Sitting of 3 December 1974

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

PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    TORQUAY MARKET BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Industrial Disputes
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria he uses in deciding to intervene personally in industrial disputes.
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy in regard to the rôle that should be played by his Department, as distinct from the CAS, in the settling of industrial disputes.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which was established with the full support and co-operation of the CBI and TUC, now has the responsibility of providing assistance by way of conciliation or by other means to help avoid and resolve industrial disputes.
    Mr. Ashley: My Question was really about the personal intervention of the Minister or the Secretary of State. However, is my hon. Friend aware that the value of the interventions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is far too great to be dissipated by intervening in every piffling dispute, as recommended by Conservatives who do not understand industrial relations? Will my hon. Friend
    1326
    nevertheless consider intervening at a very early stage in all wage applications which go beyond the social contract?
    Mr. Booth: I recognise that some circumstances could arise in which the intervention of my right hon. Friend might be required, or might be appropriate, but I believe that since the establishment of the CAS, this service is capable of dealing with all normal conciliation and arbitration functions. I would expect, therefore, that the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend would have to intervene would be very rare indeed.
    Mr. Rifkind: Will the Minister seek to reconcile the spirited call to the Bakers' Union to settle under the guidelines of the social contract, made only yesterday by the Secretary of State for Employment, with the deafening silence of the Government on the much more serious road haulage dispute in Scotland and on the miners' ballot on the productivity proposals? Do the Government not appreciate that the authority of a Government can be of importance in explaining the social contract which they profess to support, and of much more importance than simply making speeches on this subject to the Labour Party conference and the TUC?
    Mr. Booth: My right hon. Friend has certainly not confined himself to making speeches to the Labour Party conference on the issue of the social contract and has, on more than one occasion, expressed a view on a pay settlement. However, it is not appropriate that he or any other Minister should seek to judge on every settlement that is made. While a dispute is running there are times when it could be positively harmful for Ministers to intervene, when the CAS is seeking an end to the dispute.
    Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend give more details of the rô1e that his Department or the CAS has taken with regard to the Scottish bus drivers' strike, or what rôle either intends to take?
    Mr. Booth: The CAS seeks to meet both sides in this dispute, as in other disputes. Where the dispute is unofficial, as in the case to which my hon. Friend refers, it meets the official union to seek its views on what rôle can be played in bringing about a settlement.
    Mr. Brittan: What guidance does the Secretary of State give to the CAS when a dispute is referred to it? What procedure exists to ensure that he is kept in touch with the progress of the efforts of the CAS during a dispute? Above all, what steps would he take if it appeared that the intervention of the CAS was leading to a resolution of the dispute which conflicted with the terms of the social contract?
    Mr. Booth: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is the subject of another Question on the Order Paper. In the case of a dispute in which the CAS is involved, there is the normal report obtained for officials in the Department. That is made available to my right hon. Friend. If a dispute is likely to be resolved in a way which would bring about a breach of the social contract, that is always regarded as a matter between the two negotiating parties and not one for which any CAS conciliation officer is responsible.

    Collective Agreements
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has formulated so far to refer collective agreements to the Industrial Arbitration Board in 1975 under the terms of the Equal Pay Act 1970.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): I am writing to both sides of a number of negotiating bodies which still have discriminatory collective agreements, asking about their plans for implementation of the provisions of the Equal Pay Act. My right hon. Friend will consider possible references in the light of the replies received.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: How many negotiating bodies are involved, and what action would my hon. Friend propose to take if the replies from those bodies were unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Fraser: I am writing to 52 negotiating bodies, on both sides. If the replies are not satisfactory—that is, if no signs of achieving equal pay by the end of 1975 are shown—my right hon. Friend will consider referring them to the Central Arbitration Committee of the CAS when it is set up on a statutory
    1328
    basis, with a view to getting the advice of that body about the agreements.

    Social Contract
    Mr. Stanleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether it is his policy that those who are not parties to the social contract should regard themselves bound by its provisions.
    Mr. Booth: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his broadcast to the nation on 14th October, our problems can be solved only by a partnership between the Government and all the people of this country, and there can be no opting out by individual groups from the responsibilities which face all of us.
    Mr. Stanley: Will the Minister confirm that he has obliquely suggested that the social contract is binding on everybody? If that is the case, will he tell the House what is the constitutional justification for basing a general policy of wage restraint upon a document which has been published by a single interest outside Parliament, which has never been submitted to Parliament, has never been approved by Parliament, and upon which Ministers are reluctant to comment in any detail in Parliament?
    Mr. Booth: As we have made clear, the social contract is not an agreement solely between politicians and trade unions. It was a concept, and had a programme of implications, spelt out clearly in the manifestoes with which we fought two General Elections this year, and upon which we were returned on both occasions—on the second occasion by a majority.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Surely the Minister will agree that he has not answered my hon. Friend's question. His colleagues at the Labour Party conference have made it absolutely clear that the social contract is the central point of the Government's economic policy. Therefore, it is not good enough that something which is the central point of the Government's economic policy should be negotiated between the Government and only one section of the community. By what possible right does the Minister expect the rest of the country to provide the kind of backing needed for this contract if he will not negotiate with them on a par with his own trade union movement?
    Mr. Booth: The hon. Gentleman refers to only one aspect of the social contract. The social contract has many aspects which require Government administration and legislation, as well as those which rely on voluntary policies. Those matters which require legislation are submitted to the House and those which require voluntary action are discussed with the appropriate bodies outside the House.
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next hopes to meet groups in industry who are concerned with the social contract.
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to meet those groups who are parties to the social contract; and, if so, when.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I am regularly in touch with people in industry who are concerned with one aspect or another of the social contract.
    Mr. Sillars: When my right hon. Friend meets these people again will he confirm that the concept of the social contract is not just about wages, but that part of the social contract is the Labour Government's commitment to change the nature and character of this society? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet review their contribution to the social contract and perhaps speed up some of the policies, such as those dealing with the wealth tax and the National Enterprise Board?
    Mr. Foot: I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the social contract covers a much wider aspect than questions of wage negotiations. It covers all the matters to which my hon. Friend referred and many others besides. We are this afternoon proceeding with a Bill which is directly designed to assist the social contract. I agree with my hon. Friend that the sooner the other measures are brought forward the better.
    Mr. Morrison: Does not the Secretary of State agree that it would be useful for him to meet those involved in the bakery industry who are part of the social contract and who are, presumably, useful people? Does he also agree that unless
    1330
    he does this there will be further difficulties over bread?
    Mr. Foot: As I told the House yesterday, the Conciliation and Arbitration Service that we have set up is in touch with the parties, and in that situation I do not think that it would be sensible for me to intervene directly. That also applies to some of the other questions raised. What I want to secure is the earliest possible settlement of the dispute, and the way in which the Conciliation and Arbitration Service is going about it offers the best hope for that.
    Mr. Skinner: If, as reported, the hospital consultants get a £2,000-a-year increase—to be announced shortly— would it also be in accordance with the social contract for the bakers to get £40 a week?
    Mr. Foot: As my hon. Friend, quite contrary to his normal custom, has based his question on an hypothesis, it is difficult for me to answer it, but he must not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Secretary of State say whether there has ever been a breach of the social contract in any settlement so far, and on what occasion anyone has been reproved for a breach of the social contract, which is becoming very wide, rather like the Holy Roman Empire, and like a sublime piece of mysticism and nonsense?
    Mr. Foot: I do not know whether it is profitable to pursue the matter by going into a discussion on the matter of resemblances with the Holy Roman Empire and the other suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman might make. I thought that he was rather in favour of the Holy Roman Empire, and that he thought that it was still in existence. Perhaps he intended the comparison to be highly flattering. There have been occasions when flagrant breaches of the social contract have occurred. I have drawn attention to them, and that is desirable in certain circumstances.
    Mr. Prior: Will the Secretary of State remind his hon. Friend who asked the question that those parts of the social contract to which he alluded are not a social contract but a Socialist contract,

    1331
    and that that needs to be made abundantly plain? The part of the social contract which is now of vital interest to the nation as a whole is that part which relates to some restriction of wage increases, so that the country can beat inflation. It is on that side that we shall give the right hon. Gentleman every support, and on that side that he seems to be singularly ineffective.
    Mr. Foot: I know that there is only a particular part of the social contract, as represented by hon. Members on the Opposition side, that they support. That is why they were so incapable of dealing with national problems. National problems are much wider than questions of wage negotiations, important though those wage negotiations are. I see that the right hon. Gentleman has been writing to The Times to try to discover the facts of the matter. He would do much better to put Questions in the House. He will then get the answers.

    Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Conciliation and Arbitration Service intervened during the dispute at the Scottish factories of Rolls-Royce 1971.
    Mr. Nigel Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department took to prevent the industrial action which preceded the recent wage increase at Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
    Mr. Foot: It is not customary to reveal all the contacts made by me or my Department with the parties concerned during an industrial dispute. The assistance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service was not sought in this case and the service did not judge that its intervention would be helpful.
    Mr. Rost: Does the Secretary of State think that it was fair or honest of him to hurl abuse at the management of Rolls-Royce over the breach of the social contract to which it was not a party, yet not offer a word of rebuke to those who, by a militant strike, forced the management to breach the social contract?
    Mr. Foot: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman was misinformed about any comments that I made on the matter. Perhaps that was due to the fact that
    1332
    he took at face value the headlines that appeared—for example those in The Guardian. I did not hurl any abuse at the head of the Chairman of Rolls-Royce on the matter. What happened was that when the settlement was made and when questions were put to my Department that afternoon about whether we considered it to be within the social contract, my Department, with my authority, issued a statement saying that it believed that it was not in accordance with the social contract, and my Department was quite right in saying so. That was authorised by me. That was a criticism of the settlement altogether and not of one part of it. But it was sensationalised, particularly in The Guardian, and then Sir Kenneth Keith rushed in with some extremely ill-advised comments, in my view, and misrepresented the situation as it had occurred over the previous days. I noted that the hon. Gentleman proposed to put down a Private Notice Question on the Monday, so we could have dealt with the matter. I am sorry to say that he did not go forward with that proposal.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while most of us regret some of the aspects of the settlement in Scotland, the strictures of the Opposition would be taken more seriously if there were occasionally a word of acknowledgment from them on the responsible negotiations that are going on in Rolls-Royce (1971) as a whole, particularly at Derby, where the work force are negotiating not only in the spirit of the social contract but with an eye to the investment in the firm of their own skills and their life's work?
    Mr. Foot: I fully understand—and I fully understood during the negotiations that took place over Rolls-Royce—the difficulties which faced the management. These were very great difficulties, which the management had to contend with in deciding what course to adopt. It is also a fact that in Scotland, however, the proposals for a settlement were outside the social contract, particularly on the question of the 12-months' rule, and therefore when a settlement was made we thought it right to make the comment we did, particularly in view of the discussions we had had previously. I do not think that the Chairman of Rolls-Royce had any right to complain about what was said by my Department. What the

    1333
    newspapers may have said is something different.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the affair of Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. and the pay award which went outside the social contract is the sort of case which might be appropriate for the special alternative methods for dealing with rogue employers mentioned by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection yesterday? Will the right hon. Gentleman further indicate what sort of measures the Government have in mind?
    Mr. Foot: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to this matter yesterday, and I thought that she underlined afresh how tentative was any proposal for dealing with the matter in this way. I think that has been made clear now in our statement. We have also made clear that we would not consider introducing such a proposal in any form without consultations with the TUC and the CBI, and that stands. I believe this is a very important factor in the situation.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: In view of the recent agreement reached in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend give an opinion on whether the pay of Rolls-Royce employees in my constituency at East Kilbride and Blantyre is now on a par with their equivalents in England?
    Mr. Foot: I should certainly be careful before I made that comparison, without making all the other comparisons, because it could be misleading. I know that it is often said that in Scotland pay lags behind pay in England, but there are notable cases when the reverse is the case. I believe, therefore, that it would be much wiser for me, in response to my hon. Friend's invitation, to discuss this in a more general way. I shall be quite happy for the Department to publish, if my hon. Friend wished, some comparisons between wage rates in Scotland and England. I do not believe that that would bear out altogether his suggestion of Scotland's lagging behind.

    Work Satisfaction
    Dr. M. S. Millerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what action is being taken to improve work satisfaction and the quality of working life.
    Mr. John Fraser: A tripartite steering group on job satisfaction consisting of representatives of Government, the TUC and CBI was set up in 1973 and this group now meets under my chairmanship. It has initiated a job satisfaction research programme on job design and work organisation.
    A work research unit is being set up within the Department of Employment following a recommendation of the steering group and my right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement soon about its work.
    Dr. Miller: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, but does he accept that the introduction of automated processes in factories is soul destroying and, apart from other problems associated with factory work, has a terribly demoralising effect on ordinary normal intelligent human beings? Will he therefore speed up the work of the committee, and may we have some action upon it?
    Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement soon. A great deal more thought has to be given to work satisfaction before automated processes are introduced. We shall treat the matter as being serious and urgent.
    Mr. Craigen: Does my hon. Friend accept that this is not a matter simply of looking at job satisfaction in factories but of considering the whole wider aspect of job satisfaction?
    Mr. Fraser: The steering group is looking at work satisfaction as it affects not only factory work but clerical work and other occupations, because they can be just as boring as an automated job.

    Equal Pay Act 1970
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the response to the new promotional campaign for the Equal Pay Act.
    Mr. Bryan Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement about publicity for the Equal Pay Act 1970 to ensure its implementation by 29th December 1975.
    Mr. Foot: We started a publicity campaign on equal pay in the Press on 11th November to make those employer who have not made progress aware of the

    1335
    need to do so. We want all employers to realise that if they employ both men and women the Equal Pay Act may well affect them. Subsequently the campaign will tell employees of their rights. It is too soon to assess the full response to the first phase of the campaign but the initial inquiry rate has been encouraging.
    Mr. Rooker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the 8 million working women in this country are looking to him and his Department to see that the Equal Pay Act becomes reality next year? May I urge him not to be put off by the screaming ninnies of the CBI who, by the look of today's Press, are trying to castrate his proposals for maternity leave in the Employment Protection Bill before they are even introduced in the House?
    Mr. Foot: I fully agree with my hon. Friend about the seriousness of his question. I naturally read the excellent article in Tribune which he contributed on the subject, as I hope the rest of the House has done. While we would contest some of the figures in that article we do not think that an earnings report is necessarily the best way to make calculations. We agree with many of the points he stressed and we are certainly determined to do everything we can to make both employers and workers aware of the responsibilities and possibilities of the Equal Pay Act. We are determined to carry through the publicity campaign and we are even more determined to ensure that by the end of next year everyone is aware of the law as it will then stand, and that that law shall be obeyed.
    Mrs. Hayman: There are many other discriminations against working women, quite apart from the inequalities of pay. One of those is the provision at the moment whereby a pregnant employee can be dismissed and is not liable to protection under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Employment Protection Bill will strengthen what the discussion document has said both on maternity leave and on the specific point about making dismissal on grounds of pregnancy unfair?
    Mr. Foot: I hope that we shall have a full discussion on these questions when the Employment Protection Bill comes before us. The proposals which we have
    1336
    so far included in that Bill are only a beginning. We do not claim that they are anything more than that. When we discuss the Bill my hon. Friend and others will be able to see what we propose and to consider whether improvements can be made and what arguments they would like to put in reply to those which were advanced to me by the CBI last night.
    Mr. Tugendhat: When is the right hon. Gentleman to introduce the Bill? Ever since the Government took office he has been telling us, in Committee on the trade union Bill and in the House and elsewhere, that he will produce the Bill and that it will do all these marvellous things. We read in the Press only today that some provisions may be delayed for years and others for months, yet it never comes before us. When will the right hon. Gentleman introduce the Bill?
    Mr. Foot: The hon. Member should not be so impatient. I am glad that he is anxious to see us progress with measures from my Department. Already one good Bill from my Department is coming before the House this afternoon. I hope that the House will have the other Bill before Christmas. That is what we would like, but it may be that it will not come until after Christmas. We shall hasten ahead with it as fast as we can. It will be a big Bill, because it comprises a huge number of measures which have been piling up for years and on which action should have been taken long ago.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Bill on equal opportunities will be before the House in a very few weeks? Unless it is, it cannot get through the House before the end of the Session. If it does not do so, the Equal Pay Act will be that much less effective.
    Mr. Foot: I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and so do the Government. This is one of the occasions when we agree with him. We want to see the Bill on the statute book this Session. That is the full determination of the Government.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On the road to anti-discrimination, does the right hon. Gentleman think that a wife has the right to know her husband's income? At present she cannot necessarily find out

    1337
    from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department. This is a serious question. Will the Minister take it seriously, and agree that as a husband can know his wife's income, the wife should know her husband's?
    Mr. Foot: A moment ago I was answering a question on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Lady is now asking me to answer a question on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It appears that the House wishes me to take over the whole Government, but I fear that there is no prospect of that immediately.

    Redundancy
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is proposing to take to prevent employees being made redundant at very short notice.
    Mr. Booth: The Government intend to introduce the Employment Protection Bill early in the new year, if not earlier. This will require employers to consult the trade unions concerned before redundancies are announced and to notify my Department well before they take effect.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Employers need to be made aware of the Bill, because in my constituency we have had one or two cases of instant redundancy, which are most worrying to the trade unions and many others of us.
    Mr. Booth: We cannot make employers aware of the contents of the Bill before we make the information known to the House, but it may help my hon. Friend if I tell him that we envisage that any employer who lays off 10 or more workers in any one establishment, to be dismissed within a period of 30 days, will be required to give 60 days' notice, and any employer proposing to lay off 100 or more workers in any one establishment to be dismissed within a period of 90 days, will be required to give 90 days' notice. Whether or not that is enacted will be a matter for the House. We seek to impress on employers the importance of giving good advance notice and entering into negotiations with trade unions on the matter of redundancies.
    Mr. Cormack: Is it true that the Bill is in draft form? If so, how much discussion has there been so far with employers' organisations?
    Mr. Booth: Some parts of the Bill are in draft form, but there are other parts on which the discussion of the consultative document is not completed. We have asked employers and others interested in the Bill to make their submissions. Most of this has been done, and discussions continue on certain parts which are controversial.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Is the current level of unemployment in the United Kingdom—28 per cent., or 653,000—acceptable or unacceptable? If it is unacceptable, does my hon. Friend think that the trade union movement would be justified in advising its members to adopt a no-redundancy policy?
    Mr. Booth: The present level of unemployment is not acceptable. I hope that the employment situation will never be acceptable to a Labour Government until all those who are genuinely seeking work can obtain proper and appropriate employment. What we are seeking to do in the Bill is to enable trade unions, in protecting the interests of their members, to have a right to the information and to receive notification which will enable them to decide whether they should adopt a no-redundancy policy or negotiate for other terms in the event of some of their members being laid off.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Has the Minister any evidence that some employers are holding back on making people redundant because of the cash shortage and their failure to have the resources to make redundancy payments? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the Government have no plans for dealing with continued major breaches of the social contract on the wages front the redundancies we see now will be minimal compared with the massive redundancies that may follow runaway wage inflation?
    Mr. Booth: We have no evidence in the Department that employers are deferring decisions to make people redundant on the grounds which the hon. Gentleman has stated. We agree that if there were to be a failure of

    1339
    the social contract it would have implications of massive redundancy as well as many other great disadvantages for the country.

    Health and Safety Commission
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if a decision has been taken on the siting of the office of the Health and Safety Commission.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has asked the commission to study thoroughly the question of the ultimate location of its headquarters and to advise him as soon as it is able to do so.
    Mr. Duffy: Is my hon. Friend aware that only the siting of the commission in the city of Sheffield, for which the city is peculiarly well suited, will remove from local authorities elsewhere in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region a sense of total neglect at the hands not only of Hardman but of those who have subsequently taken decisions on the dispersal of Government jobs?
    Mr. Walker: I well understand my hon. Friend's views about the need to disperse Government work to Yorkshire and Humberside. With regard to the location of the commission, I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate the need to consult the commission, which was only recently established. The attractions of the city of Sheffield will not be overlooked when we make the decision.

    Courtaulds, Preston (Fire)
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish the recent report issued by the Factory Inspectorate under the Factories Act 1961 made by it following the fire at Courtaulds Red Scar Mill, Preston.
    Mr. Harold Walker: There was a fire at Red Scar Mill, Preston, in July 1973, but no report on this occurrence has been prepared recently.
    During the summer of 1974 a priority inspection of the plant was carried out by the Factory Inspectorate. Subsequently, follow-up action including discussions with management and with trade union representatives was taken. A confirmatory
    1340
    letter has been sent to the occupier as a routine part of the inspectorate's procedures but, in accordance with normal practice, it is not intended to publish this letter.
    Mr. Thorne: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is considerable disquiet in the plant about the use of CS2 and H2S gases? Tests from time to time have tended to indicate that all is not as well as it might be. Is my hon. Friend aware of local concern about the fumes emanating from the factory? As the management is aware of the report, should not those employed in the plant also be aware of it?
    Mr. Walker: I am aware of the concern that has been expressed about carbon disulphide and hydrogen sulphide fumes at the plant, and their emission. The letter that has gone to the occupier refers to that matter, amongst a number of other things. It is a comprehensive letter, covering many points. I mentioned that the inspectorate has had discussions not only with the management but with the trade unions and their representatives at the plant. The Health and Safety at Work Act provides for a more ready flow of information to work people, and that will become operative in the new year.
    Several Hon. Members——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I cannot call more hon. Members for supplementary questions. We have dealt with only 14 Questions in nearly 35 minutes.

    Vacancies
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the total flow of all vacancies is now estimated to be reported to his Department; and upon what basis this estimate is made.
    Mr. John Fraser: It is estimated that about 25 per cent. of the total flow of vacancies are notified to the Employment Service Agency or to the careers offices of local education authorities. The calculation is very approximate and is made by relating the number of vacancies notified in each financial year to the number of changes of employment collected by the Inland Revenue.
    Mr. Howell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the unemployment and vacancy figures as at present published are totally misleading?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not agree that they are totally misleading. The registered unemployed figure is the most reliable that can be obtained as an indication of unemployment. We have never pretended that the notified vacancies figure describes the total demand for labour. That has always been made clear.

    Conciliation and Arbitration Service
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish the guidelines issued to officials of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
    Mr. Booth: My right hon. Friend wrote to the Chairman of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service on its inception setting out the Government's concept of the rôle of the service until such time as it is established on a statutory basis. The Employment Protection Bill will contain proposals to establish the statutory basis of the service.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister now answer the question which he dodged when it was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan)? Are the officials acting with the approval of the Secretary of State when they arrange for employers such as the Scottish hauliers to reach settlements that the Secretary of State now denounces as in breach of the social contract?
    Mr. Booth: I did not dodge the question that was put by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). There was a similar Question on the Order Paper, which I am answering now. My right hon. Friend does not give instructions to the CAS on individual disputes. The only guidance that he has given to the CAS on its rôle was that which he stated in the letter which he sent to the chairman on the establishment of the service, concerning which a Press notice was issued on 10th September. In the view of Ministers of the Department of Employment it is important that the CAS should be seen to be acting independently. It would be totally inappropriate for my right hon.
    1342
    Friend to issue instructions to the CAS on how it should handle individual disputes.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is of paramount importance that the CAS has independence and that it is seen to have it, particularly in view of the disastrous consequences for arbitration when the previous Conservative Government had responsibility for running these matters?
    Mr. Booth: I believe that confidence in the Conciliation and Arbitration Service would be ruined if it were seen that a Minister was instructing it on how it should tackle its job. The fact that the service is operating so sucessfully is in no small measure due to its being able to act independently.
    Mr. Brittan: Does the Minister agree that it is vital that settlements reached as a result of the actions of the CAS do not conflict with the Government's fundamental economic policy, namely, the social contract? If he agrees with that, what steps is he taking to ensure that there is no such conflict?
    Mr. Booth: Settlements which are reached with the aid of CAS are not solely the responsibility of the CAS. If there is no disposition on the part of the parties to settle, neither the CAS nor any other organisation will be able to bring about a settlement. Such actions as are appropriate for the Government to take to secure compliance with the social contract are matters which should be done openly and not through secret instructions through the CAS.

    Female School Leavers (Scotland)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make available training facilities for unemployed girl school leavers in Scotland.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I am advised by the Manpower Services Commission that the main responsibility for the training of school leavers rests with industry and the education services. The demand for training among girl school leavers in Scotland does not suggest that there is a need for additional training facilities at the present time. The Training Services Agency already provides short industrial courses for young people and has

    1343
    introduced experimental courses for those who need help to develop their capacity and potential.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that hundreds of young girls who will leave school in North Lanarkshire at Christmas will have little prospect of employment, and that there are no training facilities for them? Coatbridge has one of the finest training establishments in the country and it is considerably under-occupied. Does my hon. Friend think that some training should be given to these school leavers, rather than have them idling their young lives away?
    Mr. Walker: The position in North Lanarkshire is substantially better than it was at the start of the year. In January, 305 girls registered as unemployed. That figure has now been reduced to 182. There are training facilities available. There are, for example, the wider opportunities courses that have been mounted in certain areas, including Scotland, with the aim of helping young people. Unfortunately, we have not received any applications from girls for such courses. My hon. Friend will also bear in mind that the primary responsibility for seeking employment for school leavers rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    Footwear Industry
    Mr. Fryasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of short-time working in the footwear industry.
    Mr. John Fraser: The number of operatives working on short-time during the week ending 14th September 1974 was 14,400, or 20·5 per cent. of all operatives. That does not include administrative, technical and clerical staff. I do not have any later information on numbers but recent reports have come in from a few regions of lower activity in some consumer-oriented sectors, including footwear.
    Mr. Fry: In view of those figures does the Minister realise the great problems being presented to the British footwear industry, especially by increasing imports from Eastern Europe? Will he and his colleagues take urgent steps to show that they do not regard the footwear industry as expendable, and that
    1344
    they are more concerned about employment in this country than in Poland and Czechoslovakia?
    Mr. Fraser: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about his constituents' employment. The import of foreign footwear is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

  ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY
  Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Wales on collection of information relating to economic and industrial policy.
  Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Wales on the collection of information relating to economic and industrial policy.
  Sir A. Meyerasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Wales as regards the preparation of information for the EEC on industrial and regional matters in Wales.
  Mr. Wigleyasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the coordination between the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Wales on the collection of information relating to economic and industrial policy.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I have been asked to reply.
  Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the misgivings in Wales about the failure of the Secretary of State for Industry to take advantage of a £60,000 grant from the EEC to help an inquiry into industrial and economic problems in Wales? Is he aware of the deep anxiety felt in Wales about the fate of three great steelworks at Shotton, Ebbw Vale and East Moors, Cardiff, and the

  1345
  resentment that is felt owing to the fact that the Welsh Council's report has not been published? Further, is he aware of the impact of EEC policy on these matters and allied matters in Wales, and will he ensure for Wales a voice in Brussels to protect our national interests?
  Mr. Short: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was a travesty of the facts. There are four studies financed jointly by the EEC and the Government costing £213,000, and another three studies are under consideration costing £120,000. In one case only, that of the study put forward by Professor George, did my right hon. Friend feel—I believe quite rightly—that the people who are to benefit from the research should be involved in formulating and executing it. For that reason he invited the Welsh TUC and the Research Department of Ruskin College to combine on this project. I believe that this was a very sensible thing to do. This is one project out of the many research projects now going on in Wales.
  Mr. Kinnock: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the misgivings of which the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) speaks are confined almost entirely to himself and his Plaid Cymru colleagues and a couple of gremlins in Brussels who are doing their best on all occasions and in every respect to undermine support for the Government's policy of putting the issue of the Common Market to the people? Is it not significant that the hon. Gentleman has completely forgotten the £20,000 that the Secretary of State for Industry is giving to the Welsh TUC for just this kind of study?
  Mr. Short: My hon. Friend is right. I have given the figures relating to the number and the costing of the research projects being financed jointly by the EEC and by the Government. We are talking about one project out of a great many.
  Sir A. Meyer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that suspicion is hardening in Wales that the Secretary of State for Industry is at all times prepared to subordinate the interests of Wales to his own personal prejudice in the matter of the Common Market? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Industry to be
  1346
  notified by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government to pursue renegotiation with a view to succeeding, and that they will not take "No" for an answer?
  Mr. Short: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have been listening to what I said. All these projects are being financed jointly by the EEC and this country. We as a net contributor hope very much that when this project reaches fruition it will be financed in a similar way.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to be informed that it is the policy of the Government to renegotiate with a view to success. Of course that is the policy of the Government. After we complete the renegotiation process in the spring, the people of Britain will decide whether we stay in or come out of the EEC, and the Government will abide by the result.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is general satisfaction in Wales at the co-ordination between the Department of Industry and the Welsh Office in the setting up of the Welsh development agency to carry out in Wales the work of the National Enterprise Board? Does he agree that this will do much more than the study referred to by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans)?
  May I remind my right hon. Friend that the nationalists were rejected by 90 per cent. of the electorate of Wales, and that it will appear very strange to the people of Wales that whereas London is too far away for the administration of Wales, according to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, he is nevertheless prepared to go to Brussels?
  Mr. Short: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Bill to create the Welsh development agency will be introduced this Session. It will have a constitutional relationship with the Welsh assembly when it is established.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the Lord President give a categoric assurance that the Secretary of State for Industry consulted the Secretary of State for Wales before taking the decision on Professor

  1347
  George's study? Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to imply, as I thought he did earlier, that TUC members are the only beneficiaries and the only people interested in the outcome of the study?
  Mr. Short: I did not say that. I said that the people who work in Wales are those who would be affected by the results of this research, and all of us who have had a great deal to do with research know quite well that a great deal of it is irrelevant and that much of it is never implemented. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry rightly felt that for research to be relevant and for it to have any chance of being implemented the people who are going to benefit should have some share in planning and carrying it out. It was for that reason that he decided to approach the Welsh TUC. My right hon. Friend consults his colleagues on all these matters, and his Department consulted both the EEC and Professor George in this case.

  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  Mr. Steenasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Wavertree.
  Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Steen: As the Prime Minister's constituency borders on mine, he will know that a motorway, a railway, a flyover and now four railway tunnels are to be built in one residential area. The Prime Minister will be concerned——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
  Mr. Steen: Is the Prime Minister concerned that the people in the area who wish to leave it will be unable to get sufficient compensation to move to comparable homes in other areas? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to come over the border, meet residents and assure them that people really will come first in this matter?
  Mr. Short: People always come first in Labour Party and Labour Government
  1348
  policy. A Select Committee of the House has already examined these proposals and allowed the Bill to continue. Objections can be lodged by presenting a petition against the Bill in the other place, and petitions will be considered by a Select Committee, which will have the benefit of expert advice. But I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the local points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I may say that no Member of this House visits his constituency more frequently than my right hon. Friend visits his.
  Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend urge the Prime Minister, on one of his frequent visits to Merseyside, to visit the constituency of Wavertree, because the people there very much need the help of a Labour Prime Minister and of a Labour Member of Parliament? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Prime Minister takes a guide with him because, during the last General Election, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) was wandering around West Derby trying to get votes for Wavertree?
  Mr. Short: The people of Wavertree and of all the other constituencies in Britain already have the services of a Labour Prime Minister.
  Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Melton Mowbray.
  Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to visit Leicestershire.
  Mr. Latham: Will not the right hon. Gentleman induce the Prime Minister to make such a visit in order to explain to my outraged self-employed constituents why he wants to impose a heavy addition on them next year for no added insurance benefits?
  Mr. Short: There was a full day's debate on this matter last week. Self-employed persons are getting a very good bargain out of the new legislation.
  Mr. Dykes: Bearing in mind the intrinsic fascination and interest of what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to the previous Question, and that Melton Mowbray is en route to Huyton, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many

  1349
  times the Prime Minister visited Huyton in the last 12 months?
  Mr. Short: No, I cannot. As my right hon. Friend visits his constituency on constituency matters, it would not be a proper question for this House.

  SOCIAL CONTRACT
  Mr. Rostasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC to discuss the social contract.
  Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 5 th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).—[Vol. 880, c. 115.]
  Mr. Rost: When does the social contract start—before or after inflation reaches 30 per cent. and unemployment tops the million mark?
  Mr. Short: The social contract started the day the present Government were elected, and if the Conservative Party really wants to get the country out of its difficulties, it will support it.
  Mr. Pardoe: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the principal terms of the social contract is the maintenance of living standards over the next 12 months? Does he any longer believe that it is possible for the British economy to provide the maintenance of living standards? Should not the Government be rationing the reduced living standards to get them to go round?
  Mr. Short: I believe that we can maintain living standards if everyone in the country—including the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), the Liberal Party and the other Opposition parties—supports us in our efforts.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: You did not support us.
  Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the Opposition side of the House there is great anxiety to support any constructive policy which would deal with inflation, that we very much regret that the social contract is not working, and that we await with anxiety the day when we shall be told
  1350
  what the Government intend to do about inflation?
  Mr. Short: I understand those anxieties. There is anxiety on the Government side of the House and throughout the nation about the state of the country. All I am saying is that we are entitled to look to the support of the Opposition in this situation.
  Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Bonn.
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Bonn.
  Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so. He had talks with Herr Schmidt at Chequers last weekend.
  Mr. Gardiner: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the generally friendly message conveyed by the West German Chancellor in his speech on Saturday in London will be welcomed by many people well outside the ranks of the Labour Party, to which it was addressed? Will the right hon. Gentleman reciprocate this friendly gesture by making clear to the German Chancellor that, when the current round of negotiation is complete, Her Majesty's Government will make a clear recommendation to the country one way or the other and will not simply sit on the fence?
  Mr. Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said in his opening remark. I never thought that I would live to see the day when I would say that. We shall have to wait to see what the renegotiations produce. The essential point is that when the process is completed the people of Britain will vote on the question whether we come out or stay in the Common Market.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Prime Minister is still of the view that we are negotiating with a view to staying in the EEC rather than seeking excuses to get out?
  Mr. Short: Certainly that is the policy of this party. Provided we can get the right terms it will be a good thing for

  1351
  Britain to stay in the Market—but only if we get the right terms. We have not got them at the moment. We are a long way from having them.
  Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people on the Conservative side of the House will welcome what he has said and will support the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner)? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the terms of the Question, consider asking the Prime Minister to pay a visit to Bonn one year from now, so that if the right right hon. Gentleman is still Prime Minister he will be able to celebrate this visit by visiting a fellow member of the EEC?
  Mr. Short: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be paying many visits to Bonn in future during his long tenure as Prime Minister.
  Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the German Chancellor's friendship would be more practical if the German Government were to make a contribution towards the £400 million which it costs the British Government annually for the British Army of the Rhine, particularly since £300 million worth of that is in German marks?
  Mr. Short: We are to have a defence statement today.

