal distribution among all clubs. I do not understand the logic behind that suggestion, and it may be that this matter ought to be looked at again; but on this, as I have said, it is not for the Government to interfere because we accept the principle.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, mentioned the matter in the next Amendment, No. 7. I am glad he did because I am sure it is right that we should discuss these Amendments together. It is one of the ways in which the money could be raised. But here again, we are up against something which I am afraid is objected to very strongly in principle, because the capital allowances scheme—the initial allowances—has always been limited to industrial buildings. It has never been extended to commercial undertakings—to shops, hotels and offices. This again has been a matter of principle which has for a long time been adhered to by Chancellors of the Exchequer of every colour. It is a pity that my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft is not here at the moment. For instance, the matter was discussed in another place in connection with the Finance Bill of 1972, and my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary said that the extension to commerce would mean that the sum involved would rise to a figure of between £250 million and £300 million a year over and above what is expended on these capital allowances now. Successive Governments have always reached the same conclusion, that it is simply too much. If we do it for football grounds I should have thought that the logic of the division between commerce and industry which has always been held so far was hopelessly breached and there would be endless applications from everybody for exactly the same allowance. At any rate that is the reason why the Treasury firmly draw the line where they do at the moment. They have been perfectly frank about it; it is simply far too expensive.
I had better try to answer the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, about V.A.T. The answer is that I do not know because we have not yet had a full year. I am sorry, but since we have not got the complete figures I cannot say, whether on the
508
basis of football or any other sport, what the income would be. I cannot confirm or deny the figure of £1 million that has been mentioned.
What is one supposed to do about this? I do not think we can discuss at great length today what should be the general attitude of the Government towards sport and the financial assistance given from public funds to sport, but noble Lords may remember that I mentioned the subject during the Second Reading debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, but there is one little point which the noble Lord may say is a technicality and does not matter, but actually the Sports Council is not a department of the Department of the Environment. Its staff are not civil servants. It is in fact an independent body set up under a Royal Charter. It may be that the noble Lord does not think that fact particularly important. At any rate, what it does is to distribute the money.
In fact there is more than one Sports Council; there are three Sports Councils, and they distribute the money which is given to them by Government. But they do not do it by way of distributing public money to enable professional sport to take place. They do not do it by making grants to football or professional cricket clubs, or anything like that. What they are doing at the moment is trying to encourage not spectator sport but participant sport, and I think that is possibly a more attractive and more worthwhile way of preventing boys having to kick a ball about in the street, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. Public money is actually being given to spectator sports. What they are doing at two football grounds that I know of, one of which is Bournemouth, is trying to get the use of the grounds for members of the public actually to take Dart in sports when the ground is not being used for football, either using the ground itself, or underneath the stands, or something of that sort. There are many schemes going forward whereby the Councils try to finance or help to subsidise the provision of facilities whereby people may play games.
It may very well be that noble Lords in this House, or right honourable friends and honourable Members in another

509
place would say as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, suggested, that they are not doing enough, that the Government are not giving enough money. But I would suggest that if public money is going into sport at all, that is the right channel, the right destination to which it should go. I would also suggest that any money that can possibly be persuaded out of Government to the help of professional football clubs not only infringes the principle, but takes away from the amount of money to go to that, in my view, much more laudable aim.
There it is. There are massive objections from the Government side. They are quite insuperable. I can give absolutely no hope of changing my mind on this. I do not know what will happen in another place. I know that the noble
Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, wishes to divide on this Amendment, but I can hold out to him no joy from the Government at all.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for the care he has taken in attempting to reply to the points made. It is quite clear that the Government's mind is closed on this matter. I can see no point in continuing the argument this evening. The best thing to do is to put the matter to the test.
6.2 p.m.
Oil Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 84.

CONTENTS

Bacon, B.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Balogh, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Slater, L.

Blyton, L.

Janner, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Champion, L.

Peddie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Phillips, B.

Westwood, L.

Fiske, L.

Popplewell, L.

White, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Rhodes, L.

Wigg, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Rusholme, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Hale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falkland, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Airedale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mancroft, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Alport, L.

Gage, V.

Molson, L.

Amulree, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Beaumont, L.

Glasgow, E.

Northchurch, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V.

Oakshott, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gowrie, E.

Pender, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Gray, L.

Porritt, L.

Brecon, L.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

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

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

St. Helens, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hanworth, V.

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hayter, L.

Seear, B.

Colwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Simon, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Cowley, E.

Jessel, L.

Strang, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Killearn, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Elles, B.

Long, V.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Luke, L.

Young, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lyell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 6 [Appeals]
6.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("Area tribunal appointed by the Secretary of State").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, and for the convenience of the Committee I should like to take Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 12 together. These Amendments deal with the appeal procedure under Clause 6. The Committee will recall that the matter was raised on Second Reading by a number of noble Lords, notably Lord Simon and Lord Westwood. The Committee will further recall that Lord Wheatley, in his admirable Report, dealt with this matter with his usual firmness and clarity. Perhaps I may remind the Committee briefly of what he said in paragraph 52:
"The question where the appeal should lie presents some difficulty. There could be an appeal to a court of law or alternatively to a Minister of the Crown. I do not consider that either of these methods is appropriate here. I would prefer to see set up a special appeal tribunal consisting of, say, a legally qualified chairman, an architect, surveyor or engineer, and a police officer with experience in crowd control."
As the Bill is drafted, the Government have disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, and I think it is about the only thing in his recommendations with which they disagreed. Lord Wheatley did not give his reasons for saying that a Minister was inappropriate as the appeal machinery, but I surmise that he considered the very nature of the appeal was basically a local affair, dealing with local conditions, local experience, local knowledge, and indeed a situation where every case differed, every case required a flexible approach. One can envisage the contrast between a local tribunal, qualified in membership, independent of the local authority, required to sit not very often but available to sit at reasonably short notice, and with experience of local conditions, compared with a Whitehall Minister's inspector; a man qualified no doubt in every way; whose independence is unquestioned, but with no knowledge of the area; overworked, underpaid, and with his report and recommendations subject to possible overrule by the Minister.
The appeal procedure under this Bill has, I believe, many similarities to the
512
procedure under planning laws, about which my noble friend is steeped in knowledge and experience. I believe that the present thinking of Her Majesty's Government about future policy in planning appeals is to tackle the acute thrombosis strangling the machinery, separating the appeals into two categories: first, local appeals, dealing with local matters, such as additional garages or extension of houses, to be heard by a local appeal conunittee; and, second, appeals of a national character dealing perhaps with conservation, Green Belt policy and so on, to be dealt with by the Minister. If this is the thinking of Her Majesty's Government, it is clearly sound thinking. Likewise, I would submit to my noble friend, whether or not the ground of, say, the Bootle Football Club—and I have no disrespect for the club—is deemed unsafe under this Bill is hardly a suitable nut for the great hammer of Whitehall to crack.
At the Second Reading my noble friend gave three reasons why the Government had come down in favour of making the Minister the appeal body. The first was to prevent the unnecessary proliferation of tribunals. The second was to achieve uniformity, and the third to obtain a very rapid decision. I find it difficult to be wholly convinced as to precisely what extension of proliferation will appear. We must recall that initially the Bill will apply to only a small number of clubs. Categories will be introduced. I believe that there will be only 44 football clubs initially within the net. Will this cause my noble friend the worry he suggested about proliferation of tribunals?
The second reason he gave was to achieve uniformity. I am not sure that having appeals heard by the Minister would achieve the splendid goal the noble Viscount suggested. Virtually every ground has a slightly different design. Every case of appeal will be different. The excellent green book which was recently published as a guide for safety on sports grounds emphasises the flexibility of the approach. It will be the flexibility of approach, the knowledge of conditions, that will be of paramount importance in appeal decisions, not a sterile policy of uniformity. The third reason he gave was rapidity of

513
decision, and perhaps I may briefly quote what he said:
"It would probably be a purely technical matter, and therefore to do it by way of hearing in front of a person appointed by my right hon. friend could be a very rapid and expeditious way to got over a comparatively minor problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20.11.73. Col. 975.]
With great respect to my noble friend, and with my limited experience, I have never found Whitehall the most rapid and expeditious way of getting over a comparatively small problem. Indeed, it has sometimes taken a month for a single letter to be answered. With great respect to my noble friend, I do not find the three reasons he gave at Second Reading very convincing arguments and I do not consider that they should overrule Lord Wheatley's recommendation.
If I may briefly turn to Amendment No. 12, the purpose is to urge the Committee to write into the Bill now the time limit for an appeal decision. I appreciate that under subsection (5) of Clause 6 the Bill talks about the Minister announcing rules later. But the time for appeal is a critical period for the appellant, and a matter which I submit should be put into the Bill at this stage.
In conclusion, support for the tribunal procedure, as against the Ministerial procedure, comes not only from Members of this House; it comes also, of course, from Lord Wheatley's Report, and from an even more authoritative source (I say this with great respect): the football administrative bodies, notably the Football Association and the Football League. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, were here he would confirm this. I hope that my noble friend will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment and to a review of this appeal machinery. I hope that he will be able to accept the recommendation of Lord Wheatley, the view of the Football Association and the Football League, and the pleas of my noble friends. I beg to move.
6.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Of course, I considered this point again when I saw my noble friend's Amendments. But I must say that the more I hear him repeat the reasons I gave for the present system in the Bill, the better reasons I think they are; and
514
the more so because we are also, in addition to the admirable qualities I set out for the ordinary appeal machinery, providing for more or less exactly what Lord Wheatley wanted. So it seems to me we are getting the best of both worlds. Listening to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, it may be that I was not as clear as I should have been, and therefore I take the opportunity, with great enthusiasm, to go over this again.
First of all, let me say a word about proliferation of tribunals. It is not that I am afraid that there will be a great many; it is that I am afraid that there will be very few. My noble friend is quite right. He is talking about area tribunals, so obviously there are going to be more than one. But he is equally right in suggesting that the number of hearings of these appeals under Clause 6 will be very small indeed. There are set up under Acts of Parliament from time to time special tribunals with special expertise. I have appeared many a time in front of the Lands Tribunal, which specialises in valuations and compulsory purchase and is well equipped for that, with a large complement of surveyors, as well as two lawyers, sitting as members. There are specialist tribunals dealing with pensions and National Health matters, and a large body of tribunals, including (dare I say it?), industrial tribunals, which are, at any rate in the view of some of us, well equipped to deal with such matters that come before them.
LORD BESWICK: Is that a question?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry; I am pulling the leg of noble Lords opposite, and I will stop doing that.
One thing that is universally true is that when a tribunal is set up it is on the basis that there is going to be a goodly work-load for it, because unless there is a substantial need for a specialist body of this sort it is on the whole wasteful to appoint busy people, who have many other things to do, from the categories the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, was talking about. I am saying that there is no case here, with the ordinary rather minor appeal, for setting up a special sort of new tribunal, which has never been heard of before, called the Football Grounds Safety Appeal Tribunal, or

515
something like that. That is the argument on proliferation.
I am absolutely with my noble friend on uniformity; we do not want the appeals dealt with in precisely the same way, because every ground is indeed different. It is not the results that should be uniform but the approach to problems. We do not wish to have area tribunals, if they were set up under these Amendments, saying in one part of the country that crush barriers to cope with an area of so many square kilometres, or whatever it might be, should be of a certain strength, and totally different standards laid down by an area tribunal in another part of the country. It may be that the lay-out and the exact measures to be taken under any particular safety certificate are unique and are not repeated at any other ground, but there will be a sort of rhythm or framework of common standards which should be applied universally in England and Wales, and also, I would suggest, in Scotland. Indeed, it is for this precise purpose that we have taken powers in Clause 12 to make regulations which in due course will be, or could be, used to put the powers of the little green book, say, into statutory form, when we have found what are acceptable ground rules for some of these matters. That is what I mean by uniformity. We want a standard-setting body that will not produce diverse decisions all across the country; we want to try to keep this together. We believe that for the details of the sorts of thing that I have been talking about the two Secretaries of State, my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary, will be best for keeping the standard uniform.
Speed, I thought, when I first approached this matter in terms of the planning appeals held by inspectors from the Department of the Environment (with which I know my noble friend is also familiar) is an important aspect. I have appeared in hundreds of such appeals, and I agree with him that the proceedings may not perhaps be the speediest, even if they are very thorough. I do not know whether he has ever done an appeal under the Petroleum Consolidation Act, which is a Home Office matter. Apparently I nearly did one once, but it never came to a hearing. I believe that these things
516
go like lightning, and the machinery that the Home Office has for dealing with this sort of appeal is thorough, properly argued, but very quick. The reason this is possible is that their volume is on nothing like the same scale as that which besets the wretched Department of the Environment, who have thousands of planning appeals to deal with, and indeed hundreds of inspectors to do it. They can produce somebody at very short notice. It is essential that we should be able to do so.
I forget whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, or another speaker who asked about special certificates for occasional events—for instance where one had the dockers wanting a meeting at the West Ham stadium. If there is a special certificate sought, and an appeal is lodged against the decision given, from the very nature of the matter we must have a speedy tribunal, because probably the event is not very far off and the dispute must be settled before it occurs. I am afraid that the sort of area tribunal my noble friend has in mind would have to be assembled, and if it has all these specialists on it they would have to be detached from their duties and come together on a day when they were all available. So I do not see how the appeal procedure for special certificates could be done in time, whereas the inspector decided on by a Minister and coming from the Home Office can make a decision very quickly. I have been dealing with the more ordinary type of case. I do not know, any more than my noble friend does, why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, particularly disapproved of, as it were, a Ministerial decision. I entirely understand why he disapproved of the courts' having this responsibility, because it is not the sort of thing that they would welcome: it is far too technical. Anyway, we have got out of the habit of giving new civil jobs to what are essentially the criminal courts.
Where the noble Lord was plainly concerned was about the sort of case where a very special type of expert would be needed. So are the Government, and that is why we have put in Clause 6(9). If one had a much more substantial appeal, or an inquiry that raised matters of major importance and issues which had to be discussed with a good deal of thoroughness, and affected large numbers