DEFENCE REVIEW
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): This statement will be somewhat longer than is normal at this hour, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for this, but I am sure that the House will acknowledge the importance of the issue.
On 21st March I announced the start of the most extensive and thorough review of our system of defence ever undertaken by a British Government in peace time. The proposals which I shall now outline are the result of a careful study of all the relevant considerations—defence, political, industrial and financial. They are designed for the circumstances which we must expect over the next 10 years. They take account, on the one hand, of our economic situation and, on the other, of the threat to our national security, the overriding importance of NATO, our
1352
position as a leading European Power and our responsibilities overseas. They will provide for a modern and effective defence structure and will make a significant contribution to establishing our economic health and thus to strengh-ening the alliance.
The Government have decided that they should reduce defence expenditure as a proportion of gross national product from its present level of 5½ per cent. to 4½ per cent. over the next 10 years. The long-range estimates of defence expenditure as they stood in March 1974 would have amounted to 6 per cent. of gross national product in 1978–79 and 5½ per cent. in 1983–84. By comparison with those plans, our decision will save £300 million in 1975–76, about £500 million a year by 1978-79 and some £750 million a year by 1983-84—or a total over the whole period up to that date of about £4,700 million. This is fully consistent with our repeated pledges to reduce the cost of defence as a proportion of our national resources.
In addition to deciding the general scale of the programme needed to meet our future defence requirements and the level of resources we can devote to defence, the Government have reached provisional conclusions about the force levels involved and the implications for our commitments, for the Armed Forces and for industry. We are today beginning our consultations with our allies in NATO. These consultations will be thorough and genuine. They are likely to last into the new year. We are also consulting our Commonwealth partners concerned and the other Governments in other parts of the world who will or might be affected. We shall also now consult both sides of industry.
First I will describe the general principles that we have followed in conducting the review. NATO is the linchpin of British security and will remain the first charge on the resources available for defence. We therefore propose to concentrate as a first priority upon those areas in which we believe that we can most effectively contribute to the security of the alliance and of the United Kingdom. These consist of our contributions of land and air forces in the central region of Europe, of sea and air forces to the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas, and in the defence of the United Kingdom and

1353
its immediate approaches. We shall also maintain the effectiveness of our Polaris force.
We shall, however, be discussing with our NATO allies all aspects of our contribution, including particularly our force declarations to NATO in the Mediterranean and the specialist reinforcement forces that we committed to the alliance in 1968. In the NATO area we propose to maintain our land and air contribution to the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force, but to reduce our other NATO declarations of specialised reinforcement forces to an airportable brigade group and a Royal Marine Commando group, with the necessary accompanying sea and air elements. These latter declarations would be available for the central region or the northern flank of NATO, with the Commando group specially trained and equipped for arctic warfare.
The priority we are giving to our NATO contribution necessarily requires a contraction in our commitments outside the alliance. We have reviewed these commitments case by case, bearing particularly in mind the decisions taken by the Labour Government in 1968 about the reduction of the British presence east of Suez. We have concluded that substantial reductions in our forces and defence facilities can be made. But we shall not act precipitately, and we shall discuss our proposals in detail with our allies and partners in the Commonwealth and elsewhere before taking final decisions, recognising that the timing and method of the changes we propose may be of particular importance.
Subject to these provisos, I wish to tell the House what we have in mind. We shall, of course, maintain our obligations towards our remaining dependent territories. We intend to keep our forces in Hong Kong, although we propose to make some reductions in them and to seek from the Hong Kong Government a larger percentage of their cost when the present cost-sharing agreement runs out in 1976.
In accordance with the military facilities agreement concluded in 1972 with the Government of Malta, we shall remain there until 1979. In Cyprus we propose to make some early reductions, particularly in our air forces stationed
1354
there. We propose to withdraw our forces stationed under the Five-Power defence arrangements in South-East Asia with the exception of a small group which we will continue to contribute to the integrated air defence system. The consultative provisions of the Five-Power defence arrangements would, however, remain in force, and it would certainly be our intention to maintain close links with the armed forces and defence authorities of our partners. We would, of course, maintain our membership of CENTO and SEATO but without declaring specific forces to either.
We propose to withdraw from Brunei the Gurkha battalion at present stationed there. We would withdraw our forces from Gan and Mauritius. We do not think it would be right in present circumstances to make any changes in the arrangements we have with the Sultan of Oman. We intend to enter into negotiations with the South African Government with a view to terminating the Simonstown Agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]
Given the effects of these decisions in the Indian Ocean area and the Soviet naval presence there, we have decided to agree to proposals from the United States Government for a relatively modest expansion of the facilities on the island of Diego Garcia which they enjoy, jointly with us, under an existing agreement with Her Majesty's Government. Their use of the facilities other than for routine purposes would, however, be a matter for joint decision of the two Governments. We and the United States Government have also agreed to pursue consultations with the aim of developing realistic progress towards arms limitation in the Indian Ocean.
In working out the implications of these principles in terms of force levels and their effects on the three Services, priority has been given to maintaining as far as possible the level and quality of our front-line forces. We shall equip them in a manner commensurate with their roles and responsibilities, and restructure and reduce the support area to match the new size and shape of the front line. The effects of our proposals on the forward plans of the three Services as they stood in March 1974 would be broadly as follows.

1355
The Royal Navy's planned numbers of frigates, destroyers and mine counter-measures vessels would be reduced by about one-seventh, of conventional submarines by one-quarter, and of afloat support by one-third. Planned new ship construction would be reduced accordingly, including the abandonment of plans to replace our amphibious ships with new purpose-built vessels, and ship refitting would be concentrated on the Royal Dockyards, all of which will be retained. The nuclear-powered submarine and the cruiser programmes would be continued. We would reduce the numbers of the Royal Marines by one-seventh, disbanding one Commando in due course.
The Army's re-equipment plans would be substantially modified to reduce the growth of their cost. Measures would include the cancellation of the Vixen wheeled reconnaissance vehicle, withdrawal from the collaborative RS80 project for long-range rocket artillery, and reductions in the planned purchases of light helicopters and reconnaissance vehicles.
The Government attach great importance to the negotiations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries on the mutual reduction of forces and armaments in Central Europe. We are committed to seeking an outcome which, while preserving undiminished security for all the countries concerned, would help to create a more stable relationship in the area at a lower level of forces. We hope that the negotiations will be successful in achieving this objective. We do not propose, however, in advance of mutual and balanced force reductions, to reduce the forces which we maintain in Germany in accordance with our Brussels Treaty obligations. In adjusting the size and shape of the Army to meet the framework of priorities I have described and the demands of economy, the Government will make every effort to avoid a significant impact on the regimental system, with its historic loyalties and traditions. The Brigade of Gurkhas will be retained, mainly serving in Hong Kong. We shall maintain the size and roles of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve.
In the case of the Royal Air Force, we intend to preserve, and in some instances improve, the combat air forces committed
1356
to NATO on the Continent and in the United Kingdom, and to continue with the MRCA collaborative programme, though we may have to make a reduction in the planned rate of deliveries over the period. However, in accordance with the revised tasks envisaged there would be some reduction in maritime patrol aircraft, and the RAF transport force would be progressively reduced by one-half and the planned helicopter force by one-quarter. There would also be some reduction in the RAF Regiment, and some 12 RAF stations in the United Kingdom would be closed.
We shall reduce planned expenditure on research and development by some 10 per cent. and continue vigorously to support the efforts being made within the alliance to increase standardisation in equipment and eliminate duplication in research and development.
Our proposals would involve reducing manpower by about 35,000 Service men compared with the strength in April this year, and by about 30,000 directly employed civilians, about half of whom would be civilians locally entered abroad. In the interests of efficiency, and equally of the well-being and morale of the forces themselves, the changes we propose will be carefully planned and introduced progressively over the next few years. Reductions will be achieved by normal wastage as far as possible, but some redundancies, both Service and civilian, will be unavoidable if the Services and the headquarters and outstations of the Ministry of Defence are to be adapted to the new range of commitments, and if the balance of ranks and ages necessary for a satisfactory career structure is to be preserved. Those who have to be made redundant will be offered fair terms, and time in which to plan their future employment. We shall be examining ways in which the Government can help with resettlement into civilian life.
The reductions in the planned defence programme are likely to reduce employment in the defence industries by only some 10,000, or 4 per cent., over the period up to 1978-79, but there will be problems in certain areas and for certain firms. But the changes in our equipment programme will be made as smoothly as possible and with the maximum notice to enable industry to adjust its plans. I am confident that these problems are

1357
manageable, and I am in close touch with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Industry on these aspects of the review. The views of both sides of industry will, of course, be taken fully into consideration.
Our decisions will, I repeat, save £300 million in 1975–76, about £500 million a year by 1978–79 and some £750 million a year by 1983–84. In conclusion I wish to emphasise one point. No such process of adaptation by the Armed Forces, or any other organisation, to a modified range of commitments and capabilities with a lower level of resources can be made without difficulty. But after we have completed the process of consultations on this thorough and wide-ranging review, and taken our final decisions, I am confident that Britain will continue to play her full part in preserving the strategy and cohesion of the NATO Alliance, and in meeting effectively her remaining commitments outside NATO. The Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force will remain highly effective forces, equipped to the highest standards as required by their front-line NATO tasks, and the Services and the Ministry of Defence, despite the changes we shall be making, will continue to offer a wide range of fine career opportunities in the years ahead.
Early next year, when our consultations with out allies and with industry have been concluded, I shall publish for parliamentary consideration a White Paper setting out our decisions in detail and saying how they are to be put into effect. But before this we wish not only to consult our allies and partners but to learn the views of right hon. and hon. Members upon these matters, and the Government will be ready to arrange through the usual channels for an early debate.
Mr. Peter Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has made a long statement which, as I am sure he agrees, affects the three armed Services and has considerable overseas implications. I hope, therefore, that he will realise the importance attached by the Opposition to having an early two-day debate on the statement.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition feel that when the Warsaw Pact countries have 50 per cent.
1358
more men under arms than has NATO, three times as many tanks and twice as many aircraft, and are spending an increasing amount on research, added to which we have considerable internal security problems, this is no time to propose cuts of the description announced by him?
The right hon. Gentleman said that 75,000 people will be made directly unemployed as a result of the cuts. Will he estimate the number who will be indirectly affected by the cuts, as that will substantially affect his figure?
Can the right hon. Gentleman defend a situation in which he announces, for example, substantial cuts in the submarine building programme and research at a time when the Soviet Union is massively increasing both research and submarine strength?
As to the announcement about the Simonstown Agreement, presumably the right hon. Gentleman is aware that 2,000 British ships use the Cape route each year, that 1 million tons of oil pass over that route each day and that in the last few years Soviet naval strength has quadrupled in the area. Is not his decision to come out of Simonstown and to use, with the Americans, another base many miles away from the vital sea routes concerned a more expensive and far less effective way of securing these vital trade routes?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he reconciles his objective of obtaining multilateral cuts in defence with a unilateral declaration by the Government that they are willing substantially to cut defence expenditure in this way?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he intends to spend more money in certain spheres? For example, problems connected with the IRA and the defence of our North Sea installations seem to be in direct contradiction with his decision substantially to reduce our helicopter forces.
Have the Brunei Government agreed happily with the decision to withdraw the Gurkhas from Brunei? Presumably the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that results in no saving on defence expenditure as the Brunei Government pay the whole of the cost of that brigade.

1359
We hope that the consultations referred to by the right hon. Gentleman will be genuine. Is he aware that per capita this country spends less on defence than the United States, France or Germany? Presumably his announcement today will reduce that position still further. We believe that if the Secretary of State genuinely consults, and does not just inform, he will come back with a White Paper next year substantially changing the proposals that he has now set out.
Mr. Mason: It will be interesting to take up the right hon. Gentleman's final challenge and to see how best we get on with our Commonwealth partners, the Americans and our NATO allies. The first meeting will be next week.
Referring to the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his supplementary questions, he knows full well that the Conservative administration were bound on this path anyway. They arbitrarily cut defence by £250 million in nine months of last year alone. One proposal involved £178 million without working out where the cuts would fall. I have ascertained that analytical studies were put in hand before the previous administration left office. Therefore, they must have anticipated that they might have to tread the path that I have had to traverse.
Regarding jobs, I mentioned Service men and civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence. Ten thousand jobs in defence industries may be affected. It is likely that there could be more, but it is difficult yet to tell. All those industries that have been indirectly mentioned in my statement concerned with all the projects to which I referred—aircraft, shipbuilding, the Vixen wheeled reconnaissance vehicle and helicopters—have been contacted by the Ministry. They will be making their own assessments of the extent to which their employment levels will be affected, no doubt after discussions with the unions, and then we shall be ready to talk to them about the situation.
It is not fair to make a comparison between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is true that they have more men under arms than we have, but 85 per cent. of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet troops are conscripts, compared with an average of 35
1360
per cent. to 40 per cent. of troops in NATO. We feel that professional, all-volunteer, well-trained and well-equipped forces are better. The comparison, therefore, was a little misleading.
I do not accept that if Simonstown goes it will be more expensive to operate beyond the Cape. It is self-evident from what I have said that there will be fewer reasons for us to deploy east of the Cape. Although the Royal Navy will still be able to deploy world-wide, it will be going east of the Cape in smaller numbers and making fewer visits. That means that, if necessary, it can take more afloat support. [Interruption.] The afloat support is being reduced commensurate with the reductions in the naval force. If a naval task force goes east of the Cape, the afloat support can go with it. It does not necessarily have to stay in Simonstown.
When my right hon. Friend has started the consultations hoping to terminate the agreement, there should be no reason why—as applies to other countries now— when the Royal Navy goes east of the Cape and has a vessel in difficulty it should not go into Simonstown and use the dry dock on a customer basis. I do not see why that should not happen.
The final point made by the right hon. Gentleman was on the IRA and Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that, having lessened our commitments abroad, we shall be better able to tackle all that we are called upon to do in Northern Ireland and to deal with internal security at home.
Mr. Peter Walker: What about Brunei?
Mr. Mason: It is true that there will be no saving in costs, but it is right to withdraw the Gurkha battalion from Brunei. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because, as I said, we are going to reduce the Gurkha forces.
Sir G. de Freitas: When my right hon. Friend has consultations with the other NATO defence Ministers, will he remind our North American allies that, although our defence rests very much on their enormous military forces, we and our West European neighbours provide 90 per cent. of NATO's ground forces in Europe, 80 per cent. of the naval forces and 75 per cent. of the air forces, and that there should be a general sharing of the burdens in NATO?
Mr. Mason: Yes. What my right hon. Friend said is absolutely true. When the American Congress considered the withdrawal of American troops from Europe and that factor became well known in Congress, that kind of outcry subsided. Our American allies are very keen that we should remain in the Eastern Atlantic. We are to maintain a strong naval presence in the Eastern Atlantic to keep those approaches clear in case it is necessary for European reinforcement.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that, in basing the defence review on cutting our proportion of GNP, it could be argued that our expenditure per capita is lower than that of many of our NATO allies and that this is an equally valid way of looking at the whole equation?
Throughout his statement the right hon. Gentleman emphasised heavily several times the importance of NATO. Will he tell us how significant are the consultations upon which he proposes to embark? Is it a question of telling our allies that this is what we are doing or of talking to them about the joint requirement? Will he be more specific about the quantitative reduction in our commitment to NATO? For example, is the Third Division to be withdrawn? Is 38 Group RAF to be withdrawn? Are there to be other reductions of that nature?
In what way will the right hon. Gentleman more vigorously prosecute the whole concept of standardising equipment, which we on the Liberal Bench believe to be the best long-term method of saving money and of obtaining the same effective defence?
Lastly, as time is brief, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us about the coastal defence of the North Sea, which was not mentioned in his statement, in which the balance against us is very serious at the moment? It is significant in view of North Sea oil discoveries.
Mr. Mason: The North Sea problem is the subject of a special study. I will, if possible, try to make a statement about that before the White Paper is issued.
If we achieve what we are aiming for, if we get defence expenditure as a percentage of GNP down to 4½ per cent. in 1983–84, our contribution will be lower
1362
than the German, if we include Berlin aid, and slightly above the French contributions. We shall also have carried out our commitment to bring that element into line with our major European allies. That has been, and is, our goal.
The consultations with our NATO allies will be genuine. We are obliged to give them eight weeks' notice. We have suggested NATO changes in the southern and northern flanks. If the NATO countries wish to explain to us a force deployment better for NATO strategy, we shall be prepared to listen and, if necessary, to change but still try to keep within the defence level of spending that I have outlined. The British Army of the Rhine and the Second Tactical Air Force stand firm. There are no withdrawals there.
In the Euro-group, I have been taking the lead with a view to getting more European nations involved in research and development and greater standardisation of weapons.
I think that I have dealt with the point about the North Sea. I hope that the House will remember that, apart from rigs and installations, people should think about soft targets on shore that are much more vulnerable than rigs and installations at sea.
Mr. Bidwell: As my right hon. Friend has announced it is the intention of the Government to cut defence expenditure by 1 per cent. in terms of the GNP—from 5½ per cent. to 4½ per cent.—may I ask whether that means an aim of 0·1 per cent. per year over the 10-year period in real terms? What does it really mean in terms of assisting the national economy? Does my right hon. Friend believe that what he has proposed seriously measures up to the desires of our movement to turn swords into plough-shares in order to rescue our national economic situation? Does not my right hon. Friend realise that what he has announced about the retention of Polaris submarines and Polaris bases will go right against the grain of the movement, which much prefers nuclear disarmament if we are to have any meaning in world affairs?
Mr. Mason: I have already explained that over the next 10 years we are trying to save £4,700 million that can be released for investment in productive capacity and, I hope, exports.

1363
Secondly, we promised in our manifesto that we would save several hundred million pounds over a period and would bring our defence expenditure, as a percentage of GNP, into line with that of our major European allies. My statement outlines that, and we have achieved it.
The maintenance of the Polaris fleet costs about £40 million a year, less than 1 per cent. of the defence budget.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever looked at a map? How does he reconcile his reductions in naval forces, in afloat support and in maritime aircraft with the words of his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that Britain must trade with the world? Or is it that the right hon. Gentleman is being driven by pressures within the Labour Party to abandon all pretence of being able to protect our overseas trade?
Mr. Mason: Britain must trade with the world, but not necessarily police the world, and we have to recognise that as a fact. We have to consider the status of our nation, our role in Europe, and to what extent we can strengthen and keep cohesive, at least, the NATO alliance. That is essential at the moment because of the economies of some Western European countries and because of the worries that we have about the defence contribution of some countries in Europe. I do not want to affect the cohesion of the alliance.
I had to try to save about £100 million out of the £150 million a year that our non-NATO commitment costs us. I then had to look at the flanks of NATO. I have been able to effect more savings, while maintaining our posture of standing firm in Central Europe, having modern naval forces and a large contingent in the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel, making sure that our home base is secure, being able to carry out our commitments in Northern Ireland and on internal security, and if necessary, being able to furnish forces for the United Nations. That is the posture that we should recognise.
Mr. Crawshaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that concentrating our available forces in Europe and on NATO is something that I have advocated for
1364
many years? But I cannot praise my right hon. Friend too highly in case, by association, I damn him in the eyes of some of our right hon. Friends.
Will my right hon. Friend state what strategic considerations have been given to the reassessment? He will recall that our reserve forces were dissipated because they were said to be of no use in a war that was to last for only 14 days, and yet under this review we are to retain many items that can be of any use only in a war that goes on for some considerable time. I speak particularly of submarines. Are we preparing for a war of 14 days, 14 months, or what? We do not seem as though we shall be prepared against any of them.
Mr. Mason: I thought that that was a helpful supplementary question. The NATO strategy is based on flexible response, and irrespective of the kind of threat that comes from Eastern Europe, we should have forces within NATO available and flexible enough to respond to it. It is necessary, therefore, to maintain strong conventional forces on the ground so that we can, if necessary, rebut a conventional attack. Flowing from that, we must have time to think, ponder and consult Governments in case there has to be nuclear escalation.
My hon. Friend may be worried that we still have submarine forces and anti-submarine warfare equipment in the Atlantic, but it will be essential to keep these sea lanes free for reinforcement to take place if necessary. We want to try to keep the nuclear threshold high, and, therefore, naval contingents of the strength about which I have spoken and conventional forces in NATO are still essential.
Mr. Goodhart: Is not this another blow at the whole doctrine of flexible response? If the international situation continues to deteriorate, and if the military threat grows in the next couple of years, will the Government be prepared to reconsider this review and restore these damaging cuts?
Mr. Mason: That is a hypothetical question. We have taken a rational and responsible look at our defence commitment and our capabilities in the present economic circumstances of the nation, and I feel that the Conservative Party would have had to do the same.

1365
We have proved in this exercise—and it has been a tortuous one—over the past seven to eight months that savings can be effected, and we have a new posture that is strengthening our hand in Europe. We have maintained throughout that NATO will remain the linchpin of our security.
Mr. Palmer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the sensible and realistic reductions that he has made in defence expenditure. May I ask him to bear in mind that in our own time we have seen the forces of democracy—including Socialist democracy—overwhelmed on occasion by the forces of tyranny? Is he able to tell us that at the end of the day we can still make an adequate contribution to the defence of freedom in Europe and in the world?
Mr. Mason: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. I am a fervent patriot, and I should not, as Secretary of State for Defence, allow the forces within Western Europe, in particular, to be run down whilst I am in that office to the point of which I personally should feel that the security of the State or the defence of the realm was in jeopardy.
During the course of this exercise I have had to take along with me the Chief of the Defence Staff and all the Chiefs of Staff, and, step by step, through the Defence Council, we have worked through every commitment. We—that is Ministers and Chiefs of Staff—are collectively satisfied that our posture is good and can be maintained.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his patriotic stand, which we all believe in, but may I put it to him that the alarm over his defence review stems from the cut in manpower, apart from the cut in weapons of defence? One can only be alarmed at the fact that the reduction in commitment has not been sufficient to justify such a cut in manpower. It amounts to about 70,000 men and takes in the supporting men to the Armed Forces. This fills one with some alarm. Before the right hon. Gentleman comes back to the House, would he say something about the creation of a citizen army by increasing the territorial and reserve forces, since otherwise there will not be sufficient manpower to carry out the commitments on which he is engaged?
Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard correctly the figures of manpower. Service manpower will be reduced by 35,000. That will be 5,000 from the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, 12,000 from the Army and 18,000 from the Royal Air Force. He will have gathered that the considerable cuts in transport aircraft, particularly the strategic transport aircraft, are the reason why the RAF faces a bigger manpower cut than the other Services. There are 30,000 civilians affected, of whom 15,000 are home-based and the rest locally employed abroad. A total of 10,000 will be in defence industries. These are the total figures which we see to be affected up to about 1978.
Mr. Fernyhough: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that no nation can be militarily strong whose economy is weak? Since all arms expenditure is inflationary no matter where it takes place, and since the biggest battle in which this country is engaged at present is against inflation, is it not only right and proper that the defence programme should make a contribution to overcoming the difficulties of inflation?
Mr. Mason: I think that that is right, and I think that we have done it. The Conservative Secretary of State in 1973-74 and the then Navy Minister spelt it out clearly in their debates that in a time of economic crisis the defence burden must be cut. Defence expenditure cannot escape its share of responsibility for trying to improve the nation's economic health.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am in a difficulty today. We are about to begin the Second Reading debate on an important Bill on which there has been no extension of time. I understand from the Secretary of State's statement that a debate will be arranged on these matters, so I cannot allow questioning to go on much longer.
Mr. Burden: In view of the savage cuts in naval shipbuilding, has the right hon. Gentleman any contigency plans for the recommissioning of HMS "Victory" if there is a naval crisis? Second, I welcome his statement that the Royal Naval dockyards will not be closed, but can he give an undertaking that they will be fully

1367
employed on support work for the Royal Navy?
Mr. Mason: As I said, the four dockyards will remain open. They are responsible for Fleet support, so naval work will be directed to the Royal Naval dockyards. As for the effect on shipbuilding, there is bound to be, because we have cut back the expansion plans of naval building, an adverse effect on work, especially in the development areas—the Clyde, the Tyne, the Tees and the Wear and in Northern Ireland. I hope that the development in the North Sea of oil rigs and installations and the necessity for supply ships to be built and so on will mean that that work may usefully fill the gap which we may cause.
Mr. Michael Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country has a duty to take part in the defence of the alliance, but that, at the same time, in present circumstances we have to make economies in all directions, including defence, that he has struck the balance between those two considerations with great wisdom and skill, and that Conservative Members are fully aware of that, whatever ritual noises they may think it necessary to make?
Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for those remarks. As I said, this has been a tortuous path to tread. It has been extremely difficult, but I believe honestly and sincerely that we have got the right balance. I hope that all hon. Members, if they are as patriotic as I think they should be, and as I am, will stand by it.
Mr. Heath: The Secretary of State will realise that he has made a statement of great importance on which we have already asked for a debate. It should be a two-day debate, because there are many aspects that we shall want to probe to see precisely what is involved in his statement. But the proposals that he has put forward today and the proposals that he puts forward after consultation will have to be judged on their merits. The Secretary of State for Defence is not entitled to say that we must accept them because of patriotism. We are all patriotic, but we certainly have our views about the individual proposals. I regret that we cannot accept what the former Foreign
1368
Secretary, the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said about that.
Second, the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled—in fact, he is completely unjustified—to say that the former Conservative administration would have put forward such proposals as he has done or that they had it in mind to put forward such proposals. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in the Ministry of Defence there is a continuous analysis of the costs of every commitment undertaken by this country. The fact that that is going on does not mean at any time that a particular administration would carry out reductions or increases of a particular kind. The right hon. Gentleman must stand on his own feet with these proposals.
Last, constitutionally the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say, because it is not in our parliamentary traditions, that the chiefs of staff are responsible for the proposals that he has put forward. Nor is he entitled to say that they are in agreement with them. Again, the right hon. Gentleman must stand on his own feet and put forward his own justification for his proposals on their merits. Then we will consider the arguments which he puts forward.
Mr. Mason: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had to bark at the end of that supplementary question. The Chiefs of Staff are, of course, primarily involved. What I indicated to the House was that it was my job—I thought that I had succeeded—to carry them with me. The Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chiefs of Staff would not like any cuts at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—of course—but, in view of the economic circumstances of the nation, they, too, were prepared to look at this sensibly and rationally and to examine whether there was any military necessity for some of these commitments abroad. Therefore, after their wisdom and advice, we came to the conclusion that we could sensibly do without all that I have mentioned today.
Second, there will be a debate very soon. I shall be in NATO on the first round of consultations next week, and we shall be able to have the debate shortly afterwards. There will be plenty of time before the White Paper is published early in March.

1369
It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the statement was long. There has been a lot to consume. It is self-evident, from the questions I have been asked, that it has not all been grasped yet. But there will be plenty of time to air views and to receive advice and to check all the military commentators' observations on the statement before we debate it.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has made a long and difficult statement and in the heat of questioning he referred, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, to the Chiefs of Staff who are not in a position to confirm or deny his opinion. I am sure that if he were—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

BILLS PRESENTED

  CINEMATOGRAPH AND INDECENT DISPLAYS
  Mr. Patrick Cormack, supported by Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr Ron Lewis, Mr. John Corrie, Mr. Simon Mahon, Mr. Raphael Tuck, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr Mark Carlisle, and Mr. Norman Fowler, presented a Bill to amend the Cinematograph Acts 1909 and 1952 and, so far as it relates to things done in the course of cinematograph exhibition, section 1 of the Obscene
  1370
  Publications Act 1959; to make fresh provision with respect to the display, advertisement or distribution of indecent matter and to the use of machines for the viewing of indecent pictures; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31st January and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

  HISTORIC CHURCHES PRESERVATION
  Mr. Patrick Cormack, supported by Mr. David Steel, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Nigel Lawson, and Sir Derek Walker Smith, presented a Bill to make further provision for the preservation of churches and other ecclesiastical buildings of historic and architectural importance and of the character of the area surrounding them: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th February and to be printed. [Bill 41.]
  RATING REFORM
  Mr. Patrick Cormack, supported by Mr. John Biffen, Mr John Wells,, Mr Tom Normanton, Mr. Michael Marshall, Mr. Jasper More, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Evelyn King, Mr. Hugh Fraser, and Mr. Nicholas Ridley, presented a Bill, to reform the rating system in England and Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28th February and to be printed. [Bill 42.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.20 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill is to carry out effectively one of the clearest pledges made by the Labour Party in the last two General Elections, to repeal effectively all the offensive parts of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. We had hoped to achieve that result in the last Parliament with our previous Bill—the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974—to which I refer for purposes of abbreviation as repeal Bill No. 1. Owing to the events which occurred in the dying days of July, the intervention from another place, and an embryo but impermanent coalition in this House, we were deprived of that objective. Parts of our repeal Bill No. 1 were thereby mutilated. Dangers were created on this account. Therefore, we introduced the present Bill—repeal Bill No. 2—to remove those dangers and to accomplish our original objectives.
  Our objective all along has been to remove the offensive and dangerous parts of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. It has always been understood by those engaged in our debates that some parts of the Bill have been inherited from the previous Bill prepared by the Labour Government, especially those dealing with unfair dismissals, which we always sought to retain and still seek to retain. They give rise to some of the amendments with which we deal in repeal Bill No. 2.
  I see on the Opposition benches some of those who participated in our debates on repeal Bill No. 1. Contrary to the poet, "the old familiar faces" have not gone. They are in full frontal array, if that is a proper way of describing them. No doubt we shall again have discussions over several weeks. I am the last to complain about that because I believe that that is the way to deal with the laws of this country. They should be properly discussed in this place.
  1372
  We shall have an opportunity to discuss again all the aspects of this Bill to which hon. Members opposite took objection during July. I thought that the most useful purpose I could serve in this Second Reading speech was not to try to cover all the details of each proposed amendment but to concentrate on the two aspects of the matter which have given rise to the widest discussion in recent weeks. I refer to the two aspects of our repeal Bill which touch, first, upon the safeguards against arbitrary exclusion or expulsion from trade unions, a matter dealt with in section 5 of repeal Bill No. 1, and, second, the general questions touching upon the freedom of the Press and the effect which this Bill might have on the newspaper and communications industries. Those are the topics that have given rise to most attention recently. I shall concentrate my remarks upon those aspects of the matter, seeking to explain the Government's attitude towards them.
  That does not mean that we do not attach great importance to other proposals which we include in repeal Bill No. 2 for correcting some of the errors which were made in the latter days of the last Parliament. The Minister of State will deal with many of those matters, for example, concerning multinational companies or immunity of commercial contracts. Those are extremely important questions. Although I concentrate on the two special matters to which I have referred, I hope that that will not be taken by anybody during our later discussions as suggesting that we do not attach great importance to the other amendments.
  Concerning the safeguards clause, as we have called it in most of our discussions, one of the intentions of our repeal Bill No. 1 was to remove the ban on closed shops which was incorporated in the 1971 Act. That Act sought to outlaw closed shops. One intention of some importance in our repeal Bill, though not a supreme intention, was to ensure that that ban was lifted. The first reason why we sought to lift it was one which I thought for a while commanded even the support of hon. Members opposite, because they supported it in Committee at one period. I thought they appreciated that it was effectively impossible for us to abolish the closed shop by law.
  One of the reasons why we came to that conclusion was illustrated very well

  1373
  by Sir John Donaldson, of all people. I quoted this in Committee. I quote it again because I think it is the best way of illustrating the matter. If Sir John Donaldson, in his capacity as the head of the NIRC—now abolished and never to be restored—came to the conclusion that it was impossible to operate that part of the 1971 Act, I should have thought it fairly conclusive evidence for almost everyone else.
  The Langston case was heard in Sir John Donaldson's court in May of this year. Mr. Langston appeared. Sir John Donaldson said to him:
  "We understand your feelings very well but the plain fact is, in our view, no industrial tribunal will exercise (and we are exercising industrial tribunal powers for this purpose) could possibly, in the general climate which exists, recommend that Chrysler as good employers ought to take you back. You will say that they ought in order to uphold the principle but industrial tribunals do not make an order merely to uphold a principle, they also make orders also to try and produce good industrial relations and whatever else happens if you were to go back to Chrysler in the current climate, it could not improve industrial relations, could it?"
  In reply to Sir John, Mr. Langston said:
  "Well, on the face of your statement you are inferring that a closed shop can be operated irrespective of the law."
  Sir John Donaldson replied:
  "That may be the fact."
  Very few closed shops were abolished even though the 1971 Act had said that they were to be no longer legal. That was one reason though not the only one, why we included in our repeal Bill No. 1 a proposal to legalise the closed shop. We did it partly because we saw, as had Sir John Donaldson, that it was in practice impractical and partly also because we did not want to perpetuate the situation creating a permanent invitation for a clash between the law and industrial realities.
  Having reached that conclusion, however, we have always claimed and said in all our debates that if we were to reinstitute the legality of the closed shop, it would be necessary to have some kind of special further safeguard over and above the common law. We are not interfering with any common law rights in any sense. We said that it would be
  1374
  necessary to have some further protection. The Opposition sought to write in a form of particulars which was included in repeal Bill No. 1 as Section 5. For reasons which I shall not go into now, when that clause came back from the House of Lords, we said that we thought that it was ineffective and highly dangerous. If Section 5 were to stay on the statute book, it might at any moment lead to a renewal of the kind of industrial clashes which caused such difficulties while the 1971 Act was in operation.
  As we made clear when that clause came back from another place in July, it was always our determination to remove it, for the reasons that I have stated. But we always agreed that there should be some form of further safeguard. If a person is dismissed in a closed shop situation, his livelihood may be at stake. Therefore we have always said, "Let us see whether we can devise some kind of further safeguard which works."
  We looked at the Donovan proposals on this matter. The Donovan Committee's proposal was in a sense a halfway house between a statutory provision and a provision operated by the TUC. It involved a statute, but it involved also an arrangement whereby the independent review body to be established would have been operated almost entirely by the TUC—by the General Council of the TUC or by some body approved by it to carry through the operation. That was one possibility. We also looked at the possibility of including it in a code of practice, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) will remember.
  We also promised to have discussions with the General Council of the TUC on the matter. That is what we have done. The General Council, in response to the discussions that we have had with it over many weeks, has produced what I believe is an extremely important proposal. I dare say that most right hon. and hon. Members who are especially interested in industrial relations will have seen the announcement, but I think it right to put it on the record, and therefore I read the document which the General Council of the TUC has issued on the subject because it is a document of historic importance.

  1375
  This is the General Council's statement:
  "As a result of discussions with Secretary of State for Employment the TUC General Council have decided to set up an independent review committee to consider appeals from individuals who have been dismissed from their jobs as a consequence of being expelled or having been refused admission to a union in a situation where trade union membership is a condition of employment.
  The review committee will have an independent person with legal qualifications as chairman and two other members, all three to be appointed by the General Council in consultation with the Secretary of State for Employment and the Chairman of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The review commitee will be completely independent in reaching its decisions, and the intention is for it to be in operation early in 1975.
  The following procedures would apply:

  (i) the independent review committee would have to be satisfied before considering an appeal that the individual who had been dismissed had exhausted all internal union procedures;

  (ii) the review committee would discuss the case with the union and the individual concerned and would try to resolve the matter by agreement;

  (iii) if agreement could not be reached the review committee would make a recommendation about whether or not the individual should be admitted to the union, or, in the case of a member who had been expelled, whether or not he should be taken back into the union and, if so, upon what conditions. There would then be a clear responsibility on the part of the union concerned to act upon such a recommendation;

  (iv) the union concerned would take such steps as were necessary to ensure that individuals expelled or refused admission in circumstances covered by the procedure are made aware of their rights both within the union and in respect of the TUC review committee."

  Mr. Cyril Smith: The Secretary of State has referred to the fact that we have been able to read about this document in the Press. We have also read in the Press that, prior to that document being published, it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention that he should be responsible for the appointment of such a tribunal. Is that Press story true? If it is, why did he give way to the TUC?
  Mr. Foot: No. It was never the proposition that I should appoint the tribunal. We considered a statutory provision for achieving this result. We considered the Donovan proposal for achieving the result. But also we were always seeking a method of achieving this result which
  1376
  would work. That meant the full and eager co-operation of the General Council of the TUC. But the Donovan proposal would have required that, too. It involved the appointment of a body in which the TUC had participated fully. If we had decided by statute to appoint a Donovan-type committee and the TUC had said that it would not participate in it, such a proposal would have been ineffective.
  I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will consider this carefully. I agree with all those who recognise the importance of the subject. I believe that the TUC's proposal has many advantages.
  The existence of a review committee of this kind will assist in ensuring that the rules of individual unions are brought up to a very good standard. That has happened already in many cases because of the Donovan Committee's recommendation. In cases where unions have not produced rules which are satisfactory, this proposal will greatly encourage them to do so.
  The TUC proposal will also mean that individuals will have the chance of having their cases looked at independently, because the person in charge of the tribunal will be independent. Moreover, there will be a further element of independence arising from the fact that the General Council of the TUC will be taking powers which it has never taken before to try to assist in this respect.
  For all those reasons, I believe that it would be very wise for this House to welcome this proposal. It is one which the Government welcome. If it were discovered that this form of tribunal and its protection did not work, we should have to see what other form of protection could be secured. But if the House is really eager to ensure effective protection for individuals who might otherwise be misused in this sense, it should welcome what we have achieved and see that in many respects it is a preferable proposal to trying to do by statute something which perhaps cannot effectively be done by statute.
  In any event, what we propose is infinitely preferable to Section 5 of repeal Bill No. 1, as it finally ended its proceedings, which we are removing in this legislation.
  Mr. James Prior: This raises a very important point in the Bill, and I think that it would be convenient to clear up one or two other matters at this stage. Let us suppose that an individual goes before a tribunal and is upheld by it. What powers are there to see that the tribunal's finding is enforced? Secondly, should not the powers and the mode of operation of this tribunal be scrutinised by the Council on Tribunals, as was the case recommended in the Franks Report? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?
  Mr. Foot: First, the right hon. Gentleman asks what will happen if an individual union offends against the finding of the tribunal. As the document says, it would be the clear responsibility of the individual union to carry out the recommendations of the review body. I believe that the unions associated with the TUC would be eager to carry out such recommendations. Of course, it is a voluntary body. The whole process is done by a voluntary method. No one is denying that. Indeed, it has the virtue that it is much more likely to work that way than it is by some legal provision.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Bridlington."] Yes, that is one possibility. That deals with a somewhat different aspect of the matter. Certainly the Bridlington Agreement works, and the recommendations of Croydon work. A variation of these could work.
  Anyone who has studied trade union history, and particularly the history of the development of the General Council of the TUC, will see that this is an important step forward. It is an important step in the direction of trying to achieve the result—that is, ensuring that in the operation of the closed shop injustices are not done to individuals. May I also add——
  Mr. Barney Hayhoe Mr. Barney Hayhoe (Brentford and Isleworth) rose——
  Mr. Foot: Possibly this is the point in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I do not claim to be a mind reader, of course—and not in such dark caverns as that. But nothing in this procedure interrupts or interferes with common law rights, which are there all the time—quite contrary, incidentally, to the suggestions which have been made in the Press to the effect that in
  1378
  some way we are interfering with common law rights.
  I ask the House to consider this. If the review body had given a finding and the union had refused to take any action about it, and if thereafter the individual concerned took the matter to the High Court under the common law—as he would still have the right to do on grounds of natural justice—it stands to reason that that individual's case would be a near certain case—although I do not say an open-and-shut case. Therefore, I believe that the House should treat this whole proposal seriously. The House will appreciate that it is a genuine attempt, both by the Government and, even more, by the General Council of the TUC, to ensure that injustice is not done to individuals in this matter.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful for the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman's silence, in contrast to when he was speaking a moment ago. The point I want to raise is about independence. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the tribunal as being an independent body and said that when it was appointed by the General Council of the TUC it would be in consultation with the Secretary of State, I think—the right hon. Gentleman was reading—and the chairman of the CAS. Will the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State, and the chairman of the CAS, have a veto on this matter? What is the form of the consultation? Will their agreement be essential on the common law point to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring? That applies to expulsion. It does not apply at all to exclusion.
  Mr. Foot: We have discussed the last point many times. I am not denying what the hon. Gentleman says. That is the common law situation at present. We are not altering that in any way.
  On the question of independence, what the TUC says in its statement is that it should be independent in its finding. Regarding the appointment of the members of the body, we do not claim that the words mean that we have a veto. We do not say that the CAS has a veto. That is not the situation. Strangely enough, the words mean what they say:
  "in consultation with the Secretary of State for Employment and the … Conciliation and Arbitration Service."

  1379
  it will be completely independent in reaching its findings. I believe that the method of appointment helps to ensure the independence of those who will make the findings. As I have said, we shall have time to discuss the matter. I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House are seriously interested in trying to ensure that injustices shall not be done to individuals in this situation. I believe that this is a genuine and far-reaching attempt by the General Council of the TUC to meet that situation.
  Mr. Ian Percival: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, right in saying that we all have a genuine concern to see that the objectives he has mentioned are achieved, and he is right in saying that this is a step forward which warrants serious consideration. But will he not enlarge on this? If the body is to be really independent, that is a step forward. The TUC has accepted that, and all credit to it for doing so. However, is it not but a very short and desirable step from that to say, "All right. If it is to be independent, let it be appointed independently, and let the TUC play its full part in nominating representatives on it. Let it be appointed independently and applicable to all trade unionists, because there are a million trade unionists who are not members of the TUC"?
  Mr. Foot: What the TUC has done is to put forward this proposal on how it would wish to deal with the situation. I recall that some other bodies have often been jealous about protecting any institutions which are set up to look at their affairs. I am not for a moment referring to the legal profession. I was referring to a much more sensitive group in our community than that—the Press. When the Press Council was established some years ago, it was certainly much less independent than will be the body which the General Council of the TUC is proposing to deal with this situation.
  Let us take the proposal that has been made. I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) for the welcome that he has given to it. I think that the whole House has given it a welcome. I hope that we may thereby help to lay at rest some of the stronger arguments that were heard
  1380
  when the previous repealing Bill was passing through the House, or failing to pass through it particularly on this clause.
  Combined with the advantage of this proposal is the fact we are removing a section of the Act which still has explosive dangers in it and in relation to which already there are some cases which may be operating and could be highly dangerous.
  Let me turn to the other main point that I said I wished to discuss. In doing so, I hope that the House will not think me egotistical if I make a rather elaborate declaration of interest. I am a life-long member—not "life-long" but a member in adult life—of the National Union of Journalists. Perhaps it is because I have been a member since 1934 or 1935, or whenever it was, and have seen no examples in my experience of the kind of tyrannical acts which have been suggested and attributed to the union in the recent controversy that I am prejudiced in its favour. Apart from the fact that I am a fully paid-up member of the union, I am also prejudiced in the sense that some of the gloomiest days of my life were spent in newspaper offices when there was a strike. I understand very well the sense of frustration felt by journalists and editors particularly— perhaps it is shared as much by journalists as by editors—when a strike occurs, whether in the editorial section or, as has happened much more frequently, in the printing shop and other parts of the works.
  I believe that there are great dangers in the community at large in such strike action whatever may be the cause of it and whether it is provoked by the action of the employers or by the determination of the unions. I think that the unrestrained exercise of trade union power in the newspaper industry could strangle that industry. That would be a tragedy, not only for the people who would lose their jobs but also for the community at large. The printed word occupies a place of pre-eminence in our society and in any democratic society. Television and radio are pitiful and pallid substitutes for what is printed on newspaper sheets and on other sheets.
  I hope that I shall not be accused of flippancy in this respect, but I was rather surprised when I heard such extraordinary expessions of alarm at the possible

  1381
  removal of editors, because the removal of editors, in one form or another, has formed the commonest topic of conversation in the places in which journalists congregate that I can remember during all my journalistic life. On all the occasions that I can recall, the removal of an editor had not been done by some tyrannical trade union, but from some other quarter. During my conversations in Fleet Street, when we talked about the appointment of editors, we compared this with the coronations of the czars in which the newly appointed autocrat would march in procession preceded by his father's murderers and followed by his own. That is the way in which for many long years, editors have held office in Fleet Street. Therefore, it is very strange that people should now be so alarmed about the situation regarding editors.
  William Hazlitt said that regicide was quite a respectable affair as long as it was only done by kings and queens but it was when the common people took a hand that a different view was taken of it. The same principle seems to be applicable to the alarm now spread about the conceivable removal of editors and the interference with editorial freedom by the operations of the union. I am not saying that it is not a matter to be seriously discussed, but those who raise it must not talk as if editors have never suffered assassination from other quarters, or as if there has never been interference with editorial freedom from other quarters.
  I am told by some newspapers that this is all old stuff, that tyrannical measures were operated in the days of Northcliffe or Beaverbrook but not in these enlightened days. Therefore, when we see the standards of the News of the World dragged a little lower into the gutter— not always an easy thing to detect—or when we see almost at the same moment the Sun debasing journalism, as it has done in my opinion, we must assume, I suppose, that it is all due to the divine inspiration of the editors concerned and has nothing whatsoever to do with the appearance of Keith Murdoch on the scene—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rupert Murdoch."] Indeed, Rupert Murdoch. I apologise to Keith Murdoch. I am not suggesting that the sins of the son should be visited on the father. That would be most improper. But the suggestion that editors are impregnable to any attack
  1382
  from any quarter, except that of mischievous journalists, does not bear any relation to the facts.
  Let me come to the immediate proposition and to the immediate problems that appear to arise. I believe that the way in which some of the newspapers, some of the most respectable newspapers, have sought to describe the Government's intention in this matter has been quite misleading—indeed, completely misleading. There have been many serious offenders in this respect. They have given a false impression to the people of what is in the Bill. I suppose that the worst offender has been the Editor of The Guardian. He wrote a leading article the other day entitled
  "The Press and the closed shop."
  In part of the article he stated:
  "The right to appeal to the courts against a breach of natural justice will ostensibly remain, but the chances of doing so successfully will have been sharply reduced."
  There is not a word of truth in any such suggestion. If the Editor of The Guardian had troubled to discover the previous debates we have had on this matter he could never have made such an accusation.
  When the editors came to see me on this matter I said that what I was doing was restoring the situation to the pre-1971 position. Editors, under the Bill, will not be any worse off in this respect than they were before 1971. It is true that there is provision concerning union membership agreements in that part of the Bill dealing with unfair dismissal. That is necessary to make the unfair dismissal part of the Bill conform with the realities of the closed shop. But before 1971 there were no such unfair dismissal provisions, and the dismissal of an editor in that sense would have been neither fair nor unfair.
  Therefore, we are not altering the position of the editor in this sense whatsoever. I say once again that when the Editor of The Guardian, in his leading article suggested that we were doing so, while he was not misleading people consciously he was nevertheless misleading them on an essential part of the Bill——
  Mr. Hayhoe: An important point arises here from the right hon. Gentleman's attack on the Editor of The Guardian. Can he explain in a little more

  1383
  detail why he believes the phrase he read out from the editor's leading article to be totally untrue? If it was referring to rights under common law one could understand it, but there were rights built into the legislation that we passed in the last Session of Parliament and these will be changed if the Bill we are now discussing becomes law.
  Mr. Foot: I cannot see that the passage that I read out could refer to anything else—since it talks of a breach of natural justice—other than the common law rights which existed under the first repeal Bill and which still exist under the second repeal Bill, and which existed under previous legislation.
  If the editor was referring at that point in the article to something different from the general provisions of Section 5 which we are expunging—there was an earlier reference in the article to the matter—he is not talking about a breach of natural justice. He should not have spread the idea that we were in any way seeking to interfere with common law rights. We are not doing anything of the sort.
  Let me try to remove some other anxieties which cause trouble. We are not imposing a closed shop, as some people say. We are neutral about the closed shop. The Government are not encouraging people to form closed shops, but they are not forbidding them to form closed shops, because we believe that it would be an impossibility to do that if anybody so wished. I think that the editors might have taken the trouble to discover the accurate facts. I will not read the whole article, but I recommend to The Guardian, The Times, the Daily Telegraph and all the other newspapers concerned, an article by John Elliott, Labour editor of the Financial Times, in which the legal situation is clearly set out, and all the accusations against us in the wild attacks by the other newspapers are disproved. I recommend that article to everyone in the House. It shows what could be done by a reporter who went out to get the facts, instead of jumping to conclusions in advance.
  I say to The Guardian—I know that it has changed in this sense since C. P. Scott—that news stories on the front page are often interlarded with comments, but I do not see why facts in leading articles
  1384
  should not be accurate, if not sacred. They should be. It would have been much better for the controversy if that had been the case. We are not seeking to impose a closed shop.
  I have listened most carefully to what the editors suggested to me as being a way of solving the problem. They came forward with suggestions. We looked most carefully at what they were proposing, to see whether it would be workable, but I still think that what they suggested is unworkable. It is unworkable partly for the general closed shop reasons, but also because if we seek to write into the Bill a clause which says that editors should be excluded because of their managerial functions or for some other reason, quite a number of people in other professions, jobs, trades and industries would have a comparable right and we should soon be back to the situation of trying to settle by legal enactment matters which ought not to be dealt with by a legal enactment.
  Mr. Nigel Lawson: Is the Secretary of State not contradicting himself? A few moments ago he was saying that the Press is special, that the printed word is special and that the freedom of the Press is different. Now he is saying that it is impossible to make a special case of the Press.
  Mr. Foot: I am not contradicting myself in any way. Precisely because I believe that protection of the printed word is of special importance for our democracy, I want to get a satisfactory cure. The cure proposed to me by the editors was in my opinion crude and unworkable. What the editors proposed was a simple right not to belong—and that was one of the provisions of the 1971 Act. Moreover, the editors are claiming that not only for themselves but for a considerable number of the editorial staffs. If the NUJ is invested with such large groups of belligerents, the method suggested by the editors for protection would be an invitation to those groups to try to impose a closed shop by the most rigid methods, so that it is not the best way to solve the problem.
  This is not a new question or one confined only to the editors or the Press, important though that area is. It is a question of the clash between professional

  1385
  ethics, professional standards or professional requirements and the union discipline in some form or another. Do the Conservatives say that that is a problem to be settled by the law? Have they applied their minds to it and reached a conclusion that that is the correct answer? When the editors came to see me they had not applied their minds to it. But some people have applied their minds precisely to this problem before.
  None of the hon. and right hon. Members who were chiefly responsible for the introduction of the 1971 Act is here today. It is a matter of some interest that when they introduced the Act—they did not try to settle this question by law—even though they were inspired by the belief that they could settle many things by law. I was interested to read the Code of Practice on industrial relations which was drawn up by the Opposition in connection with their 1971 Act. We intend to reform that Code of Practice at a later stage, but it is still in the first repeal Bill.
  I hope that the editors will apply their minds to it. This is the way in which not a wicked member of the NUJ like myself but responsible statesmen from the Conservative Party sought to deal with the problem when it faced them. I direct the attention of the House to paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the Code of Practice. They recommended in paragraph 21:
  "Some employees have special obligations arising from membership of a profession and are liable to incur penalties if they disregard them. These may include obligations, for example, in regard to health, safety and welfare, over and above those which are shared by the community as a whole."
  They went on to discuss what these obligations might be, how they might be reconciled and how they proposed to reconcile them—and not by the law. In paragraph 23 the Code recommends how to deal with the matter. It says
  "Professional associations, employers and trade unions should co-operate in preventing and resolving any conflicts which may occur between obligations arising from membership of a profession and those which the professional employee owes to his employer and to his trade union if he belongs to one."
  Those Conservative statesmen recommended that the question should be settled by intelligent negotiations. We are in favour of that and always have been in favour of it when it comes to dealing with
  1386
  this problem. That is what I put to the editors. They appeared to scorn that, but I hope that they will not continue to scorn it when they appreciate the respectable ancestry of the proposal. It is in the Code of Practice precisely because it was difficult for a Government which wanted to deal with everything by legal means to find a legal means of doing it.
  I said that we would try to discover solutions to the problem. We want to protect editorial freedom and the freedom of journalists. But we want to do it by a method which will work and not introduce one which will lead to prolonged and bitter confrontations in the newspaper industry about the closed shop, whether it should operate, where to draw the line and whether the law is operating successfully. What the editors proposed to me is, in my opinion, a recipe for adding to the already severe industrial difficulties of the newspaper industry. I believe that we have a better way of dealing with it.
  That is why we have discussed the matter with the NUJ and with its General Secretary, Mr. Ken Morgan. He has written a letter to the proprietors and the editors taking the initiative on behalf of the NUJ to try to deal with the problem. I said at the beginning of the debate that I was proud to be a member of the NUJ and I am proud that the initiative for dealing with this problem in a sensible freedom-loving way has come from that union. The letter reads:
  "I am sure you will not be surprised that the NUJ has noted the anxieties expressed by editors about the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill on unfair dismissals. It fully shares the concern of editors for the safeguarding of free expression and indeed this concern is fully reflected in the Union's Code of Professional Conduct
  Editors' expressed anxieties appear to centre round closed shop agreements. The Union believes that these anxieties are misplaced, but it would welcome discussion with the other organisations concerned about what safeguards might be embodied in any such agreements and the principles which should govern the application of such agreements to editors.
  In particular the Union would propose adoption of a model clause for such agreements which might provide that the parties subscribe to the principles of the freedom of the Press and other media in relation to the collection of information and the expression of comment and criticism, the need to eliminate distortion, news suppression and censorship, and to ensure that dissemination is fair and accurate, avoiding any expression of comment

  1387
  and conjecture as established fact and falsification by distortion, selection or misrepresentation; and that the parties should undertake to observe these principles fully in the conduct of their relations with all editorial staff.
  I feel sure that your organisation and others involved, to whom I have written, would similarly welcome discussion on these lines. I would appreciate your comments.
  I hope that that proposal by the NUJ for dealing with this problem in a way better than could be done by any law, a proposal which involves intelligent negotiation and which incorporates the provisions in the union membership agreements, will be properly welcomed by the proprietors and the editors. I hope that they will appreciate that that is a better way of dealing with the matter than by some legal enactment which, as I have sought to argue, would not work.
  May I conclude by referring to another meeting I have had with representatives of the newspaper industry in recent times. It touches on the whole of the Bill, on the reason we are determined to get the second repeal Bill through as well as the first and to remove the 1971 Act altogether.
  When we came into office in March this year, my most desperate anxiety resulting from the 1971 Act was about a flagrant clash between the court and some of the unions over the operation of the Act. That was a serious danger. We knew the possibility, because of the refusal of one of the leading unions to appear before the courts, of a proposal to sequestrate the union's funds. We knew weeks before that if that happened it was likely to lead to a dangerous clash.
  We did what we could to prevent such a clash. I went to the National Committee of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers to see whether we could assist in avoiding the clash by trying to get the union to go to the court. I knew that it would be particularly difficult, because of the commitment made by many of its leaders that they would not go to the court in any circumstances. We were all alarmed, faced with the danger of what would happen if the sequestration took place. We always knew that there was a possibility of mass strike action throughout the country, which could have inflicted enormous damage on our industrial life. We knew of that danger long before
  1388
  it developed on the weekend of 4th–5th May.
  It so happened that on 7th May, the very day when I made my Second Reading speech on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, there was a strike, because the sequestration had been proposed by the judge. The union had said that it would call on its members to take strike action throughout the country to protest against the sequestration. Nobody knew how long that strike would last.
  On the morning of 8th May the newspaper proprietors came to me en masse pleading for something to be done to deal with the situation, because they were threatened with disaster. If the engineers' strike went on for several days, or possibly longer, the whole of Fleet Street could have been brought to financial collapse. Therefore, the proprietors asked, "Can't you do something?" We had already been trying to do something, not that we were the agents who provided the money for someone to go to the court to pay the fine and thus relieve the tension. We did not provide the money, and I still do not know who did. But when we heard of it, being sane, we gave every encouragement to the proposition.
  Nobody was more gratified than the newspaper proprietors when they discovered a day or so later that that operation has been successful. It did not prevent their editors from denouncing me a day or two later for surrender to blackmail, but that is a different question which we do not worry about.
  In those discussions, the proprietors also explained to me how many millions of pounds Fleet Street had already lost because of strike action arising from the 1971 Act. Therefore, so far from people in Fleet Street—proprietors, editors or anyone else—having any right to make an accusation against the Government in general or me in particular, we saved them. We saved Fleet Street from catastrophe on 8th May. [Interruption.] Yes, we did. The hon. Gentleman is a bit late in getting in on it. I said that we did our best to encourage them. If that encouragement had not been forthcoming, the whole operation—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman thinks he knows the facts, but he was not there, and I was. The representatives of the

  1389
  newspapers were there, and knew what happened. We saved them then.
  I hope that the editors will think over what has been proposed. I hope that they will realise that the 1971 Act which we repealed was a disaster for Fleet Street, as it was for so many other sections of the community. The association's representatives told me at that meeting that they had already lost millions of pounds because of the operation of the Act. But for what happened in the day or so after 8th May, they would have lost even more millions.
  I am sorry that Fleet Street still faces other industrial difficulties. I shall do everything in my power to assist in overcoming them, along with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has had to bear the brunt of the operation, as have so many others in the Department. We have probably spent more time trying to deal with problems in the newspaper industry than in any other industry, and have helped to solve them in the interests of the workers and employers. We have sought to assist the newspaper industry in that sense for the very reasons that I described earlier. Therefore, we do not believe that any accusation can be made against the Government in this respect.
  What we propose is a way of dealing with the problem that we think will work much better than anything proposed by the editors. Therefore, we hope that they will take the offer from the NUJ with both hands and will also recognise that they, with the rest of the community, have an interest in the removal of the 1971 Act.
  My hon. Friends may wonder why I spend so much time arguing with Fleet Street and the Press. We do so because we are interested in dealing with the problem in the fairest possible way. But it is impossible for the Labour movement to talk about freedom without recognising the tradition of the trade union movement. To have freedom, working people had to have the right to combine effectively. That is why we say that the Bill, together with the Act repealing the Industrial Relations Act, has a great deal to do with freedom, not only for those who produce newspapers but for the whole community. Anyone who knows the true industrial history of this country will vote with us enthusiastically for the Second Reading.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mr. James Prior: What the Secretary of State said about having saved the Fleet Street proprietors by his action in the spring was most extraordinary. He started by saying that there had been a grave danger that the funds of a union would be sequestrated, and added that it was pretty well due to his efforts that the money was found and that they were not sequestrated. I do not follow how the right hon. Gentleman can take any credit for that. If he is saying that he managed to find the money, perhaps with help from one or two people outside, he was helping to destroy the law then in operation, which he, as a Minister of the Crown, had a duty to uphold. It is not surprising that other people try to break the law and hope to get away with it if the right hon. Gentleman sets the example that he does.
  I turn to one or two of the points of the Bill outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. I start from a short sentence which appeared in the Sun, a newspaper that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to care for a great deal. Discussing the amendments made by their Lordships, and then confirmed by this House, in a debate in July on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, it said that rarely, if ever, had Parliament offered so unconditional a surrender. For hon. Members of my party, and, I believe, of the Liberal Party and other parties, that just about sums up what happened in that Act and now in the Bill.
  It is a sad day for Parliament. It is also a sad day for the many friends of the right hon. Gentleman, who thought that he knew better than to introduce this sort of measure. It is a matter of great regret to many hon. Members on both sides of the House who felt that the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, as it was amended and as it came on to the statute book, could have formed the basis of industrial relations law without party division for a number of years. That would have been a prize for which it would have been well worth fighting, and it would have been very much worth having from the point of view of industrial relations.
  If the right hon. Gentleman argues that there were drafting deficiencies in our amendments, I can only say that

  1391
  there were meetings after the Bill left this House—particularly on the so-called Lever amendments—which could have enabled those deficiencies to be put right. We would have co-operated in putting right any drafting deficiencies. I wrote to the General Secretary of the TUC offering a meeting between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and the legal advisers to the TUC so that if there were any deficiencies we would be able to put them right at a later stage. That meeting did not take place because of the General Election campaign. If there were drafting deficiencies there was nothing to prevent them being put right.
  I now turn to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the closed shop. He is trying to make out that all he has done and that all the proposed amendments do is to restore the position to pre-1971 status. Before 1971 there were no laws which made it fair to dismiss employees for not joining a closed shop union. That should be put firmly on the record. It makes a great deal of difference to the attitude of the House and of the country towards the closed shop.
  I must take the right hon. Gentleman up on what he had to say about the amendments to Section 5. We welcome the fact that the tribunal which is to be set up is to be independent to the extent that it is to have an independent chairman. As I understand it, there will be an independent chairman appointed by the TUC, with two other members of the TUC comprising the tribunal. I do not know what definition of independence the right hon. Gentleman may take but that does not seem to me to be a very independent state of affairs.
  In a letter which Mr. Farmer, the General Secretary of the Institute of Journalists, wrote to The Times, he said:
  "It may be, as foreshadowed, that the Government will seek to meet the problem"—
  that is, the problem of the closed shop—
  "by providing an appeal procedure outside union control. This, though comforting in theory, will give little assurance to those immediately concerned. Is it fair that a journalist's only alternative to accepting trade union censorship is to gamble his whole professional future on the uncertainties of a tribunal's findings? Even if the tribunal supports him, should he have to face the unhappiness and damage to his career that could follow from the antagonism which might
  1392
  pursue him for the rest of his working life of a monopolistic trade union?
  We face the imminent threat that the maintenance of a free Press will depend, not as now, solely on the integrity of those who work in it. Instead, it will have to depend on those willing to face martyrdom. This is to be expected in a dictatorship; it is intolerable while Britain remains a parliamentary democracy."
  The right hon. Gentleman has not done justice to the amendments that we tabled on expulsion or exclusion from a trade union by agreeing to the sort of tribunal which he has now agreed to set up. The Donovan Report at paragraph 612 says:
  "right of complaint to a new and independent review body. He should be entitled to ask that body for a declaration that, upon his undertaking to abide by the rules of the union affecting existing members, he should notwithstanding any absolute discretion vested in the union or in any committee of the union, become and remain a member."
  The individual should have his rights safeguarded in a way that is not necessarily or reasonably anticipated from the tribunal which the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about the rules, the mode of operation and the powers of the tribunal that he proposes? Will it be scrutinised by the Council of Tribunals? Should it not be scrutinised by the Council of Tribunals? Will the proceedings be in private or in public? What will be the method of enforcement? Will there be some method of enforcement by the High Court? Presumably there will not. We would like to have the answers to all those questions before the end of the debate.
  I now turn to the vexed question of the NUJ and the complaints made by the editors. Is it right that the right hon. Gentleman should dismiss so lightly what the editors have had to say? He has said that there is not in this measure or elsewhere the statutory requirement of a closed shop. Maybe there is not in so many words, but the implication is clear enough. As we pointed out in Committee and on Report when the House passed an amendment which would have prevented unfair dismissal without payment of compensation, it is clear that the pressure and emphasis of what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do is leading to the closed shop.
  I make it clear that I am not mounting a frontal attack on the closed shop principle. I recognise the pressures that arise in its favour. I accept in many instances