517
of people, or a large number of clubs, one would require something more thoroughgoing, and an opportunity for a full-blown inquiry. This is probably the occasion when the architects, the engineers, the policemen and the other people mentioned by the noble and learned Lord ought to form part of the inquiry panel. This could be done under Clause 6(9), and that would be the sort of occasion when one would have that much wider inquiry. I would submit that we have met the noble and learned Lord on that where it really matters, and I agree that it does matter. For the ordinary case, the machinery that I have laid down here has not the disadvantages that my noble friend suggested, and I hope that I have convinced the Committee of its very positive merits, and that he will therefore agree that the way that the Government have approached this matter is sensible and should not now be opposed.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that long and detailed explanation. He has clarified further some of the Government's thinking, and the reasons behind their decision. I welcome the assurance that the machinery will be speedy, as under the petroleum machinery, of which of course I was not aware. Nevertheless, I would remind my noble friend that in the early part of his reply he seemed to indicate that they were not very far away from Wheatley, although the Wheatley Report specifically said that an appeal to the Minister was inappropriate. I do not intend to press this Amendment, but I would remind my noble friend that the football authorities are worried about this procedure, and I hope that before the next stage of the Bill he will be prepared, if necessary, to discuss it further.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry, but I forgot to answer my noble friend on Amendment No. 12. Perhaps we could come back to that another time. If the football authorities are worried, will they tell us why?—because I do not know that anybody has ever described why the machinery I have attempted to elucidate is something that would worry anyone.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My answer to that is that my noble friend Lord Westwood was due to advise the
518
Committee on that matter, but he is not here.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Get him to write.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I shall certainly get him to write, or I shall ask him to write. I am happy to withdraw this Amendment, but did my noble friend deal with Amendment No. 12?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No; I am sorry, I did not. I do not think we ought to put this subsection in. I have given a rather clear indication that the vast majority of cases would be dealt with, and indeed ought to be dealt with, speedily. Certainly for the emergency cases four weeks is too much, but if we write it in in this form it would mean that the formal inquiry under Clause 6(9), which I have mentioned, would also have to be done within four weeks, and I think that would be much too short in time in some cases. I suspect my noble friend would be unable to find a precedent in any previous Statute for the decision being announced in terms of a time limit. He may find time limits for the beginning of the inquiry process, but I do not think he will be able to produce one where the final answer of the inquiry process is laid down in this way.
Moreover, as a purely technical point, I am not certain what happens if there is an application for certiorari against a decision, because if there was the decision itself would be open to being quashed or set aside; and although I know that the Divisional Court can move very fast, I doubt whether the whole process, including an application to the Divisional Court, possibly the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, your Lordships' House could be gone through in four weeks. So even in the ordinary case I think this sort of maximum time is inappropriate and ought not to go in the Bill.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to my noble friend. Before I withdraw the Amendment, I wonder if he can tell the Committee whether the decision would in fact be published under this procedure?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It would certainly be given to the person who was the appellant in exactly the same way as a planning appeal decision is given. Quite what the appellant does

519
with it is another matter, but I should not have thought there was any reason why he should not show it to anybody who was interested. Certainly we will have records of it, and I have never found any difficulty with the Department of the Environment in getting hold of a previous decision if one shows good reason for wanting it.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Court's power to prohibit or restrict use of stadium]:
6.34 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 7, line 38, leave out ("stadium") where that word first occurs and insert ("ground").
The noble Lord said: I think I can move this Amendment quite shortly. Consequential on it are Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19, and perhaps I may speak shortly to them on this first Amendment. The object of the Amendment which I seek to move is to enlarge the description of premises in relation to which proceedings can be brought under Clause 9. Clause 9 enables proceedings to be brought by the local authority before a court to get an order, if there is undue risk to the public on admission to particular premises, that the public shall not be admitted unless certain changes are carried out. At present, Clause 9(1), which is the relevant subsection, applies, if one looks at paragraph (b), to
"a sports stadium which is not a designated stadium".
It might not be designated because the Secretary of State has not yet got round to it, or it might be a sports stadium which has accommodation for less than 10,000 spectators and which therefore does not fall within Clause 1 of this Bill.
I seek to enlarge the words "sports stadium" to "sports ground". The effect of that would be, if one looks at the definitions contained in Clause 16,
520
as follows. A sports stadium is a sports ground where artificial accommodation is provided for spectators which surrounds the place in which the activities take place, as in the case of a football stadium. A sports ground includes a sports stadium, and it is a ground in which there is that artificial accommodation, but it is artificial accommodation which does not necessarily surround the place in which the activity takes place. It is therefore wider. You may have many places where sports take place which are sports grounds but which are not sports stadia.
May I go back to Clause 1? At the moment, suppose you have a sports ground which is not a sports stadium and which involves danger to those persons who have recourse to it as spectators, and suppose the local authority are satisfied that the danger is a danger which ought not to be accepted and that something should be done about it. If it is a sports stadium, they could apply to the court for an order prohibiting entry of the public: if it is a sports ground which is not a sports stadium, there is no such power. The object of the Amendment which I move is to try to include in Clause 9 a power which will enable a local authority to ask a court to say, with regard to a sports ground which is not a sports stadium and which is in consequence not designated, that the public should not be admitted because admission of the public would involve an undue risk to them. I beg to move.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNTROYAL: Three categories are dealt with in this Bill, as the noble Lord said. There are the sports stadia, which fall into the designated and the non-designated kind, and then there is the sports ground, which is a place without all-round seating. The noble Lord is anxious to extend the provisions to this latter category. The excluded category, of course, comprises the grounds which do not have artificial structures on them. I think we would not be anxious to extend the Bill in the way that this Amendment seeks to do, although one readily appreciates the noble Lord's desire to protect the non-designated stadia in the case of a local authority feeling that an emergency situation had arisen. But we must not proceed too fast. It will be

521
some time, as things stand according to the Bill, before certain sports grounds other than stadia are brought within the certificate procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, are very commendably anxious that a suitable fallback situation should be established to deal with places of that kind.
I think the Government would not be anxious to rush into this, which would after all include, for instance, horse-racing and motor-racing tracks, until they had had a suitable chance to have discussions with the various interests concerned in those sports. I think this was referred to by my noble friend Lord Colville earlier on; that his feeling was that we wanted to get a similar green book for each sport as it came in. But possibly the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, can take heart, because if he will look at Clause 14 he will see that under that clause the Government have taken powers to provide a fallback position whereby a regulation could be made to cover the non-designated stadia and sports grounds. An Order could be made under Clause 14 which would apply Clauses 9 and 12 to the grounds in question. Incidentally, this would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure of Parliament.
There is a further and more technical point, which is that the 10,000 cut-off point in Clause 1—we had some argument whether we should call them "people" or "spectators"—would not necessarily apply to classes of sports grounds other than stadia, and it may be necessary to fix a lower limit or to require that all grounds of that class should have a certificate. In the circumstances, the Clause 9(1)(b) power will diminish in importance. Of course, if all grounds were to be designated that power would not be required at all. Then we should need a modification of Clause 9(1)(a), for which the Amendment does not provide. But the uncertainty about whether or not the 10,000 lower limit will operate in the case of sports grounds other than stadia reinforces our view that we should rely on Clause 14, once we know more about the risks which could occur in these grounds. This power is wholly flexible and ideally suited to the purpose in mind.
522
If I may add one final point, I am informed that even were we to agree to the Amendment in principle, the drafting would have to be revised, because the substitution of "sports ground" for "stadium" in the places indicated does not fit in with the references to a stadium in subsection (1)(a). We are anxious not to alienate the other sports activities with whom we have not yet had full negotiations; we should like to retain the flexible and gradual approach which has passed through this Bill. For this reason, we oppose this Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful for the answer, but again I am afraid that it does not satisfy me. I considered Clause 14 carefully to see whether under that clause it was clear that the provisions to which I have referred, particularly Clause 9, could be extended to sports grounds. I wondered whether the words in Clause 14, "adaptation" and "modification", were wide enough to make certain that Clause 9 could be so extended. I thought it was doubtful whether they were wide enough and therefore that it would be much better to make it perfectly specific in Clause 9. But the hour is late and I will not ask the Committee to divide on it. I would say only, with respect, to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, that I do not feel he met the point I put. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
("(3) An applicant so affected by such a Court Order may have the right of appeal to the Area tribunal, such appeal being heard and decision made within 4 weeks.")
The noble Earl said: This is a very short, probing Amendment. The Committee will recall that Clause 9 enables a court, on the application of a local authority, to prohibit or restrict the use of a sports stadium not covered by a safety certificate. The power of this clause was described by my noble friend as an emergency power. It is, of course, a fairly drastic emergency power. It would seem that a club which failed to agree with a local authority might have its livelihood

523
removed at a moment's notice. The purpose of my Amendment is to ask my noble friend three questions. First, what remedy under the Bill would an aggrieved party have if the clause is implemented by a local court? I assume that there is no appeal other than on a point of law. The second question is, would an aggrieved party have any recourse to damages should the power under Clause 9 subsequently be shown to be unsupportable? The third, and most fundamental, is whether my noble friend is wholly satisfied that these emergency powers offer a proper safeguard not only to the public but also to the sports administrators?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: Whatever one may say, I will try to give my noble friend answers to those three points in a moment. I do not think it would do to have an appeal lying against a court, certainly not the Crown Court or High Court, to some tribunal. That is the sort of thing that one would try to avoid. If you have an appeal system which involves those two sorts of bodies, I know of no instance when it is not carried out the other way round. I take the point that my noble friend wants answers to three other matters. No, there would be no remedy, as I understand it, by way of appeal, because, unless that is provided, the Crown Court jurisdiction is defined by Statute. There is no reference to this Bill in the Courts Act which set up the Crown Courts, and therefore I should have said, talking off the cuff and without checking, that there would be no appeal to the Crown Court, except, of course, as my noble friend said, on a point of law, which one can always raise from any court. No, I do not think any damages will be payable if, for some reason, the court was subsequently found to have acted wrongly. I am not certain that I understand how it could be found to have acted wrongly. This is a matter that would have to be argued out.
I should have thought that the circumstances in which a local authority actually went to a court to ask for an order, certainly under Clause 9(1), would be only where they had tried to negotiate in vain or there had been previous occasions when the club or the people running the stadium had misbehaved and
524
the authority wished to avoid its happening again and felt that they were on pretty sure ground. I doubt whether there would be a frequent use of this power. Simply to have the power in existence will prevent people from getting embroiled. I think there is no provision for damages if it is wrongly used. As for proper safeguards, the safeguards would be the arguments. A local authority would issue the complaint and the person concerned with running the stadium, and I suppose anybody else who happened to be involved, would be required to go to the magistrates' court and argue the matter out.
Usually argument before a court is thought to be a reasonable safeguard that your case will be heard. So far as Clause 9(2) is concerned the power of the Crown Court or the sheriff court or the High Court in Scotland would arise only after a conviction; that is, a conviction under any of the provisions in Clause 10(1). There one may be fairly certain that there would not have been any mistake, though no doubt the order would fail if an appeal succeeded on that. This would be an ordinary criminal appeal and does not have to be provided for in the Bill. Certainly there will be no doubt that an order of this sort is something which could be argued before the court before the order was made. So, again, I think there is the safeguard there that my noble friend wants. I will look into this matter. I have not thought about any of those points, but that is my instant reaction to his three questions.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to my noble friend. The reason for asking about damages was that one felt a situation could arise between negotiation and an appeal stage where, for instance, a local authority might request that a crush barrier or some other technical matter arising out of the green book should be installed in the sports ground. This might be thought by the people running the sports ground to be unreasonable, and the local authority might then use these powers to go to court, and subsequently the appeal might be settled in favour of the sports administrators. That is the sort of case I was thinking of. I am grateful to my noble friend for his helpful explanation and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Regulations]:
6.53 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL Amendment No. 20:
Page 9, line 42, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State may by regulations specify considerations which are relevant considerations if any in determining whether a sports ground has accommodation for more than 10,000 members of the public.")
The noble Lord said: I can move this Amendment quite shortly. Normally when looking at sports grounds it should not be too difficult to determine what you have to take into account in answering to yourself the question as to whether there is accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators. But as we have been reminded, under Clause 14 the provisions of the Bill can be extended to sports grounds. It may often be very difficult indeed when looking at a sports ground to know what you have to take into account in asking yourself whether or not it can provide accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators. In the case of a race track people may stand and watch the races from some considerable distance. Are they to be taken into account or not?
All this Amendment seeks to do is to enable the Secretary of State to lay down, by regulations, criteria which have to be taken into account in answering that question. The desirability of it, I would submit, is that clearly, as a matter of fairness, there should be uniformity. There should not be the feeling on the part of some people that they are being designated when their accommodation compares with the accommodation provided by other sports grounds or sports stadia which have not been designated. In order to produce uniformity, it is desirable, in my submission, that some general criteria should be laid down. What this Amendment is designed to do is to confer upon the Secretary of State the power to lay down general criteria which are to act as guide lines in answering that question. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Of one thing I am quite determined to make sure in regard to this Bill; it is that by the time we have finished with
526
it there will be no doubt in the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, or of anybody else, that the provisions in Clause 14, where we say "…exceptions, adaptations and modifications…", are quite sufficient to deal with almost any eventuality. I take the point he made just now that we want to make quite sure of that.
One thing that is fairly fundamental in the Bill as it stands, apart from Clause 14, is the provision in Clause 1(2). We thought from the very beginning that one of the most fruitful sources of rows, disputes and general dissatisfaction under the Bill as it stands would be the argument, "Oh, no, my ground holds only 9,998 people." We thought this could go on for a very long time; and the more you apply this argument to other sports grounds, other than stadia, the more fruitful the ground becomes for argument. Of course the argument is crucial for those who are of a less than savoury nature, because if they can prove that the capacity is only 9,998, then they are missed out, and it may very well be that exactly those people are those that we should like to have dealt with under the certificate machinery. So we wanted to make quite sure that there was not going to be that sort of argument. Under the Bill as it stands, therefore, it is my right honourable friend who himself decides how many people can be fitted into the ground. He does not need to make any regulations because they would only be regulations telling him what he would need to do. That is not a usual practice, I think, for a Government Department if the sole decision lies personally with the Minister concerned.
The answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, about the other sorts of grounds to which this Bill might be applied later, is really the same. I agree that one must try to be uniform and fair, and that one should not have people considering that they are hard done by the Bill. But equally, if there is to be a criterion at all for other sports grounds—it does not follow that there will be—I should have thought that one would also wish to have reserved for my right honourable friends—because the Secretary of State for Scotland can also act—the power to decide for themselves how many people can enter them. Under Clause 14, one can adapt and modify. I am perfectly certain that an order apply-

527
ing the Bill to other classes of sports grounds would include the equivalent of Clause 1(2). I am sure, therefore, that it would not be necessary for regulations to be made telling my right honourable friend the Home Secretary what criteria he should apply in a private calculation as to how many people should enter that kind of sports ground.
That, I think, is the answer to the noble and learned Lord. We see great difficulty in setting out criteria upon which arguments can emerge about this matter. We think that it is unlikely that the two Secretaries of State will be unfair. We have therefore reserved the power specifically to them, and to them alone; and there is no provision for criteria at all. I hope the noble and learned Lord will be satisfied that the honour of the two Departments concerned is such that people ought not to be unfairly treated.
6.58 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I am fascinated by the skill with which the noble Viscount can defend the most indefensible cases. As I understand his argument, it is essentially that it is far better to decide a thing by whim than by regulation; that provided that it is left for someone—and of course it will actually be some sort of inspector, someone like that—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: The noble Viscount shakes his head. But if he assures me that the Secretary of State, that upright and perfectly fair man, is going personally to visit every ground in the country and reach a decision, after some very careful assessment made by him personally, then of course, I shall have to accept it. But I shall be a little surprised. I should have thought it quite clear that if the matter is left completely vague it will result in a whole series of different assessments being made all round the country, all perfectly justifiable by the individual who made the assessment, but quite incomprehensible to those people who have to bear the result of the assessment that has been made.
Surely it is much more sensible and reasonable to have some regulations, perhaps with the possibility of a variation,
528
because if a figure of 10,000 is fixed and in fact the capacity is 9,999, then it evades the control. I think the noble Viscount himself is being slightly evasive in the matter. He is exercising not just a whim, but a whimsy when he proceeds to make a remark of that sort. I should have thought that the noble Viscount has done himself rather less than justice in his reply to my noble friend. It would be much better if he would look at this and realise that regulation has the advantage that you know where you are. If it is decided with no regulation at all, then no one knows where he is.
6.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I had anticipated that noble Lords who wished to take points on Clause 1(2), which is really the key to this, might have done so earlier in the Committee proceedings. I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for raising this point at this stage; he is of course entitled to raise anything at any stage of the Bill. But the key to this really is in Clause 1(2). It is quite crucial, in our view, for the reasons I set out, and to avoid these arguments, that we should have the provisions that are there contained.
There are no provisions in the Bill, and there are no provisions in Lord Stow Hill's Amendment, which require that my right honourable friend is to make regulations for deciding how many people can be packed into a football field. What this Amendment is about is to decide how many people can be got in something other than a football stadium, a sports ground, which is not at the moment covered by the Bill. Of course if the noble Lord wishes to raise the principle of how we calculate the number of people one can get into a football stadium then we will go into it. If the noble Lord will do it on Report I will happily argue the case out with him and I will look at it in advance for the argument and see whether I have been, doing myself justice. However, I think the noble Lord must realise that in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, we are dealing with, as it were, the periphery, the other sports grounds. We have already dealt with the main football stadium argument when we passed, practically without comment, the provisions in

529
Clause 1(2). But could we come back to it, perhaps at the next stage of the Bill, and would the noble Lord like to think about it as well as my giving it some further consideration?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I apologise to your Lordships and to the noble Viscount for not having been present earlier. Unfortunately, I was caught in a train between Newcastle and London. I was merely referring to the argument which he used specifically against the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. It was he who quoted at that point the figure of 10,000. I was merely pointing out that it is surely quite easy to deal with such a matter by regulation. However, I will take into account what the noble Viscount has said.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones for his very helpful contribution and would say in answer to what the noble Viscount said in reply to him that the Amendment which I propose relates to sports grounds; and sports grounds, as has been pointed out before, include sports stadia. So one of his points, if I may say so, is not well founded. I wish I could share his optimism about the scope of the words "adaptation" and "modification". I speak from somewhat bitter experience going back many years. May I just leave the noble Viscount with the question as to whether he can formulate precisely to me what is the difference between "adaptation" and "modification". Very few people can, and very few people know what those words mean. I should very much doubt whether the precise formulation can be given of them. But it is late and I do not want to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily. As we may come back to the subject at a later stage of the Bill, I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.3 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 10, line 13, after ("the") insert ("maxima").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 21 I should like to point out that Amendment No. 22 follows it
530
and I shall not speak separately to that. We had some discussion at the Committee stage about this matter and I have taken note of what the noble Viscount said on that occasion, and indeed I take the advice given. Clause 12 provides that the Secretary of State may by regulations provide, inter alia, for fees to be charged for a safety certificate issued by licensing authorities. The clause not only enables the Secretary of State to fix limits on fees, but I am advised also prescribes the actual fees to be charged by the licensing authorities. I would suggest that it is unnecessary for the Secretary of State to do more than fix maximum fees, and that licensing authorities, as responsible bodies—and there can be no question of that in connection with this Bill—can be trusted not to charge excessively.
The purpose of the Amendment is to allow licensing authorities this flexibility while maintaining the safeguard of a maximum ceiling fixed by the Secretary of State. Every Amendment moved this evening has met a not-too-happy fate. I should not think that the Amendment I am now moving is one of a fundamental character. At least one of the local authority associations would be appreciative if it was accepted, and I should like to feel that the Government are in the mood, having almost dispatched the Committee stage, to be a little forthcoming. I would ask them seriously to accept an Amendment that cannot make any fundamental difference to the Bill but would give a great deal of pleasure to some of those who will be involved in carrying it out if and when it becomes an Act.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Before my noble friend replies, would he also say whether the fees will be a scale of fees depending on the size of the stadium. I would remind my noble friend that if that is the answer his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor seems to be against the scale of fees as published.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I feel rather churlish having to stand here—
LORD WYNNE-JONES: So you ought.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: —and to start off by saying that we believe these Amendments to be misconceived, particularly after that heart

531
rending cry from the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. I am not wholly certain about this, not being a lawyer—perhaps we should have a lawyer to answer—but we think these Amendments are misconceived. Perhaps I may deal first with the second section of the Amendments. On the whole, our preference is that the local authorities should go for regulations under subsection (5), and this appears to do very much what the noble Lord is asking for. However, the Secretary of State feels it wise that he should retain the powers in subsection (4)(b) and he further believes that it would be in the interest of the clubs that he should continue to be able to fix fees according to circumstances and not fix the same maximum for everybody. The point is that the administrative work involved in certifying one ground could vary in a number of ways and could be significantly less than in other cases. So once again we believe that it is better to retain the flexibility, although we hope and believe that most of the local authorities will prefer to go for subsection (5).
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I wonder whether I can ask the Minister to go just a little further and to say that they will look at this point. The noble Viscount said on Second Reading that he thought that Clause 12(5) met the case, as indeed the noble Lord has just said. The noble Viscount said that they do or they may. The Amendment would ensure that they had the opportunity to fix the fees below and certainly not above the maxima. If the point could be looked at further, I should be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am sure that we could have another look at this. I think it is a fairly complicated question and it may be that we are just failing to understand each other.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT SIMON: Before we pass Clause 12 may I ask the Minister whether he would look at subsection (3) before we come back on Report. This reads:
532
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before making any regulations under subsection (1) above, to consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him requisite".
The word "requisite" seems to me to be extraordinarily inapt. The word "requisite" I think means "necessary". If it appears to the Secretary of State necessary to consult somebody he will do so, I should have thought, without having the duty laid upon him by an Act of Parliament. It is an unusual word in this context and it seems to me that the noble Viscount may like to look at this word with his advisers to see whether it is really correct.
LORD AIREDALE: May I add to what my noble friend has said. In my recollection when a duty to consult is laid down in a clause it is usually a duty to consult those people who appear to represent the people who will be affected by the regulation. Is that not what is intended here? If so, it would be much better expressed in those terms.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think I promised to look at the word "requested". Was it the noble Viscount who mentioned it on Second Reading? We still have our synonym book in operation, and we have not yet decided whether this is the best word. I wonder whether this could be left to the Report stage. At the same time, however, we will take account of what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said, and we will try to reach a happy solution with the Liberal Benches on this matter.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Reduction of trainee drivers of minimum age for driving heavy goods vehicles]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 10, line 42, at end insert ("and may by such order direct that in relation to any such classes of sports grounds the figure of 10,000 mentioned in section 1 of this Act shall be adjusted upwards or downwards as he thinks appropriate.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is the last Amendment, and I think I can move it quite shortly. It is simply to raise the question whether there ought

533
not to be a regulation-making power to adjust upwards or downwards the figure of 10,000 spectators which in Clause 1 founds the jurisdiction to designate a stadium and possibly a ground, if the power is exercised to extend the provisions of the Bill to grounds. That is the short point. The figure of 10,000 might seem to be a rather arbitrary one, and if it is intended that there should be some elasticity here, would it not be desirable to give a regulation-making power to the Secretary of State to adjust the figure upwards or downwards? I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I said just now that I wanted to make sure that exceptions, adaptations and modifications—the three words used in Clause 14—are entirely comprehensive. If the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has had an unfortunate experience, I wonder whether he would be so kind as to share it with me at some time in his leisure, so that we may make certain that we do not also have an unfortunate experience. I cannot define it in a concise way, but I think I know what it means. An "adaptation" would be, say, if we wanted to apply Clause 9 we would say that it was a designated sports ground instead of a designated stadium. "Modification" is intended to do exactly what this Amendment would do; namely, to allow us to change the figure of 10,000 in either direction. That is what we want to be able to do, and for precisely the soft of reasons the noble Lord was talking about when he referred to how many people could go on a racecourse. I want to be certain that we have the powers. The reason why I think we have not dealt with this specifically is, in the lawyer's terminology, that if you put in a reference to one thing it tends to imply that you do not mean the clause to refer to something else—and there is a Latin tag about it. So we thought it better to leave it in general terms. But I want to be sure that we can cover points of the sort the noble and learned Lord has in mind, and I know that the Department does. Therefore any information that the noble and learned Lord can give me will be gratefully received.
I am sorry that I took a bad point when I answered the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. If that is the only bad point I have taken this afternoon, I am indeed fortu-
534
nate. I am grateful for the helpful and constructive points that have been put down by noble Lords opposite. The mere fact that we have not accepted them does not mean to say that at this stage they are devoid of merit; it is just that we should like to look at them again. This is certainly one of those and on those terms I think the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, may feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Before my noble and learned friend does that, I should like to say to the noble Viscount that he has created in me a sense of optimism which was not there not long ago.
LORD STOW HILL: In moving this Amendment I did not refer to one experience, but to many going back over a number of years. If the noble Viscount can cite any authority in which the meaning of these words has been considered by a court I should be overjoyed. I do not think he will be able to. May I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Viscount for the patience and courtesy he has shown in dealing with the many Amendments on the Marshalled List. He has, as always, been most helpful. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR ORGANISATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it has been agreed through the usual channels, in view of the lateness of the hour, the fact that we have a great deal of work still to do on the Road Traffic Bill, and it will be necessary for the House to rise by about ten o'clock owing to transport difficulties, that we should not take the Committee stage of the Rabies Bill or the Dumping at Sea Bill.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
7.16 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. In moving this Motion, I should like to express the gratitude of all those interested in the Road Traffic Bill to those of your Lordships who may have been inconvenienced by the postponement of the other two Bills.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 16 [Certain small vehicles not to he public service vehicles]:
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 48:
Leave out Clause 16 and insert the following new clause:
(" —(1) In section 117 of the 1960 Act (meaning of "public service vehicle")—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "used for" there shall be substituted the words "which is";

(b) in subsection (1), after the word "reward" there shall be inserted the word "and"; and

(c) in subsection (1), for the words "eight or more passengers" there shall be substituted the words "nine or more passengers in addition to the driver".

(2) In section 118(1) of and paragraph 14 of the Twelfth Schedule to the 1960 Act and in section 44(2) of the 1972 Act (relating certain public service vehicle requirements to seating capacity) for the words " eight or more passengers" in each place where they occur there shall be substituted the words " nine or more passengers in addition to the driver".
(3) In section 129(1) of the 1960 Act (certificates of fitness required for public service vehicles adapted to carry eight or more passengers) for the word "eight" there shall be substituted the word "twelve".
(4) In section 144(1) of the 1960 Act (licensing of drivers and conductors of public service vehicles) at the end there shall be inserted the words "Provided that such a licence shall not be required in the case of a public service vehicle which is adapted to seat fewer than nine passengers apart from the driver.".")
The noble Lord said: I begin by echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in thanking the usual
536
channels and everybody associated with the other two Bills for enabling us to go straight into the Road Traffic Bill. I very much regret that I shall have to move this Amendment at some considerable length. Normally I try to keep my speeches short in Committee, but these clauses seem to me to embody the most important changes to be brought about by this Bill. If they are not the most important, certainly they are the most difficult to understand and follow if one is not well versed in the whole system of licensing of vehicles used for carrying passengers for hire or reward.
LORD ABERDARE: Hear, hear!
LORD CHAMPION: I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, says, "Hear, hear! " to that. He clearly has had some difficulty in going through these clauses and understanding them, but I hope that by the end of my speech he will be well aware of what is embodied certainly in the Amendment.
Clauses 16 and 17—and they are to some extent complementary—will in effect establish three classes of vehicle which, although carrying passengers at separate fares, will be wholly or partially exempt from licensing under the 1960 Act. These classes are: (1) vehicles adapted to carry fewer than nine passengers, which will be wholly exempt from licensing; (2) vehicles adapted to carry not more than twelve, or maybe fifteen, passengers, which will not require a public service vehicle licence and so will be wholly exempt from licensing, but will be subject only to the restrictions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of this clause; and (3) vehicles adapted to carry not more than twelve, or maybe fifteen, passengers licensed as public service vehicles but, although carrying passengers at separate fares, treated as contract carriages.
The question which springs immediately to the mind is: will it be possible to regulate activities of vehicles in these classes in such a way that they will not compete with regular licensed services, to the serious detriment of those services? I shall return to that point later in my speech. Subsection (2) of Clause 16 gives a new name in law, as I understand it, to a vehicle adapted to carry not more than twelve passengers or such greater

537
number of passengers not exceeding fifteen as the Secretary of State may by order specify. Such a vehicle will be called a "minibus"; and although such a vehicle is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, it shall not be treated as being a public service vehicle if
"…it is not customarily operated in the course of a business which consists of or includes the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and does not ply for hire in the course of the journey on which passengers are carried."
This definition seems to me to take out of the category of "public service vehicle" any vehicle not adapted to carry more than twelve, if it is not part of a passenger-carrying undertaking and does not ply for hire in the course of its journey. To "ply for hire" in the course of its journey would appear to mean that a small privately-owned vehicle carrying passengers from point A to point D may, by previous arrangement, pick up passengers at points B and C but must not stop at points B or C on the off-chance that someone in the queue or at the stop may be prepared to pay for a lift to D. Perhaps I should add here that "plying for hire" is nowhere defined in Statute law, and case law on those words leaves a great deal of uncertainty.
Clause 16 lets in a private car or a minibus as a passenger-carrying vehicle for hire or reward but excludes them from obeying the restrictions and safeguards common to public service vehicles. All that appears, I must admit, eminently reasonable and desirable until one looks a little deeper. After a superficial glance at our existing transport facilities, most of us would opt for freedom. What we mean by that is that we should like to be able to find a bus or some convenient form of transport at the corner of our street whenever we happen to want one—and that regardless of the economics of providing a regular service and not paying much regard to the efficiency-of-load factor or, until an accident occurs, to vehicle safety or passenger insurance. It was very largely the need to meet these last-mentioned requirements that led to the appointment of traffic commissioners and the system of licensing road passenger carrying vehicles, prescribing the conditions that govern them and restricting them in the main to prescribed routes.
538
In respect of insurance, this Bill violates the British legal tradition of responsibility falling on those who provide a service against payment. Since the interwar years, if a vehicle-owner takes money in the course of a business, he accepts responsibility for the risks to which his passengers are exposed. He must be covered by insurance—and that is a very different insurance from that taken out by most private car users, for the vehicle owner who takes a hiring charge has, rightly, to pay a special premium to the insurance company. One wonders how many motorists are aware of this, and how many to-day who break the law regularly are conscious of the risk which they and their passengers are running. Another factor I have mentioned previously is that of vehicle safety. Public service vehicles are designed and constructed to special standards directed at making them suitable for the job they have to do. They are tested annually as to their fitness, and their maintenance facilities are also supervised. Over and above that, the public service vehicle driver has to pass special tests to ensure that he is capable and fit to drive on passenger carrying services.
The next question to be considered is that of the provision of regular services. This is undoubtedly what most country people want, and not merely the odd lift into town without the certainty of getting home again by transport leaving at a given time. Under Clause 16, private motor cars adapted to carry fewer than nine passengers and minibuses adapted to carry not more than 12 or 15 passengers will be free to take up and set down passengers anywhere at separate fares, subject only, as to minibuses, to the restrictions in paragraphs (a) and (b) in subsection (2). Those restrictions are likely to give little protection to the regular services, and in any case will not apply to vehicles adapted to carry less than 9 passengers. There will be nothing to prevent the driver of a vehicle adapted to carry fewer than nine passengers from taking up and setting down passengers at even, say, bus stops on his way to work. If he lives on an estate and regularly drives into town to work he could regularly fill his vehicle with fare-paying passengers, notwithstanding the fact that there was a regular service of stage carriages serving the estate. What also worries