  1393
  that it may be seen by management and unions alike to be the sensible thing to do. I am drawing attention to the situation in which a union's right to pursue a closed shop sets it on a collision course with other important rights and freedoms. I quote from a letter written by Mr. Paul Nicolson, the General Secretary of the Confederation of Employee Organisations. There is within the letter a quotation from Donovan. The letter reads:
  "'The battle for the right to organise unions was won a long time ago. We now need recruits, not conscripts. We can survive and prosper without asking Parliament to legalise the highwayman's cry, "Your subscription or your job"'.
  The three individual rights to join, not to join and to choose which union to join should be the starting point for any balanced legislation about union membership."
  That is a view that will be shared by all of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  The most serious illustration is being provided by the NUJ. Its objective is unambiguous—namely, an immediate campaign for a 100 per cent. union shop covering all journalistic jobs and for any work performed by non-union members to be blacked with the full backing of the printing unions. I understand that the NUJ should seek the protection of a closed shop but we must ask ourselves whether in the widest sense that is a desirable development. There are many people who are taking a serious view of what has happened. Mr. Frank Owen, of the Guild of British Newspaper Editors, in his Press statement said:
  "It is the principle that has spilled over into the dispute that should concern everyone who believes that truth and the freedom to tell it as you honestly believe it to be should not be stiffled by any organisation or pressure group with sectional interests to advance. It is my belief that recent events have raised perhaps the greatest threat to Press freedom that I have known in more than 40 years of journalism. I find it somewhat odd that in his statement in the House yesterday Mr. Foot made no reference to the fact that as long ago as 24th October, I wrote to him expressing the fears of 429 members of my Guild who are editors of regional and provincial daily, evening, Sunday and weekly newspapers throughout the country. When I implied those fears in a lengthy statement to the Minister of State on 12th November I had the support of virtually every national newspaper editor—an occasion without precedent in the newspaper industry. So let there be no misunderstanding about the consensus of opinion among British newspaper editors about the threat implicit in Mr. Foot's proposed legislation.
  1394
  In that document, and this was before the present sanctions were imposed, I said that the NUJ would be in the unique position of being the one body whose sectional interests could determine what the public should be told.
  Here, I suggested, was a direct conflict with the public's right to be informed fully and freely without censorship or concern for sectional advantage.
  I think my fears were regarded as exaggerated. Within a few days they had become fact.
  To the document I submitted, and the possible remedies we put forward to protect editorial freedom and independence, I have received no answer."
  That is the statement of Mr. Frank Owen on the subject.
  We know that the effect of the Bill is undoubtedly to encourage the formation of closed shops. But the closed shop in journalism has serious implications for the freedom of the Press. I do not want to make a judgment about the degree of militancy in the NUJ, although I know that it concerns many people. But the point is simple; if the power is there, how can we assume that it will not be exploited? The over-powerful proprietor is a known phenomenon, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, but surely we should be equally wary of the over-powerful union. We must look at what can happen and at what will be encouraged to happen if we pass the Bill. It is not good enough to say that no one intends that it should happen. Parliament in such an important matter must surely ensure that it cannot happen.
  Mr. James Sillars: The right hon. Gentleman has been telling us about the over-powerful union—at least, that is his allegation. Does he intend to table an amendment to deal with the over-powerful proprietor he has identified? Is not the over-powerful proprietor a danger to the freedom of the Press?
  Mr. Prior: I do not think that one can table amendments to that effect, but I think that the editors themselves feel very strongly that they should resist the power of the over-powerful proprietor, and, looking back over the last few years, I think that they have been very successful in doing so.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: Is not the point at issue the fact that the single proprietor, however much he might like to, could not possibly control the entire Press, whereas one union can?
  Mr. Prior: That is the complete answer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  Having followed the public debate and observed what has occurred in recent disputes, I do not believe that it is an exaggerated claim that the freedom of the Press is in danger. The freedom of the Press means something more than independence of the Press from the Government. I think that it has always been understood to be the freedom of editors and the freedom of journalists and contributors. We do not wish to encourage a situation in which editors might be expected to show obeisance to union power in contrast with the independence they are expected to show in face of proprietors, political parties, advertisers and other pressure groups.
  Editors also have responsibility in law which might conflict with union demands. In the case of non-union contributors to newspapers, in many cases local newspapers survive through their ability to get reports submitted by a host of voluntary organisations which they could not gather otherwise. This should not be discouraged. It would be hitting at the nature of a local paper.
  Then we have the outside contributions to national journals. The Secretary of State himself has made contributions over the years in this way, as have many other right hon. and hon. Members. I am not convinced that it would be in the public interest to limit these contributions in number to a norm determined by the NUJ.
  The attraction of the closed shop to journalists is obvious enough. They feel that their bargaining power has been insufficient to secure them the adequate remuneration they think they deserve. It is in some cases another example of middle-class militancy, to which I shall refer later.
  But I am reluctant to believe that the solution to this difficulty can be found only in a way which, apart from its other disadvantages, could be said to hit against the independence and judgment which is considered to be the essence of good journalism.
  I am sure that it is not disregard for the principle of the freedom of the Press
  1396
  which has caused the Government to bring forward this Bill. Rather, the Government believe that they are honouring a pledge to the TUC, made in the context of the social contract. When we raised the issue of the freedom of the Press in Committee on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill in the last Parliament, the Government discounted it, but enough has happened since to give them ground for thinking again, and giving serious weight to the issue of whether freedom of the Press is endangered can hardly be seen as action sufficient to vitiate the social contract. We ask that reasonable measures be taken to protect a freedom long thought precious to our way of life.
  It is not enough for the Secretary of State to say that the Editor of The Guardian must have been thinking in terms of the common law right because it is obvious that the editor knew that he still had the common law right. What the editor was thinking about was what will be created by the Bill when an all-powerful union can say, "If you do not belong to the union, you are not in a position to write or say what you like." That was what the Editor of The Guardian was getting at, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
  Why, if that was not what the editor was getting at, was there no fuss before the publication of the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that. He knows very well the point that the editor was making. We are asking that reasonable measures be taken to protect a freedom which has long been thought precious to our way of life, and I am sure that it can be done without prejudice to the legitimate interests of journalists themselves.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: At what stage in the building up of the membership of the union does the freedom of the Press come into jeopardy? The NUJ has a large membership at the moment. If the union, irrespective of legislation, were to build up its membership to 100 per cent., at what stage would the freedom of the Press come into jeopardy?
  Mr. Prior: The freedom of the Press comes into jeopardy when the union is strong enough to be able to say to an editor, first, "If you do not join, we

  1397
  shall not allow you to carry out your duties", and, secondly, "If you do join, you will do what we tell you to do". That is when freedom of the Press becomes involved, and that is precisely what has happened in a number of cases in recent weeks, as the Secretary of State knows.
  In considering journalists, the NUJ and the closed shop, it is not good enough to exclude editors. To do so would not go anything like far enough. Again I quote from what Mr. Farmer, of the Institute of Journalists, said:
  "A successful career pattern for a journalist is not necessarily a progress by degrees to an editorship which is held until retirement. It is far more usual for an able man to become the editor of a provincial weekly at an early stage than to become an assistant editor or departmental head of a provincial daily then become editor of a daily and then to take a senior position short of editor on a national newspaper with an ambition of becoming editor.
  "Is it reasonable to expect such a man while holding one of his intermediate editorships to take full advantage of his freedom from the NUJ's discipline when his next move may place him in their virtually unlimited power? This apart, it will be almost impossible save on the tiniest newspapers for the editor's own freedom to be sufficient to enable him to produce the paper he wants unless he can employ staff and contributors free to follow his instructions rather than only those the union will let him have."
  That confirms a point I made earlier. I do not believe that any amendment to this Bill is sufficient if it just excludes editors. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman cannot agree to allow this matter to be referred to the Royal Commission on the Press, which is now sitting. It could produce a quick interim report, and the Bill could be deferred until this has been received.
  This is an important matter. There cannot conceivably be any hurry about the passage of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman might find that he would get the Bill a good deal quicker if this point could be cleared up.
  Mr. Foot: I meant to refer to the Royal Commission in my remarks and forgot to do so. I am glad to take this opportunity of commenting upon what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Of course, the question of editorial freedom generally falls within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Press. If it wishes to make a report upon it we will
  1398
  take account of what it says. My belief is that once it begins to examine the question fully it will come to the same conclusion; namely, that we can deal with this matter intelligently in the way we are proposing but we cannot deal with it effectively by the law. We will certainly take account of what the Royal Commission says. If it were to come out with a view different from ours we would take that into account. I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it will take considerably longer for the Royal Commission to examine the whole question of editorial freedom than he suggests. I do not think that is something that can be done in a matter of a few weeks. This Bill is urgent because as long as the Act remains unamended it can give rise to highly explosive and dangerous industrial situations.
  Mr. Prior: What the right hon. Gentleman has said is, in one respect, complete nonsense. There is not a single Member in this House who genuinely believes that the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act is having the slightest effect on industrial relations in Britain.
  Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has apparently understood nothing about the 1974 Act. There could perfectly well arise from Section 5 of that Act—the politically and industrially illiterate section inserted by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—a court case which could lead to the same kind of industrial troubles as we had earlier. Conservative right hon. and hon. Members have apparently learned nothing about industrial affairs.
  Mr. Prior: Nor has the right hon. Gentleman learned anything about industrial affairs. If he really believes, as he tried to make out yesterday in the course of an exchange, that the present bad state of industrial relations owes anything to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act he is living in a world which is so far removed from reality as not to exist in anyone's mind except his own. The right hon. Gentleman now says that the Royal Commission can look at this and if it says that there is a restriction on editorial freedom he will take some action. What is the good of saying that after he has put on the statute book the very thing which we are trying to avoid?
  Mr. Foot: If the Royal Commission has a statement to make on the subject we will consider it. That is what any Government do with a Royal Commission. This Government set up the Royal Commission to examine these questions. If the right hon. Gentleman imagines that the whole question of editorial freedom, with all its ramifications, can be dealt with in a few weeks, that is a very flippant way to tackle the problem. I do not believe it can be dealt with in that way. If the Royal Commission has got something of interest to say that carries the matter further, or any suggestions to make, we will take account of it. In the meantime we will not take industrial risks by leaving this explosive section on the statute book.
  Mr. Prior: In other words, we are to have a Royal Commission on the Press but it is not to be in time to have any effect on the passage of this Bill, which can do more damage to the freedom of the Press than anything in the 40 years' experience of most of the editors. We now know exactly where the right hon. Gentleman stands. We can have a Royal Commission set up to inquire into certain other activties of the Press when it suits the Government to do so, but on a vital issue like this the Royal Commission is not to be allowed to report before the Bill goes through. There is no reason why this Bill could not be delayed for several months, until nearer the end of the Session. This would give the Royal Commission the chance to present its views.
  We know very well that this Bill— which we consider to be damaging, unnecessary and vindictive as it affects individuals and their rights in society—is part of the price which the Secretary of State wishes to pay for his so-called social contract. I say "so-called" because as it is operating it is not a social contract with the nation as a whole. It is, as was said in the Labour Party manifesto, a social contract between the Government and the trade unions. While we have this measure before us the pace of inflation gathers momentum. Fear of the future is stoking up wage demands, which in turn add to our problems.
  Militancy is no longer confined to a few. This is one of the problems with the NUJ at the moment. White-collar
  1400
  workers are now just as militant as some others. Yesterday in the House the Secretary of State for Scotland was defending the Government's attitude towards Scottish teachers against his hon. Friends. We know, and the Government know, that their attitude towards Rolls-Royce workers or Scottish lorry drivers was to say nothing and do nothing. Yet if they are to make anything out of the social contract they feel that they have to take a firm line with Scottish teachers. While all this is taking place, while the fear of unemployment is growing, we have the right hon. Gentleman messing about with this paltry little Bill. That is our main objection. Even now, while all this is going on, Ministers are travelling round the country echoing the speeches we made a few weeks ago about the fear of inflation leading to higher unemployment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again before he pushes through the Bill.
  This legislation is totally irrelevant to the needs of the nation at present. It is not as though strife and industrial unrest started with the Industrial Relations Act. After all, the White Paper "In Place of Strife" was published way back in 1969, so, presumably, there was a good deal of strife at that time. That was before the Industrial Relations Act. The strife was there, and it has grown, regardless of industrial relations legislation and any other legislation which the House may have passed. What a tragedy it is that the Labour Government did not proceed with their Bill in 1969–70, and what a tragedy it is that they did not give the Conservative Government more support when they introduced their Bill in 1970–71.
  Mr. Alec Woodall: And put workers in gaol.
  Mr. Prior: No, it is not a question of putting workers in gaol. They were not put into gaol as a result of the Industrial Relations Act. They were put into gaol by the court.
  These problems will not go away. They may not be capable of solution by the law alone, but the law has a part to play. We do not, and we cannot, have a situation in Britain in which one section of the community is above the law and everyone else is expected to obey the law.

  1401
  So we must have some industrial legislation. The tragedy is that the right hon. Gentleman, for misplaced reasons, is seeking to remove from the statute book even the protection that the Conservative Government wrote in for individual people and their individual liberty.
  The Bill is said to be the result of an obligation in the social contract, but it will not help to bring prosperity to workers or to improve their standard of living. All it will do is to take away certain rights from the individual. The Government are getting nothing in exchange. They are not getting the wage restraint which the social contract lays down. That obligation is not being kept, and I know that it is a disappointment to certain trade union leaders, such as Mr. Murray, Mr. Jones and some others who have done their best. The fact remains that settlements are not being kept within the social contract—a few have, but not many—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and in the meantime the country faces disaster.
  Reports from industry all over the country, as hon. Members know from their own constituencies, are extremely bad. The standard of living will quickly be eroded as unemployment mounts along with the rate of inflation. The time will come when the Labour Government will need the help of the Opposition if catastrophe is to be avoided. The Government will have to act. They must impose their will and their power to enforce the wage restraint conditions of the social contract. If they do, we shall give them our support. If they do not, there will be a period of hyper-inflation——
  Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman is straying considerably wide of the Bill. I am not complaining of that, but I hope he will allow me to intervene to say that the Government have no intention of introducing statutory control of wages. When the right hon. Gentleman spreads the tale that that is what will happen he does infinite damage to the economic situation, just as the Leader of the Liberal Party did when he spread that tale during the General Election campaign. The Government view has been made abundantly clear. The awkward and evil factor is persistent talk of that nature from the right hon. Gentleman, which adds to the difficulties and dangers of the situation.
  Mr. Prior: That is why I chose my words particularly carefully. I said that the Government should enforce the wage restraint conditions of the social contract. That does not mean statutory control, and I have never said that it did. If the wage restraint conditions of the social contract are enforced, and if the Government speak out for them and impose their will, we shall give the Government our support in that. If they do not, in a period of hyper-inflation, low investment and depression such as we have not seen since the war, the Government and the right hon. Gentleman must take the full blame.
  To those disasters which face our country is added this disreputable Bill which conflicts with the long-established rights and freedom of the individual. It takes more power away from the House and puts a certain section of society above the law. I hope that all hon. and right hon. Opposition Members, regardless of party, will vote tonight to throw out the Bill.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Moonman: The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) suggested that the Bill might await an interim report from the Royal Commission on the Press. For many years I advocated the setting up of a Royal Commission on the Press. I am keenly aware of its terms of reference, and in my view that suggestion is not on. The Bill may have certain disadvantages, but its aims and content have no relationship to the Royal Commission on the Press. The Royal Commission has already a wide-ranging brief to consider the organisation, structure and development of the industry, and it is not concerned with the matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a fine speech, but I should like him to take account of two matters about which editors are worried. First, at the meeting which my right hon. Friend described, and which was reported in the Press, the impression was given that my right hon. Friend would put forward proposals to deal with the problems that the editors raised with him. Does not my right hon. Friend feel it right that he should be in touch with the editors? Secondly, at that meeting the editors said that they would welcome

  1403
  the offer that my right hon. Friend apparently made of a further meeting.
  Although the Bill must go through for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend, which I support, I am anxious that the Government should avoid a collision course with the Press. These two matters should be cleared up tonight.
  Mr. Foot: I wrote to Mr. Denis Hamilton yesterday referring to the suggestion I made of a further meeting and saying that I should be glad to have a further meeting. I set out the reasons why I do not believe that the matter could be best dealt with by the law, and some of those reasons I put forward to the House today. In my opinion, the proposal made by the National Union of Journalists is the best way to approach the matter. That does not mean that I oppose the idea of a further meeting. I said at the end of my letter that I should be prepared to have a further discussion with the editors before the Bill becomes law.
  Mr. Moonman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that explanation. Perhaps the editors will want to look at the NUJ initiative first with the NUJ and then with my right hon. Friend.
  The right hon. Member for Lowestoft spoke of the needs of the nation. Clearly, this is a small Bill and we know what it is about. It is necessary to look beyond it, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, to the needs of the nation.
  I maintain that good industrial relations and the social contract are virtually synonymous. We cannot have one without the other. How far the Bill measures us to the social contract is a matter on which I should like to expand.
  There is no doubt that the social contract has been widely derided because it is not a binding, legal document tied up with red tape. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft pointed to some of the weaknesses in the social contract. If this is its weakness, it is also its strength. Before hon. Gentleman jeer at the structure of the social contract, I should remind the House that it is the only viable policy that we have, because so much else has failed. There is no point in making a virtue of an industrial relations policy which has to depend so much on the law. Indeed, no intelligent manager or shop
  1404
  steward is helped by having to turn to the law for help in resolving so many of the day-to-day, hour-by-hour problems that arise on the shop floor or in the office.
  The social contract is not concerned solely with wages. I think that is an error that hon. Members are inclined to make. The social contract is the basis agreed between the Labour Party and the TUC to define a common purpose which includes the safeguarding of employment and the fairer sharing of the nation's resources through voluntary restraint and social policy.
  We cannot expect management, nor the public in general, even though they have received some of the benefits by way of welfare benefits and continued price restraint, to consider themselves bound by a contract to which they were not parties.
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time for the Government to spell out the personal involvement in the social contract of every member of society? I suggest that it is also time to reassure management as to how it can become involved in the social contract. That means not merely having a dialogue with the CBI but talking to management bodies which are deeply concerned and want to be involved.
  This matter raises serious questions which were overlooked by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft in deriding the social contract. The Bill is an attempt to underpin the way that the Government relate to industry and the way that an effective industrial relations policy can be established. It is also essential to widen the social contract.
  There is an obvious logical weakness in the way that the social contract was developed between the TUC and the Labour Party. However, I suggest that now is the time, after a second General Election which should have given the Labour Government sufficient confidence, to point out to management and the general public the obligations that are expected of them.
  What has been done to obtain a similar set of procedures for management? What have my right hon. Friend and his colleagues attempted to obtain from, say, the British Institute of Management? Yesterday Philip Churchill,

  1405
  the Director-General of the BIM, in a constructive way, said that in industry today there was a will to work harder than at any time, but we needed confidence, and only the Government could provide it. This seems to be an attempt to try to establish a dialogue, and I suggest that the proposal is worth taking up.
  At the same time, the social contract needs to be spelt out on the shop floor. Many workers do not appreciate what the TUC's understanding with the Government is all about. At least one union has refused to distribute the broadsheet prepared by the TUC because of its wage restraint aspects, however voluntary they may be. That again emphasises the importance of the Government spelling out the involvement of everybody on an individual basis in the social contract. Only in that way can we avoid the contract foundering on the cynicism of trade union negotiators and company managements who are concerned only with their corners of industry, not the needs of the nation as a whole.
  I hope that, in removing from the prin-pal Act the sections wished upon this House by hon. Members whose knowledge of the working world outside is distinctly limited, my right hon. Friend will keep in mind some safeguards for the independence of newspaper editors and their deputies. I fully appreciate his desire not to create a special class. My right hon. Friend has spelt this out in terms not only of the newspaper industry, but of industry generally. If there were to be any alteration, it would be absurd to suggest that it could only be for the newspaper industry. That is an untenable suggestion.
  I appreciate the expressed fears of the newspaper editors about their future. I doubt, however, whether a closed NUJ shop would do anything to jeopardise the freedom of the Press.
  I return to the point that has already been made, but needs to be strongly emphasised, about the real threat to the Press. For many years I have been a member of the National Graphical Association and the Labour Newspaper Group. Therefore, I know and appreciate the expressions about the way that the whole character of the industry has changed.
  1406
  There are men in the newspaper industry taking decisions who have no associations or interests in it. They see it as part of an on-going strategy which ranges from selling general merchandise to newspapers. Surely the real threat to editorial freedom comes from the newspaper owners, particularly when a new paper becomes part of a large conglomerate of assorted industries whose only criterion is profit and whose enterprises do not even have the virtue of commitment to the idea of the Press, which was the saving grace of the old newspaper barons.
  I hope that an arrangement can be reached between the editors and the NUJ. I welcome the initiative that has been taken. I think it will go some way towards meeting the fears that I have heard expressed in Fleet Street. It is conceivable that the Minister might want to maintain at least a monitoring of the correspondence or of any meetings which take place between the NUJ and the newspaper editors. I am sure that before the end of the debate my right hon. Friend or his colleague might want to give some sign that they want to proceed in that way. In short, my right hon. Friend should be involved.
  The Press is a special case. Many of us are anxious about the deteriorating relationship between the Press and the Government. It would be tragic for both the public and the Labour Party if the Government and the Press were engaged in a continual confrontation, which would do nothing but damage to both these important institutions.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: For the second time we are having a bite at the same cherry. The Bill has been cleverly described by the Secretary of State as repeal Bill No. 2. In fact, the Bill and the explanatory memorandum make it clear that it is repealing not the 1971 Act but the 1974 Act or those sections of it that the Minister does not like. For the right hon. Gentleman to keep pretending that this is a repeal of the 1971 Act and is part of the pledge that his great Labour movement made to the trade union movement in the 1974 elections, and so on, is a little hypocritical. We are debating the Bill because the Minister is unable to take a licking. He lost the battle and the match in July, so he now seeks to replay the match.
  Mr. Sydney Tierney: It is a different team now, Cyril.
  Mr. Smith: I am willing to debate the issue of replaying the match on the basis of the election result, because a party which obtained 39 per cent. of the total votes cast can hardly claim to have won the election. If one likes to consider the matter in terms of the percentage of votes cast, it is interesting to reflect that, as the Liberal Party's attitude to the Bill is similar to that of the Conservatives, 61 per cent. of the electorate voted against the Bill.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is the great upholder of democracy that he so often pleads from the Dispatch Box that he is—he did it on this occasion, and he has done it on many occasions in the past— why cannot he accept the will of the people in this matter? The majority of people are totally opposed to the closed shop principle. One may concede, as I have always done, that, to be practical, one has to accept a closed shop situation whether one likes it or not, but it is not becoming of a man who pretends to be the great upholder of democracy to say that he will not protect the individual in that situation.
  The Minister made some reference to what we have read in the Press about what the TUC proposes. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman kindly read in detail the proposals that had been put forward by the TUC. He gave way to me at that stage to allow me to make a point, and I appreciated that. But the situation is strange. We are being asked to accept a situation in which the defendant at a trial appoints the judge and jury. The Minister shakes his head, but that is the situation.
  When the right hon. Gentleman was pressed on this matter by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), he made it clear that consultation with himself and the CAS did not mean that he had any right of appointment. He will be asked what he thinks and what his views are, but if at the end the TUC says that it will not accept his view and will appoint to the tribunal anyone it wants, it will go ahead and do so.
  I accept that the Minister may be an excellent journalist. I have never heard
  1408
  it claimed for him that he was a brilliant mathematician, so I hope that he will forgive me if I make a small point. Two is greater than one, and if in a tribunal of three only the chairman is an independent lawyer while the two other members are representatives of the TUC, irrespective of what he thinks there will be two votes to one at the end. All that the chairman will be able to seek to do is to persuade his collagues that his view is the right one, and if he fails to do that, his view will not prevail.
  To suggest that the tribunal is independent or is some kind of great concession from the TUC is wrong. If my memory serves me aright, the Minister referred to the TUC's proposals as some kind of historic document. If that is what history is all about, my respect for history diminishes as a consequence.
  It is a widely held belief that the Minister wanted to be able to appoint the members of this tribunal.
  Mr. Foot Mr. Foot indicated dissent.
  Mr. Smith: That was widely reported in the Press.
  Mr. Foot: That does not make it right.
  Mr. Smith: No, but this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman quoted the Press in support of some of his arguments and, equally——
  Mr. Foot: The Press is right occasionally, but that does not mean it was right in this instance. I have assured the hon. Gentleman on one occasion that he was incorrect in saying that, and I hope that he will not repeat it, because it is not the proposal that I made.
  Mr. Smith: I must accept the right hon. Gentleman's word for that, although one finds it difficult to know when one can accept the Minister's view, because earlier this afternoon he made the point that he did not know who put up the money for the trade union let-off earlier this year and then he said that he influenced the matter. How he could influence the matter without knowing whom he was trying to influence is a little perplexing. However, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's word for that.
  If the Minister did not attempt to press on the TUC that he should appoint the

  1409
  independent tribunal and give it some sort of statutory power, he is less of a man than I thought he was, because it is my view and that of my colleagues that that is the view that he should have been pressing. Unless the tribunal has some sort of statutory power and is independently appointed, Liberals cannot regard what is proposed as an acceptable solution to the problem that we have posed on so many occasions.
  The Bill proposes to repeal many of the amendments that the Liberal Party, not only here but in the other place, helped to carry through. If the right hon. Gentleman were prepared to concede, even at this late hour or guarantee that in Committee an amendment would be made to ensure that an individual in a closed shop situation who was either excluded or expelled from a trade union should have a right of appeal to a statutory tribunal appointed by the Secretary of State, we should be prepared to concede on every other issue even though we believed that the clauses and amendments that were made to the Bill were good. We are prepared even now to concede every point on which we voted in July in return for this one major protection for the liberty of the individual, because we believe that it is vital.
  There comes a point at which one has to decide whether one intends to be concerned directly with the rights of trade unions, or with the rights of individuals. If this great House of Commons has any real purpose, it ought to be able to protect the individual against the big battalions. That should be a major function of the House, and all I am appealing to the Minister to do—and I say in self-defence that this is all I have ever appealed to him to do—is to protect the individual in a closed shop situation.
  At no point in the history of the Bill or the Act that it seeks to amend has the Minister conceded anything to the Opposition. On this clause in particular he has never made the slightest concession to the views put to him. The appeal that I have just made for a tribunal is not new. As he Minister knows, I met him in April before his original Bill was drafted and at that stage I put to him the proposition that the measure should contain some sort of tribunal procedure in a closed shop situation. This; is not something that we have just dreamed of, or a
  1410
  situation at which we have just arrived. This has always been the view of the Liberal Party, and unless the Minister is prepared tonight to concede something on this issue, other than some sort of TUC committee that will solve all the problems that arise, it is inevitable that the tribunal will be considering cases of the individual versus the union. It can have no other function. That is what it is for. In the cases that it considers, those who are likely to be the defendants will appoint the judge and jury.
  I concede that most, if not all, of those appointed to such a tribunal by the TUC will be worthy people whose judgment may be trusted. But in the end, when talking about justice in law, we know that it has not only to be done, but to be seen to be done. However independent the tribunal was, and however upstanding its members, in the end, if the decision went against the appellant, he would always suspect that it was not really independent because it had been appointed by the TUC.
  So the Secretary of State's solution is no solution at all. I am sorry that on this issue he is not prepared to stand up to the TUC. It is vital that he should. Unless the country sees evidence soon, not merely on this but on many other matters, of his willingness to stand firm against certain trade union demands, he will go down in history as "Mr. Pussy Foot". That would be a tragedy for his reputation and not a fair description of the man we know in the House.
  I will not enter at great length the controversy about the Press. In arguing the closed shop, one also, almost automatically, argues the principle that bothers the editors. I could not go along with a closed shop in journalism. That is not to say that we believe that journalists and editors should not belong to a union, but to create a closed shop in which one union only deals with the whole of the Press creates serious dangers for the freedom of the Press, dangers that my party could not accept.
  For example, the concession of a statutory tribunal would not solve the problem for the Press, but it would help to ensure that a man could not be unreasonably expelled or excluded from a union. I hope that we shall be able in Committee to get even greater safeguards for the Press. I accept what the Secretary of

  1411
  State said, that the threats to the freedom of the Press have not come only from the trade union movement over the years. The powers and influence of the proprietors and Press lords can be and have been just as dangerous. I could give the House examples of editors, of provincial as well as national papers, who have been sacked within hours of writing editorials that were not in accordance with the views of the proprietors.
  Since the General Election, one can hardly imagine that Liberal Members have been very enamoured of the strict independence of the Press, considering how they have reported Liberal Party activities since then. We have had great problems in getting them to report us at all. I should not be prepared to vouch for what is described as the "independence" of the Press.
  However, much as one would like to deal with that situation, the House cannot do so when considering this Bill. We are at liberty to deal only with the other half of the coin, the closed shop in journalism, and the threat that that represents to the freedom of the Press. We accept the existence of the other problem, but, because of our procedure—on this matter, I believe, the correct procedure— we can deal only with the matter before us. That means concentrating on the attempt in the Bill to take away from a man his protection against being compelled to join a particular union in the Press.
  The Liberal Party is bound to vote against Second Reading. We have had no guarantee that the liberty of the individual will be protected in the closed shop situation. That we regard as para-mount. Second, although in itself we should not consider it a reason for voting against the Bill, we are not happy about the effect on the freedom of the Press. We believe that a concession on the first point would go a long way to relieving our doubts on the second.
  If, in Committee, the Government can agree to amendments that we shall move, we should reserve the right to change our minds on Third Reading. I make that point in view of the outcry that there has been about Liberals changing their minds between Second Reading and Third Reading on the other Bills, as though there were something strange or illogical
  1412
  about that. There is not. Naturally, one deals on Second Reading with the Bill as it is then. If it has changed by Third Reading, a different position arises.
  As it now is, the Bill is not satisfactory or acceptable to the Liberal Party. It will aid and abet a direct infringement of the liberty of the individual. For those reasons, we shall vote against its Second Reading.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: I have often heard the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) speak on industrial relations, but, having heard him today, I am still no clearer whether he is in favour of the closed shop. He has sat on the fence for so long that I cannot help feeling that it is beginning to crack under the strain.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: The position is quite simple. Although we are opposed to closed shops in principle, we realise that, where they exist, one has to accept them. That is our situation. It is perfectly clear.
  Mr. Edelman: If he will permit me to say so, I regard that comment by the hon. Gentleman as a characteristic ambiguity of the Liberal Party. But I will deal with that later.
  I should first like to declare an interest. I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists for more than 30 years and I am still a working journalist. But tonight I speak in my personal capacity, not as a spokesman for the NUJ and certainly not as a spokesman for the proprietors or the editors. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said, this is not a paltry debate. It is a debate about a major principle, the principle of freedom and of the liberty of the Press. It is to that subject that I propose to address myself.
  I regard the closed shop certainly not as an infringement of liberty, but rather as a means by which a combination of men, sometimes of women, who have got together to defend their rates of pay and working conditions, seek to exclude from the benefits of their negotiations with the employers those who have made no contribution to their outcome. It is clearly equitable that those who combine to produce such ends should say, "We are entitled to exclude those who are not

  1413
  prepared to participate with us in seeking these benefits."
  It is true, as the Secretary of State said, that some employers recognise the advantages of the closed shop as a means of promoting regotiations and producing peace in industry. As for Mr. Langston, his case was an example of an individual who was unwilling to make any contribution to the union that had secured benefits for the commalty of workers. That case caused more industrial disruption than perhaps any strike by workers acting in concert through a union.
  Today we must consider the editors position which has been discussed very forcibly with my right hon. Friend and in the House of Commons. The editors have panicked in reaction to the possibility of a closed shop in the Press. What do the editors fear? Their fears are twofold. First, they are afraid that if they are obliged to join the NUJ, they may find themselves subordinate to the direction of that union and thus lose their editorial authority. They are afraid that young journalists in their early 20s might march into their offices, give them orders, or even give them the sack. They are afraid that in an industrial dispute, if they were obliged to become members of the NUJ, they would have to be answerable to the union and not to the proprietors. Their second fear is that if they were obliged to join the NUJ, they would lost their legal right to compensation for unfair dismissal. Those are the two major fears of the editors.
  Before speaking about the validity of those fears, I should like to say how very curious it is that some editors, who are so apprehensive of the pressure that their fellow journalists might put on them, have never shown any resistance or resentment collectively to the pressures of the Press lords and boards who have sacked them and bowled them over like ninepins even in the last 10 years. Many have been dismissed without so much as a cheep from their fellow editors.
  Instead of the bold united front represented by the deputation that Mr. Hetherington has been leading to the Secretary of State, the editors have cowered supinely in their bunkers when one of their numbers has been dismissed. The hon. Member for Rochdale mentioned
  1414
  that. When one of their fellow editors has found himself out on the street, perhaps with the title of editor emeritus, editorial director, or some such fancy title as compensation, none of them has made any sort of demarche to protect the interests of their fellow editor who has been fired.
  My criticism of the manner in which editors have been sacked in this way is not directed against the proprietors. Looking back over the past 10 years, I think that proprietors and proprietorial boards have on the whole been fairly generous. Dismissed editors have gone away with their golden handshakes jingling in their pockets. They have withdrawn with a sort of quiet satisfaction at the compensation, and that has been paralleled by the quiet satisfaction of those who have hoped to become, or who have succeeded in becoming, their successors.
  No editors have ever protested collectively against the Newspaper Proprietors' Association. Not one editor has been defended by the editors getting together to protect their interests against the proprietors and proprietorial boards. Suddenly we see this alarm among editors at the prospect of being judged by their fellow journalists. Most editors have at some time been working journalists. I cannot understand their curious apprehension that their fellow journalists and workers will be more tyrannical in their treatment of them than the proprietors or business directors of the boards who run the Press.
  We have spoken a great deal about the freedom of the Press. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) mentioned the Royal Commission on the Press. I wish that he had addressed himself to some of the other abuses in Fleet Street that the Royal Commission might consider, perhaps even to the demand, which the editors are now making, that their editorial independence should be protected. For example, I refer to the occult pressures to publish or not to publish. I refer to the relationship of the writ factories and the Press. I refer to the disgraceful abuses that occur in the Press today by means of hidden subsidies in the form of the promotion of supplements. Those are the real dangers that threaten the freedom of the Press. I am