539
me, to some extent, about the Bill's proposals is that most rural bus services are operating on a very tight margin. If the provisions of the Bill result in only a 5 per cent. loss of passengers to such undertakings, that could very well mean the withdrawal of the service altogether or a rural bus grant at the cost of the ratepayers. Another factor to be taken into account is that only a small part of the country is covered by the existing hackney-carriage law, the vast majority of local councils not having made by-laws under the appropriate Act.
Having expressed my doubts at some length as to the proposals in the Bill, it is now up to me to explain what the Amendment I am proposing seeks to achieve. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause seeks to remove the confusion arising from the present definition of a public service vehicle. I am advised that an example of the conflict of law under the present definition is that because there is no provisional public service vehicle driver's licence, nobody can, without breaking the law, take a test to qualify as a public service vehicle driver. If it is clear, as it is for small vehicles under the proposed definition, that a vehicle is only a public service vehicle when actually operating for hire or reward, the difficulties are overcome. Subsection (2) of the Amendment carries the new numerical dividing line consequentially into other parts of the 1960 Act. Subsection (3) of the Amendment is more liberal than Clause 16, in that it would allow a public service vehicle minibus to be given a p.s.v. licence without a certificate of fitness. Clause 16 of the Bill only exempts the "private" minibus. This is intended to make it as easy as possible for permits for minibuses to be obtained under Section 30 of the Transport Act of 1968, whilst retaining at least a degree of safety control over all small vehicles operating for hire or reward. This control would be exercised through the public service vehicle licence itself, because the operator of an unsafe vehicle could not be held to be a fit person to hold a public service vehicle licence. Section 127(7) of the 1960 Act, as amended by Section 35 of the Transport Act 1968, would govern that aspect.
What the proposals in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the Amendment envisage
540
are that a vehicle with fewer than 10 seats, including the driver's, could be allowed, by Statutory Instrument, to obtain a p.s.v. licence on production of only a test certificate, under Section 44 of the 1972 Act, in the case of a vehicle more than one year after first registration and, in all cases, a certificate of insurance appropriate to the service for hire or reward which is being operated. The p.s.v. licence could be issued in such cases with a minimum of formality for a nominal fee. The idea is not to make it difficult to obtain a licence, but to bring home to the car-owner that he is undertaking special responsibilities and to show the passenger that he is properly protected. There would be further control of fare-paying services through the Section 30 permit, which would remain as an alternative to the road service licence. This relaxed system of permits is to be required to be operated "in the interests of the public" under Clause 18 of the Bill and so ensure the best possible balance between conventional and informal services. A controlled system of car services would be supplemented by the conventional services.
The proposals in the Amendment should cause county authorities and voluntary bodies to organise supplementary transport schemes where these are called for, thus giving ample room for initiative, with a high degree of flexibility and without damaging those services which already serve the public interest. The final point of the proposed relaxation is in subsection (4) of the Amendment which does no more than accept the Bill's proposal to free the drivers of small vehicles from the need to hold a p.s.v. driver's licence. But that would leave an element of control through the "fit person" provisions of the p.s.v. licence, and that might avoid dilution problems for the trade unions—a point that has some merit.
I freely admit the complexity of all this and apologise to the Committee for the length of time I have taken to move the Amendment. But an Amendment of this sort deserves the fullest explanation and a serious attempt at justification. I believe the Amendment to be a reasonable one. The last thing I want to do is to be the enemy of people living in rural areas who badly need transport facilities but who also need safeguarding if there is to be a modification of the

541
existing law governing the safety of passengers and their insurance. I believe that these are very important points indeed. In addition, I want to safeguard existing services, most of which, as I have said, are operating on a shoestring budget. I hope that I have made myself clear, at least to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who must have spent some time worrying over these particular clauses, which, as I say, I regard as the most important in the Bill. I beg to move.
7.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I do not pretend to have the knowledge of a Parliamentary draftsman and I am not at all sure such knowledge is not necessary to compete with the complexities of this Amendment. But, having said that, I can only say that the Association of Rural District Councils, of which I am a vice-president, do not agree with what the noble Lord has said, that his Amendment will help sufficiently in rural areas. May I put the matter in their own words? They say:
"These Amendments would have the effect of inhibiting the development of voluntary car schemes supported by district councils in rural areas.
"As you may know, this Association has been very active in unison with the W.R.V.S., in encouraging arrangements being made in country districts for those prepared to give lifts to be put in touch with those who need them. This is a service supplementary to any bus and train services that happen to survive and in no way intended to be in competition with them. We would like to see these develop because in the twelve places where they have been instigated they have proved of considerable value. The Road Traffic Bill makes provision for such lifts to be paid for by the passengers which is not at present legally possible. This has had an inhibiting effect as there are some people who will not accept lifts without paying and some councils who feel that payment should be made. If the Amendments referred to go through, this stage in encouraging the social car schemes will be lost".
They therefore ask that I should support the Government. I am afraid that the complexities are very great and I must leave it to more qualified people to work them out.
LORD TEVIOT: I rise to say that I am very pleased to add my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. Perhaps I may say a word on Lord Gage's comments in a moment. I shall be extremely brief because the noble
542
Lord, Lord Champion, covered this Amendment very adequately. I was enraptured and I think he covered this extremely complex problem very swiftly. I am with him that this clause goes far too far and I should like to reiterate a few points. Bus operators operate on a tight margin. They do not enjoy a huge profit such as might be held in property or anything else; they just exist. If this clause goes through unamended, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, mentioned, there will be services disappearing or claiming extra rural bus grants. Local authorities are getting rather fed up at having to give these. Every year services apply for these grants. As a result of this clause, many services will disappear. Services covering fairly large communities not near a railway station, and with populations of between 500 and 1,000 people, which at present may enjoy an hourly service to a larger town, will probably be reduced, and in some cases, while the service will operate every day of the week it will operate only in peak hours, with perhaps extra journeys on Saturdays.
I should also like to refer to the car driver, insurance, tax and safety. I do not think those matters have been considered so far in the Bill—though I may have to eat my words when my noble friend replies. I should like also to mention that in America some authorities allowed the car freedom to compete with the bus—for example, Clinton, Massachusetts; Acron, Ohio, and Alton, St. Louis. These schemes did not work. Bus services did in fact collapse; cars could not cope, and very large sums of money had to be laid Out to re-establish a lower level of public transport. The damage once done could not be wholly redeemed. There is no reason to suppose that in Britain we should fare any better. I think the point raised by my noble friend Lord Gage is taken care of under Section 203 of the Local Government Act 1972, which provides for car services and is completely divorced from this Bill. My noble friend will probably be able to give some information on that point.
7.40 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I should like to thank all your Lordships who have taken part in this short debate on this very important clause. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and should like to

543
congratulate him on his extremely professional knowledge of this complicated subject and the most learned exposition that he gave of public service vehicles and bus drivers' licensing laws. The effect of his Amendment, taken with Amendment No. 50 which stands in the names of the same noble Lords, is in general to replace the proposals in this Bill relating to small vehicles and to propose a modified version of the existing licensing system. This goes against the Government policy, which in Clause 16 is to relieve the owners of private cars and private minibuses only from the need to comply with public service vehicle licensing requirements before they accept any contribution to the cost of a lift in their vehicle.
Let us look for a moment at the present situation. To comply with the requirements of the public service vehicle licensing system a person who owns a private vehicle is debarred from accepting any contribution towards the cost of a lift in his car or his minibus. What happens is this: private individuals ignore the law, which is quite unenforceable in their case, and the sort of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, was speaking about, and the cases that he cited, where private individuals join together to give lifts to each other to specific points and to join in on the cost, occur to-day. It is not correct, because in fact the car becomes a public service vehicle carrying passengers at separate fares; but the law is quite unenforceable and so this practice goes on.
The second thing that occurs today is that those voluntary bodies, for example the W.R.V.S., which could in many cases perform a most useful social role in giving lifts in return for a modest contribution to their expenses, are precluded from doing so by the present state of the law. I agree very warmly with my noble friend Lord Gage that in present circumstances, with the decline in public transport in rural areas and, may I say from my own experience, with the growing need for help with transport in a great many social fields which could well be met by voluntary bodies if they could receive some small contribution to their cost, it seems to me right to allow all such private owners of cars and minibuses to be exempted from the formal requirements of the public service licensing system,
544
which I do not think in any case should apply to them. I am sure that your Lordships who know the problems of rural areas will agree with this, as will those who understand the immense contribution made to our health and social services by voluntary organisations.
The main question we have to decide is that on which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, put his finger; namely, can this be said in any way to damage the interests of established bus operators? I really do not think so, and I am afraid I do not in the least agree with my noble friend Lord Teviot, who suggested that there would be a wholesale reduction of normal bus services as a result of this very modest freedom for private individuals. By definition these are privately owned cars or minibuses. They are not customarily operated in the course of a business which consists of, or includes, the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and they do not ply for hire.
The noble Lord was quite right when he said that plying for hire is not defined, but it is an expression which is used in various Acts, for example, the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act of 1869, under which London taxis are licensed by the police, and it is an expression the ambit of which is understood by the courts and the cab and bus trade. Surely no one could threaten the business of established bus operators under these conditions. These are in fact simply marginal activities which are primarily of importance when additional services have already diminished beyond the point of foreseeable return. These are not in any sense the regular services which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said were so important. So I urge your Lordships not to accept the main ground of this Amendment, for the excellent reason that we are trying to help in a marginal way with the provision of lifts by private individuals.
The noble Lord mentioned the new definition in subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Amendment, to re-define a public service vehicle, which he linked with the granting of a provisional licence. I am sorry that I did not quite appreciate the full import of his point, and I should like to look at it between now and Report stage and to get fully into my mind what the noble Lord had in view. It seems right to us to define a public service vehicle consistently at all times, whereas

545
his definition seems to re-define a public service vehicle so as to exclude any vehicle other than one currently carrying passengers for hire or reward. We are satisfied that a public service vehicle is plainly defined by the law as it stands, and that a bus remains a bus whether or not there are passengers in it. It is important, for example, in certain circumstances, that the bus driver should have a bus driver's licence even when the bus is empty, but I should like to look at some of the points made by the noble Lord on that subsection.
With regard to the safety of passengers, which was another matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and by my noble friend Lord Teviot, nothing in this clause detracts from the operation of public service vehicle licensing in cases where it will still apply; but public service vehicle licensing has never applied to private vehicles which are subject to the ordinary requirements of road safety, and in particular to the annual vehicle test where appropriate. Clause 16 only provides that passengers travelling in such private vehicles may lawfully contribute to the cost, and this reasonable relaxation has no obvious connection with the safety of the passengers.
As for the insurance position, which both noble Lords also mentioned, under Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1972 any motor vehicle must, with certain exceptions specified in the Act, be insured or secured against liability in respect of death or injury to any person, including passengers, arising out of the use of the vehicle on a road. Claims arising under this provision will, in the last resort, be met by the Motor Insurers' Bureau. I can therefore assure the noble Lord that there are no circumstances in which a passenger in any motor vehicle covered by this provision will not receive the compensation that is legally due to him. Nevertheless, it is customary for insurers to exclude from private motor policies the use of a vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward, and anyone who uses a vehicle in breach of this exclusion is in a most serious position. In the light of decided cases there is no reason to think that a contribution towards the cost of an occasional lift would be within the scope of such an exclusion, but motor insurers have been
546
fully acquainted with the objects of Clause 16 of this Bill and have been invited to review their policies. Likewise, before the clause takes effect, we shall be giving the necessary publicity to the possible implications for private policy holders. I hope I have convinced your Lordships that none of the difficulties really exists, and that this is a worth while but very marginal relaxation in the licensing system which would be of great value, especially in rural areas.
7.52 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: The reply of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, does not satisfy me at all. I understand very well the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage; indeed, I mentioned towards the end of my speech recognition, on my part anyway, of the desire of people living in rural areas to secure some form of transport. However, if one is going to secure a form of transport, one has to secure a form of transport that is regular and which will not only take a man or his wife and children into town but will bring them back again at a given and stated time on a regular service. I believe this cannot be ensured by the haphazard method visualised in Clause 16 of the Bill that we are seeking to amend. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in my opinion rightly, put his finger on it when he pointed to the tight margin under which most rural bus operators are working, the difficulty of keeping going, and the difficulty of ensuring that a regular service is always available to the people. He mentioned the American experience. I believe that that experience will be repeated here when this Bill operates as an Act of Parliament and we have those conditions in the countryside which are envisaged by the Government. In this connection we are thinking chiefly of the countryside as, of course, the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, told us.
The purpose of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, was to relieve private cars and private minibuses from the stringent provisions of existing law because it is unenforceable. That is a very poor excuse to bring to the House. To enforce the law is the job of the police; to ensure that it is enforced is the job of the Government. But I recognise that there are difficulties in this connection. The noble Lord does not agree that the

547
proposals in the Bill will unduly interfere with existing services. He made a considerable point of this, and understandably so. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that that view is not held by the passenger vehicle operators. They have studied the Bill very carefully, particularly Clauses 16 to 19 and they do not agree that their services will not be interfered with if, in fact, private minibuses and private car owners will be able in future to act as public service vehicle operators.
The noble Lord said he would look at some of the points I raised in my speech, and I hope he will do so before the Report stage. Certainly I hope he will look again at the points made about the safety of vehicles. As I understood it, the noble Lord's reply to me was that private cars and, indeed, private minibuses have to take the ordinary M.O.T. test. That is a trifling test by comparison with that imposed on public service vehicles and their operators. It is a much more stringent examination of everything connected with safety.
The last point on which I am bound to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is that of insurance. I cannot think that it ought to be the job of the Bureau to cover private vehicle owners beyond the point of the insurance that they have in fact entered into with their normal insurers. The Motor Insurers' Bureau was never established for, and ought not to be used for, this purpose. If owners of private cars or minibuses are going to operate virtually as public service vehicles, I believe they ought to enter into a form of insurance with their normal insurance companies which would cover them, because they become owners of vehicles which are in fact carrying passengers for hire or reward. These are extremely important points. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to answer the points I have made in answer to him. If he does, I shall be happy to hear what he has to say before I make up my mind whether we go into the Division Lobby or not.
LORD ABERDARE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and I should like to say a word or two. I thought he really put his finger on the spot when he made again, in reply to me, the point he made in his initial speech:
548
we shall have a great deal more to talk about on the Report stage.
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful for the additional reply that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has made. I very much agree with him that the Motor Insurers' Bureau ought not to be used as anything other than a long stop. Because I said from the outset that we did not want to stop rural areas from getting an addition to their transport facilities, I was not wholly opposed to this clause in the Bill, but I want to look again very carefully at what the noble Lord has said. I think I cannot do better at this stage than seek leave to withdraw the Amendment, with a promise to the noble Lord that we shall probably return to it on the Report that all that people really want are regular services. I think this is true. This is why this matter is very marginal and it is the reason I cannot understand why these haphazard, but on occasion very useful, services could possibly be said to affect the interests of the regular bus operators. That is the first point I should like to make. The second point is on the question of safety. I can only reiterate that public service vehicle licensing has never applied to private vehicles, and I do not see why it should. In so far as the insurance position is concerned, I should like to make it quite clear that we agree entirely with the noble Lord that people should be properly covered by insurance for all the risks to which they may be subject. That is why we have acquainted motor insurers with the objects of the Bill, and we shall be giving publicity to the implications for private policy-holders. I mentioned the Bureau only as a long stop to make quite clear that no one in the long run would be uncompensated if he should be injured in circumstances in which the driver was not properly insured.
LORD TEVIOT: Like the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I was also unsatisfied with the reply of my noble friend, and with his second intervention. Although I enjoyed listening to his exposition. I still have great foreboding about this clause. If the noble Lord, Lord Champion, wishes to go into the Lobby I shall be delighted to join him, but I bow to his experience in regard to doing so. There is a great deal of work to do, and if we do not make a decision tonight

549
stage, perhaps in some amended form, or to some other slightly modified Amendment to the Bill. I consider this action is justifiable, having regard to the dangers implicit in what the noble Lord and the Government are proposing in this Bill. We should be careful, so far as possible, that when the Bill leaves Parliament and becomes an Act it will not produce conditions which in future we shall regret. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Use of minibuses as public service vehicles.]:
8.0 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 24, line 43, at end add—
("(7) In any case where a service for the carriage of passengers by road would, apart from subsection (1) above, be a service of stage carriages for which, accordingly, a road service licence would be required, it shall be treated as such a service for the purposes of—

(a) section 92 of the Finance Act 1965 (grants towards duty charged on bus fuel used in operating a service of stage carriages), and

(b) section 34 of the Transport Act 1968 (assistance for rural bus services for which road service licence are required),

and the person by whom the service is provided shall be treated as "the operator", in relation to it, for the purposes of the said section 92.
(8) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) above, a minibus provided for use in such circumstances that, apart from that subsection, it would be used wholly or mainly as a stage carriage shall be treated as so used for the purposes of section 32 of the Transport Act 1968 (new bus grants for vehicles to be used as stage carriages).")
The noble Lord said: The next Amendment, No. 50, seeks to replace the whole of Clause 17, but on the assumption that I may be able to persuade your Lordships not to take such a drastic step I should like to move Amendment No. 49, the effect of which is to assure to minibuses that are exempt from road service licensing by virtue of subsection (1) of Clause 17 the benefit of fuel tax rebate, rural bus grant and new bus grant in relation to which such a licence would otherwise be a material consideration. I beg to move.
LORD CHAMPION: In the unhappy event of Clause 17 standing part of the
550
Bill, it certainly ought to include the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, and I certainly do not object.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 50:
Leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new clause:
(".—(1) In section 117 of the 1960 Act—
(a) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following—
"(2) For the purposes of this Act a stage carriage is a public service vehicle carrying passengers at separate fares which is required to operate in accordance with a timetable approved by the competent authority."
(b) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following—
"(3) For the purposes of this Act an excursion carriage is a public service vehicle carrying passengers at separate fares, not being a stage carriage."
(2) In section 120 of the 1960 Act after subsection (4) there shall be added the following subsection—
"(5) For the purposes of section 117(2) of this Act the competent authority shall be the traffic commissioners, except that in the case of a London bus service (which words have the meaning assigned to them in the Transport (London) Act 1969) it shall be the London Transport Executive.".")
The noble Lord said: Although this Amendment is, of course, to some extent tied up with the whole picture of what ought to be operating in this general sort of field, if I may call it that, there are some points in Clause 17 on which I should like very much to hear the Government's reply, and for that purpose I propose to move this Amendment. Clause 17 would allow minibuses operated on a full-time professional basis to carry passengers at separate fares, without a road service licence, subject to two restrictions: that they must not both take up and set down passengers in an urban area or on a bus route. "Both" seems to me to be the important word in this context. On the face of it that sounds reasonable and a good way to augment rural bus services without damaging them. Unfortunately, in practice the results would not be so straightforward.
There are two elements in the Bill's protection of stage bus services; prohibition of both picking up and setting down at two or more different points in an urban area or on a scheduled bus route. In respect of an urban area, the position would be most uncertain when the criterion might be the possibility—not even

551
the fact—of travelling on routes with certain speed restrictions or lighting systems. There would be no notification of the service to the traffic commissioners or to other operators, and enforcement would be difficult, if not for all practical purposes impossible. Even in metropolitan areas the absence of notification would be a weak point. This is made obvious by the fact that numbers of illegal works services by non-P.S.V. minibuses already manage to escape enforcement of the law.
If the protection in the Bill of urban services is weak, that for rural services is doubly so. The very inadequacy of the definition in Clause 17 sounds the death knell of many existing bus services covering both rural routes and small towns, or feeding large towns. This I repeat again, despite the assurances that the noble Viscount gave us on the Amendment that I moved to Clause 16. Minor deviations from established routes could enable a minibus operator to pick up passengers of service operators; attractive terminal points refused to a public service operator could be available to an unlicensed service. Weekly stage services could be endangered by minibuses making the journey on other days of the week, and limited stop services operated under an express licence would be completely unprotected.
Perhaps I should point out that the distinction between scheduled stage and express services is no longer relevant. There are stage bus routes, for example, from London to Birmingham, Manchester to Glasgow, Edinburgh to Liverpool, and even over routes up to 250 miles. London's Green Line express services are licensed as stage, not express, services. But there are services covering less than 10 miles which must have an express licence. The Bill as it stands now would protect the route between Manchester and Glasgow but not those between Manchester and London—this is one of the anomalies of the Bill as it is now before us—the latter having no stage service, only express services.
The present division of licensed services is between stage and express. What ought now to be operative is for the division to cut the other way, the two categories covering scheduled and optional services; and that is proposed
552
in the Amendment. The proposal in subsection (1) of the Amendment combines all scheduled services, stage and express, under the existing stage carriage title, introduces a new category of "excursion carriage" for all optional services and retains unchanged the contract carriage. I am conscious of the fact that the Amendment and the alteration proposed by subsection 9(1) of the substitute clause would have the advantage of bringing sequential amendments to existing statutes. I have not been able to prepare and table before Committee stage the complicated required Amendments, but if the Government will accept the Amendment as it now stands I will take the necessary steps to produce all the consequential Amendments before Report. Subsection (2) defines the competent authority for the purposes of the proposed Section 117(2) of the 1960 Act.
These relatively simple proposals are intended to achieve a major updating of the licensing system. Their acceptance would have the advantage of bringing our licensing system much closer to the E.E.C. regulations. E.E.C. regulation No. 117/66 provides for and defines "regular", "shuttle" and "occasional" services. The most important category, from most points of view is the regular service, which is scheduled and involves an obligation to run. The amended definition of stage carriage service closely conforms to this, and would be of practical advantage if this could become operative in British law. The realities of the situation in Britain are, of course, enough in themselves to justify a change. Indeed, since the Transport Act 1968, the concept of a bus service as a scheduled stage or express service already exists for some purposes. I realise that this Amendment, if adopted, would also require amendment on the lines of that previously moved into the Bill this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, relating to the financial aspects of bus fuel grants and assistance for rural bus services. I beg to move.
LORD TEVIOT: There is extremely little for me to add to the very detailed statement of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. All I would say is that there is extreme difficulty in outlining exactly what are "urban areas" and "stage services". He mentioned Manchester to London and various others. I am told

553
that some people talk about a stage service between Thurso and London. I do not think one could possibly find a longer service anywhere. I suppose that a service from John o'Groats to Penzance would be longer but, so far as I know, there is no service covering that route. With stage services operators do have additional "perks", such as new bus grants and exemption from fuel tax.
Noble Lords may have thought that I have slept on this point, but this deals with rural transport, which was not dealt with in the Amendment on Clause 16, and when people realise that the whole thing is relaxed with private cars and, to a lesser extent, mini-buses, it is bound to add to our traffic problems. This is one point that I missed, and I do not know whether the noble Lord missed it. It is very nice for people to have extra transport, and I am quite sure that the Government want much better rural transport; but one does not want to have the streets littered with more motor cars, which I think might be the result of these two clauses.
LORD SOMERS: I wonder whether the noble Lord could inform me as to what actually is the legal definition of a London bus service. One would think at first that it is one wholly within the G.L.C. area, but of course there are many London Transport routes which are not so; and there are also buses that are not London Transport buses which come to London from such places as Reading, and other places outside London. I suppose that they would not be London bus services, but I should like to know exactly what is a London bus service.
8.12 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: The effect of this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, taken with his previous Amendment, Amendment No. 48, is to delete the proposals in the Bill regarding minibuses operated as public service vehicles, and to substitute a new definition of stage carriages to include all services other than those that are to be defined in future as excursion services. The point about this clause, as drafted, is that it carries a stage further the relaxation of licensing requirements for minibuses in order to facilitate their use in rural areas and wherever normal bus services are inadequate. Clause 16 removed any public service licensing requirements
554
from privately owned minibuses not operated for profit. This clause goes a stage further and exempts minibuses that are operated commercially from requiring a road service licence. Two very important provisions are that they do not run in an urban area or on a specified bus route. They will still require a public service vehicle licence, and indeed they are still public service vehicles, but the whole object of the clause is to encourage their use in areas where there is no regular bus service, and they will not require a road service licence.
Once again I am sure that this provision will commend itself to all noble Lords who know the problems of rural areas, and it is to help in rural areas that this Bill is so important. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Teviot that the effect of this provision will be to put a mass of extra vehicles on the roads in urban areas. This deals entirely with rural areas; any service within an urban area is specifically excluded.
LORD TEVIOT: Would not my noble friend agree that for people coming from rural areas the focal points are urban areas, and it is those areas that are going to be affected?
8.13 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I still think that it is more important to allow people from the rural areas to have some sort of service to bring them into the urban areas. At the same time, I do not think that it can be truthfully said that there will be a vast increase in the traffic in urban areas as a result of this fairly modest provision. I do not believe that it will damage the interests of established bus operators, particularly for the reasons that it applies only to minibuses in rural areas, and where there is no specified bus route, or on days when no established bus service is being operated. So far as the urban area is concerned, this is clearly defined in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of the clause, and I believe that, because of the requirements of those subsections, it would be quite easy (the noble Lord, Lord Champion, suggested that it would be difficult) to establish what was an urban area. There would also be a 30 or 40 m.p.h. speed limit; or there are requirements on the spacing of lamp posts. So I do not think that it would be very difficult to find out what is an urban area.

555
So far as the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is concerned, a London bus service is defined in the Transport (London) Act 1969 as a service operated in or through Greater London. But for the purposes of this clause the specified bus routes are clearly defined in subsections (5) and (6) of the clause. If he will look at subsections (5) and (6) he will see what is a "specified bus route", and if he looks at subsection (2) he will see that an urban area is defined in various ways but paragraph (a) reads:
"at different places within Greater London or within a passenger transport area, …"
I think that he will find it is all there in the subsection.
We have given full consideration to the views of the bus industry on this matter; in fact, my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton received a deputation from them. We looked into their objections very carefully, but we are convinced that the proposals we have made will not damage their interests, and indeed will help the transport situation in rural areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, also mentioned the new definition of "stage carriages" and "excursion carriages". I recognise that these terms are nearer to the classification of vehicles in the regulations of the E.E.C. However, we feel that we need a great deal more experience before we alter the well-established terms that we use at present. To make a change in this Bill would have some drastic effects. He mentioned the repercussions on the provisions of several previous Acts, and it would also upset the principles on which certain forms of Exchequer assistance are given to the bus industry—for example, fuel tax rebate and new bus grants. We believe that the present system works perfectly satisfactorily and we do not see any good reason to change it at present. The Bill as it stands would produce advantages in rural areas, in helping them to cope with their transport problems, and we do not believe that it will affect the interests of established bus operators. I therefore suggest to the noble Lord that he might consider withdrawing his Amendment. But if he does not, I should not like to advise your Lordships to accept it.
LORD CHAMPION: I do not know whether the noble Lord has enough "troops" in the House to establish his point of view, but I do not propose to test that. I merely looked around and saw what the position was both in here and in the Library. I am grateful to the noble Lord for so carefully explaining the Government's point of view on Clause 17. I am bound to say, on further consideration, that I regard the definition in subsection (2) of Clause 17 as the sort of definition that is bound to cause very great difficulty.
The noble Lord said that in many respects the law as it now exists is unenforceable. I believe that if we pass Clause 17 into law we shall add to our legislation one more provision which is unenforceable. The point about both taking up and setting down is of course extremely important in this connection, but because I have not the slightest desire to go beyond 10 o'clock tonight, and because I want to consider very carefully some subsequent Amendments (and I hope the Committee will consider them); and, further, because I want to consider what the noble Lord has said on this, which I regard as part of the whole system that we are trying to institute, I shall not press this matter. I shall consider very carefully before Report stage what he has said and, as I threatened on the previous Amendment, perhaps come back then with further Amendments on this clause. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Amendments relating to operators' licences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.22 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I wonder whether, as we are considering this clause, I might remind my noble friends of the point I made during Second Reading, at column 867. It was largely to do with what I considered to be an omission from this Bill which could well have been rectified within this

557
clause, which considers Part V of the 1968 Act. I referred to Section 62 of that Act, which deals with the powers of the licensing authority, and in particular I was concerned that the licensing authority did not have sufficient powers to examine all the facilities that an applicant for an operator's licence should have. I drew attention particularly to their inability to look at the repair and maintenance facilities where an applicant contracted out of the repair and maintenance of his fleet. I should be obliged if my noble friends could give me any help in this matter.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of what he said on Second Reading. I thought that perhaps he might have put down an Amendment on this point at this Committee stage; but indeed his words did not fall upon deaf ears, and we looked very carefully into the points he raised. We are meeting on another point connected with this Bill, and I should certainly be willing to discuss these points with him then. He has brought up once again, in particular, the question of commercial garages which contract for the maintenance of bus operators' vehicles or service vehicle operators' lorries. We have looked at this point on other occasions. On the surface it appears attractive, but the point really is that it raises enormously wide questions of extending the powers of entry upon and inspection of private premises. The garage owner who undertook this work under contract would be subject to inspection, not by virtue of any requirement of his normal business but only as a by-product of undertaking maintenance for an "O" licence applicant. This matter raises wide questions of policy. It might discourage garage proprietors from undertaking this sort of work if they knew that it would render their garages subject to inspection. But I can answer these points in much greater detail if my noble friend would allow me to talk to him afterwards or on a later occasion.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of Transport Act 1968 relating to operators' licences]:
8.26 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 52:
558
Page 42, line 24, after ("conviction") insert ("required to be").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor Amendment to improve the drafting of the new provision in paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 4 to amend Section 64(2) of the 1968 Act. The provision as now drafted brings into the consideration of grant of a licence any convictions notified by the applicant between the making of an application and the decision on it, in accordance with the new subsection (4A) of Section 62 introduced by paragraph 1 of Schedule 4. It is possible, however, that any such conviction might be notified from other sources than the applicant himself; for example, the police. Under the present drafting, it could not be taken into account unless it was notified by the applicant. The Amendment to make it read "any conviction required to be notified" will allow the licensing authority to take such convictions into account whether notified by the applicant himself or by some other source. I beg to move.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Could my noble friend tell me whether or not it is obligatory upon one police authority to advise another of a conviction in connection with the licence of an applicant? It would seem to me that one traffic area authority could be in ignorance of a conviction that occurred in another area, yet there does not seem to be any process of liaison.
LORD ABERDARE: I should like to look into that point. I was not aware of that difficulty, but I shall certainly look into it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I draw my noble friend's attention to the remarks I made on this Schedule on Second Reading and again in regard to the 1968 Act, so far as prohibition notices are concerned? Perhaps my noble friend will recall that at that time I suggested that the revocation of an operator's licence was conditional upon certain criteria set down in the 1968 Act, to which this Schedule makes some alteration. In particular, I was concerned that prohibition orders which failed to be substantiated by the testing station stood