  1415
  astonished that the right hon. Gentleman did not address himself to those features.
  Here, I part company from my right hon. Friend, whose Bill in general I support, because I wish to speak about the principle of the function of the editor. The editor, in a sense, is a hybrid, neither one thing nor another. He is an employee and an administrator. He is the agent of the management, but also a kind of worker-priest whose duty it is to act as an intermediary between the chapel, the management and the proprietors.
  Most editors who began life as working journalists, still maintain their trade union membership. That has never conflicted with their right and opportunity of exercising their editorial function, although I can see that the change in their status from that of associate membership of the NUJ to full membership might qualify the work that they were doing.
  In general editors have an interest in a strong NUJ. I accept that the editorial function is such that if an editor were to become a full member of the NUJ and in an industrial conflict he was subordinate to the rules of his union, he might be put in a position that conflicted with his intermediate position as I have just described it. His editorial authority, which is concerned with the negotiation of wages and so on, makes him in that sense an administrator. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult, if he were a full member of the NUJ, for him to be subordinate to the very body that was in conflict at that point with the management or the administration. Because of the unique situation of the Press and because of its unique function, editors should have a special status.
  If my hon. Friend the Minister of State says that the definition of editor is open to question because there are so many different kinds of individuals who describe themselves as editors, ranging from sub-editors to managing editors, deputy editors, assistant editors, regional editors—a chain of people who use the word "editor" in their title—I say that in this connection the definition of "editor" should be that of the editor-in-chief of any newspaper, whose editorial function is well known and clearly definable. The fancy titles containing the
  1416
  word "editor", which complicate the issue, can be put aside, and there is no reason why editors should not be encouraged to join the NUJ, or whatever union is appropriate to their task.
  It is important that the editors should be allowed a special status to carry out their function, which is to defend the free flow of ideas. Blacking during a strike, or even when there is no industrial dispute, is a delicate and complicated matter. If my hon. Friend prefers the word "exclusion" to "blacking"—
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The question of blacking, otherwise than in industrial disputes, has not been raised with us by editors. It may help us if my hon. Friend makes clear the thought behind his remark.
  Mr. Edelman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is true that the issue of blacking has arisen because of a recent dispute, and it is not my purpose to comment on the merits of that dispute, although my sympathies naturally are with those of the NUJ. Nevertheless, the word "blacking" is a metaphor. It can apply to the exclusion of those who want access to the Press.
  In a closed shop situation, careful consideration must be given to the extent to which the right of those who are not members of the union to appear in the newspapers should be tolerated. For example, a Member of Parliament may wish to make a contribution to a newspaper. A doctor who specialises in some disease of public concern at a given moment may wish to make a contribution. I know that the union has said that a certain percentage should be fixed for such contributions. But these are matters for negotiation between the editor and the union. There are two sides to that negotiation about the free flow of ideas.
  But if the editor is to be in a position to negotiate with the union, it must be recognised that his function stands outside that of the union, which is concerned with working journalists and defending their interests. It is important to identify the status of the editor so that the dialogue may continue between the working journalist and the editor as the intermediary.
  Journalists are craftsmen. They must have the power to defend their craft and

  1417
  their pay and conditions. They have a difficult job in which they need a talent and experience that often require them to serve long apprenticeships. It is not a matter of suddenly deciding one day to be a journalist and the next day being in full production as a journalist. It is a specialist craft, and journalists are entitled to defend their conditions and to combine to arrange for their pay, and so on.
  Although I am strongly in favour of workers' participation, which is an essential development that must take place in the Press so that the voice of the worker can be heard, I am opposed to the concept of workers' control inside the Press along the lines advocated last Sunday in The Observer by one who, I imagine, was writing on behalf of the Free Communications Group.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that worker control is exactly what a closed shop will mean. If he is against that, he is against the Bill.
  Mr. Edehnan: The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) has been in Fleet Street for a long time. He ought to realise that what I am talking about is the communication of ideas. I hope that he will have sympathy with my views. I do not believe that any group or caucus should arrogate to itself the right to control the free flow of ideas. I am opposed to syndicalism in journalism, just as I am opposed to syndicalism in industry generally. There is a public outside the group that seeks to control communications in the Press, and the syndicalist who claims solely to enjoy the benefit of his group in production has to be aware that there is a wider public interest beyond that.
  I was about to quote the letter that appeared last Sunday in the Observer. The writer says:
  "Independent elected staff committees, with the right to confirm or veto the appointment of a new editor and oppose any drastic change in 'weight' or policy would enormously strengthen an editor's hand."
  I oppose that. If there is editorial rule by caucus or by individual groups inside any kind of newspaper organisation, the result is not only patronage, just as there is on the proprietorial side, but a counterpart of patronage that can be only damaging to the interests of the Press generally.
  1418
  As the Press Commission will show, there are many abuses in the Press today by proprietors and by editors that I hope will be eliminated. But nothing in the Bill will do anything to protect the interests of workers in the newspaper industry. There is nothing that will safeguard their rights. There is nothing that in any way will damage the free flow of communication.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State should recognise that the status of editor is unique. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke of comparable instances, no one has yet quoted anything comparable. The position of an editor is unique, and we shall have to be very careful. Today, it may be the Press that is concerned with its structure: tomorrow, it may be the BBC.
  We have to consider carefully the exclusion of contributions from outside contributors because, despite the fact that we can have a closed shop to protect pay and conditions, we must make sure in the interests of liberty that the free flow of communication is not impeded.
  In supporting the Bill and in seeking its partial amendment, I am sure that we serve not only the basic purposes of the Bill, which I support fully, but also the intentions in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. George Gardiner: I agree with a great number of the points made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman), but I ask him to forgive me if I do not immediately develop those with which I disagree. I shall touch upon them later in my remarks.
  We are all grateful to the Secretary of State for devoting a substantial part of his speech to how the Press and Press freedom is affected by the Bill. This is undoubtedly the aspect which has caused the greatest public anxiety of late, and this is reflected by the fact that so many speeches today have concentrated upon it. I intend to do the same.
  I do not wish to create an impression that the debate should become a closed shop operated by members of the National Union of Journalists, although I ought to declare that, like the Secretary of State, I have been a member throughout my adult

  1419
  life. Thankfully, I have not been an editor, but for a period I served on a branch committee of my union.
  I do not intend to dwell at length on Whether there should be closed shops in newspapers. As other hon. Members have said, there are closed shops. Instead, I wish to concentrate on whether there should still be some special safeguards in a closed shop situation in journalism.
  To the extent that it affects journalism the Bill undoubtedly raises issues affecting journalists, working editors and the general public. In his speech today the Secretary of State repeated what he has said on a number of earlier occasions, that his Bill did nothing more than restore the pre-1971 situation. However, that is not so in the case of newspapers. In the right hon. Gentleman's view, the Bill may restore the law to that situation, but the effect of that law will now be very different.
  A great deal has happened in the newspaper world since 1971, nothing more significant than the shift which has taken place in official NUJ attitudes. Instructions have been issued by the annual delegate meeting of the NUJ, which is the equivalent of an annual conference for any other union, that the NEC should
  "… launch an immediate campaign for 100 per cent. union shop covering all journalistic jobs. Any work performed by non-Union members to be blacked and the full backing of the print unions to be sought for any such blacking."
  Again, with respect to the Minister of State's remarks just now, it is not true to say that the blacking issue has never been raised outside an industrial dispute. I agree that we have seen it operating recently in an industrial dispute, but the blacking issue is raised very clearly in that resolution passed at the NUJ annual conference this year. Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that this resolution was passed in the knowledge that a Labour Government would seek to repeal the whole of the Conservative Government's Industrial Relations Act. So we have had that considerable change in the official NUJ approach and attitude since 1971. We have also had a great strengthening of the disciplinary procedures adopted by my union. A few years ago transgressions by members in one dispute in which I was involved were
  1420
  punished by suspension. This year we have seen expulsions from the union. We have had a hardening of attitude there as well.
  Overlying all this is the issue to which the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West referred, the issue of the growing advocacy in a section of this union of increased workers' control over the content of newspapers. One might say that that is a move which has had some encouragement from some of his right hon. Friends —but we shall not go into that matter today.
  Mr. Edelman: I should like to put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is a fundamental distinction between workers' participation and so-called—I believe it is bogus—workers' control. It is a completely different function of journalistic activity.
  Mr. Gardiner: In a sense, of course, there is workers' participation at present. All editors consult their staff on a great variety of things. A good editor is guided by the advice and information which come up to him.
  It is the issue of workers' control which has very largely been ventilated in the columns of the Journalist, for example, in recent months. So we have this issue overlaid on those others which have been hardened considerably by the recent resolution at the annual conference of the NUJ. We have had some illustration of this in the recent dispute, the merits of which I do not want to go into now, either, but we have seen, as the Minister of State acknowledged, the use of this blacking device.
  At one level it is a perfectly understandable protective device. Journalists who are in dispute with their employer naturally do not want to see substitute material brought in for the material which they would have been writing. It is natural that they would take some steps to exclude that material. I would not quarrel with that, but it is being carried a good deal further than that when it comes to blacking the contributions of outside, non-union people and the contributions of those belonging to other unions. It becomes very hard to argue that a considerable element of censorship is not involved in that kind of blacking. The opinion of a great

  1421
  many working journalists is that the use of that device has inflicted more harm on the professional standing of journalists than it has bestowed any protection upon them.
  The present leaders of the NUJ assert that they do not want powers of censorship, and, of course, it is contrary to the rules of the union that they should. In practice, however, that is what in certain situations it can work out to be. I would simply reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior)—if the leaders of the NUJ are saying that they do not want those powers and do not intend to use them in that way, why on earth give those powers to them? That is a serious point which has to be answered. By withdrawing the sort of safeguards which have existed hitherto, the Bill undoubtedly changes the situation in that respect.
  The Secretary of State mentioned and commended the offer which has been made to editors by the NUJ to join in negotiations on these matters. Any negotiations and discussions of this kind are to be welcomed, but that does not get the Secretary of State off this hook. It does answer the arguments that we are putting, because this legislation will tip the scales very much in favour of one party to those negotiations. I do not think that we can claim that those negotiations will be in any sense freely conducted if they are conducted against the background of the Bill which is now passing through Parliament without any serious proposition for amendment.
  I shall not this evening deal very much with the position of the editors. I believe that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, despite his initial qualifying remarks, expressed their unique position and difficulties very well. I endorse a great deal of what he said, but I believe that the Secretary of State must realise the strength of the view that is being put to him by the editors. He was visited, as he has said and as we know, by 21 national newspaper editors. It was a unique assembly. They had never been brought together like that previously. No machinery existed to bring them together. They had to be brought together by Mr. Denis Hamilton, as chairman of the
  1422
  International Press Institute, a body which has been concerned with Press freedom throughout the world.
  Even prior to that meeting more than 60 provincial and regional newspaper editors signed a declaration expressing very similar fears. There again, they were brought together not initially under the umbrella of the Guild of Newspaper Editors but as a spontaneous movement among a number of them who wished to do something separately from the guild because of the guild's built-in connection with the Newspaper Society. Although the guild has taken up and developed the argument, the inspiration and the impetus for that came from outside it before it could ever consider that question.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West seemed to find it a little surprising that editors have never come together in this way previously to stand up to the undoubted threats which are made to them periodically by proprietors and to stand up to certain dangers. The lesson of this is that they have never before felt themselves to be threatened in this way by legislation. That is why they have come together. They have been forced together on this issue. I would agree that it is quite conceivable that in other situations they might come together again, but that we wait to see.
  A second range of objections to this legislation must be voiced on behalf of working journalists. Working journalists other than editors are in a bit of a quandary in this situation. That fact must be faced. As has been said earlier today, they are in the situation in which they have watched other unions in the newspaper industry, the print unions, getting very substantial increases in pay as a result of employing fairly militant methods. Working journalists are feeling that they have been left way behind in this process. There is a great deal of justice and weight to this feeling. One must add, too, that if journalists are behaving with greater militancy at present a share of the blame must attach to the employers, who hitherto have often been only too easily pushed over by the pressures from the print and craft unions and, in the process, have often not given the proper weight and regard to the efforts of those who write the words which they print.

  1423
  Against that there is undoubtedly among working journalists at the moment considerable concern over certain aspects of the more militant approach which has been adopted by their official leaders, particularly when reinforced by this piece of legislation. This applies in many newspaper centres in this country.
  I would not argue very strongly against the closed shop in individual newspaper centres. I say straight away that in the past 10 years of my working journalistic life I worked in a closed-shop situation, and there is no doubt that that confers certain advantages both on employers and on journalists, particularly when it comes to negotiating house agreements and similar matters.
  On the other hand, speaking from my own experience, there is no doubt that those journalists already in a closed-shop situation have felt increasing anxiety in recent months over the way that they, as members of a closed shop, are being required to implement the rather more militant instructions handed down to them by officers of their union. I have had personal experience of a situation in which members of a closed shop here in London—working for a group of provincial papers—were instructed to take industrial action in support of a dispute in some other part of the country involving a totally different employer, and. indeed, in support of a dispute with which closed shop members were totally out of sympathy.
  There is a growing fear among many working journalists that their membership of a closed-shop situation could be used to compromise their journalistic integrity. Many, therefore, are hoping for some safeguards to be written into the Bill, not only for editors but to extend the principle involved to journalists as well.
  Another group to which I wish to refer, and which has a major interest in the issue, includes the readers of the newspapers, who often tend to be overlooked. As the UK Press Gazette remarked recently there is a natural temptation for the journalist to think of the
  "freedom of the Press as a series of rights he enjoys and exercises on his own behalf, because he is a journalist. There are no such rights. The freedom a journalist exercises when he works, or wishes to suspend when he does not, are the rights of the public."
  1424
  For example, it is the right of a public to know what is happening nationally and locally, to know about particular decisions which have been taken affecting their whole lives, whether those decisions are taken in this Chamber or in the chambers of local councils.
  I appeal to the Secretary of State to open his mind much more in Committee than he appeared to do today and at least to accept substantial amendments which will admit, and protect, the real element of public interest involved here. The very phrase "freedom of the Press" embraces far more meaning than there is in the "right to withdraw labour", whether in the newspaper industry or in any other industry—even with respect to the Minister of State, in the process of sewerage. There is a qualitative difference, for example, between the public being robbed for ever of a report of a local council debate on an issue of great importance in their locality and being forced to go without bread on Monday, or perhaps for the whole week. There is a deep difference, involving the public interest, between closing the columns of a newspaper to the opinions of an outside contributor, whether he be an MP, a trade union leader or anyone else, and barring employment in the docks to anyone who is not a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. It is this which makes a free Press, and, to a lesser extent, television, which is also involved here, different from almost all other industries in the country, because the kind of public interest involved is totally different——
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has shown much concern and interest in the freedom of the Press, which is refreshing from the Opposition benches. Can he say what he or his hon. Friends did in relation to the Paul Foot case in which the law of contempt was extended and in which the freedom of the Press was clearly limited? What concern did the hon. Gentleman express at that time?
  Mr. Gardiner: I do not propose to enter into that argument now, but if I did the hon. Gentleman might find that I agree a little more with his approach to it than he might imagine. I agree that in the case he mentioned issues of Press freedom were involved, and the

  1425
  Press has shown some concern about this, but I shall not digress on it now because this is not a debate on the Press, although it might begin to sound like such.
  I urge the Secretary of State, with his personal history not just as a former newspaper editor but as a great dissenter —a man who, in the past, has been prepared to argue unpopular views— either to accept the proposition put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and defer the Bill altogether till an interim report can be obtained from the Royal Commission on the Press, or, failing that—this is probably the more likely alternative—at least to amend the Bill sufficiently broadly to leave the Press aspects of his proposals open-ended till the Royal Commission has reported.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: I shall be very brief, for I realise that a number of my hon. Friends wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One might imagine that this was a debate about the Press, about whether newspaper editors should be members of the NUJ, and whether, if they were, their freedom would be eroded.
  But the debate is not about the 25,000 or 30,000 members of the NUJ. It affects millions of people who work in, for instance, factories and mines, and who are members of the trade union movement. The debate is a response to the rejection, in fact the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act by the last Government. Because of the minority position of the Government at that time, it was impossible for them to reject the whole of the Act. The Bill is therefore a tidying-up operation to get rid of the last vestiges of the hated Industrial Relations Act.
  When we debated the closed-shop question in 1971, many of us put forward the view that it would be impossible for the law to be implemented in a closed-shop situation. The speeches are on the record and thus we can prove that we were correct. No single employer to my knowledge took advantage of the Industrial Relations Act to end a closed-shop situation, although many individuals, eccentric individuals, took their unions to the National Industrial Relations Court and were instrumental in getting fines imposed against their unions. That
  1426
  caused industrial chaos and cost millions of pounds to industry, due to the operation of the closed-shop provisions.
  We are talking not about a narrow issue of the right of journalists' unions to admit editors, but an issue that affects the day-to-day workings in our factories. Unless some attitude is struck by the Government and unless these provisions are abolished, we shall have the same explosive situation in the future that arose two or three years ago after the Industrial Relations Act became law.
  The Opposition have argued this issue as involving the rights of trade unions against the rights of individuals. Trade unions, however, also have rights and trade unions are a combination of individuals who organise together to get the best terms and conditions they can. It is right and just that they should organise in their interests in a closed-shop situation, because that gives them a powerful bargaining base. I know of no instance where a closed shop has been based on intolerance, and I speak from a great deal of experience as an industrial worker and a trade union official.
  I have known situations in which a closed shop operated yet individuals had strong religious objections to joining the union. Unions are tolerant if such people do not come out on strike. They do not force people to join a trade union if that is contrary to a man's religious convictions, but they take a stand against the man who joins the union, who gets into arrears with his contributions, who is warned by his branch and who is given notice that if he does not improve, he will be expelled. If, in spite of that, such a man continues not to pay his union dues, the other members might take the view that he was contracting out of his obligation to building up a strong union that could negotiate the best terms and conditions of employment for its members. They might feel that a person who did not pay contributions had no right to hold out his hand for increases when negotiated, and they might refuse to work with him.
  It is in that situation that the individual goes to the Press and talks about intolerance and Communist-dominated unions and all the other fantasies that appear in the newspapers. Under the Conservative Government, such people took action

  1427
  against the unions in the Industrial Relations Court. It is in that intolerable situation that resentment springs up and leads to industrial strife between management and men, strife that is deliberately avoided by employers who are anxious to get smooth relations with the unions. As far as I know, not one member of management has intervened to take advantage of these provisions in the Industrial Relations Act.
  We should not imagine that the closed shop applies only to industrial workers. It applies also to professional organisations. Examples are members of the Law Society and the doctors, who are unable to carry on their profession unless they are members of the oppropriate organisation. In NALGO executives and town clerks are members of the same union as administrative personnel employed in local government. Yet there does not seem to be any difficulty in organising the executive grades, and there is no reason why that situation should not apply to journalists.
  I speak with little knowledge of the newspaper industry, but I imagine that editors would need the same protection against their employers in the event of dismissal—even though accompanied in most cases by a golden handshake. I would have thought that it was in their interests to unite with their colleagues in order to safeguard their position, but that is a matter for them and for negotiation between the editors and the management. The Bill does not force anyone to operate a closed shop. It says only that no one will be able to take legal action to curtail a situation in which a closed shop exists.
  It has been suggested that this whole matter has something to do with the social contract, but these injustices were being committed under the previous Government under the Industrial Relations Act long before the social contract was even thought of. It is in the interests of justice that we are asking the House completely to repeal that Act. I therefore believe, as we promised in the two General Elections this year, that we should do that. I do not mean repeal part of it, but the whole Act. I am glad that the Government have a majority in the House. When the Bill is law, we shall once more have fulfilled one of the promises that we made during the election—in this case to consign
  1428
  to the dustbin of history the hated Industrial Relations Act.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) said that the Bill was nothing more than a tidying-up operation. If it had been that, the voices of protest from the Opposition would have been much more muted. In fact it goes far beyond being a tidying-up operation. It is a sweeping-away operation of certain important freedoms, and the reason that the debate this afternoon has seemed to turn into an NUJ branch meeting is that members of the union and anyone concerned with the Press feel deeply that certain freedoms are in jeopardy as a result of the legislation.
  In common with most hon. Members who have spoken, I declare an interest in that I have been a member of the NUJ for some years. The division of opinion which exists in the House is reflected in the union's membership at large. There is a wide split in the union over the Bill, particularly over those provisions concerning the closed shop.
  Two main freedoms are threatened by this legislation. The first was, extraordinarily, not even mentioned by the Secretary of State. It is the freedom of the reader of the newspapers to read the most expert, well-informed articles from outside contributors who are not members of the NUJ. The second freedom which is threatened is the freedom of minority views to be expressed in newspapers by readers who are not necessarily NUJ members.
  The union has made it clear that no one other than a member of the union will be able to write in a national or local newspaper more than twice a year, and that means that a whole range of outside contributors—specialist book reviewers, academic commentators, clergymen, countrymen writing nature spotters' diaries and even politicians—will be excluded from writing in newspapers. It is all right for the Secretary of State because he is a member of the union. He should spare a thought for the Home Secretary——
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Why does the hon. Member not join?
  Mr. Aitken: I am a member. I am all right, Jack, but that is not the kind of attitude we want to encourage. Supposing that the Home Secretary wishes to contribute half-a-dozen of his distinguished profiles of statesmen to a national newspaper. What is his position? I put this to an official of the NUJ and he said that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to do it by using the formula "Roy Jenkins talking to Lunch-time O'Booze".
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Has my hon. Friend appreciated that while he may be able to write for the local Press in Thanet, East I would not be in the same fortunate position in Thanet, West?
  Mr. Aitken: That is clearly a great tragedy for the citizens of Thanet. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for pointing that out. A closed shop will impoverish the quality of contributions in local newspapers. Even the article in The Observer on Sunday advocating workers' control of the Press said that it would be intellectual suicide for newspapers to exclude all non-NUJ contributors. The only argument that I have heard supporting the closed shop as being beneficial for newspapers is reported to have come from the Secretary of State in his discussions with the editors when he said that the Daily Herald got along fine for years with a closed shop. The Secretary of State must be reminded, first, that the Daily Herald, no doubt thanks partly to its being a closed shop for journalists, attracted such a loyal and devoted number of readers that it went bust quite quickly. Secondly, the Secretary of State himself, in his distinguished biography of Nye Bevan, said:
  "The Daily Herald has all the intellectual astringency of a parish magazine. How can the mental sinews of our people tauten to the challenge of the modern world if it is fed on such childish rubbish?"
  Does that intellectual impoverishment of the national Press arise without a closed shop for journalists who are members only of the NUJ?
  I should like to touch on just two other points raised by the Secretary of State. First, he was very unfair in his attack on the Editor of The Guardian. I do not believe that The Guardian has in any way misrepresented or misquoted the
  1430
  editors' case. The right hon. Gentleman introduced a red herring about the removal of editors. The issue is not whether they will or will not be removed as a result of the Bill, or whether removal is unfair. They have been removed in the past. We are not talking about their removal. It is true that editors, like Cabinet Ministers, have not enjoyed the greatest security of tenure. But it is not into jeopardy of removal that the Bill brings them.
  We are talking about the control of editors. They are in real danger. That is why they have united in an unprecedented manner to protest against the Bill, against having to accept a whole range of union instructions, having suddenly to be subordinate to union penalties, running the risk of being expelled without compensation, something which has never happened to an editor when expelled by a proprietor. There is a whole range of other interference—interference with editorial appointments, and even the blacking of certain material. No editor worth his salt can accept those limitations on his freedom. That is why the editors feel so strongly, and why the Editor of The Guardian has spoken out so clearly in his columns.
  Editors will be castrated. They will become editorial eunuchs, impotent to make those key decisions and appointments necessary for the efficient running of a newspaper. If I were asked to choose between being removed or being castrated, I should take the choice of being removed, and I think that most editors would do the same.
  The only antidote to the limitations on freedom of editors, hitherto unchallenged, that the Secretary of State held out in the debate was the letter from Ken Morgan, General Secretary of the NUJ. The right hon. Gentleman read the letter in full. I have a healthy respect for Mr. Morgan and his views, although anyone with any knowledge of NUJ internal politics knows that his position as General Secretary is somewhat precarious and that his words, however sincerely written today, may not be able to be implemented by his successor tomorrow, or that his successor may not wish to implement them.
  If ever there were an example of the undoubted fact that power is rapidly passing outside Parliament, it was today's example of the Secretary of State refusing

  1431
  to write into the Bill legal safeguards for the position of editors, and instead, in true Neville Chamberlain-style, waving a piece of paper and saying in effect, "This letter means that there will be peace in our time between the editors and the NUJ militants." The Secretary of State is living in cloud cuckoo land if he believes that. It will not mean that.
  The Bill is a charter for militants. It is a sad blow to the freedom of editors and the freedom of readers to have access to the best possible contributions.
  The whole attitude to the Press in the Bill sterns from a basic misunderstanding about journalism. Whatever the Secretary of State may feel about the ability of the Press to manufacture news, journalism is not a manufacturing industry. The hon. Member for Darlington pointed out that in some circumstances closed shops can be beneficial in manufacturing industry, but, on the editorial side, journalism has much more in common with the arts, politics and the whole world of information. The essential freedoms should prevail. That is why we should vote against the Bill.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: I immediately declare an interest in that I am a member of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, whose general secretary was once described as the leader of the Welsh Mafia. We had a bit of that kind of thing in the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), in which once again the image was presented of the trade union as a great monopoly facing the little individual fighting for his freedom. It was almost like some of the horror films we have seen of late.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) will forgive me if I do not continue along his lines. We have had more than our fair share of hearing about the problems faced by the Press. Time and again during the debate I have felt that it was simply a debate on the Press, rather than on certain important industrial relation issues that affect the Press, but that also affect 25 million other working people.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the intention of the Bill is to bury once and for all the Industrial Relations Act, which did more
  1432
  harm to industrial relations than any legislation we have ever had. That is the essence of the Bill. Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, which are to be repealed, were an integral and essential part of that authoritarian, divisive and class-oriented legislation, the 1971 Act. Section 5 continues the theme of the so-called guiding principles in that Act. Those guiding principles inevitably led to the Goad case, and just as inevitably led to a major confrontation between a leading trade union and the National Industrial Relations Court. As my right hon. Friend made clear, the way is still wide open for a similar confrontation at any time. Another Mr. Goad could appear at any time, become a television personality overnight and cause a confrontation between the High Court and a major trade union.
  Section 5, like Section 65 of the Industrial Relations Act, also cuts right across the Bridlington Agreement. I have heard a great deal of scepticism and scorn about the trade union proposals to try to deal with problems, but there has been little mention of the fact that at a similar level, under the Bridlington Agreement, the trade union movement resolves membership problems day in, day out. Section 5 is a charter for those individuals who want, at a stroke, to opt in or out of their obligations on the factory floor or in the office.
  This is where I disagree with some of my hon. Friends. I do not believe that a closed shop should be assessed simply on the basis that because a worker is enjoying the benefits, he should make contributions. It is not like that at all.
  What it means is that painstakingly and over many decades we have built up a complex and detailed basis of machinery. This has involved unions and employers. We have a representative system of shop stewards and staff representatives. Such individuals, unlike the Goads who want to opt in and out as it suits them and who refuse to accept the obligations that are essential to good industrial relations, are part of the system.
  It is not just a matter of saying, "I shall not pay my 25p a week". Many progressive employers say that in this day and age, with continual changes and problems coming to light, it is essential for good industrial and human relations

  1433
  to have a closed shop. Employers say that it is essential to have their employees as members of an organisation. That enables them to hammer out solutions with the employees' representatives. It is no good Fords of Dagenham inviting 38,000 people on to a football pitch and thinking that they can come to some kind of agreement. It is necessary to use the procedures and the machinery that are so important to good industrial relations.
  All kinds of estimates have been made of the number of workers now covered by closed shops. There have been estimates ranging from 8 million to 12 million. It is right to say that no employers under the Industrial Relations Act scrapped their closed-shop provisions. I met many employers who said that if at the end of the day they had to pay £5,000 in compensation for sacking someone, they would rather pay that sum than disturb the relationship that they had painstakingly built up to achieve good industrial relations.
  At the same time, there are those who believe that these complex issues can be resolved by an independent tribunal. We have heard a lot about independent tribunals this afternoon. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) told us that the majority of people did not agree with the closed shop. I do not know from where the independent tribunal will come. I have not much time for the tribunals that have been operating under the Industrial Relations Act. I have not much time for those that may come into being. Tribunals are usually composed of a lawyer, an employer representative and a representative of the trade unions. It is usually obvious which side of the fence the lawyer is on when he is asked about industrial relations and about the closed shop. I do not believe that the tribunals can resolve complex issues that are more often than not unique to the establishment involved.
  The Explanatory Memorandum mentions Section 6 of the principal Act. That part of the Act is rather like Schedule 4 of the Industrial Relations Act. We all know that that schedule played a main supporting role in the most vindictive and offensive parts of the Industrial Relations Act, namely, so-called unfair industrial practices. For example, in Schedule 4 the unions were told that they had to define the scope and authority
  1434
  of their shop stewards and other representatives. That was not because the registrar wanted to know, but because the NIRC or the tribunals wanted to know whom to clobber under Sections 96, 97 and 98. It is true that under the present Section 6 trade unions do not have to define the scope and authority of their shop stewards, but the section is still indicative of the philosophy that there needs to be an authoritarian strait-jacket imposed on trade unions and that it must be spelt out in their rule books.
  The section is nonsensical to those who know anything about industrial relations. I quote a few examples. It refers to the requirement that the rules must make provision for the election of a governing body when talking to groups of trade unionists and discussing the Industrial Relations Act the question of the governing body has been raised. Invariably I have received the assurance that the membership is the governing body of the union. There are other unions in which I understand learned lawyers are still arguing about the identity of the governing body.
  Further, it is required that a union's rules must provide a specific description of persons eligible for membership. What nonsense. What should the Transport and General Workers' Union put in its rule book? Should it provide that everyone and everybody is eligible or has it drawn up a long list? To demand that trade unions should provide a specific description places improper restrictions in the sense that jobs are continually changing and new jobs are continually being introduced. Why should trade unions have to say exactly what they are in business to look after? That is an unacceptable restriction.
  The amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act which are contained in the Bill leave the Act's provision on the closed shop confused and contradictory. It has been said by some hon. Members that the Act needs only slight amendment. In my judgment what is at stake is the whole question whether we can legislate to deal with the closed shop situation. In my judgment we cannot do so. Following the amendments that were made at a time when I was not a Member, the Act was left confused and full of contradictions. In the original Bill, the definition of a union

  1435
  membership agreement corresponded to industrial reality. When the words
  "other appropriate independent trade unions"
  are added, the result was a complete nonsense. That description was left unamended.
  On this subject an industrial journal, Incomes Data Services, which I am assured is not printed either in Peking or in Moscow, said:
  "In the light of all this confusion, our advice to management and unions can only be—to carry on for the present with their own arrangements. It is certainly not worth signing a 'union membership agreement' merely for the sake of complying with the new TU Act, certainly not unless its confusions are clarified or rewritten."
  I now turn to the Press. I must admit that I know very little about the Press. I have tried to understand the fears that some hon. Members have expressed this afternoon. When most of the newspapers are faced with any kind of situation which seems to involve their profitability or circulation, they immediately start shouting about the freedom of the Press. It seems whenever there is a dispute of any kind—for example, the railways—the freedom of the Press is involved. If there is a railway dispute, it is said that the papers will not be distributed. If there is a dispute in the paper industry, again it is claimed that the freedom of the Press is involved. I could go on ad infinitum.
  I do not know what is so special about the Press. I suppose that if we talk about the Press, we need to bring in publishing, broadcasting and radio. I suppose that education can also be included. Would it be wrong to have a closed shop in education, or in the production of books and periodicals?
  Enough has been said to show that this matter will have to be resolved by the employers and the unions concerned. Judging by what my right hon. Friend said, it seems that in all probability that will be done. But I am still not clear about the issue. It seems to me that things are being confused. If the union achieves 90 per cent. membership, it could still propose to restrict the amount of space that any non-union member could have in the Press. It does not seem logical to argue, therefore, that getting
  1436
  100 per cent. union membership would make any difference in that respect.
  One hon. Member has already said that he once worked in a closed-shop situation and that it did not make any difference. I do not think that it makes any difference in terms of collective bargaining. For example, more and more managers, including personnel managers, are joining NALGO and my own union. It could be said that they therefore negotiate with themselves, but situations are resolved quite happily.
  The editors have had the benefit of a considerable pressure group here today. But their fears can be wrong. As I recall, most of the British Press, with one or two honourable exceptions, supported the Industrial Relations Act, but within a few months they were saying that it should be scrapped.
  The Conservative Opposition have had a lot to say about the closed shop. When they began their industrial relations legislation, they did not want anything to do with the closed shop. They said in effect "You can either join or not join a union, and if you do join, you are free to join a union of your choice." I understand that examples were then given of individuals going to work in an aircraft factory and saying "I want to join the National Union of Seamen." The reply was "We do not mean that. You have to join a union that is on a list."
  The Conservative Government then brought in the approved closed-shop provisions. At the risk of being thought facetious, I recommend to some of those employed on newspapers, or to their defenders, that if we still had the Industrial Relations Act on the statute book, there might have been a request for a closed shop under the approved closed-shop provisions, because the request could have been lodged in terms
  "of maintaining reasonable terms ond conditions of employment and reasonable prospects of continued employment for those workers".
  With so many newspapers closing down and so many workers in the industry becoming unemployed, it is pertinent to remind the workers concerned of the approved closed-shop provisions in the Industrial Relations Act.
  I want an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will not bow to those pressures that insist that somehow

  1437
  or other the Press is a unique area for the law. I do not believe that we can distinguish its area from others. Nor do I believe that the Bill—which does not legislate or otherwise in terms of the closed shop—will affect the freedom of the Press. The editors who have made representations and the Conservative Opposition have not succeeded in sustaining their case.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: If it is in order, I shall not make any reference to the Press whatever. That must be almost unique today. At one time, I thought I was at a branch meeting of the NUJ. There are other issues, as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) has reminded us. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) also referred to matters other than the freedom of the Press.
  The Secretary of State, who has introduced this nasty, rather silly little Bill, is a great parliamentarian, a great and genuine democrat and a great and genuine libertarian who really does believe in the freedom of the individual. That is why I want to talk about his betrayal in practice of those principles which he holds so genuinely and yet is damaging so severely in the Bill.
  The Bill does great damage to parliamentary democracy, to the rule of law and to the freedom of the individual —all matters which we are sent here by our constituents to defend and not to oppress. For example, the provisions about what may or may not be done in this country about trades disputes overseas gives unions a freedom beyond that of any other of Her Majesty's subjects to damage the interests and override the rights of other citizens; not only to protect their own interests and rights, whether directly or indirectly, but also for political or other causes totally beyond anything to do with themselves, their industry or indeed this country.
  The Bill gives immunities to trade unions and employers' associations for breaking contracts, other than contracts of employment, with very little limitation. The Bill is giving them a licence in dealing with their fellow citizens not enjoyed by any other section of our
  1438
  people. It gives them a special privileged position.
  We have heard a great deal today about the side effects of the proposed changes in arrangements for the close shop, changes in the methods of exclusion or expulsion from trade unions, changes in the definition of a union membership agreement and the arrangements for compensation. I have little doubt that in these changes the Bill damages the rights of the individual.
  The right hon. Gentleman by implication half accepted that fact. He talked about the possibility of a tribunal. He said that the individual did need to be protected and that the TUC would find a method of doing it. We are to leave the protection of the individual trade union member, in terms of the Bill, to an independent court set up by the trade unions—a court like the courts of the medieval barons judging their subjects in their own way. Let us hope that they are more merciful.
  On top of all this, the definition of a trade union and the definition of the scope of its organisation has been taken out—in other words, the definition of whether a man shall be able to earn his living at his own trade. This is important. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North West, said that one could not define such matters in law. But it is necessary to have some definition in law about what makes up a union and what its scope and activities are, because under the closed shop arrangements a union can determine whether a man is or is not able to exercise his skill freely.
  In some ways hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are going further in this Bill than they have ever gone before. It is not necessary for the protection of individual workers or trade unions generally. As the present Act stands, there are ample safeguards. I know that there are occasions when there will be conflict between tiresome, awkward individuals and the organisation to which they belong. What Labour Members are saying is that in all cases the dice must be loaded in favour of the organisation. However tiresome and difficult an individual is, he deserves better than that; and it is our business to protect the awkward customer, the man who is wrong as well as the man who is right.