559
against the record of an operator. An offence might be committed and the traffic authority, turning up the record and seeing on the flyleaf two convictions, five prohibition orders and the new offence, may come to the conclusion that the applicant should have an alteration to his licence, perhaps that it should be partly revoked, whereas in fact the prohibition orders were not subsequently substantiated at the testing station—and against such prohibition notices, of course, there is no appeal.
I explained that there is an appeal procedure against the refusal to grant a clearance to the prohibition, but that there is no appeal procedure against the prohibition. It would seem to me grossly unfair that a man's operating licence should be in jeopardy because of this particular provision. My noble friend may again suggest that had I felt strongly about it I should have put down an Amendment. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross suggested that he would deal with this matter later because it was somewhat complex.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: All I said was that we would deal with it. I do not think I promised to deal with it personally.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then perhaps "we" could deal with this matter now.
LORD ABERDARE: Certainly. Again my noble friend's words did not go unheeded. We do not see this difficulty as being so likely to happen as my noble friend suggests. He is instancing a possibility that a prohibition imposed by one examiner might be lifted by another, perhaps after appeal, without any work being done on the vehicle, and that the original prohibition would remain on the operator's record. We think this is a most unlikely chain of events. A prohibition form G.V.9. lists mechanical defects noted, which must be serious for the vehicle to be prohibited. The standard of professional training of vehicle examiners should ensure that if prohibitions are considered to be serious by one examiner they could not be disregarded by another. No such case has been reported to the
560
Department. Even if it happened, a licensing authority, which seldom considers disciplinary action unless a number of prohibitions have been recorded against an operator, would be bound to take the circumstances into account. We think that a retrospective appeal would be very complicated to frame and probably its purpose would be best achieved by amending the Statute to ensure that a licensing authority was forbidden to take a prohibition into account if it was proved to be unjustified. Such a complex Amendment seems of doubtful value in view, as I say, of the unlikelihood, under present arrangements, that any injustice would be done.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank my noble friend for his reply. I am sure that he will permit me to give further consideration to what he has said. It may well be that I shall wish to refer to this matter again at a later stage.
On Question, Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
8.33 p.m.
Clause 21 [Exemption from requirements as to written records for vehicles fitted with recording equipment]:
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CHAMPION: On Second Reading I referred to the fact that the Transport and General Workers' Union is very disturbed about Clause 21, which makes provision for replacing the manual recording of the use of a heavy goods vehicle by the tachograph, which, I understand, is a device to record automatically the journeys of a heavy goods vehicle to which it is fitted. Having re-read Section 97 of the Transport Act 1968, which makes provision for the installation and operation of recording equipment, and Section 98, under which regulations may be made requiring drivers to keep written records, I wonder what is the need for this clause. It is the case that under the clause written records supplementing the record of the tachograph may be dispensed with by regulation. I see, however, that under Section 98 of the 1968 Act the traffic commissioners or the licensing authority may dispense with the requirement for keeping written records. Is this clause just to replace the traffic commissioners or licensing authority by some other body?

561
Did not Section 97 of the 1968 Act make adequate provision for the installation of the tachograph sort of equipment, and has there been any considerable opposition to the type of recording equipment visualised in that section of the 1968 Act? I should like also to ask to what extent negotiations have been conducted with the Transport and General Workers' Union about the tachograph equipment, with a view to its acceptance. It is always best, if possible, to secure that sort of acceptance, and certainly Governments should do so. I ask these questions in order to invite the Minister to say a little more about this matter than was said on Second Reading and to give the background generally. I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to do so.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has introduced this subject. I should like to emphasise to your Lordships that this clause is designed for the introduction of a voluntary scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, pointed out that under Section 97 of the 1968 Act there are already compulsory powers for its introduction. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the full compulsory powers under Sections 97 and 98 have not yet been introduced. Obviously, any Government would be unhappy at having to force people to do something which they were reluctant to do, until it had been shown to be reasonable.
To put the background straight, I would say that by January 1, 1980, all vehicles will have to be fitted with E.E.C. type tachographs. That is six years away. New vehicles coming on to the road by January 1, 1976, will, under our agreement with our partners on the Continent, have to have new E.E.C. tachographs. After January 1, 1978, all existing vehicles will also have to have E.E.C. tachographs fitted. The approved version of the E.E.C. tachograph is not yet on the market. There are two types on the market which are already in use in Great Britain. If any operator fits a tachograph now, or before 1976, he may get a dispensation from fitting the approved version, which is more expensive, until 1980. This will give operators who install the tachograph now available early experience of the
562
working of the instrument and will save them buying the more expensive type until 1980.
I have given the background picture and emphasised that this clause is to introduce a voluntary scheme and does nothing which could not be done by compulsion under Sections 97 and 98 of the 1978 Act. There are one or two problems which need to be emphasised. First, if an instrument is fitted now it will help to overcome the rush to get tachographs fitted during the period from 1976 to 1978, the year in which new vehicles and second-hand vehicles must have tachographs fitted. It will spread the load. And there is the concession until 1980. Second, in the individual control book a driver has, by law, to keep a fairly complicated daily sheet. It is not just a voluntary scheme; it is compulsory. If this voluntary tachograph scheme is entered into, the driver is exempted. He has a concession that items 4 to 7 in the control book will not have to be filled in. That operation does take time and it is quite a convenience to have this concession.
There will eventually be 300 stations for the installation, calibration and two-year testing of tachographs. We all have knowledge of the black box in aircraft; this is, if you like, a form of black box, but it is a form of black box which is helpful to both driver and operator. I do not think anyone is going to suggest that the drivers, or the unions, wish to protect a man who is pretending to be driving but who in fact is going to a cinema. If you want to argue that, then the tachograph will expose the fact that the lorry was not being driven—though if the man had a partner to drive it, I suppose that is another matter.
There are various benefits which amazed me when I went into this problem. The tachograph enables people to sec how well a driver is driving in certain conditions; it can prove that a driver continually accelerates and brakes. It may be surprising, but an expert, possibly not your Lordships or myself, accustomed to reading these instruments will be able to tell. If such a driver does exist, it is in his interests to be told by a friend in management, "Why don't you go out and take a drive with Bloggins whose tachograph and whose area is exactly the same

563
as yours, for his tachograph shows that he is not having the same driving troubles as you? "A man can be helped in this way. There is nothing penal in this. It is purely helpful because surely if we are doing something badly we want to be told so that we can correct our mistakes.
The operators of lorries are also able to see from a tachograph which routes various lorries use and whether or not a certain route, over a period, is shown to be a had route to use because it causes more braking and acceleration. These are small items but they add up to quite a large item. So long planning comes into this. That leads also obviously to reduced costs and greater efficiency. Where there is greater efficiency, productivity comes into it. So there is the possibility that drivers will eventually get a financial gain out of this.
There is also the point that the tachograph has already been used to corroborate a driver's statement in evidence in the case of an accident. Again, experts can tell from the tachograph whether or not there has been some form of bad driving. I have to emphasise again that this is a completely voluntary scheme, before the compulsory schemes come in 1976. I should like to say that the Department with which I have the honour to be associated has had, and is having, constructive talks with the unions and the operators. I think the original feeling that Big Brother is watching to try to hit you is now being allayed. If that feeling has ever existed, it should be knocked on the head and killed at once, for this has not been, and is not, the intention of the tachograph. I cannot state that too strongly. I am hopeful that the operators and the unions, together with the Department of the Environment, will be able to convince all the drivers and all the operators concerned that it is not a waste of money but a helpful and useful instrument which will in time come to be regarded as a perfectly normal piece of equipment, just as one now regards the handkerchief in one's pocket.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: May I ask the Minister in which countries of the E.E.C. this form of equipment is now mandatory?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I cannot do more than say what I know is going to be mandatory on ourselves. I do not know whether it is mandatory at present in any of the Nine, but by 1976, as I have said, all new vehicles in the E.E.C., if the provision is not already mandatory like ours, will have to have the complicated variety of tachographs fitted. By January, 1978, all existing goods vehicles will have to have them fitted. Then by 1980 existing tachographs will have to be replaced by the new. A little angel has just come to my rescue and informed me, in answer to the noble Baroness's question, that Germany—I assume West Germany—and France already have mandatory tachographs. Otherwise, what I have said will apply.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not want to follow my noble friend too far down the tachograph road. I certainly agree with him that this Clause 21 ties up quite tidily Sections 97 and 98 of the 1968 Act. I should like to draw his attention to two points. One is the leaflet prepared by the Department of the Environment and printed in October, 1973. I do not have a number, but it is called, The Tachograph. This has been widely distributed, but it is a three-fold little pamphlet which states, in a most extraordinary paragraph in the middle spread:
"It can help to establish the real cause of accidents and prove to be a very real assistance to a driver".
There is no sub-heading to that middle spread. There is no further explanation. The pamphlet appears to me, and to a great number of my friends and colleagues in the haulage industry, to be a most misleading document. Of course this so often happens when explanatory pamphlets are prepared and sent out. We do not read them properly, and some of the language used is not, perhaps, everyday language that is readily understandable by some drivers, and perhaps by some operators. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that the Department, in drafting explanatory leaflets of this kind in the future, might have consultations with the various organisations to which the leaflets are going in order that they, and their members also, may understand them better.

565
I want to move, if I may, to another point my noble friend mentioned. It concerns the international control book. Until 1978, the international control book will still be required whether or not the operator has installed, under the voluntary scheme, a tachograph. When the Government framed this particular clause I think they might have looked at the current regulations a little more carefully, because surely there are fairly considerable difficulties over the international control book, even now. The E.E.C. regulations require the book and adherence to the driving hours regulations, which of course are more stringent than our own. If, for example, the driver of an articulated vehicle leaves Birmingham with a trailer unit destined for a foreign country, he has embarked upon an international journey and the international control book therefore has to be completed. However, the driver takes his vehicle and load to Southampton or Dover or some international cross-Channel ferry port where he deposits the load. The trailer is taken aboard by a tugmaster, off-loaded the other side and transported by perhaps a French or Belgian vehicle, perhaps with a French or Belgian driver—certainly not with the original track unit or the original driver, who then returns unladen to his base.
Our regulations state that he may not start a second hook until the first book is finished, so here we have a driver with an entry in an international control book but no more international journeys to be undertaken. But he cannot start a second book to go from Birmingham to Edinburgh because that is against our regulations. What is he to do? Common sense says that if a man takes a unit from Birmingham to Southampton with a load destined for the Continent, it is not really an international journey, but the E.E.C. regulations say it is. Is the man therefore destined to drive up and down from Birmingham to Southampton with international consignments until the book is filled up, or what is he supposed to do? There is, of course, the allowance of one week in which he can do another journey, but one can foresee very great difficulties. If one is now going to impose a voluntary system of having a tachograph, which still requires both the international control book and our own regulation book recording entries, drivers and operators are going to be in some difficulties. I
566
suggest to my noble friend that before we pass too swiftly through Clause 21 we might have another look at the whole set-up of the E.E.C. regulations, particularly with regard to the tachograph section and the written records.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I would just point out to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth that we have not had this criticism of this little book which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is looking at at the moment. In fact we have had much praise from the industry and also, I would point out, from the unions concerned. They think it has been helpful. But that said, I would point out that my noble friend has been talking a little wide of what we are trying to do in Clause 21, which is merely to introduce a voluntary scheme for the tachograph. My noble friend has concentrated on the international control book, which we in this country are giving a limited exercise in saving the driver from some effort, because the tachograph will cover that.
The international control book is governed by various regulations made in pursuance of E.E.C. rules and they have really nothing to do with what we are considering at the moment. If there is any point in the regulations which my noble friend would like to bring to my notice, I can promise that I will bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend and he will consider it. It is not 100 per cent. relative to the actual tachograph. The tachograph exempts the driver from one or two everyday chores, but whether or not the everyday chores will be exempted if he goes abroad—this applies to the minority of our drivers—I do not know. But I will look at the point, and if there is anything in it I will undertake that we will do what we can to meet the noble Lord's point.
LORD CHAMPION: I am glad that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray of Stourton, for a further explanation of the clause before us, because we have had the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Clearly he is knowledgeable on this subject and touched on many points which certainly had not been drawn to my attention. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who has gone into this matter with his usual care and

567
efficiency. I am glad that "a little angel" came to his rescue at one point, but I must say that the way the matter was conveyed to the noble Lord did not seem to be by "a little angel" but by a big kindly gentleman, whom we know very well in this House, and we are grateful to him.
I just wonder whether the whole matter will be completely voluntary, so far as operators are concerned, and whether it will remain so until we get the E.E.C. regulations. I gather it will. I had not seen the explanatory pamphlet mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, so I hope some kind firm will send me one between now and Report, so that I may study it. I gather one is being passed across to me, though I cannot very well examine it now. This is not a question of conveyance by angel—it came to me by some other method. I gather that the opposition of the Transport and General Workers' Union is to some extent what the noble Lord said—"afraid of Big Brother"—but in this instance it would not be a case of Big Brother looking over one's shoulder but peeping out of a little black box (at least that is how I understand it). But I do not think I should go on with this subject any longer. I shall certainly consider what has been said by both the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and I may find it necessary to come back with some Amendment on Report. But that is for the future and not now.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Power of police or local authority to retain custody of removed vehicles until charges are paid.]
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend a question? Clause 22 has the words—
"a police force or a local authority … shall be entitled to retain custody of"—
a vehicle—
"until the sum has been paid."
The word "entitled" seems to me to imply that they would have a discretion to do what they liked with the car they had taken in—either to let it out or to keep it. Could my noble friend tell me what rules the police are going to carry
568
out in this particular difficulty? It is a difficulty, if it happened late at night. One does not know whether one can release a car, whether a cheque is good enough, whether a cheque is going to "bounce", whether somebody has a fixed address, and there are all sorts of other complications. I am just wondering whether it is envisaged that the police will be guided by fairly hard and fast rules. Can the Minister help me?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, I cannot help my noble friend. I do not know whether they are going to be allowed to take cheques, with or without a Barclaycard. I can tell her what the charees are. I can tell her that "shall be entitled to" means rather better than "may"; but what exactly the terms and conditions of payments are is something that I am afraid I do not know and I shall have to find out for her. If she would like me to do this I will gladly do so, either in correspondence or as a result of an Amendment which she may care to put down at the next stage.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Variation of penalties for certain offences]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 46, line 13, column 4, after ("£200") insert ("or 4 months imprisonment or both")
The noble Baroness said: With the permission of your Lordships, I should like, in moving Amendment No. 4, to speak to Amendments Nos. 54 to 59, because, as your Lordships appreciate, they all hang together. We shall now see the angelic qualities of the noble Viscount who will be speaking for the Government. I would say at the outset, in speaking to all these Amendments, on which I hope I shall have the support of several of my noble friends who are also magistrates, that no magistrate would refuse a proposal for removing a sentence of imprisonment for minor statutory offences, and in so far as this is the case, we support the Bill. But it was pointed out on Second Reading by several noble Lords that the Bill goes much further. It seeks to remove from magistrates' courts any power of passing custodial sentences in respect of road traffic