  1439
  These measures are necessary for only one purpose—to increase the political power of the unions and their leaders, to give them power to take action outside Parliament to effect policies that should be decided in Parliament. That is the element that I find most objectionable. I was not reassured by the Secretary of State's speech which could be summed up in three words—"Might is Right". Of course there is room for legislation, more legislation in my view. In some ways the Secretary of State did not go nearly far enough. He made no move towards real industrial democracy.
  Instead of this tatty little Bill I would like to see proper legislation dealing with how working people can individually take a greater part in the conduct of their firms and how they can collectively bring influence to bear upon important decisions, together with Government, management and those responsible for investment.
  It is not a new idea. In the 1945 General Election I put up an alternative to the plan for nationalising the coal industry, namely that it should be divided into three, the National Union of Mine-workers, the colliery owners and the State. That idea has been translated into the "tri-partism" under which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition discussed the arrangement of the economy so exhaustively and successfully with representatives of employers and unions. It was not a new idea in 1945. It was Sir Winston Churchill, in 1930, who put up the idea of a Council of Industry.
  These are the matters with which I would like to see legislation dealing—how to get management, investors and work people taking part in the decision making in their own firms and in the affairs of the country. If we are to have people from the shop floor, the drawing office and management taking part—say as "members" of a company, members not in the same sense but in a parallel sense to the rôle played by the shareholders—then such people have to be bound by the rule of law as are the shareholders. Their power must be limited in the same way as other monopolies.
  The trade unions now have great power. It is just and proper that we should recognise that in the rights we give them.
  1440
  But they must recognise that they have a. great responsibility. All those concerned in any true industrial partnership, investors, management and workers, must match their responsibilities to their rights and must finally be accountable to Parliament. This legislation is taking away some of the safeguards that will be necessary if we are to move towards a better concept of industrial democracy, not superseding Parliament but accountable to the people through Parliament and its Members.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. James Sillars: I am tempted to follow the arguments of the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) but I might be taken somewhat wide of the Bill if I did. If the right hon. Gentleman and I are selected to serve on the Committee dealing with this matter, perhaps we might engage in a debate about the nature of society and whether we can proceed on the national unity basis he outlined in his excellent speech. My view is that unless we progress rapidly towards a Socialist system of society we shall make no significant progress with the standard of living of ordinary people.
  I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is one of the most advanced thinkers, one of the people on the liberal wing of the Conservative Party. I accept that he goes much further than do many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative benches. But he has many a league to go before he reaches even the Right wing of the Labour Party and a long way to go before he can embrace the Socialist concepts which I embrace.
  Like the right hon. Gentleman, I thought on some occasions today that I was attending a meeting of the NUJ. Anyone who thinks that the NUJ is about to impose a Left-wing Marxist dictatorship upon the Press ought to have listened to the case which came from the Conservative benches today. It struck me that there was many a member of the NUJ who took an entirely different view of the world from Karl Marx or Lenin.
  I welcome the amendment to Section 29(3) of the principal Act. That is the amendment of the provisions relating to overseas disputes. As the provision was originally drafted in the Bill presented

  1441
  by the minority Labour Government, it would have allowed trade unions to take international action when faced by international capital, as manifest by the multinational companies. That Bill was amended by the "short Parliament", if I may call it that—although in relation to industrial relations it was sometimes the "crazy Parliament"—to hamper the trade union movement in this activity.
  During the years I have been a Member of this House I have heard hon. Members in various parts of it taunt the Parliamentary Labour Party, saying that they could not understand why we would not enter the EEC because our internationalism should have shown us that in the day of the multinationals there had to be a greater degree of co-operation between States to overcome the power wielded by such multinationals. Through this Bill my right hon. Friend is giving to working people, not only in this country but in co-operation with working people in many other countries, a positive method of dealing with multinationals. The amendment meets a growing need. It is a recognition of the growing need for action on an international basis by working people when they face the multinational giants.
  Let us take, for example, the grape pickers in California. Under the Industrial Relations Act, if the British trade union movement wants to defend those people, who are paid the most miserly wages in the United States, and if it happens to engage in breaking, or the consequence of its action is the breaking, of a contract which is not a contract of employment, it is subject to damages. If the Act is amended according to the Bill, we can properly take action to strengthen the hand of the Californian grape pickers. That will go a long way towards ending the dispute and will lend a great deal of weight to the improvement of conditions for many working people here and elsewhere.
  If the amendment is accepted, and if the international trade union movement takes action—sometimes strike action— and strikes penetratingly and deeply at the multinational companies, we shall be doing far more for the ordinary man and woman in the street, whether it be in Tokyo, Bonn, Rome. Manchester or Dundee, than will 1,000 regulations and directives from the EEC Commission.
  1442
  I also welcome the amendment to paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 1, which I do not see in the same light as does the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), the spokesman for the Liberal Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I am almost taken back to the days of the 1971 Industrial Relations Bill, when the Liberals did not attend after 11 p.m. I have always thought that the reason why they voted for the Second Reading and against the Third Reading of the Bill was that they missed what happened in between. I have some advantages over the Liberals, one of which is that I have been engaged in the operation of the Brid-lington Agreement and have seen how it works in practice.
  The Bridlington Agreement was agreed by the TUC, it is operated by the TUC, and the decisions of the committee which was set up under the Bridlington Agreement are accepted by the affiliated organisations, even when those decisions go against them. I am convinced that the independent review machinery of the TUC to which the Secretary of State referred will work just as successfully as has the Bridlington Agreement. My right hon. Friend was correct in saying that it was an historical development inside the trade union movement.
  The amendment to Schedule 1 gets rid of the free rider, it gets him off the back of the ordinary working trade unionist. I do not agree that to get the free rider off our backs is not important. If we get the free rider off we shall clear some of the obstacles in the machinery.
  I remember that in 1961 when a man called Selwyn Lloyd was Chancellor of the Exchequer he introduced the first wages policy. At that time I was a working fireman. It took all the working firemen in the United Kingdom between six and nine months to campaign for an increase in wages. That campaign took a lot of money out of trade union funds. We finally received what was in those days a very substantial increase in wages, despite the wages policy of the then Tory Government. I always remember the bitterness among the men in my shift in Kilmarnock fire station when one nonunion member held out his hand and took what we had worked for in those six to nine months and what we had paid for out of our trade union funds.

  1443
  Conservatives and Liberals often paint the non-unionist as a hero, an individual who is larger than life with more spirit than anyone else. In my experience non-unionists are mean, they do not want to pay the union contribution and are unwilling to accept their communal obligation to their fellow working men. They are happy to take the benefits in cash and in kind but they are not prepared to make any contribution. That is one reason why I believe that we must get the free rider off our backs.
  Genuine non-unionists whose religious point of view prevents them from joining a trade union or any other organisation have never had a day's problem in the trade union movement. We deal with them simply. We accept that they hold a genuine viewpoint and suggest that if they cannot for conscience reasons contribute to trade union funds they should contribute to a charity. That is good enough for us as long as we know that they are part of the community. That is how it has always worked in practice.
  I am delighted to see that the amendment wipes off the statute book the blacklegs' and free-riders' charter. The Bill puts a few deft finishing touches to the demolition of the 1971 Act. We look forward to the Employment Protection Bill which will advance the rights of ordinary working-class people.
  There were times today when I thought the debate was concerned not with the British Press but with some other Press, especially in the arguments about editorial freedom. I accept that there is a problem here, as there is in other parts of industry and in society, but those problems can be resolved. The National Union of Journalists is not a monolith. There are chapels at the Morning Star that do not correspond in political, industrial and journalistic attitudes to chapels at the Daily Telegraph. Let no one tell me that the national executive of the NUJ at 10 o'clock one night before the presses roll will take a decision in relation to political journalism and impose that decision on every newspaper in the country. It does not work that way in practice and is never likely to do so. Although I recognise that there is a problem, the nightmares that were depicted were imaginary.
  1444
  Some hon. Members confused editorial freedom with the freedom of the proprietor to dictate editorial policy to his editor. We should direct our attention to the proprietors' grip on the British Press rather than to the hypothetical grip of the NUJ. Editors of school magazines sometimes have far more editorial freedom than do journalists in our so-called national dailies.
  The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) spoke of the importance of getting the intellectual quality right. Where is the intellectual quality in some of the stuff that is churned out by Fleet Street? Where is intellectual judgment shown in putting a good news item in the middle page of a tabloid newspaper alongside a photograph of a luscious piece of flesh depicting a bathing beauty contest? The decision where to place a particular item is made on the basis of what will sell most newspapers in a certain market.
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman uses an argument which advances my point. If we are interested in improving the intellectual quality of newspapers—and goodness knows many newspapers need it—one way of doing that is by not excluding contributors whose only sin is that they are not members of the NUJ.
  Mr. Sillars: I said earlier, and I accept, that there is a problem. However, in stating the problem hon. Gentlemen opposite overstated the benefits of the so-called freedom of our so-called free Press. I would go a long way with the hon. Gentleman if he would say that, in addition to this problem, there is the greater and much more fundamental problem of how our Press is funded and controlled. If the Conservative Party were to say, "Let us have a comprehensive and fundamental look at the British Press and let us change its power structure so that poor old editors do not have to worry about someone phoning in and saying, 'Replace those four or five column inches with a photograph that might sell the paper better tomorrow morning'", we could have a sensible dialogue and discussion about it. But there is a great deal of humbug talked about the freedom of the Press and the benefits that it gives to us.
  Earlier, one of my hon. Friends talked about the importance of the social contract and noted that the Bill made a

  1445
  contribution to the Government's commitment to the social contract—because the Labour Government has a commitment to it just as much as have trade unionists and working people.
  If a man had come in at Question Time today he would believe, if he believed all that he heard, that the social contract was about wage restraint only. However, the Government have a part in that contract as well. If we are to make the social contract work in practice, the Government must understand that it is subject to enormous pressure from two points. If we do not take cognisance of that pressure the social contract could crack and break before the winter is over. If the social contract goes, so does the Labour Government.
  The first point is the constant attack and the argument that we need a wage freeze, which emanates from a number of important hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  The second point is the pressure of inflation on the pay packets and living standards of ordinary working families. There is no point in lecturing Scottish lorry drivers about the social contract if we are not capable of understanding what it is like to live on a wage of less than £1 an hour at the present rate of inflation.
  We must work very hard indeed during the winter to secure the success of the social contract. It is not enough for Labour Ministers to meet general secretaries of unions or the General Council of the TUC. The argument about not only the responsibilites of workers but the contribution being made by the Labour Government must be conveyed at grass roots level. It is important to get out to the grass roots. Ministers should go into canteens to meet workers and to listen as well as to talk to them. My right hon. and hon. Friends should be very careful, when dealing with the social contract, not to get too far from the psychological reality of working people.
  I am glad that the debate is to be wound up by a Minister from the Department of Employment. I put down a Question this week about the guide lines used to assess the pay of the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth, Jack Diamond, now called Lord Diamond, who
  1446
  receives £16,350 a year, plus threshold payments, for doing that job. I was informed by the Minister of State, Department of Employment, that the salary was paid on the basis of comparability. We must be very careful when we bandy about words like "comparability". If any Scottish bus driver decides that his pay should be comparable with that of a lawyer, an editor, or a judge for that matter, we shall be in serious trouble.
  I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends to take heed of the fact that we shall have to campaign not only for the social contract but to get our priorities right. That means less cash to some people on higher incomes and more cash to some people on lower incomes.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: I am tempted after hearing the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), to try to explain what we regard as questionable about the social contract, but to do that would be to digress a long way from the subject matter of this debate—the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill.
  However difficult it may be for many hon. Members on this side of the House to understand it, however misguided we may have considered it, the storm of resentment that arose over the Industrial Relations Act 1971 was real in the trade union movement and the hostility that that Act aroused was deep and lasting. We ignore that fact at our peril.
  During the last Parliament it was therefore natural that the Government, albeit a minority Government, should have made it a first priority to repeal what they regarded as an objectionable Act. In the course of doing so, on a number of important but limited points the Opposition were successful and had their way. Since then, not only has the Labour Party won another election victory but the Opposition, during their election campaign, made it clear that they had no intention of reintroducing the 1971 Act.
  Mr. John Tomlinson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the statement by the then Leader of the Opposition—I suppose that he is still the Leader of the Opposition—was made

  1447
  while the Bill was still in Committee? The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition attached weight to that fact during the General Election, but the Bill was in Committee when the Leader of the Opposition promised this—before any of the subsequent amendments were made to it by this House.
  Mr. Brittan: That is right, but that is not the point that I was making. I was pointing out that, recognising the depth of feeling in the Labour Party and among its supporters about the Industrial Relations Act, it was subsequently repealed. At the same time, whether in Committee or during the election, a commitment was made by the Conservative Party that the Act would not be reintroduced in its old form.
  In that context surely passions can now be allowed to die down and tempers to cool. The right question to ask is not whether the Opposition amendments which were passed in July this year are or are not to be regarded as legacies of the 1971 Act, but whether the changes brought about by those amendments in the legislation are in themselves unreasonable and unacceptable limitations on trade union powers. I believe that those changes did no more than to provide individuals with the barest and most narrowly limited protection against the abuse of power.
  It is important, if we are analysing those amendments and seeing whether they should be repealed as well, to see just how limited that protection was. The 1974 Act clearly permits closed shop, or an agreement euphemistically described as a union membership agreement. Such an agreement in an industrial context can be obtained either by genuinely voluntary agreement with managements or as a result of industrial action. However it is obtained, it is clear that it was permissible under the 1974 Act before any amendments were introduced. Under that Act the only limitation on the closed shop, as the Act was originally phrased, was that a man who was sacked for refusing to join a union could bring a claim for unfair dismissal if he had a religious objection to joining a trade union. The Opposition amendment that was passed extended that provision so that he could bring a claim if he objected on
  1448
  any reasonable ground to being a member of a particular trade union.
  If we imagine a situation in which the union disagrees with a person who is refusing to join, takes a different view, and says that he is unreasonable, we can soon see how limited was the protection that our amendments gave him, because in a situation where the union disagrees with a person who does not want to join it there is nothing to stop the union from exerting the maximum pressure on the employer and using every form of coercion and industrial action to persuade the employer to sack the employee. It is lawful to do so despite all the amendments that were made by the Opposition, and if the union is strong enough and resolute enough in that aim the pristine principle will remain inviolate and the man will be sacked. And not only will the man be sacked, but there will be no sanction against the union.
  Because of the protections that are being sought to be taken away, the only consequence will be that the man sacked can obtain compensation for wrongful dismissal if it is subsequently found that he was right and the union was wrong and that his objection to joining was on reasonable grounds. But that is a sanction on the employer, and if he dismisses an employee in those circumstances he may have to pay damages. It is, therefore, an extremely limited sanction because, faced with the threat of major industrial action, many employers would much rather pay the odd individual the limited compensation for unfair dismissal than risk standing up to the union that is seeking to impose a closed shop.
  Therefore, the only circumstances in which the amendments which it is sought to repeal give any sort of real protection are those in which the employer ignores purely commercial considerations and feels that it would be wrong to sack the man because the law regards it as in the circumstances unfair, even though the penalties for doing so are so limited.
  If, as I have been arguing, the protection granted to those qualified for it after the Opposition had done their best with the Bill are still so weak, and if the union can, if it feels strongly enough about it, still get its way, it is surely reasonable that the limited protection should at least

  1449
  be afforded on a generous basis and not by applying as narrow a criterion as possible.
  Mr. Ivor Clemitson: The hon. Gentleman has produced a great deal of theory which seeks to deal with all sorts of hypothetical cases. His difficulty lies in having to show the need for remedies such as these. What need is there for them? Can he produce examples of injustice?
  Mr. Brittan: I have not produced any hypothetical situations. The situation that I have envisaged is reasonable. It would be possible—and the hon. Gentleman knows that it can be done—to give numerous examples that were cited in Committee, on which both the hon. Gentleman and I served. I do not think that it would be valuable to repeat the examples that were given then, but I shall come to an example in a slightly different context. What I was saying was that if the protection is as limited as I have been arguing that it is, surely it is particularly important that it should be extended on as generous a basis as possible and not just by applying a narrow criterion of religious objection to joining a trade union.
  It is fantastic, as I argued during the debate on the previous Bill, that the objections to serving one's country in time of war that are allowed are on a conscientious basis and not merely on a religious one, and someone can say that he will not serve in the Army because he has a conscientious objection, but not a religious one, yet he is to be allowed to get out of a trade union in a closed shop situation only if his objection is a religious one.
  That is far too narrow a criterion, and the provisions of the Act as passed, and which we would seek to defend, go further in one sense, but only in one sense, because they do not cover objections to joining unions altogether, but only an objection to joining a particular union. The objection has to be on reasonable grounds, determined by an industrial tribunal, and then it must not be an arbitrary objection. The mere fact that someone was not prepared to pay —and this was the point raised so forcefully by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire—would not be a sufficient objection
  1450
  to enable him to get out of joining a union in a situation of that kind.
  If a person refuses to join a union which seeks to make him behave in a way which he reasonably regards as contrary to his professional duty, that would be a sufficient ground, and it is in that situation that he requires protection and where the previous Act gave it, and this would cover the example that I shall give—it is the example that we have heard so often today—of the editor.
  This is a concrete case, to which I have referred elsewhere, of an editor who got into difficulties because of his refusal to follow the line dictated by the NUJ. In a closed-shop situation that editor would, if he were expelled from the union or was not a member of it, possibly no longer be able to carry on his newspaper activities at all. That example illustrates the threat that is posed by the legislation.
  Hon. Members will be familiar with the example that I raised before of Ian Nimmo, editor of the Evening Gazette of Middlesbrough, who was fined £50 by the NUJ for trying to bring his paper out during a strike. His appeal was dismissed and he subsequently resigned from the union. If the union had a closed shop, and if he did that, he would no longer be able to carry on editing the paper.
  What was his crime? What was his attitude that led to his getting into trouble? It was in line with the best traditions of journalism throughout the world. When his appeal was dismissed, he said:
  "An editor, as the custodian of a free press, is expected to produce his newspaper in spite of fire, flood, war, violence or intimidation. If the Russians or Martians invaded tomorrow, even with the presses out of action, most editors would still be trying to find some way of keeping people informed, even if it was only by duplicated hand-outs. That has always been the great press tradition. Now it would appear, however, at least according to the NUJ, that the only circumstances in which an editor is not expected to publish is when the union says so. There will be many editors throughout the country who will be unable to accept such a dictate."
  As it is, Ian Nimmo is able to survive, but if there were a closed shop, he would not have the option to resign but would have to submit to the dictates of the union against his professional traditions, or give up his editorship. That is

  1451
  just one illustration of the grave threat to a free Press afforded by the Bill. It is not just a theoretical affair; I have cited a real example.
  That does not mean that there are not situations in which a closed shop is necessary, only that there must be the most careful safeguards against abuse. One of the most important safeguards is to ensure that, if a man's livelihood depends on his being a member of a union, there should not be arbitrary or unreasonable expulsion or exclusion. Almost everyone on this side of the House will regard the Secretary of State's proposals as providing no protection against arbitrary expulsion or exclusion.
  Why does this have to be some private domestic tribunal and not the industrial tribunals? When the Industrial Relations Act was in force, the industrial tribunals were unfortunately boycotted by the trade union movement. This is no longer so. The trade union representatives have come back to the tribunals, which are independent bodies with experience of industry. There is absolutely no reason why they should not carry out the functions of an appeal body against unfair exclusion and expulsion.
  The suggestion that they are not capable of fulfilling that rôle is absurd. If it is claimed that the trade union should set up its own tribuntal to consider unfair exclusions or expulsions, why should not unfair dismissals be considered by a tribunal appointed by the CBI? That is an exact comparison, and shows how absurd the situation is.
  Why is there this pussyfooting by the Secretary of State? Why is he allowing his libertarian instincts to be squeezed out of him? He has given the trade union movement everything that it can legitimately want, and a lot more, too. Can he not for once realise that charm and evasive oratory are no substitute for a firm stand on a matter of principle? Can he not for once appreciate that a worthy concern with high-flown notions of liberty is no substitute for action when that liberty is under threat? The Bill should never have been introduced, and it should be rejected by the House with the contempt it deserves.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate must be concluded by ten o'clock and that it is proposed that the winding-up speeches should start at nine o'clock.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Tierney: I will be relatively brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in order to give other hon. Members the chance to speak before nine o'clock.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for taking the hint.
  Mr. Tierney: I know nothing of editors' problems, but I can describe how some of these matters are received on the shop floor. In my view, the history of industrial relations in this country shows an attitude of indifference. Industry has never afforded the time or the money or had the will to work for a major development of industrial relations. Industrial relations have become the target of knockers and have received little positive general support. Too often, we hear about the days that are lost, but we never hear about the days that are saved. We hear about disputes, but never about the disputes that are avoided. We hear about industrial war, but never much about industrial peace or the peacemakers.
  Since the war, the basic pattern of industrial relations has been one of annual reviews of wages, of unions constantly having to put unsatisfactory compromise settlements to their members and of employers who settle in the hope that they will not be troubled by the unions again for at least another 12 months. Apart from some employers who recognise the positive influence and stable contribution of the trade union movement, most look upon industrial relations as a necessary evil.
  The situation is changing fast, as it must if we are to make up the leeway and make industrial relations a positive and continuous development. Most of us who try to understand simple basic economics have not failed to notice the emphasis and the influence applied to persuade us to accept that there is nothing as important as capital investment and consequently the so-called management techniques that follow from it in such

  1453
  matters as production, productivity, planning, manpower requirements and administration.
  Although labour has always played the important and essential rôle in the economy, good industrial relations, which are necessary for the best use of labour within that economy, have never received their due importance. One of the good things arising from the three-day working week episode last February was the realisation by the British people of the importance of industrial relations. For the first time they accepted as fact what good trade unionists have always known —that there is nothing more important than good industrial relations in our industrial life.
  The Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers Associations, which sat under Lord Donovan from 1965 to 1968, pointed the way in industrial relations. One of its basic findings was that the collective bargaining system ought to be improved and extended. The House is doing that today with the introduction of this Bill.
  The Donovan Commission also gave its support to the closed-shop principle. In that connection, I refer to the provision in the 1974 Act mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). Paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 1 reads:
  "Dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be regarded as fair for the purposes of this Schedule. … unless the employee genuinely objects on grounds of religious belief or on any reasonable grounds".
  I am very pleased that the passage relating to "reasonable grounds" is now to be deleted.
  Those with any experience in these matters will know that the sincere individual who makes the claim on religious grounds will, generally speaking, accept the consequences, as difficult as they sometimes are, as part of the cross he has to bear. But there are many who would make a claim on "reasonable grounds" and act most unreasonably in pushing it. Comments were made about the "free riders" and the subject of contributions. Sometimes it concerns the shop steward's face. Very often these people tell us that they are self-made men who are always proud of their creator.
  1454
  There is no shop steward nor workers' representative as disruptive as the non-unionist on the shop floor who boasts of his freedom and his independence of the trade union, whereas the trade unionists believe the non-unionist is dependent upon the trade union for his standard of wages and conditions, for which he makes no contribution. In a situation like this, harmony, teamwork, production, prosperity and good industrial relations all fall short. This is a situation in which employers usually find reasonable grounds for dismissal.
  It is not easy to deal with a situation in which persons are dismissed from their jobs in such places. There will be many borderline cases and many difficulties, but I am sure that the proper procedures will be available and that rules, provisions and protections will prevail.
  The independent review committee must be welcomed. It is imperative to establish good collective bargaining procedures. The involvement of the total work force is essential, and anything that assists in that should be welcomed.
  Section 30 of the 1974 Act speaks of a "union membership agreement", which has the effect of requiring the terms and conditions of employment of every employee of a given class to include
  "a condition that he must be or become a member of the union or one of the unions which is or are parties to the agreement or arrangement"
  made with the employers. I welcome the substitution of the word "specified" for "appropriate", because the situation needs controlling in this way.
  I remind the many critics of the trade union movement that they cannot say that there are too many trade unions involved at a single plant, factory or workshop levels while they openly encourage and invite the activity of other trade unions at the same plant, factory or workshop level when it is against the wishes of both the employers and the trade unions. In this situation, the proposed change will be welcomed by employers and trade unionists alike.
  In this life, much is said about the protection of minorities, and I respect that as a principle. It is also said that the power of the trade unions is too great. As the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) pointed out,

  1455
  might is right. However, there are situations in British industry today where non-unionist minorities are able to exploit majorities in ways that are not in the best interests of industry, of employers or of the work force and where those who are wrong are dangerously wrong.
  There are also millions of low-paid workers who have no power, no trade union and no genuine right to get one. It is generally agreed that the need to improve industrial relations in British industry is an urgent and pressing priority. It is also generally agreed that, in order to bring that about, the collective bargaining system ought to be improved and extended. I am convinced that this amending Bill will do much in that direction. It will be a step forward in strengthening collective bargaining systems within a voluntary framework of planned production and income growth. I welcome the changes that are to be made.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: Like other recent contributors to this debate, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) led us out of the newspaper offices of Fleet Street into the wider field of industrial relations. I intend to return to journalism, though not to Fleet Street but to the editorial offices of the Kentish Times where recently some 66 members of the National Union of Journalists were dismissed following industrial action which they took.
  The Kentish Times is distributed in my constituency. I am a contributor to it and I am also a member of the NUJ—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: A man of words.
  Mr. Goodhart:—so none of my copy has been blacked. But I can readily understand the enthusiasm of a large number of members of the NUJ to have a closed shop.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) said that journalism was a difficult craft to learn. In my view, the problem is that it is too easy a craft to learn. Too many people who have a feeling for words and an intuition of what the public want can very quickly become competent journalists, and the introduction of long and elaborate apprenticeship schemes does not alter the situation.
  1456
  We are currently celebrating the centenary of Winston Churchill's birth. He was a distinguished journalist. He became a distinguished war correspondent without any previous knowledge of journalism. He knew something of war and something of writing. He knew nothing of journalism when he went off to become a war correspondent. Nowadays he would no doubt have to spend two years in an apprenticeship scheme on the Blenheim Gazette.
  But very little real training is needed, so the journalist rightly feels that he is vulnerable to the outsider and vulnerable to the outside contributor. He has the example readily at hand in his own office of what prizes a closed shop can bring when he sees that the strides that the print unions and, indeed, SOGAT, have made in recent years have been rather faster than those made by the National Union of Journalists. So it is not surprising at all that a very large number of members of the NUJ should want a closed shop.
  At the same time, it is not at all surprising that a number of editors should fear this development and should feel that it carries within it a potential threat to the freedom of the Press. We have had examples in recent months of efforts by the print unions to exercise some form of editorial control. There have been examples of anti-union cartoons that have not appeared because the print unions objected to them. We also know of the small domestic issue—which is, however very much in the minds of editors—that editors have no real freedom to choose their secretaries and that they have to go to SOGAT and to look at what SOGAT is prepared to offer in the way of a secretary.
  Mr. Skinner: Get on with it.
  Mr. Goodhart: When one newspaper tried to investigate this practice and to print a story about it, it was telephoned by that union and told that if it wished to continue with the inquiry the newspaper was unlikely to come out. There have, therefore, been pressures put on by unions which editors rightly feel infringe editorial freedom.
  We have had an example in the House. That was a matter which was brought before the House by the former Liberal Member for Bodmin, who, like a number of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, was a member of the NUJ

  1457
  and voted against the provision in the Finance Act to restore some £10 million to union funds. An obscure member of the NUJ in Scotland said that this was anti-union activity. There is a clause in the constitution of the NUJ which says that anyone who acts against the interest of the union is liable to be disciplined. We know that Mr. Morgan says that there will be no attempt by the NUJ to influence editorial freedom.
  Mr. Skinner: This is as boring as a crate of stale bread.
  Mr. Goodhart: Mr. Morgan has written a letter which has been published in The Times. He has written a letter to the Secretary of State, which the right hon. Gentleman read out to us this afternoon. I accept fully that Mr. Morgan has no intention of trying to influence adversely Press freedom. But can one say that of all the branches? Are we not likely to find harassment of members of the union by branches of the sort that happened to myself and to other members of the NUJ in this House? Of course, a Member of Parliament has protection and privilege and the union retreated in the case to which I refer, and abject apologies were made to the House. But what would be the position with a member of the NUJ living far away from Parliament, far away from Fleet Street, whose case would not be likely to attract so much attention? I wonder whether such a person might not feel harassed and would trim his sails accordingly.
  I believe that the fears of the editors are justified. The Ministers have been too casual in their dismissal of the editors' argument. We have asked that the Bill should be postponed until there can be an interim report from the Royal Commission on the Press. We have been told that the TUC is to set up a commission to look into the matter. Surely we could postpone the Bill until this commission set up by the TUC has reported, so as to ensure that safeguards are considered adequately, at least by the Ministers. I see no reason that we should rush forward in this way, because this is the wrong Bill at the wrong time.
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Clemitson: I follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in one respect in that,
  1458
  like him, I have little new to say on this subject. I want to comment briefly on four major issues dealt with in the Bill. The first concerns the rights of the individual over the trade union and the regulation of the internal affairs of trade unions. The second deals with trade disputes relating to matters outside Great Britain. The third is concerned with protection against actions in tort in respect of breaking contracts. The fourth relates to the question of conscientious objection.
  In relation to the first point, about the rights of the individual against the trade union and the regulation of the internal affairs of trade unions, several matters need to be reiterated. In the first place trade unions are democratic bodies and have therefore a basic right to regulate the running of their own affairs, just as the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and many other democratic organisations, or organisations which claim to be democratic, have that right.
  It has previously been pointed out in Committee, on many occasions, that the number of cases of genuine injustice in the treatment of individuals by trade unions is very small. This is common ground between both sides of the House. It is also common ground that the number of cases of individuals being unjustly treated by employers is considerably greater—and that point needs to be stressed. It also needs to be repeated that there is a contrast in the different legal treatment of the rights of the individual in relation to trade unions, on the one hand, and to employers, on the other.
  As far as I am aware, there is no general right for a person to be employed by a particular employer, nor is a person able to object to unreasonable exclusion from any particular employment by any particular employer. Further, in regard to the rights relating to unfair dismissal, even with a certain tightening up previously done in Committee, it is still extremely easy for employers to argue, and to argue successfully, that a particular dismissal was fair. The unfair dismissal provisions of the Bill are hedged about as they were in the 1971 Act with all kinds of qualifications. Trade unions, unlike employers, are democratic organisations—unless, that is, we regard the Companies Acts as in some ways models of democratic government, and I would find that difficult to argue.

  1459
  Next, there is the question of a dispute involving matters outside Great Britain. The growth of multinational companies was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). I prefer to call them supranational companies because they operate over and above nation States and are not simply companies which appear to trade in different nation States. There is an increasing diversification of the operations of these companies. As human life becomes more and more interwoven and complex, it becomes more and more difficult to draw lines and to say that at that point a particular responsibility on a particular matter finishes.
  We have been over the argument of contracts of employment as against contracts many times. We could go into the question whether we are reverting to the 1971 situation, yet I believe we clearly are not doing so in this case. But we must remember what the 1906 Act developed from, and I believe that by substituting the word "contract" for the term "contract of employment" we should be going back to the spirit if not the letter of the 1906 Act.
  We could try to approach the question of conscientious objection from the point of view of theory and try to deal with it as a question of principle, as if we were dealing with the Luther situation,
  "Here I stand, I can do no other."
  How can that situation be legislated for? Clearly it is not legislated for in the Bill as it stands. The expression "any reasonable grounds" is as wide and woolly as one could wish. As my hon. Friends have said, this is indeed a charter for the free rider. In what circumstances can the Luther position truly be said to describe the situation of anyone in relation to his or her membership of a trade union? To attempt to approach the question of conscientious objection from the point of view of principle, therefore, is a non-starter.
  We come back inevitably to the practicalities of the situation. In practice, we are talking about the religious conscientious objector, and he is treated tolerantly and with great understanding by all trade unions, certainly in my experience and that of my hon. Friends.
  1460
  The Bill completes the job of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, which is to clear the ground. I hope that we shall do the job quickly, so that we can get on to the positive and constructive work that we all want to do, that of enabling working men and women to play a fuller part in the affairs of industry and to be treated as what they already are, mature human beings, instead of being treated as children, with little or no right to determine matters affecting not only their livelihood but their lives.
  In that development the trade unions have the central rôle. They cannot play it fully as long as any of the shackles of the Industrial Relations Act remain.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson), who, with his customary clarity, made his four points so briefly.
  The general mood of the debate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) commented, was such as to make it sound at times as though we were at a branch meeting of the National Union of Journalists. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Luton, East for widening the debate, because in some ways there is a sense of unreality about it. The House has been spending the whole day debating a sordid and nasty little Bill at a time when the nation confronts major problems that need the attention, discussion and collective wisdom of the House brought to bear upon them. But so be it. The Government, who control the business of the House, have decreed that the Bill shall have priority over other matters.
  For some of us this is the fifth time that the arguments on many of these topics have been deployed in a little over six months, but it has not been such a boring debate as might have been expected. It has, however, had the same result as our previous debates. Ministers and their supporters are as unconvincing as ever, just as deeply in hock to the trade union leaders on these matters as they ever seemed to be, just as willing to demolish the individual safeguards that the House built into the legislation as ever they were, and just as willing to ride roughshod over moderate opinion both in the House and outside.

  1461
  The Government are just as shortsighted and obstinate now as ever they were in rejecting a chance to achieve broad general agreement about industrial relations legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said in his opening speech that there was still an opportunity to get the general basis of our industrial relations legislation in an agreed form. If the Government persist in pushing the Bill through, they will destroy that possibility.
  There has been great concentration upon the aspects of the Bill concerning the freedom of the Press, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) remarked before he talked of other issues. But the Bill is much more damaging than merely in its effect on Press freedom. The Secretary of State said that it was his intention to repeal the offensive parts of the 1971 Act. His objective is to repeal those parts of the Act that he does not like, but the Bill goes much further than the restoration of the pre-1971 position. It widens and extends the privileges and amenities of those involved in trade disputes far beyond anything that has ever existed before, as the hon. Member for Luton, East reminded us.
  I remind the House of the effect of these provisions. They were vividly described by Mr. Campbell Adamson in his letter to The Times on 11th June of this year. He was writing about the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, but his letter equally applies to the present Bill. He wrote:
  "If the Bill is passed as at present drafted, unions, their officials and shop stewards will be free in law to strike or indulge in other industrial action or to 'black', blockade or boycott, or threaten to do so whenever they like, officially or unofficially, constitutionally or in breach of procedure, in respect of a trade dispute anywhere in Great Britain or in the rest of the world. Secondly, it will be lawful to use the picket line for the purpose of establishing boycotts or blockades whether against an employer in dispute or against employers, companies, public corporations or any other bodies which have nothing to do with the dispute in question."
  That is not restoring the pre-1971 position. It is taking matters very much further than ever before.
  It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State should act in this fashion at this time. Those involved in trades disputes, industrial action, or in strikes do not need further privileges and protection.
  1462
  It is the community that requires some protection against the activities of those within the trade union movement who are using their industrial power in selfish ways. Any Secretary of State who gives them additional privileges and immunities would, I presume, if he had been living at the time of the Luddites, have gone round distributing bigger and better sledgehammers.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) dealt with another aspect of overseas immunities when he said that he approved of the legislation that was extending such immunities for anything concerned with a dispute overseas. When we were discussing these matters towards the end of the previous Parliament, the Under-Secretary of State said that the sort of disputes he thought it right to be involved in were disputes of Ford workers in this country striking or engaging in industrial action in support of Ford workers in Spain, or action in support of Greek seamen, or South African workers.
  We have another gem and jewel from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. He apparently believes that we should provide immunities and encourage strikes in favour of Californian grape-pickers. Those who think that I am indulging in flights of fantasy should have been here to listen to the hon. Gentleman. He was seriously advancing the proposition that, given our present economic circumstances, it would be right for the Bill to provide immunities for workers in this country to damage our economy— I think that he will admit that industrial action would be likely to do that—in support of pickers of grapes in California.
  When the Secretary of State had gone a little beyond his broad objectives, he referred to safeguards. He dealt at some length with that matter. He said that his purpose—he earlier said this in answer to a Private Notice Question about the situation in the newspaper industry—was to restore the pre-1971 situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) made clear, that is not so.
  My hon. Friend spoke of the way in which the situation within the NUJ had changed over the years, in that a chapel exercising authority was meting out now

  1463
  not the punishment of suspension but the punishment of expulsion. That, as he described it, was a significant change.
  The legal position has also changed, and in a highly significant way. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not fully understand his own Act. One understood that he was not au fait with some of the details when we were considering it in Standing Committee, but one would have thought that by now he would understand its implications. One of those implications is that statutory backing will be given to the closed shop and to some of the nastiest aspects of the closed shop for the first time.
  Only on the narrowest of religious grounds will people be allowed to refuse union membership because of conscientious objection if they are to try to claim compensation before an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal. Jehovah's Witnesses have been named as a possible exception, and one has yet to hear of any other group of people who would fall into the narrow band of exceptions.
  The clear and explicit recommendations of the Donovan Commission are totally rejected. Paragraphs 563, 564 and 614 of the Report made it clear that, to the Donovan Commission, unfair dismissal could be claimed by those who did not want to be members of a trade union because of religious, conscientious, or other reasonable grounds. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) put the position correctly about the phrase "reasonable grounds". It is an important part of the safeguards of legal rights. It was inserted in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act as a result of a Liberal amendment. It is surprising that the Secretary of State did not deal with this aspect of the legislation, although he spoke for 57 minutes. Perhaps the Minister of State will say something about it.
  The Secretary of State concentrated upon the so-called independent tribunal when discussing the question of safeguards. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) blew that one out of the water. It is bending the English language in a way untypical of even the Secretary of State to call a body appointed by one of the parties to a dispute—as far as one can judge, it would be appointed by the
  1464
  TUC General Council—an independent body. Of course we welcome the TUC's action. It is little enough and it has taken long enough for the TUC to bring forward this proposal, which was discussed at the time of the Donovan Commission's investigations. It is something, but it is not enough.
  The Secretary of State led us to expect that he would be doing something. In his statement of 22nd March he spoke of legislation. He said then:
  "Consideration is being given to providing, either in this Bill or a later one, safeguards against arbitrary exclusion or expulsion from union membership."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 1488.]
  I move on to 30th July—although the right hon. Gentleman spoke on these matters at many other times in Committee and on the Floor of the House. In his comment on 30th July, I think the last time on which he spoke on this aspect, he said:
  "I repeat all the undertakings that we certainly intend to proceed to deal with it"——
  that is the question of safeguards——
  "in some form or other, either in a code of practice or by some other means, but following consultations with the General Council of the TUC, when we introduce the next Bill in the autumn—the Employment Protection Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July 1974; Vol. 878, c. 503.]
  If those words meant anything, it was clear that legislation would be coming.
  Why on earth did the right hon. Gentleman talk of the Employment Protection Bill in this context? Was it to deceive? That surely would not have been the role of the right hon. Gentleman. In his own heart and mind he must have believed that he would be bringing forward proposals in the context of the Employment Protection Bill.
  Mr. Foot: What the hon. Gentleman has read out is a fair representation of what I said and I think that it conforms exactly with what we are doing, except in the sense that we brought it forward earlier because we discovered that the Employment Protection Bill would take several more months to introduce. We wanted to go ahead and repeal these explosive and dangerous amendments much more quickly. That is what we are doing. I am carrying out the rest of the proposition whereby I said that either by legislation or by other means we would

  1465
  have discussions with the TUC. That is what we have brought forward. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen should show a little generosity of spirit in welcoming this proposal. If they really had any liberalism in their hearts, they would be throwing their hats in the air and rejoicing.
  Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again, because he said in his statement of March that he would bring forward legislation. He said again in July—and I am taking his first and his last words on this subject—that there would be legislation. Now he comes forward with these weasel words about other means outside legislation. There was none of that when he was seeking to persuade the House on these matters.
  The right hon. Gentleman has reneged on his past undertakings and has ratted on what he said he would do. His reputation as a great parliamentarian grows increasingly tarnished because of this. Hon. Members may well ask where the defender of individual liberties is to be found. Certainly the answer now, with the Secretary of State, is "Under the skirts of Auntie TUC". The right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do anything himself.
  Press freedom has been a dominant part of the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) and Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) dealt effectively with these matters. The Secretary of State sought to deal with the whole issue of Press freedom merely within the context of the position of the editors. As he knows only too well, the implications of the Bill go much wider than just editors.
  Representations that have been made to him have gone wider than the position of the editors. There is the position of journalists and other additional staff. Although one accepts that the majority of the members of the NUJ. Ken Morgan and others, do not want censorship, indeed abhor it, can this equally be said about the International Socialists on the NUJ Executive? Can anyone who has met or heard the Editor of the Journalist, or who has read the Journalist, (fail to have grave doubts, at least about the attitude of a significant group of people with some power within the NUJ, towards censorship?
  1466
  Then there is the freedom for outside contributors. Although I welcome the NUJ code of conduct proposals, they are not enough for real protection. It is not good enough that this matter should have been dealt with in such a superficial fashion by the Secretary of State, even though he spent a long time whirling around the point.
  The Secretary of State ended his speech as he began it with references to the Industrial Relations Act. He used to argue that the Industrial Relations Act had caused widespread industrial unrest. In a curiously inaccurate comment on that, when he moved the Second Reading of the Health and Safety at Work, Etc., Bill, he tried to ascribe all the days that had been lost through strikes in 1972 to the operation of the Industrial Relations Act. At roughly the same time, in answer to a Question, his Department said that only one-sixtieth of the days lost during that year could be ascribed to the Industrial Relations Act.
  The Secretary of State did not follow that line today, but he came forward with curious comments about the action of the AUEW on 8th May this year and the role that he had, apparently, played. We had not heard before that the Secretary of State had come like a magic fairy and somehow ushered that money towards the National Industrial Relations Court. It is not quite clear how he did that, and we should welcome a further exposition of the facts. But the Secretary of State should look at his Department's facts and figures, which totally destroy his charge that the Industrial Relations Act and the Pay Board were the villains of the piece in relation to days lost through strikes.
  Let us look at the comparison between this year and last year. Let us take April, which is the first full month of the minority Labour Government, the month when both the Industrial Relations Act and the Pay Board were in operation, so it should be a bad month. In 1973, the days lost were 641,000 and in 1974, 664,000—about the same. By May, the Bill repealing the Industrial Relations Act had been published. That should have resulted in a reduction in the number of days lost through strikes. In May 1973, just under 500,000 days were lost but, glory be, in May 1974 the figure was 844,000. In June 1974, more days were lost than in June 1973. In July 1973,

  1467
  276,000 days were lost and in July 1974, 500,000.
  Now by then the Pay Board has been done away with and the Industrial Relations Act has been repealed, so the two villains are off the scene and we should expect to see a great improvement in August, September and October. What do we find? In each month the number of days lost in 1974 is higher than it was in 1973, and in October, the latest month for which figures are available, the number of days lost is over 1½ million—more than double the number of days lost in the same month last year.
  Those figures destroy the credibility of the charges made by the Secretary of State, who smears his argument and his own inadequacies in support of this tawdry Bill by distorting the industrial relations record. Perhaps he has forgotten, but he might have claimed in aid that the real reason for the substantial increase in the number of days lost lies in the activities of Mr. Scanlon who, I suppose, is the most famous blackleg in the business— we saw him march across the picket lines. Mr. Scanlon, writing in August, stated:
  "The implications for industrial relations"—
  that is, of the amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill—
  "are enormous and we now look set for almost as much industrial unrest as that caused by the old Industrial Relations Act."
  Perhaps the alibi, though there is not a jot of evidence to support it, is that the safeguards for industrial freedom caused this great upsurge in days lost. If so, why does not the Department of Employment produce the evidence? In replies to Questions that I have put down I find no sign at all that anything regarding days lost in industrial disputes in the last three months has been due to causes other than the normal causes—largely pay demands, but a limited number for other reasons. This piece of legislation could be described as one of the unacceptable faces or facets of the social contract. It is certainly unacceptable to a very large number—I hope the overwhelming majority—of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House.
  The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) talked of the social contract and asked why the Government could not try now to put it on a more formal footing by having discussions with other
  1468
  parties concerned, not just the discussions that were held in the past between the Labour Party and leaders of the Trades Union Congress. Why cannot the social contract be produced as a White Paper, after consultation with the people concerned, and debated in the House? I suspect that the reason it is not, and the reason it is called in aid in all its vagueness so often by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, is that it is not even the Socialist contract that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft called it, but is no more and no less than a Socialist con trick which—I give right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite whatever dusty credit they deserve—has helped them to get votes in two General Elections. That is about all that can be said for it.
  This mean and tatty little measure that we have before us tonight diminishes still further the reputation of the Secretary of State. It does nothing at all to help solve the problems of inflation. It could well make them worse. What a commentary on the situation that one of the most loyal supporters of the Secretary of State should say that the great value of this Bill at present, the great contribution that it makes to solving the problems of inflation in this country, is that it will make it possible for people here to strike in support of grape pickers in California. This dusty little measure should be thrown out by this House. I hope that it will be.
  9.28 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The debate tonight has inevitably been a continuation of some of the debates that we had in the last Parliament on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. But it is notably different in that it has not contained a contribution by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). I think that, without any disrespect to other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, it has been the poorer for that.
  The Government came to power in March committed to a Bill to repeal the Industrial Relations Act, followed by an Employment Protection Bill. The repeal of the Act was, however, altered in so many respects in its passage through Parliament as to make it a much less effective measure than that put forward

  1469
  originally by the Government. It was less effective not only because some of the amendments left much to be desired technically but, above all, because of the rôle which those amendments assigned to the law in industrial relations.
  We have already repealed much of the Industrial Relations Act. Many of the concepts as well as the machinery have gone. The unfair industrial practice and the National Industrial Relations Court have gone. It is, however, clear that some of the amendments which the Opposition succeeded in passing in the summer inserted into the repeal Act not so much the language of the Industrial Relations Act as a continuation of its philosophy. Above all, they imported a reliance on the law and the view that the most satisfactory way of dealing with several industrial relations problems was to spell out the rights of the parties and to enable them to take action.
  That overlooks two basic factors: first, the Industrial Relations Act was often largely ignored because a legal solution was inappropriate. Secondly, when it was used it often added to industrial relations problems rather than reduced them. The basic test that one must apply to any industrial relations legislation—as to some other legislation—is, "Will it work?", and underlying our attitude to most of the amendments carried by the Opposition in the summer is the opinion that they will not work. That is a test which not only the Government or trade unions apply to industrial relations legislation, but which managers, too, apply.
  Managers in industry and in services must, if they are to make those industries and services work effectively, seek to minimise the effect of industrial relations disputes on working relationships, and while negotiations are going on— sometimes hard and tough negotiations on wages, pensions and working conditions —they have a job to do of keeping the industry or the service running.
  Even when those negotiations break down and a strike takes place, the time comes, in most cases, when there has to be a return to work and a return to working arrangements. If there has been recourse to legal action, that may inhibit and restrict the scope for the re-establishment of a proper working relationship in the industry or service. Legal action may
  1470
  suppress the problem for some time but it cannot of itself promote good industrial relations, and legal action on industrial issues frequently leaves behind a residue of bitterness that can be catastrophic for good industrial relations.
  Some of the legal actions that have been taken on industrial relations issues have left deep scars upon those who were involved. The memory of trade unionists and the history of trade unionism are marked with the names of people and firms who were involved when an attempt was made to solve by legal action what was basically an industrial relations problem. The names of Goad, Langston and Con-Mech have figured in court actions rather than in discussions across the negotiating table where the problems should have been solved.
  The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) described the Bill simultaneously as a paltry little measure and as the greatest threat to Press freedom in the past 40 years. The right hon. Gentleman misrepresented the Bill in a number of ways and it might, therefore, be worth while if I spell out some of the things that the Bill does and does not do.
  First, the Bill withdraws certain obstacles to the formation of a closed shop —obstacles that came about as a result of amendments to the provision for unfair dismissal compensation—and that is all. The Bill does not affect the formation or non-formation of a closed shop in any other way.
  The Bill does not give a union the right to establish a closed shop. It leaves the matter as it should be left, namely, for negotiation between trade unions and employers. The Bill does not say that a closed shop in journalism has to apply to editors. A union membership agreement as defined by the Bill can apply to any identifiable class of workers or groups of classes of workers.
  It would be completely conceivable within the scope of this legislation to have a union membership agreement in a firm or service which embodies 10 different grades or categories of workers and which could specify that nine of the ten were covered and one was not. The Bill gives the necessary flexibility and scope to those who will determine whether there is a closed shop, so as to enable them to frame the terms of the membership agreement to meet the circumstances as they

  1471
  know them, in the way that they judge the circumstances require.
  The House should have some humility in discussing what is the most appropriate form of membership agreement. Legislative efforts have had no notable success in this regard. The closed shops which have been eminently successful are those which have been worked out in free negotiation between trade unions and employers without regard to any Act of Parliament.
  The Bill does not mean that a membership agreement with one union has to require membership of that union by all those covered by the agreement. In fact, it will now make a specific provision to enable a membership agreement to specify another union, rather than the unions which are signatory to the agreement, to which certain types of workers can belong.
  The Sunday Times editorial on 10th November said:
  "The closed shop works well in several industries, but it can only come about by negotiation."
  What we are seeking to do is legislate the view of The Sunday Times. I realise that this might not commend itself to some of my hon. Friends, but when I think how the Secretary of State and I have offended the editors and when I listened this afternoon to him saying that radio and TV were pallid substitutes and thought how that might offend them, I must admit to my hon. Friends that I am worried whether the Department of Employment will ever get any favourable publicity from Press, radio or TV in future.
  My only consolation lies in the knowledge that the NUJ has tried to uphold the freedom of the Press and has in no way relaxed that view in recent years. I have had discussions with executive members of the NUJ in which I was encouraged to learn that they are seeking to improve and update their code of practice in a way which will make the safeguards of the practice of the NUJ more effective.
  The editors have represented to us a fear that the ending of the associate membership class within the NUJ will make them liable to instructions by the union. Perhaps I have read the union rule book
  1472
  more carefully than they, but, on any reasonable reading of that rule book, it seems to me that they were every bit as liable to instructions of the union as associate members as they will be as full members.
  There is a difference, of course, in that as full members they can attend branch meetings and play a part in deciding such instructions as may apply to them. However, I should be less than frank with the House if I did not refer to one complaint they make, that there could be a decision by the chapel to exclude them at a certain point on the agenda. Presumably that will be used when matters are decided which would be an embarrassment to the editor and which could possibly affect his function.
  But no evidence whatever has been submitted to us that any editor has been expelled from the NUJ for refusing an instruction which would deny him his right to carry out his normal professional duties. Had such an example been given during the discussions, it would have been put before us. Therefore, I contend that some of those fears—
  Mr. Brittan: I do not know whether the Minister was present when I gave the examples, as I did during the debate on the earlier Bill, of the editor of the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette who was not expelled but was fined £50 for bringing out that newspaper during an industrial dispute as part of his ordinary duties. He might very well have been expelled. Does not the Minister agree that in those circumstances, if there had been a closed shop, the future of the newspaper would have been jeopardised?
  Mr. Booth: I chose my words very carefully. I shall reiterate them because we are discussing a very important point. I said that no evidence had been adduced or laid before us of any editor having been expelled from the NUJ for refusing to comply with any instruction in any way inhibiting his right to carry out his professional duties.
  I have looked into the cases of the Middlesbrough and Cambridge editors. The Middlesbrough editor was disciplined because he exceeded his normal duties during a strike. There are reasons why I believe that the NUJ has a right to be sensitive on that issue.

  1473
  The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) sought to persuade the House that journalists as trade unionists were different from those people who worked at other jobs in industry. He said the role of the journalist was more akin to that of someone practising in the arts than someone involved in manufacture. One might agree with him. It is worth while considering that if one can make that fair comparison and say that the role of an editor is analogous for the purpose of trade union legislation to the role of the artist, this House considered that point at some length in the 1971 Act. At that time we were urged to consider the case of a group of artists, namely those who earn their living on the stage. Members of Equity and hon. Members on both sides of the House said it was most important that the closed shop should be protected and allowed in the case of those artists. It is very hard to make the distinction on that ground.
  Mr. Aitken: Surely the hon. Member is not making a valid comparison between Equity and the NUJ. Membership of Equity implies participation in an acting company in which everyone has to work full time. It is different if one says that no one can contribute to a newspaper, even an occasional part-time expertise special article, if he is not a member of the NUJ.
  Mr. Booth: I hope that an Equity member who has been unemployed for about 50 per cent. of his working life reads that intervention. To say one has to work full time in that area is to ignore one of the grave realities of trade unionism. Trade unionists in general recognise that they must balance the question of job protection, in terms of the number of people coming into the trade, against the right of somebody who has a particular skill, aptitude, talent or vocation to earn his living in that way.
  The point concerning the editor's role was raised most forcibly in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman). I agree that there is a sense in which the editor's role is a special one because he is responsible not only for the writing of those journalists directly employed within his office but for the contributions of a number of other writers and journalists
  1474
  who contribute to his paper, many of whom may have no trade union connections. In normal times the editor is recognised by the union as having a duty to choose between the contributions of those outside and those within the office. In that sense he is different from those who manage in many other areas of industry and service.
  But a problem arises when there is an industrial dispute. This puts the editor in a unique position to organise work to substitute for the work of the trade unionists who otherwise would be employed in the office. To use a trade union expression, the editor is in a position to organise blackleg contributions on a massive scale which could render the strike action taken by members of the NUJ totally ineffective.
  We have to recognise, therefore, that when the NUJ includes in its rule book a provision allowing editors to carry on their normal duties when the rest of the members are involved in an industrial dispute, the union understandably will be extremely sensitive if certain editors or other people who were previously covered by the associate membership rules organise other contributions designed to keep their papers going. This is a perfectly natural reaction on the part of any group of trade unionists, and it would happen in any other area of trade union organisation.
  It has been implied even if it has not been said today that it is NUJ policy to restrict the contributions of non-NUJ members at times other than those when the NUJ is in dispute. Again, no evidence has been laid before us that this occurs on any scale. The only example that we have found of an agreement limiting the right of people to contribute lies in the concordat drawn up between the NPA and the NUJ. That concordat applied only to sports writers, and it did not limit the contributions only to those of NUJ members. It required editors who wanted reports on sports matters to offer the opportunity to write those sports reports first to professional journalists, if there were professional journalists available, and those professional journalists could be non-union members, or they could be members of the NUJ or of the Institute of Journalists.

  1475
  The only other restriction in the concordat related to ghostwriting in the Provinces. It applied a restriction on contributions rejoicing in the name of someone who might be very good on the sports field but who could not be imagined to be the person who wrote the beautiful prose appearing under his name.
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that at the moment there are no major restrictions on contributions from people who are not members of the NUJ. However, there will be such restrictions. The NUJ has made it clear that they will be limited to two a year as soon as this legislation goes through. It will be a closed shop. That is what this argument is about.
  Mr. Booth: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and his intervention illustrates it admirably. It is said that all these matters raised as fears at the moment will become reality as soon as the Bill becomes an Act. That contains one presumption which I like very much. It is that the Bill will become an Act. But if it were the intention of the NUJ suddenly to switch its practices over a great many years on the Bill becoming an Act, the union would not have talked with the Secretary of State and myself in the way that it did. It would not have shown the concern that it did to improve the code of practice in journalism. Certainly it would not have offered to the editors and to the newspaper proprietors, as it has now, to seek to devise a form of membership agreement which would protect editors and remove the cause of those fears.
  Perhaps I might finish what I was saying about editors by pointing out that anyone who has said or implied today that my right hon. Friend and I have been unwilling to meet the editors and to discuss this problem with them is not aware of the true situation. It might interest the House to know that I have twice met the Institute of Journalists. I have met the Newspaper Society twice. I have met the Guild of British Newspaper Editors. I have met the NUJ. There have been other occasions when my right hon. Friend has met them. With my right hon. Friend, I have recently met the Fleet Street editors.
  1476
  Whatever other complaint may be laid at our door, one cannot sustain the complaint that we are not prepared to consider matters carefully and to meet the newspaper editors. Our difference with them is not one of whether we believe in the freedom of the Press. That is a belief which we share. It is a difference as to what is the most effective way of achieving it. I believe that the way that we suggest, through voluntary agreement, is the most effective way.
  I turn quickly to some other parts of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), in a very interesting and wide-ranging speech very much to the point of the Bill, referred to the change which the Bill proposes in the requirement for union rules. I can add little to what he said other than to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the report of the Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations makes some very telling comments on the difficulties that one faces when one tries to make union rule books comply with the requirements of an Act of Parliament.
  In paragraph 50 of the Chief Registrar's report for the year 1973, he describes how he went about his task under the 1971 Act. He did this by a series of informal discussions, first with union officials as to the requirements of the Act compared with the union's existing rules and its general circumstances, and later of the union's draft amendments to meet the deficiencies identified by the registrar's interpretation of the Act. He said:
  "As many as six or seven exchanges might be needed, meetings and drafts and consultations before the amended rules reached the stage of agreement in draft with the union's legal advisers. Up to that point the exercise might cost RTUEA as much as 200 man-hours for a substantial rule-book. Thereafter the proposals had to go to the union's rule-making authority at which decisive point RTUEA had to drop out of the scene."
  The registrar goes no to say that he decided against making a set of model rules on the ground that in his experience model rules covering so wide a field as that covered by trade union rule books might be more likely to confuse than to help. He follows that by saying that the opposition to the principles of the Act in fact retarded the implementation of

  1477
  the rules-revision purposes. But, speaking of his examination with hindsight, he said:
  "These indications did not seem to support the belief that there might be an interest of public policy so vital as to justify statutory enforcement of the Schedule 4 provisions, particularly those relating to constitution and management in respect of registered unions."
  In other words, the official body charged with the job of examining unions and union rule books to bring them into compliance with the requirements of the 1971 Act came to the conclusion, after careful and assiduous work to achieve the aim of that Act, that the game was not worth the candle, that it was not the right way to proceed and was not in the public interest.
  Mr. Percival: I understand that the hon. Gentleman very courteously said something nice about me. I am sorry to have missed it and I look forward to reading it tomorrow. I hope that he will not think it ungracious of me to ask what is intended to be an unfriendly question. Is it not a fact that under the 1971 Act the provisions to which the registrar was referring were infinitely more detailed than the provisions which were inserted in the 1974 Act? Is it not also a fact that ever since 1871 there have been statutory provisions as to rules and they have presented no difficulty, and that the provisions of this Bill are far nearer to the 1871 provisions and much simpler than the 1971 provisions?
  Mr. Booth: I must agree that the requirements of the Act that we are seeking to amend by the Bill are less complex than those of 1971. There have been requirements within statute law regarding the rules of unions since 1871, but the requirements at that time were comparatively simple. Those we seek to amend now, or those for which there are provisions which we seek to amend now within our law, still leave us with the objection found by the Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.
  Questions were asked by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft and by the hon. Member for Rochdale about the independence of the review body. The right hon. Gentleman questioned whether the review committee of the TUC could be
  1478
  independent. The hon. Member for Rochdale is correct here in his arithmetic. There would be two trade unionists and one legal chairman, but the review body which the Donovan Committee proposed would have consisted of three members, two of whom would have been chosen from independent trade unionists and would have been appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State after consultation with the TUC. One would have been a lawyer who would have acted as chairman. There is therefore much in what the TUC is proposing which accords with points made by Donovan. In this case appointments would be made by the General Council in consultation with the Secretary of State for Employment and the chairman of the CAS.
  Independence will not depend on who initiates the appointments. There are within the trade union movement people eminently suited for undertaking the role foreseen by Donovan and by the General Council of the TUC. What is required is not that they should be independent by virtue of a lack of experience or knowledge of trade unions, but that they should be independent to the extent that they will not be members of the particular trade union against which a complaint was made. The procedure of the tribunal is a matter for the General Council of the TUC itself.
  With regard to the Council of Tribunals, the main function of this council is to keep under review and consideration the working of tribunals as specified under Schedule 1 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. There are a number of examples of tribunals outside the purview of the council, for instance the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the Industrial Injuries Arbitration Board and, if I dare say so, the Press Council. Therefore this tribunal with which we are concerned might be in rather eminent company.
  We need in this important area of industrial relations to see the rule of law in balance. In a modern democratic country wages and working conditions are determined partly by bargaining between trade unions and employers and partly by legislation. Among the conditions determined by legislation are health and safety, wages council machinery, contracts of employment and

  1479
  equal pay, and shortly the House will be considering a major Employment Protection Bill.
  It is not conceivable that every aspect of working conditions should be determined by Parliament, nor is it conceivable that every aspect of working conditions should be controlled by industrial negotiations. If we are to achieve better working conditions and a better industrial relations situation in this country we
  must not only ensure protection of minimum rights by law, but ensure that those who organise to protect investment and capital do so on a parity with those who organise to protect those who sell their labour. The Bill we are debating tonight seeks to achieve this, and it is on that basis that I commend it to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 257.

  Division No. 21.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunter, Adam

  Allaun, Frank

  Delargy, Hugh

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (L'pool)

  Anderson, Donald

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Archer, Peter

  Dempsey, James

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Doig, Peter

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Ashley, Jack

  Dormand, Jack

  Janner, Greville

  Ashton, Joe

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dunn, James A.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Wands worth)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (B'ham, St)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

  John, Brynmor

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Eadie, Alex

  Johnson, James (Kingston, W.)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Bates, Alt

  Edge, Geoffrey

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Bean, Robert E.

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv. S.E.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Benn, Rt Hn Anthony Wedgwood

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  English, Michael

  Judd, Frank

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ennals, David

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Bishop, Edward

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Kelley, Richard

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Kerr, Russell

  Boardman, H.

  Evans, loan L. (Aberdare)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Booth, Albert

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Lamond, James

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck.)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Bradley, Tom

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Flannery, Martin

  Lee, John

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle)

  Ford, Ben T.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Buchan, Norman

  Forrester, John

  Litterick, Tom

  Buchanan, Richard

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Haringey)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Luard, Evan

  Campbell, Ian

  Garrett, John (Norwich S.)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Cant, R. B.

  George, Bruce

  McCartney, Hugh

  Carmichael, Neil

  Gilbert, Dr John

  MacCormick, lain

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ginsburg, David

  McElhone, Frank

  Cartwright, John

  Golding, John

  MacFarquhar, R.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Gould, Bryan

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Clemitson, I. M.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)

  Graham, Ted

  Maclennan, Robert

  Coleman, Donald

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Grocott, Bruce

  McNamara, Kevin

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Madden, Max

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Magee, Bryan

  Corbett, Robin

  Hamling, William

  Mahon, Simon

  Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow M.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marks, Ken

  Crawford, Douglas

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Marquand, David

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hattersley, Roy

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Hatton, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S.)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Meacher, Michael

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Henderson, Douglas

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hooley, Frank

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N.)

  Horam, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Davies, Denzll (Llanelli)

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Miller, Dr M. (E. Kilbride)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hoyle, Douglas (Neison)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Redbridge)

  Davis, S. Clinton (Hackney C.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Molloy, William

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)

  Moonman, Eric

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Ryman, John

  Tomlinson, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Torney, Tom

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Sedgemore, B.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Murray, Ronald King

  Selby Harry

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Newens, Stanley

  Shaw, Arnold, (Redbridge, Ilf.)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)

  Noble, Mike

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ogden, Eric

  Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Ward, Michael

  O'Maliey, Brian

  Silkin, Rt Hn John (Lewlsh.)

  Watkins, David

  Orbach, Maurice

  Silkin, Rt Hn S. C. (Southwk.)

  Watkinson, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Sillars, James

  Weetch, Ken

  Ovenden, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Weitzman, David

  Owen, Dr David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wellbeloved, James

  Padley, Walter

  Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Palmer, Arthur

  Snape, Peter

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Park, George

  Spearing, Nigel

  White, James (Glasgow, P)

  Parker, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Parry, Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

  Pavltt, Laurie

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea)

  Perry, Ernest

  Stoddart, David

  Williams, Alan, Lea (Haver'g)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Radice, Giles

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E.)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S.)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Wilson, William (Coventry S.E.)

  Reid, George

  Swain, Thomas

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Woodall, Alec

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Woof, Robert

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Young, David (Bolton E.)

  Rodgers, William (Teesslde)

  Thompson, George

  Rooker, J. W.

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kllm'nock)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tinn, James

  Mr. John Ellis.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Hannam, John

  Altken, J. W. P.