569
offences, with, I think, the possible exception of driving while disqualified. The Bill takes away the possibility of custodial sentences for a number of offences, such as making false statements, withholding information, making false statements to obtain exemptions in relation to parking offences, failing to stop after an accident or to give particulars of or report an accident, and tampering with motor vehicles.
The effect of the abolition of imprisonment will be a serious one, and it will suggest that the seriousness of these offences equates with far minor traffic offences, such as failing to produce a public service vehicle licence. We all know that the powers of imprisonment are not often used, because magistrates do not restrict an offender's liberty unless it is absolutely essential. But sometimes, in the case of young offenders, where there is a suggestion of mental instability or where serious delinquency is shown, it has been the case that imprisonment has been used. The number of cases is small. The figures show that in 1972 of 6.241 male offenders guilty of dangerous or reckless driving 36 were sentenced to imprisonment, and that of 43,836 guilty of driving while unfit through drink or drugs only 307 were sentenced to imprisonment. But the power of the deterrent is there, and I would say, as a lay magistrate who has been sitting at a particular court recently, that the power of deterrent in relation to another offence has been found to be very effective. Not only is the power of imprisonment removed by the Bill—and this is the point which I think concerns us particularly—but also the power of magistrates to order several other things. For instance, community service orders, committal for borstal training, detention centre training or employment centre training, remands for medical reports, treatment under hospital or guardianship orders—these will all go if we remove the rights of the magistrates' courts to impose custodial sentences.
Again, once the defendant is convicted it is not possible for the magistrates' court to ensure his presence by the issue of a warrant unless the court wishes to consider imprisonment or disqualification; and the substitution of a fine only means that no matter how heavy the intended fine, there is no power to
570
secure his presence. The removal of the power to impose custodial sentences for traffic offences will be considered, no matter what is said by the Government, as a lack of confidence in the way justices exercise their powers—although I notice that on Second Reading the Minister said that this was not intended to be a weakening of the law.
As we again mentioned on Second Reading, an important committee is sitting at the moment under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Justice James, and this will be considering many matters, one of which, as we understand it, is the distribution of business between Crown courts and magistrates' courts. This Bill therefore seems rather to pre-empt some of the considerations of the Committee, and indeed some of their possible findings. The object of these Amendments is really to preserve the present powers possessed by magistrates' courts in respect of more serious traffic offences. I ask the Government seriously to listen to the words of those who have found in practice how the law can be. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: The noble Baroness has spoken to all these Amendments, but there is an intervening one. Are we talking about the whole block of Amendments, including drinks and dangerous driving?—because the noble Baroness quoted some figures on Sections 5 and 6. I wonder whether the whole argument hangs together.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes.
9.7 p.m.
LORD JANNER: I hoped when the noble Viscount intervened that he was about to say that we need not bother debating these Amendments as he had come to the conclusion that they could be accepted without further debate. Apparently he does not intend to rise now to respond to the invitation that I extend to him. Your Lordships will appreciate that this is a serious matter so far as the administration of the law is concerned. I hope the Committee will realise from what my noble friend has said, and perhaps from what I am about to say, that we are dealing with the whole of the Amendments in a sense by pointing out the necessity for them. I am dealing with the Amendments generally and will not repeat any of this later on, unless I am provoked. I think it is perhaps useful that we should

571
first deal with the position in general, and deal with the particular matters later.
The more serious offences are those which involve danger to the public, such as the offence of using a motor vehicle without insurance, the serious offences of dishonesty, forgery, fraud or deceit, which happen to be statutory alternatives in the road traffic legislation to the similar offences which remain imprisonable by magistrates' courts under the Forgery Act, the Theft Act or in Common Law. These more serious offences which involve grave risk of danger to the public include reckless and dangerous driving, driving or attempting to drive whilst unfit through drink or drugs, driving with excess alcohol in the blood, and so on. In these cases the Amendments would retain the present maximum period of four months' imprisonment by magistrates' courts, but they would abolish the present higher maximum period of imprisonment for six months in respect of second offences of reckless and dangerous driving, driving or attempting to drive whilst unfit through drink or drugs or with excess alcohol in the blood. The proposals in the Bill for higher fines remain untouched; and also untouched are the proposals in the Bill to abolish the existing powers of imprisonment by magistrates' courts for less serious offences, including careless and inconsiderate driving, failure to give name, and so on, in cases of dangerous and careless driving and cycling, or of an owner failing to give insurance information and defrauding a parking meter.
The effect of the Amendments is not only to retain, as my noble friend has pointed out, magistrates' powers to impose imprisonment for the more serious offences, but also to retain the defendant's right to elect for trial by jury in such cases. May I point out, following the remarks made by my noble friend concerning the Committee of Inquiry which has been set up under Lord Justice James, that the question of trial by jury is very material? This Bill is attempting to deprive an individual of the opportunity of electing for trial by jury. If the proposals in the Bill are not amended in this way they will necessarily prejudge the very issues for which Her Majesty's Government have set up the Committee under Lord Justice James which is to consider the division of
572
criminal business between the magistrates' court and the Crown Court.
What I feel about these proposals is that they represent a slur, in a sense, on the power of discrimination of magistrates as to whether a sentence of imprisonment should be imposed. If a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, there is the possibility of appeal against a sentence in any case, so that if anyone felt he had been unjustly treated by the decision of the court he could appeal against sentence and ask for it to be reduced. Sometimes, of course, it might be increased, but that is something for the magistrates to decide. These are some of the points on which the whole of these Amendments are based.
The magistrates themselves and the justices' clerks both feel that the Amendments are necessary in order to enable magistrates' courts to carry out their duties properly. Various points were raised by my noble friend, which I do not want to repeat, in relation to restrictions to be placed on them in regard to detention sentences, and so on. That is a material point. Also, as the noble Baroness said, there is the necessity of bringing persons to the court so that inquiry may be made into their means. This is a very important matter, because without the presence of the individual in the court it is impossible for magistrates to decide what kind of fine should be imposed for the offence committed. In my view, these are basic reasons why the noble Viscount should regard these Amendments as being reasonable. I think at one stage he or his officers said they thought there was reason in some of the proposals which had been made, and that they would be considered. The inference was that they themselves would introduce Amendments which would meet the various cases put to them. I hope that that is in the mind of the noble Viscount and that he will find himself able to accept at least some of the Amendments at this stage.
9.14 p.m.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: I cannot agree with the noble Baroness or with the noble Lord, Lord Janner. I, too, have asked a great many of my magistrate colleagues what they feel about the Amendments that have been put down. I would have wished that the

573
noble Baroness had moved Amendments Nos. 54 to 70 inclusive because they seem to me to be rather different from Amendments Nos. 71, 72 and 73 which relate to the 1972 Act, while the others refer to an earlier Act.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I thought I said Amendments Nos. 54 to 59; I have two other Amendments which deal with totally different matters.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: I thought that, in answer to my noble friend the Minister, the noble Baroness said she had moved all Amendments en bloc. But I understand that is not correct and we are now discussing only Amendments Nos. 54 to 58.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I suggested that the noble Baroness might be speaking to all of them. If the Committee wish to reserve three Amendments until the end, naturally I would not in any way suggest they should not do so. The noble Baroness referred to alcohol in the blood, and that kind of thing, which comes in the second block of Amendments. I thought we might take those at the same time. There is nothing whatever to prevent the noble Baroness, my noble friend or anybody else, going back to Amendments Nos. 71, 72 and 73, later.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: I think I am correct in saying we are discussing Amendments Nos. 54 to 70, excluding No. 69. I have discussed these Amendments. I thought we might take colleagues, including a very senior member of the Magistrates' Association. They are not trivial offences, and I do not mean to imply that they are, but they are not offences which, on the whole, are connected with the driving of vehicles upon the road. One would have thought the Road Traffic Bill would have been more connected with actual driving on the road. I honestly feel that sending anybody to prison for instructing somebody unregistered is really going beyond anything that any magistrate would want to do. I do not feel it is necessary to give magistrates that power. There are other offences, such as tampering with a vehicle and not stopping after accidents. That is a prevalent offence, certainly in the court in which I sit, but I should never dream of sending anybody to
574
prison, nor would I want ever to suspend anybody from driving for such offences.
One important purpose in Amendments Nos. 71, 72 and 73 is that one should be able to retain the possibility of sending somebody to prison and thereby suspend them from driving. If the Government allowed us to send people to prison for any of these offences I do not think any of these laws would be implemented. If they were not to be implemented, I do not see why they should be in the Bill.
LORD SOMERS: Since the noble Baroness has brought up the question of suspension from driving I should like to inform the Committee that it is the opinion of the Institute of Advanced Motorists that suspension of driving is a poor penalty indeed since a driver, after having been suspended for a given period, will come back on to the roads an even worse driver than he was before. It would be far better to make him take the test again, or perhaps even pass an advanced test.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: I meant a suspended prison sentence, not suspending the person from driving.
LORD SOMERS: I am sorry; I misunderstood the noble Baroness.
LORD FOOT: It is incumbent upon anybody who intervenes at this late hour not to try to repeat what has been said before and to confine oneself, if possible, to one single point. I want so to confine myself, but it is a point of considerable substance about which we have in recent months been hearing from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
In raising this matter perhaps I may say that I am very pleased to see the noble and learned Lord sitting on the Government Front Bench. One of the questions raised by the provisions of Schedule 5 is that of circumstances in which a person should have the right to elect for trial, to which the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has already referred. That arises in this way: under the present law if an accused person is liable on summary trial to imprisonment for a period exceeding three months then, with one or two limited exceptions, he has an absolute right to elect to be tried by jury. One of the results of removing the powers of imprisonment from magistrates in these

575
so-called road traffic offences is that where previously the magistrates had a power to send somebody to prison for a period exceeding three months, and where that is now being withdrawn, the person accused of that offence will no longer have the right to elect to be tried by jury.
Going on from there, some of the offences which we are now here considering—and I am assuming that we are considering the whole range of these ultimate penalties—are offences of dishonesty of one kind or another. I think it would be true to say that if we were to take the law generally and to take a wide view of it, we should find that in the past and over a very long period of time it has been the view of the Legislature, that where a person is accused of an offence of dishonesty he should have the right of trial by jury. I say that that is a general principle which you can read into the law because you will find it provided that in those cases where a person can be summarily tried for an offence of dishonesty, generally it will be found that the magistrates have a power of punishment in excess of three months.
The first Amendment with which we are dealing here concerns an offence of that kind because this is an offence of dishonesty—making a false statement. Until now the magistrates have had the power to fine or to impose a sentence of imprisonment for four months, or both. If it is true that up to now most offences of dishonesty have been considered to be of such importance that the accused ought to have the right of trial by jury, and if that is a general principle which we have worked upon in the past, then I suggest, first, that if that general principle is now going to be breached—and that is what I suggest is being done here—we are taking a number of offences of dishonesty and we are saying that if this Bill, and in particular this Schedule, goes through, for the future they shall not have the right of trial by jury. If we are going to breach that principle I suggest that it ought to be done openly, that it ought to be made clear what we are doing, and it ought not to be tacked on to the end of a comparatively trifling Road Traffic Bill.
I suggest that this is an important principle. It is one about which the noble
576
and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been speaking recently. I am wondering whether, in the case of some people who in the past have had the right to trial by jury, we ought to deprive them of that right and allow the matter to be dealt with by the magistrates. But if this is going to be done, surely it is wrong that it should be done by being tacked on to the end of a Bill of this kind.
It seems to me there is great force in the argument that in so far as that principle is being breached in this Schedule, that is pre-empting the considerations and deliberations of the James Committee. I say that for this reason. I have the Consultative Note which the James Committee issued, from which it seems clear that the Committee think that what is involved here, and what is being done here, is a matter which comes within their deliberations and considerations. The terms of reference of the James Committee were the distribution of business in the criminal courts between the Crown Court and magistrates' courts. The Note which they have issued attempts to set out the main issues involved. It explains the present position; it explains that there were certain offences which could only be dealt with on indictment in the Crown Court, and that at the other end there were offences which could only be dealt with summarily; in between, there are a number of what they call "intermediate" offences which may be dealt with in one court or the other.
Having revealed the present situation, the Committee pose the question that, given that it is inevitable that intermediate offences should be retained in some form, who should determine the mode of trial of such offences? That is the first question the Committee asked themselves. What is happening here with regard to these offences of dishonesty, where the penalty of imprisonment is being taken away from the magistrates, is that the Bill is seeking to answer the question which the James Committee say is one of the first matters they had to consider.
I listened the other day with attention and great interest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he was replying in Committee to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, on the Land Registry Bill. I remember how he told us that he rather reproved and reproached the

577
noble and learned Lord for not being consistent with his own principles. He said that what the noble and learned Lord was asking him to do under a certain Amendment was to tack on to an uncontentious Bill something which really had nothing whatever to do with that particular Bill and was highly controversial. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thought that was not the right way to go about the matter and he said, moreover, that this is a matter which is now before the Law Commission and it would be inadvisable for us to pre-empt or prejudge what advice we are going to get from the Law Commission. He went on to say, finally, that this was a matter also where we wished to have consultations with the two legal bodies mainly concerned, the Bar Council and the Law Society.
Have we not got exactly the same situation here? We have this matter referred to the James Committee in place of the Law Commission. We have both the associations which are mainly concerned in this matter wholly opposed to what the Government are proposing to do, that is to say the Magistrates' Association and the Magistrates' Clerks Society. Both have declared their opposition to what the Government are proposing to do. Is it right that this essential principle should be breached in this Bill as a sort of tail end to a Bill which is primarily concerned with something quite different, that is, road traffic offences and road safety? I hope that between now and the next stage the Government will seriously consider whether it is right or appropriate to introduce into a Bill of this kind this major change in the principles of the law.
9.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There are, I suppose, those who are still here in Committee at half past nine who might say that this is a matter that has been tacked on the end of a long Bill. But the fact is that there has been no secret about the inclusion of these provisions in the Road Traffic Bill, and I can only commiserate with all those who, like myself, have to deal with Clause 24 and Schedule 5, instead of having it dealt with as Clause 6 and Schedule 1, for example. The noble Lord really cannot get away with the allegation that this has been tacked on to something to
578
which it is not appropriate. I will not have it. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that there has been considerable discussion about this matter in a number of quarters, and this is no afterthought. This is an important matter, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Janner, himself said, and I agree with him. So let us not try to deal with it in that way but rather look at the merits of the various points made by those who have spoken.
I seem to remember since I have been making speeches here representing the Home Office point of view that there are quite a number of Members of this House who are not in favour of sending people to prison unless it is absolutely necessary to do so in order to protect society from them and from their activities. That is certainly the attitude towards imprisonment which is most earnestly held by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I was extremely glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, endorsing that view at the very beginning of her speech. I am bound to say, although it may not be immensely complimentary to the Prison Service, that I am not sure what good a three or four month sentence for a driving offence does to anyone. We may do our best for them, but I cannot believe that it is something which is very rehabilitative or really anything that must be imposed; indeed, this does seem to be the view of the magistrates on the whole, because they do not usually use it. So let us start off with the assumption that if we can get rid of imprisonment for offences for which it is not necessary, we should take every opportunity to do so.
This brings me straight up against the argument about the James Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, makes a huge issue of principle about this. What does he wish us to do? Does he wish us to stick to our principles and try to get rid of imprisonment in cases where we think it proper to do so, or would he wish us to wait for ever and a day until the James Committee have reported, and some huge Criminal Justice Bill is introduced? We had one last year so that we might have to wait years and years before we had the opportunity. Would not the noble Lord, upon reflection, and others who have considered this matter at length and at large, agree that it is worth while

579
bringing before Parliament, when we have a suitable opportunity, the proposition that we should take away the power of imprisonment if it is not necessary, and if we can satisfy other criticisms which have been raised—and I shall attempt to do this—about the consequences of changing the law in that way? I really must put the onus on noble Lords who would suggest that prison is still the right penalty to retain, at any rate for the majority of these offences. If we have to be selective, I pray that it will not be to-night but on a subsequent occasion. Let us go through the whole list, and I should like to know why noble Lords wish to retain prison for a whole lot of these offences.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, produced an argument about the dishonesty offence, and it follows from the Amendment he put down earlier. It is, if I may say so, the most classic example of the circular argument I have ever heard. The noble Lord says that there is a general principle that for dishonesty offences you provide for the election to go for trial by jury. He derives that principle from the fact that, for the most part, the maximum penalty that magistrates may impose is over three months; in other words, four months. That automatically allows you to elect to go for trial by jury, and I think the reason why you are given the opportunity to go for trial by jury is because you are liable to go to prison for four months, or indeed liable to go to prison at all. Once the suggestion that a man may go to prison is removed, the complete edifice of Lord Foot's argument falls apart. There is no principle; there is no necessity to go for trial by jury; there is no prison, and the complete argument collapses around the noble Lord's ears. This matter must be seriously considered by those who have already picked up the point that the removal of the power of the magistrates to send people to prison for these offences indeed removes the possibility that a person may elect to go for trial by jury. Why does he want to go for trial by jury if he is not in danger of going to prison? What is the tremendous attraction of the jury trial if the maximum that he can be sentenced to is a fine and, it is true, disqualification?
LORD FOOT: The attraction of the matter is that if a person is convicted of
580
an offence of dishonesty, as opposed to a traffic offence like dangerous or careless driving, it can damage his whole career. That is the difference between the conviction for an offence of dishonesty and a conviction for an ordinary traffic offence. It can be absolutely injurious to a person's reputation. He may be denied the opportunity of following his employment if he has been convicted of an offence of dishonesty. That is the difference, and that is why we want to retain the right of a person to go for trial by a jury in all cases where a man's reputation, and therefore his livelihood, may be at stake.
LORD JANNER: Would the noble Viscount forgive me if I also intervene for a moment? He has overlooked one point that I did my best to bring forward at Second Reading. It is not only a question of imprisonment; it is a question of a man who wants to have his case tried by a jury. It is a question of a person who values his reputation, even though only a small fine were imposed. Many people go to courts feeling very disturbed at the fact that they are brought to the court at all, even though it may be a very small matter so far as fines or anything else is concerned; and if they want to go before a jury, surely they should have the right to a jury trial. That is what it amounts to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: As to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that appears to be the view of the Liberals. So be it; it is on record that the Liberal Benches think that you ought to retain imprisonment in the magistrates' court for these offences, which it is perfectly true could be said to be alternatives to dishonesty offences under the general law of dishonesty but which in fact are offences under the Road Traffic Act. The noble Lord takes that view. I respect his view, and I respect the Liberal Party in thinking that that is the right way to deal with it, but I do not agree with them.
As for the noble Lord, Lord Janner, I say again, more in sorrow than in anger, that I cannot reconcile what the noble Lord has said with what used to go on around my ears when I attended quarter sessions in Devon. I know why people went for trial by jury. I have heard it discussed in the robing room, in

581
the corridors, and all over the building. I know why they went for trial by jury, and it was not the reason that the noble Lord gave. I think that any magistrate or practitioner in the courts, if he searched his heart, and has carried through even a modicum of the cases that I did, knows perfectly well why people want to be tried by a jury.
I wonder whether my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve will forgive me. Although she did not want to talk about the final group of Amendments, it might be convenient—I know that I could come back to this—if I developed my argument on the matter as I went along.
As an example of what I suppose must be the most serious cases, and certainly the ones where people most frequently elect to go for trial by jury, let us see what has been happening. Let us take, first, that famous business about driving when you have too much alcohol or drugs in your blood, or under the old offence—and this is something which I know will fascinate the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, because he is very interested in this. We did a survey—a sample survey, it is true—and we found that of all the cases which went on election to the Crown Court for trial, 96 per cent. were at the option of the defendant. So it was in less than 4 per cent of the cases that the prosecution thought the case was worthy of presentation on indictment before the Crown Court. I wonder why that is. I know, of course, why that is. It is because it is a very strange and, I am afraid, a known fact, that one can persuade juries of things about which, on occasion, one cannot persuade magistrates. Why is it that, of the reckless or dangerous driving cases that went to the Crown Court in which there was a choice whether to be tried by the magistrates' court or in the Crown Court, no less than 100 per cent. in my sample was at the election of the defendant? I suggest it is for the very same reason.
Let us see what the effect was on the Crown Court business. I will take the second case of reckless or dangerous driving. These cases were 1 per cent. of the total and took up 1·4 per cent. of the whole length of time taken in the Crown Courts for that period of time. Now let us look at the drink and driving
582
cases. These made up 5·5 per cent. of the cases and took up 6·1 per cent. of the time. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was making the point on Second Reading that to deal with this matter under the old offence—after all, you could always argue that you could walk along the white line perfectly well—if you go under what used to be the 1967 Act, is a purely technical matter: either you had that percentage of alcohol in your blood or you did not. You can make up every defence under the sun—people have, and cases have on occasion been brought up to your Lordships' House on several extremely ingenious propositions—but the fact of the matter is that the essence of this case is: have you or have you not got 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood? That is all there is to it.
LORD HACKING: Not quite.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: Very nearly. It ought to be all there is to it. Why did 96 per cent. of the people who had the election go to the Crown Court for trial by jury on that sort of thing? I think it stands to reason—and this is what we really want to be arguing about. I would suggest that we have here a very much better package. Let me now go through some of the positive sides, because I fully recognise that we must be careful about taking away powers which are really useful, and we must certainly be very careful indeed about any imputation that the magistrates are not doing their job or that they are being hampered in the proper exercise of their judicial functions. There cannot be any question that this group of Amendments underestimates the seriousness of these offences. That is why we have so remarkably increased the penalties in the Bill. We have put up the fines tremendously, and this is a mark of the seriousness that we consider attaches to these offences. I should have thought that the type of case which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, mentioned, where the traffic offence was merely, as it were, a symptom of a very disturbed young man—and I recognise these cases because I see them not infrequently myself—would be an obvious one for the prosecution to take on indictment to the senior court, where in any event we should want to have opinions from doctors and the other material that

583
is necessary. I should have thought that was a natural case; and noble Lords will recognise that all these cases can still be taken on indictment to the Crown Court if they are serious enough.
As to its being a deterrent, I do not know about that. Deterrents are always terribly difficult to argue about, but if the noble Baroness thinks this really is a deterrent I must genuinely accept her view about it. But it is something that will remain a deterrent, in that when somebody drives like Jehu down the middle of the road he is not going to know whether he will be taken up on indictment to the Crown Court, from where he may still be imprisoned, or whether he will be fortunate enough to appear before the noble Baroness who can only fine him. I should have thought that there was some element of deterrent left in so far as one still has the indictment proceedings.
I recognise some technical difficulties. I am aware that if these powers are taken away there will be no further power to use community service orders, detention centres and attendance centres; and indeed, if the case is dealt with on indictment there may be difficulties about hospital orders and that sort of thing. There is also the technical problem about bringing a person before a court for a means inquiry on a fine. It can be done in the end under the fine enforcement procedure, but I appreciate that there are difficulties. Those are matters, not custodial methods of treatment, which I think we should be perfectly prepared to reconsider, if the magistrates would like to have those instead of the power to send someone to prison. There are difficulties, but I am not certain that they are insuperable. I should like to look at this matter again and that is why I am glad of this specific discussion. If the noble Baroness mentions this, as she did, I am delighted, and I should like seriously to consider it.
Certainly that kind of approach, and particularly after what I have said, cannot be taken as showing any lack of confidence in the way magistrates use their powers. It is really nothing of the kind. We are giving them these extra powers and reflecting on the fact that
584
they, like us, will find that imprisonment is seldom necessary in these cases. Finally, to clinch this, and to cope with the point made by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borne about suspended sentences (and I appreciate that a court cannot impose a suspended sentence unless it can impose real imprisonment straight off) let us look at the figures. Let us take first dangerous driving. This is the latest set of figures for 1972, of magistrates' court appearances on these charges. There were 8,439 findings of guilt for dangerous and reckless driving. Immediate imprisonment occurred in 113 cases and suspended sentences in 131. Let us take the drink and drugs, the old, now rather superannuated, offence which has been largely replaced by what was in the Road Safety Act. We had 1,520 findings of guilt; 40 immediate imprisonments and 31 suspended sentences. In the more common offences of driving with excess blood alcohol, there were 42,074 findings of guilt; 311 immediate imprisonments; 388 suspended sentences. And in cases of failure to provide a specimen (which is really an alternative if it is not possible to get the man or woman technically on the blood alcohol count), there were 1,933 findings of guilt; 48 straight imprisonments; 49 suspended sentences.
Bear in mind those percentages. They are very small. None of them is more than 5 per cent., and in some cases the figure is smaller than 5 per cent. What would happen if the vast preponderance of those cases went on indictment to the Crown Court? I do not believe that this would amount to anything like the burden on the Crown Court now imposed by those who elect to go for trial. On the other hand, we should still have the worst cases being dealt with by a court which could impose not only direct but also suspended sentences. I suggest that figures like that for the last year indicate that the magistrates, although they have been using imprisonment to some extent, have been doing so very sparingly, probably for the reason that they did not think this was an apposite penalty for this sort of offence. Therefore they will find that they are remarkably little hampered in that element by having the power taken away. I take the point about the other things and I will study

585
those again. But the actual power of imprisonment seems to me something that is not being used very frequently. That is the general argument. I know that the Amendments are in themselves selective and do not cover all the matters we have dealt with, and I am grateful for that. But if we want to go back and look at it offence by offence by statistics, perhaps we could do it on another day. Perhaps it has been an advantage to hear the arguments that the noble Lords and noble Baronesses have put forward about their general approach to this matter. I should like to think about those arguments. Perhaps they would also do me the courtesy of thinking about the arguments that I have put forward, and the figures—because I believe that we are not so very far apart. What may have seemed initially a very difficult matter of principle is one that we shall be able to resolve in the end. I am grateful for the way the noble Baroness has handled this subject: it has been very expeditious. Certainly the discussion has been useful to me.
9.51 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to thank the Minister for his very thoughtful reply. I am of course in some dilemma, in that it is not only my name on these Amendments. So I shall obviously have to consult with my noble friends. The noble Viscount is quite correct, of course, in his comments on the attitude of the average magistrate toward imprisonment. If I were to engage him in a debate on the whole philosophy of imprisonment, I would say that I have certainly been very puzzled why with certain people, such as a prostitute, imprisonment was almost inevitable, whereas when a man does something quite disastrous with a car one has a much longer and much more protracted discussion about this. In other words, what I am really saying is that the whole philosophy of crime and punishment is one that I would like to debate with the noble Viscount on another occasion; but not to-night.
I know that it sounds easy and straightforward to say, "Put up the fine". But I think perhaps in the later stage of the Bill it will be interesting to know the extent of the unpaid fines. To me it is useless to impose heavy fines if we do not
586
enforce what should happen to people when they do not pay their fines. But my main concern—and the noble Viscount has indulged me in answering this—is that I do not see imprisonment as a deterrent. I am a great believer in deterrents (I know that this is not a fashionable view nowadays), but I think it has value. I believe that one of the most effective ways of dealing with road accidents was the kind of frightening poster of the black widow. Frighten, fear or deter are words which nowadays we do not like to use. Possibly my Catholic upbringing makes me believe that there is a great virtue in these things. I think the fear of imprisonment has shown that it can be brought into play. I quoted earlier the case of the shoplifter, where people went on for months trying to avoid fines which were not paid—in some cases by foreigners who were leaving the next day. In fact, they were nearly always leaving the next day, so far as I can see. They were merely collecting a few gifts they could take back. But the moment the deterrent was brought into play—not by lay magistrates—it had an effect. So I think there is a virtue in deterrents. Particularly my own interest is in the non-custodial powers. All magistrates know that so often there are things they want to do which they cannot do unless they are dealing with a certain sort of case and have certain powers.
I would only say to the noble Lady, Lady Macleod of Borve, that I am amazed that she did not think that failure to stop and report an accident was a serious offence. I was recently, outside my own front door, practically run down by a car which disappeared into the night. I was extraordinarily lucky that I escaped not only real injury but death. The police said that either the driver was drunk or he had stolen the car. In my experience, the person who does report an accident is the reasonable person who has nothing to fear. Surely it is the type of hit-and-run driver whom we are thinking about. I am sorry she does not think that serious.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: I am sorry. I was not aware that I actually said that. I felt that that, out of all the cases, was the most serious. That was my view.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: But the noble Lady did not think that it merited imprisonment as a possible punishment. However at this point I do not wish to prolong the debate. I cannot speak for all the other noble Lords who have spoken to the Amendment; they have dealt with other points. I would say particularly that I am interested and very heartened that the noble Viscount is going to look at the question of non-custodial powers. I am very happy to leave it there. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Janner would like to speak.
LORD JANNER: The noble Viscount has already indicated that he is prepared to consider the question with some of the points on detention centres and so on.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I said attendance centres or day training centres.
LORD JANNER: Perhaps at the same time the noble Viscount would consider the others as well, because they are of importance so far as magisterial work is concerned. Perhaps he would also consider, before we come together again, that the very argument he is using, that imprisonment was so very rarely used by the magistrates, is something which should encourage him to allow the magistrates to continue in the manner that they have been in the past. They do not exercise these rights in any way other than in the best interests of justice, and they have practised what the noble Viscount has referred to; that is, they have not sent people to prison except in exceptional cases. I think that speaks very favourably for the magistrates themselves, and perhaps covers the other points that
588
they are complaining about in the event of the present provisions of the Bill being carried into effect. Perhaps he would consider the matter in that light and come to the conclusion that because they exercise that particular discrimination, and so very rarely send a person to prison, there is no need to worry about this. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 25, 26 and 27 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Enactments Repealed]:
9.59 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 65, line 21, column 3, at end insert:
("In Schedule 4, the amendment of section 130 of the Road Traffic Act 1960.")
The noble Lord said: This further repeal, overlooked during the drafting of the Bill, is consequential upon paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 which provides that Section 130 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 shall cease to have effect. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 80. This rectifies a misprint.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 57, column 3, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

  BUILDING DEMOLITIONS AND RECORDS
  BUILDING DEMOLITIONS AND RECORDS