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Hastings, Stephen

  Alison, Michael

  Doug las-Hamilton, Lord James

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Hawkins, Paul

  Arnold, Tom

  Dunlop, J.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Durant, Tony

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dykes, Hugh

  Heseltine, Michael

  Banks, Robert

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hicks, Robert

  Beith, A. J.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Bell, Ronald

  Elliott, Sir William

  Holland, Philip

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Emery, Peter

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Benyon, W. R.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hordern, Peter

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Falrbairn, Nicholas

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Biffen, John

  Fairgrleve, Russell

  Howell, David (Gulldford)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Blaker, Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Howells, Geralnt (Cardigan)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Hurd, Douglas

  Bowden, Andrew (Brighton)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C.)

  James, David

  Brittan, Leon

  Fox, Marcus

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick (Redbr.)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St.)

  Jessel, Toby

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Freud, Clement

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Buck, Antony

  Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Budgen, Nick

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Burden, F. A.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Kimball, Marcus

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Goodhew, Victor

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Channon, Paul

  Goodlad, A.

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, S)

  Gorst, John

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

  Gow, I. (Eastbourne)

  Knox, David

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Lamont, Norman

  Clegg, Walter

  Gray, Hamish

  Lane, David

  Cockcroft, John

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Cope, John

  Grist, Ian

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Cormack, Patrick

  Grylls, Michael

  Lawson, Nigel

  Corrie, John

  Hall, Sir John

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Costain, A. P.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Crouch, David

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Loveridge, John

  1482

  1483

  Luce, Richard

  Penhaligon, David

  Spence, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Percival, Ian

  Spicer, James (W. Dorset)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)

  MacGregor, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Sproat, lain

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Stainton, Keith

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Prior, Rt Hon Jamea

  Stanley, John

  Madel, David

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Steen, Anthony (Liverpool)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Raison, Timothy

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Mates, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Stokes, John

  Mather, Carol

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Tapsell, Peter

  Maude, Angus

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Mawby, Ray

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Renton, Rt Hn Sir D. (Hunts.)

  Temple-Morris, P.

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon M.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Barnet)

  Mills, Peter

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (Devon)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Molyneaux, James

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Monro, Hector

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff N.W.)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Viggers, P. J.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wakeham, John

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Morris, Michael (Northants)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Morrison, Peter (Chester)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Walters, Dennis

  Mudd, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Neave, Airey

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wells, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Shaw Michael (Scarborough)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Neubert, Michael

  Shelton, William (Lambeth St.)

  Wiggin, Jerry (Weston-s-Mare)

  Newton, Tony

  Shepherd, Colin

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Normanton, Tom

  Shersby, Michael

  Wood Rt Hon Richard

  Nott, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Young, Sir George (Ealing)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sims, Roger

  Younger, Hon George

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Pardoe, John

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Mr. John stradling Thomas and

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Speed, Keith

  Mr. Adam Butler.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Motion relating to Energy Policy may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Miss Boothroyd.]

  EEC (ENERGY POLICY)
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/1472/74 and R/127/74.
  I am glad that the opportunity— [Interruption.]——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The noise as hon. Members leave the Chamber is not fair to the hon. Member addressing the House.
  Mr. Eadie: I am glad that the opportunity has been found to debate these two important documents. The first— No. R/1472/74—deals with the general strategy which the EEC Commission proposes should be adopted towards energy supply in the Community over the next 25 years, and particularly over the next decade. The document has annexed to it a number of detailed proposals on certain aspects of energy policy. The second document—R/127/74—deals with one detailed but nevertheless important aspect of fuel policy.
  Discussion about the development of a common energy policy had been going on in the Community for many years before we joined. It has carried on ever since with even greater emphasis following the oil crisis last year. Despite this, not a deal has been achieved so far, which is not all that surprising, given the complexity of the issues and the differences between the national positions.
  The broad aims of a policy—for example, the need to reduce dependence on imported oil as rapidly as possible— have not been difficult to agree. Where difficulty has arisen, it has been in agreeing the means of achieving broad objectives. Document 1472 is the latest attempt by the Commission to analyse the problems confronting the Community, to provide objectives for 1985, and to suggest policies to be adopted in regard to our sources of energy.
  1486
  The Commission proposes a strategic objective for the year 2000 of 50 per cent. dependence on nuclear energy and 30 per cent. dependence on natural gas. The objectives proposed for 1985 have been drawn up to fit within that framework. The reduction in imported oil dependence is to be achieved partly through a programme of energy conservation and partly through a rapid expansion in the use of nuclear power and natural gas and the maintenance of coal production.
  Although energy independence for the Community as a whole is not attainable by 1985, the Commission says that the proportion of imported energy in total consumption could be reduced by these measures from 60 per cent. estimated before the oil crisis to about 40 per cent.
  Targets have been set for each fuel source but some of these are frankly, over optimistic. We have made it clear that we have serious doubts, in particular about the target proposed for nuclear generation by 1985—calculated at 200 gigawatts. Despite the expansion of national programmes which has taken place since the oil crisis, the sum total of these programmes is even now little more than 150 gigawatts.
  The target for natural gas is optimistic, too. The Government have no objection to the concept of Community targets provided that these are realistic and are used only as a guide to the formulation of programmes by national Governments. We are not prepared to accept the unrealistic targets at present proposed by the Commission. In the chapter on electricity the Commission suggests that the use of natural gas in power stations should be limited and that the construction of new oil-fired base-load plant should not be authorised except in special circumstances. These suggestions are supported by the draft directives appended to the document.
  We take the view that gas is a premium fuel and that any extension of its use into electricity generation will probably be limited both by commercial and policy considerations. There are special circumstances when this is the best use. We already have two power stations in England and Wales which take interruptible supplies of natural gas to the mutual advantage of the British Gas Corporation

  1487
  and the Central Electricity Generating Board. Natural gas may well be the right fuel to use to deal with such special circumstances as environmental protection, to meet peak loads and to improve the combustion performance of other fossil fuel burners. Also there may be instances where, for technical reasons, some limited supply of gas to power stations may be necessary.
  In discussion of the Commission's proposals in Brussels among national experts we have pressed this point, and provisional agreement has been reached on modifications to the directive to accommodate these special circumstances.
  The draft directive which proposes a limitation on the use of petroleum products in power stations has the potential for causing greater difficulty and as such is unacceptable to us in its original form. This is because over the next few years new oil-fired power stations will need to remain a part of our strategy to meet our future electricity needs.
  Again, in discussion with the Commission and among national experts we have made our position perfectly clear. Provisional agreement has been reached on a wording of the directive which provides the required flexibility for us to meet future electricity demand while embarking upon a prudent expansion of our nuclear generating capacity and making full use of indigenous coal supplies. We are satisfied that the final form of these directives will reflect the United Kingdom concern over the wise use of available fossil fuels and will not impede us in providing adequate electricity for our future needs.
  The Commission's proposals on coal production in the Community are compatible with the Government's policy in relation to national resources. The proposals are aimed at maintaining coal production at about its present level with a free market price policy and with Community financing where necessary to achieve suitable rationalisation, for example in existing mines and to open up new productive capacities.
  I turn now to the Commission's proposals for oil. These reflect the fact that, unlike the United Kingdom, the other member States of the Community
  1488
  must for many years remain heavily dependent on imported oil. They are thus more ready than perhaps we are to adopt objectives and procedures which offer some prospect of securing oil supplies on reasonable terms and to pin their hopes on common Community policies. The chapter, after spelling out some fairly obvious factors and a number of principles, proposes four pillars or objectives of Community oil supply. They are, a common approach to other oil consumers and to the producing countries; the development of safe sources of oil; arrangements for dealing with supply difficulties; a properly organised world market.
  On the first of those little need be said. There are obvious limits to what the EEC can do, but it is clearly desirable to improve relations between oil producers, for example through the Euro-Arab dialogue, and with the other main consumers, such as the United States and Japan. It is, however, unlikely that the Community will for some time to come be able to speak with a single voice in international discussions as this section of the chapter suggests.
  The second objective refers in the main to the scheme adopted in 1973, under which £10 million is being provided for each of the three years 1974–76 from the Community budget to support technical developments likely to improve the oil prospects in safe areas. The forthcoming Council meeting of Energy Ministers will be asked to approve the first allocation of funds under this scheme and to endorse in principle its extension. This is an area of Community policy which, if approached with realism, should offer modest prospects of improving supplies of oil mainly in the longer term, from which the United Kingdom should benefit.
  The third objective, of dealing with oil supply difficulties, has largely been met by the establishment of the International Energy Programme—details of which were given to the House recently by my right hon. Friend—in which all EEC members except France are participating, together with the United States, Japan and other OECD members. The programme includes arrangements for dealing with reductions in oil supplies by the traditional producing countries. That is

  1489
  clearly the only sensible approach, as oil cut-backs and embargoes can be countered only by making arrangements which embrace all the main oil-consuming countries. We recognise, nevertheless, the need for the Community to have the best possible information on oil movements within the Community.
  Mr. Albert Roberts: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what percentage of electricity on the Continent is produced from coal-fired power stations?
  Mr. Eadie: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I assure my hon. Friend that the information will be forthcoming to him.
  We recognise the need for member States to harmonise as far as practicable their measure of emergency demand restraint, and for some supervision of price movements in times of shortage. We can go along with much that the Commission proposes in this section of the oil chapter.
  However, the section also proposes a regulation—at Annex III to the document —for common rules for imports and exports of oil and gas to and from third countries. This would be done by extending certain existing regulations providing for surveillance, through export-import licences, and subsequently for protective measures, the Commission making proposals on which the Council would decide by qualified majority.
  We have made it clear that we are not disposed to accept this proposal. The regulation on which it is based was framed for different purposes—mainly protection against dumping—and it is, in our view, unnecessary. The IEP arrangements would, in emergencies, cover imports and exports of oil. In any case, other regulations already provide, or will provide, the information sought by the Commission.
  The fourth pillar proposing an organised, properly functioning oil market in the Community calls for much detail on oil costs and prices for concentration. In this context, this means consultation and agreement between member States and the oil companies on oil supplies, investments, and trading practices. Much of this, if sensibly handled, is acceptable.
  The chapter concludes with a plea for instruments to ensure compliance with the Treaty of Rome—for example, on the processes for competition, to extend the
  1490
  common commercial policy to oil and to avoid disparities in prices of oil products in member States.
  The Government would not quarrel with much of the content of this chapter, though we doubt its relevance to the real problems of oil supply and prices now confronting the free world. These can be resolved only through concerted international efforts involving the USA, Japan, the developing countries and the oil producers.
  The Commission's proposals for gas are aimed at doubling the share of this fuel in total energy consumption by 1985. This is proposed to be done by encouraging prospecting within the Community and by extending imports from third countries. The British Government anticipate using all the gas which is likely to become available from our sector of the North Sea.
  I turn now to the directive on fuel stocks at power stations—R/127/74. This directive requires member States to maintain a minimum of 50 days' stocks at power stations.
  When I appeared before the European Secondary Legislation Committee of the House on 18th July to give evidence on the implications of the draft directive for the United Kingdom, I pointed out that further clarification of the directive would be necessary, but the Government would not wish to see a directive which set stocking levels substantially above those planned currently by the boards. This remains our position.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that under British conditions, with a heavily interconnected grid system, there is not the same relevance as there would be on the continent to stocks at individual power stations?
  Mr. Eadie: I must agree with my hon. Friend. That was one of the arguments that we advanced. My hon. Friend will recall that when I gave evidence before the Committee that was precisely what I said. My information is that that is the view that we shall put before the Commission, and we think that it will be accepted because it is a realistic and sensible approach.
  Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Since when has any

  1491
  foreign country been able to tell us how many days' stocks we shall have or not have?
  Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am well aware of the point that he makes. I am relating the facts of the situation to a decision taken by the House. If there is a dispute about that decision, I understand the hon. Gentleman's position and I can say that my right hon. Friend will provide an opportunity at a later date for those who wish to express their opinions but did not have a chance to do so previously.
  The commercial need to maintain an adequate level of fuel stocks at power stations is accepted. The CEGB's present policy is to hold in stock fossil fuels equivalent to 50 days' average winter consumption on 1st October, and 50 days' average summer consumption on 1st April. The Scottish boards hold slightly lower levels of stocks. We consider the holding of those levels of stocks to be reasonable practice.
  There has been extensive discussion of the draft among the national experts in Brussels, and there remain major unresolved objections by several member States to its original form. We have proposed amendments that would remove any doubt that our present commercial practice meets the terms of the directive. Other countries have also proposed extensive modifications. The differences may be such that there will be no agreed version before the Council on 17th December, and the House can rest assured that we shall accept any final draft only if it is satisfactory from the United Kingdom's point of view.
  As the House is aware, a meeting of the Council of Ministers concerned with energy matters will take place on 17th December. The agenda has not yet been finalised, but we expect the directives and regulations to which I have referred to be considered.
  Mr. Peter Rost: The hon. Gentleman has not yet referred to the Commission's recommendations on a rational utilisation of energy, which some of us regard as the most important recommendation in this document. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
  Mr. Eadie: I am sure that if I have a chance to catch the eye of the Chair later I may have an opportunity to comment on that but I want other hon. Members to have an opportunity to take part in the debate and I am about to conclude my remarks.
  As I said, the House is aware that a meeting of the Council of Ministers concerned with energy matters will take place on 17th December. The agenda has not yet been finalised, but we expect the directives and regulations to which I have referred to be considered. It is also likely that the Council will consider a resolution based on the conclusions in R/1472/74, but the final text of this is not yet available. Our approach in the Council discussions will be along the lines that I have described.
  10.39 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'declines to approve Commission Documents R/1472/74 and R/127/74 as the former would, according to the Secretary of State for Energy, have "policy implications regarding United Kingdom sovereignty over its indigenous energy resources"; and because these Regulations would remove from this House the power to determine the future energy policy of the United Kingdom.'
  The Minister has apparently told us that he is not wholly in agreement with the proposals of the EEC Commission, but I do not think he entirely disclosed to the House all that is involved if the proposals go ahead.
  I do not think anyone would dispute the judgment of the Scrutiny Committees of both this House and the House of Lords that the EEC proposals contained in these documents are of the very first importance for this country since they threaten future control by the United Kingdom not merely over its energy policy but over its indigenous coal and oil supplies.
  We are here concerned with a Commission communication R/1472/74 entitled "Towards a new energy policy strategy for the European Community", with three draft legislative instruments consequential on that which would limit the use of natural gas in power stations —that is Annex I—restrict the use of oil

  1493
  fuels in power stations—that is Annex II —and control the import and export of hydrocarbons—that is Annex III. Finally there is a draft Council directive, R/127 /74 of 22nd February 1974, which would lay down minimum levels of fuel stocks to be held in power stations. The main proposal in the communication, to which my hon. Friend did not refer, is for an EEC agency which would have far-reaching control over Britain's coal and oil resources.
  The EEC communication says:
  "The requisite support towards achieving all these tasks could be assigned to a Community agency having a legal personality and financial autonomy. It would be under the control of the Commission."
  The Secretary of State, in his previous Explanatory Memorandum, commented on the EEC communication as follows:
  "The document has policy implications regarding UK sovereignty over its indigenous energy resources. It is the Government's intention to express any necessary reservations."
  My hon. Friend did not quite tell us tonight that those documents had implications for the whole future of UK sovereignty over our indigenous oil resources.
  The House of Lords Scrutiny Committee's report, which I presume I am in order in quoting, made this comment:
  "The Sub-Committee believes the question of UK sovereignty over its indigenous resources to be one of paramount importance, not least when the immediate potential resources of coal, oil and natural gas in and around the UK exceed most, if not all, of those of the other member States of the EEC. The House will need to consider whether the UK should not without the fullest explicit and acceptable guarantees concede any of its indigenous resources to any sort of Community agency."
  I do not think we heard from my hon. Friend that that is the issue at stake in these instruments. Those are not my words. They are those of the Scrutiny Committee of the other place.
  Even more than this is at stake, because the Commission is seeking to intervene not merely with this general proposal but with immediate legislative instruments. Under Annex I, a Council directive is proposed which would control the supply of natural gas to power stations, about which the Secretary of
  1494
  State says in the Explanatory Memorandum:
  "It is not possible to say to what extent this proposal would affect the policy options most appropriate in UK circumstances."
  It ought to be possible to say this before this House assents to any proposals of this kind.
  Under Annex II of the instrument the construction of new power stations using oil fuels and the conversion of existing power stations would be permissible only according to rules laid down by the Commission. The Secretary of State, very understandably, says of this:
  "It is not possible to say whether it will affect the policy which would be appropriate to UK circumstances."
  Again, until it is possible to say that, I do not think Parliament should approve these instruments.
  The draft Council regulations under Annex III go even further. They propose to bring crude oil and refined products, within the existing common rules for imports and exports, within the framework of the common commercial policy of the EEC. That means, in effect, handing over a large measure of control to the Commission of the use that we make of our oil resources in the future.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it not a question not merely of the commercial policy of the Commission or the Community? Is it not set out in this document that the purpose of this agency and of these controls is to establish what is called "equality of sacrifice" among the different countries of the Community, which means that we, who have more of these fuels than anyone else, are supposed to share them out to the advantage, as it is put here, of "the more exposed"?
  Mr. Jay: That is true. That is one purpose of the policy. But the form of it would be to remove control from the hands of the United Kingdom Parliament.
  The Secretary of State says about the proposals:
  "The implications of these for our own control of supplies of hydrocarbons would appear to be far-reaching and certainly require considerable further examination."
  That is a remarkable under-statement.
  I come finally to the proposal in R/127/74 to regulate fuel stocks in power

  1495
  stations by EEC Council directive, although the Secretary of State himself says:
  "… the best location of these stocks must be a matter for the judgment of the generating boards' management".
  We have not very much time tonight. I wish that we had more. But I thought it extraordinary that proposals of this kind should be made at all in the circumstances. I would have been happier if the Government had rejected them out of hand.
  There is a case and there is a need for an internationally concerted oil policy to bring down oil prices, such as the United States Government are now proposing, which could perfectly well be managed by agreement through the OECD or some such international body. But that is not what is proposed here. What is proposed by the Commission is essentially to take the control of future British oil supplies progressively out of British hands, and to do it under the cover of all sorts of rather obscure documents which are hardly known to the public at all and which probably were not known to most right hon. and hon. Members until this short debate tonight.
  We were told by the previous Government that EEC membership involved no erosion of essential national sovereignty. We have been constantly told that our economic future as a nation depends on the most energetic and intelligent use of our huge reserves of North Sea oil, which other EEC nations do not share. Norway is successfully reviving her economic fortunes by her use of similar oil reserves, and doing it out of her own resources. It is now suggested that we should approve binding legislative proposals which, on the evidence of the Secretary of State and the House of Lords Committee, would take a large measure of control of these resources out of the hands of the British Parliament and the British electorate.
  Mr. John Pardoe: The right hon. Gentleman has twice used a phrase to the effect that we are being asked "to approve". We are not being asked to approve. We are being asked "to take note". The two are very different, as he should know.
  Mr. Jay: I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) is right. I was coming to that. I hope that we shall have assurances from the Government that what the hon. Gentleman says is true.
  Coal is affected as well. I do not believe that the Labour movement fought for 50 years or more to bring our coal industry under the charge of the British Parliament and electorate in order immediately to hand it over to some unelected body based outside the country.
  Therefore, I hope that this House will approve this amendment, unless the Secretary of State can assure us that he will not accept these proposals—and they are proposals, as I am sure the hon. Member for Cornwall, North recognises—in anything like this form, and that he will bring back any amended proposals for approval by this House before he accepts them in Brussels. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept that suggestion, which did not emerge entirely clearly from the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who never mentioned the proposed Commission Agency to take control of these policies at all.
  I very much hope that before the conclusion of the debate we can have clear assurances on those two issues—first, that the Secretary of State is not accepting these proposals in this drastic and dangerous form and, second, that in so far as they are amended, as a result of his efforts in Brussels, he will bring them back to the House and will not accept them in Brussels until they have been debated and approved in the House.
  10.51 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: The House knows of the views of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on the European Community. I must say that the remark of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) that we are having a "take note" debate meets the point, in that these are documents of which the House should take the most careful note because they are of the greatest significance not only to us as a Parliament but to the nation as a whole. My only criticism is that we are having to sandwich into such a very short period a debate of such importance. Unfortunately, this will mean

  1497
  that many hon. Members will not have the opportunity of expressing their views on this subject.
  The documents to which the Under-Secretary referred are extremely complex. They are far reaching, and in some respects they are rather confusing. Their presentation leaves a great deal to be desired. In the copy which I received from the Vote Office many pages were out of order and had to be re-numbered, and some were totally illegible. However, the fact remains that these documents, particularly the document dealing with the policy for energy, represent as near as possible the corporate views of the member countries towards producing a coherent energy policy for Europe.
  All of us who have been debating this subject over the years know only too well the weaknesses in any energy forecasting system. Indeed, it would not be unfair to say that energy forecasting is more of an art than an exact science. Nevertheless, in these documents we find points which require very careful consideration. They also highlight what I believe must be not only the priorities for Europe but the priorities for this country as well.
  The first of these priorities must surely be to arrive as soon as possible at an independence in energy supply for Europe and for Britain as a nation. The second must be to reduce as far as we can the import bill for imported oil which is having such a devastating effect on the economy of this country. Third, we must make certain that there is a proper use of those resources that exist. Indeed, we must recognise that we are talking about a four-fuel economy which, as far as past history is concerned, relies almost exclusively upon two fuels for its base load. Finally, in these priorities we need to make sure that there is a public awareness of the seriousness of the situation and the need for real action to be taken. It is that public awareness which, I fear, has been so sadly lacking in these past critical months since the Arab-Israeli war of October last year.
  As the Under-Secretary pointed out, the documents deal with two principal areas, namely, long-term and medium-term policy and coal stocks. I thought that the hon. Gentleman did not make a sufficiently clear distinction in separating the strands as between the long-term policy
  1498
  set out in the document and the mediumterm prospect over the next 10 years up to 1985.
  Stocks at power stations are a matter which has caused many of my hon. Friends much concern in recent months, and I must draw to the attention of the House the following words which appear in the accompanying memorandum prepared by the Secretary of State:
  "Considerable stocks have been held in normal times at United Kingdom coal-fired sations, but stocks as high as those proposed in the draft Directive would not necessarily be considered appropriate on purely commrcial grounds."
  Although that may be so on commercial grounds, there are those of us who recall a need for stocks over the last few years based not merely on commercial considerations but upon the strategic security of supply necessary for the people of Britain to enjoy electric light and the rest. I should like the Minister to tell us whether he feels that the proposal made in the document is both logical and sensible and is one which the Government should be inclined to follow.
  The Under-Secretary dealt at some length with the question of petroleum and natural gas to be used in power stations. He pointed out that this may conflict from time to time with Government policy, but there is surely no likelihood of oil-fired power stations being constructed at this time. Will the Minister assure me and my constituents that the GECB has no plans to go ahead with the Fawley B power station, which would be another oil-fired station on the South Coast?
  The matter of the import and export of hydrocarbons, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, saying that the Government did not feel that it should be accepted, turns on another consideration, namely the situation which might obtain within the Community were there to be another embargo on oil supplies in the light of another conflict in the Middle East. Will the Minister tell us how he sees that recommendation affecting that situation?
  As I have said, the recommendations themselves are divided into long and medium term. As for the long term, we have the interesting though surprising statement that energy supply is to be

  1499
  based largely on two principal fuels. We are to have nuclear energy responsible for about 50 per cent., gas for about 30 per cent., and coal for 20 per cent. What part will the Government play in the nuclear programme? Where do they see Britain's place in the nuclear programme which takes account of these very large figures?
  Is it true that the British nuclear programme at present is still almost in the experimental stage? Having spent years exploring the possibilities of gas-cooled reactors, then having rejected that concept and gone from Magnox to AGR to look at light water, finally ending up with the heavy water concept, we are still fiddling about with something which, if it had had really clear decisions from previous Governments and this Government——
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric Varley): Oh.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Yes, the Secretary of State knows perfectly well that this matter has hung about a great deal too long, but that does not mean that something should not be done about it now. The announcement about nuclear reactors still does not take the matter out of the realm of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) described as "pilot plant". If that is so, will the Minister say when the Government intend to put their whole support behind the nuclear programme in this country? When will they announce plans for a heavy water plant and when will they move away from this timid approach, or is it that the Government, for whatever reasons, feel that they have to give more consideration to the National Union of Mineworkers than to anybody else?
  There is also the question about the reliance upon gas. There are obvious advantages in this area. It is pollutionfree and easy to control and ration. But what do the Government think about the long-term plans for coal? That could have very far-reaching effects on the mining industry, which is obviously in a peculiar position compared with the coal industries in Europe. What do the Government believe, over this long term of 30 years, should be the rôle for the coal industry in Britain? Perhaps the
  1500
  medium term is more easy to forecast accurately, though there are uncertainties in a 10-year time scale.
  There are certain important considerations. The first is that we should get a clear indication of the size of the economic wealth of the country, because this will determine the amount of energy that is required. The document seems to suggest a growth figure across the 10-year period of 4½ per cent. I should like to know the Government's view on that and whether they accept that growth figure as being sensible and attainable.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Is not the point of this debate that it will not matter what the Government think of the long-term energy requirements of this country because that will all go over to Brussels? We need not bother with what the Government think.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I recognise that my hon. and learned Friend has a somewhat jaundiced view of what goes on in Brussels, but I regard these figures as being of great significance for the Community and for Britain as a member of that Community.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Member has been dealing with long-term questions, but can he deal with a short-term one? Since he started by saying that we are merely taking note, does he intend to end his speech by advising us to accept the amendment?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member must wait one moment for that because there are matters contained in the document which are significant and which simply cannot and must not be brushed aside. I realise that the hon. Member has already signed the motion in the name of his right hon. Friend and his position is therefore clear. The arguments require to be considered, however, in a logical manner.
  The objectives for 1985—the medium-term objectives—mean that there should be a reduction of 25 per cent. in high-risk energy supply, an estimated reduction in consumption of 10 per cent., a limit on oil to 40 per cent. of the consumption, the maintenance of coal production at 250 million tonnes and a substantial jump, even in a short period, in the generation of nuclear energy. Tucked away on pages 61 and 62 is a matter

  1501
  which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), namely the objectives for the rational utilisation of energy policy. Here we find many many areas that require urgent consideration—savings in the domestic area, in transport, and in industry, including the energy industries themselves.
  The Government must produce answers. When shall we have a statement on energy conservation from them? We have been waiting patiently for it, and there is no sign of it yet. The people are aware that there are serious energy problems. We have seen over the past 12 months the shattering of many assumptions, including the assumption that energy was plentiful and infinite. We live on a globe that is finite, and its resources are finite, too. We must make sure that those resources are properly used. We must create in people's minds an awareness of the situation and of the fact that we shall never return to the happy days of cheap energy which can be squandered at people's whim. We must realise that the old ways of doing things have changed dramatically in those 12 months.
  In this situation it is essential that the Government give a lead and play their part. The document, complex and perhaps even confused, but certainly far reaching, is a faltering step in the right direction. It is not in itself a complete answer. What we want to know from the Government is their reaction to it and what part they intend to play in bringing it to fruition.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate must conclude by 11.45 p.m. The two winding-up speeches will begin at about 11.28 p.m. Hon. Members do not require to be senior wranglers to make a rough calculation of how much time is left for debate.
  11.7 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am sorry that the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) spent such a long time dealing with the necessary points of energy policy as a whole, and raised matters that do not directly arise from the regulations. If my remarks are therefore less measured but rather more
  1502
  punchy, I hope that the House will forgive me, in view of what you have just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Energy policy is not necessarily the same to everyone. We must recognise that in the document it is essentially an energy price policy. The two are different. Clearly, under the document there is to be competition not only between sources and countries but between fuels, in order to meet the dictates not only of the Common Market but of the market in energy as such. Would it be possible, for instance, for any United Kingdom Government dealing with a coherent fuel policy for this country to put on an oil tax, as was done some time ago to cushion the coal industry? Thank heavens that happened when it did! Without it we should have less of a coal industry than we have now.
  Secondly there is the question of tariffs. The hon. Member for New Forest asked, "What about energy conservation?" Differential tariffs for different sorts of use might be a good way to achieve it. But if energy prices, including electricity prices, are to be related to the economic cost of production, as the regulations hint, we could not even do that. I think that at present the Central Electricity Generating Board sets the tariffs for different users in relation to the cost of transmission and so on, because the cost of generation is less than the cost of transmission. Would it be free still to do so?
  Mr. Rost Mr. Rost rose——
  Mr. Spearing: Time does not permit me to give way.
  Should we be able to balance the national energy account as a whole in financial terms in the way in which we have done it before? I rather doubt it.
  While we are renegotiating the treaty, it would be wrong for any Minister to go to Brussels on 17th December and do other than to say, "We reserve our position on these regulations", despite the fact that the document says that they must be decided by 31st December. I know that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) is emphasising that even if we take note of the documents—I hope that we do not; I hope that the motion will be withdrawn if the amendment is

  1503
  not accepted—that does not imply acceptance. Unfortunately, because the House has discused this motion—and not because we have "taken note" of it—it may well be that people elsewhere will assume an implied acceptance. I hope that when my right hon. Friend gets to Brussels he will make it clear that the feeling of the House is totally against these documents.
  I turn to the document itself—namely, R/1472. It is said that 50 per cent. of total energy requirements could be covered by atomic energy. There is nothing to suggest that that is a practicality. I understand that if production of an atomic power station is to start in five or seven years it is necessary to begin the project now. I do not think that that is realistic.
  Coal is referred to in page 19. It is said that coal will be a stop-gap source of energy and that we shall have limited dependence on it for the next 30 years. It is said that there will then be diminishing support for the coal industry. Is that something that we can accept?
  The oil-producing countries are referred to in page 26. It is implied that the EEC needs a concerted foreign policy to deal with the supplying countries. That has important implications which the House should not accept without comment.
  The price of petroleum products is dealt with in page 34 in the usual bureaucratic way. It is said that the importance of price structures is not as great as is the difference between the levels of the prices. The document reads:
  "For this reason the Commission believes that the objective to be pursued in this connection is a greater degree of uniformity (which does not imply standard prices) in these price levels rather than in the price structures. This objective can only be attained by successive stages and to a reasonable timetable."
  Does that mean that when the Chancellor announces petrol price increases he will have to pay attention to Community policy? The only interpretation of that quotation is that in future my right hon. Friend must take that course.
  I conclude on a point of procedure. The former Procedure Committee has suggested that we take note or at least debate these documents, and others that I understand are to follow, in the form of a take-note debate. That poses severe
  1504
  difficulties. I hope that the present Procedure Committee will offer a superior recommendation.
  The present recommendation means that we have only an hour and a half to debate matters which would normally be the content of two or three White Papers. I see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy nods his head. I am glad that he does. If we had three White Papers each would be published at least three weeks before a whole day's debate in the House. I understand that the Select Committee's report which my right hon. Friend has quoted was not in the Vote Office before Friday. I happen to know that the original issue with the accompanying memoranda did not include the main document before us today. I checked and it was not in the Library on Monday. It did not reach the Vote Office until 4.30 to 5.0 p.m. yesterday afternoon. That is the document which my right hon. Friend quotes.
  We have had enough difficulty in dealing with EEC legislation and I think that the points that I have brought to the attention of the House indicate that we can do no other than express our disapproval of these document and ask my right hon. Friend to express that opinion in no uncertain terms in Brussels on 17th December.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Pardoe: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made selective use of the document we are debating. He quoted from page 19 some words about coal playing a stop-gap role in electricity production. He said nothing of the following sentence which talks of the production of coal-fired power stations being increased by 30 per cent. to 50 per cent.
  If the hon. Gentleman looks at page 23 he will see set out there a programme for the expansion of coal production which goes far beyond anything the Government have suggested this country should have. There is a manpower policy which encourages
  "recruitment and training of labour of high calibre through attractive remuneration and secure career prospects"
  Is not that what Labour Members want? There is provision for
  "financial intervention, should the need arise, to guarantee the competitiveness of consumers

  1505
  using Community coal under long-term contracts."
  We have not got those kinds of guarantees from this Government. We can look to the Community for them. There is
  "administrative and financial action to promote the construction of coal-fired power staions"
  It is all there, and it is a magnificent programme for the extra use of coal.
  Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the programme to which he is referring runs until 1985 but that there are other matters dealing with the long term, to the end of the century? Does he further agree that the reason for the appearance of this document is the present energy difficulty and that the EEC, up to this time, was doing the opposite with coal mines and did not have a very good social policy?
  Mr. Pardoe: If I understand the question aright, that is exactly the opposite of the truth. The words "stop-gap" were in reference to the short and medium term. The proposals I read out referred to the long term and are of far more fundamental importance.
  As I have pointed out, we are not being asked to approve the document; we are being asked to take note of it. In any case, the proposals are not in any sufficiently final stage for us to approve them tonight or in the near future. It is an interesting and worthwhile document. Of course it raises the issue of sovereignty, and that is inevitable in any discussion of Community proposals. From the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) one might never have thought that we in the Western economies now face the prospect of total economic collapse, very largely as a result of the energy problem.
  The situation is a result of what took place last October and what has happened since. We are in the most dangerous phase I can remember. We are in the phase where a miscalculation, by the West or the producer countries in the Middle East, could leave us with the stark choice between total economic collapse in the West or war in the Middle East.
  That is why it is so necessary to have a common energy policy. There never was a time when we needed such a policy more. Such a policy necessitates the pooling of sovereignty and such pooling is a matter of give and take. Page 2 of the
  1506
  document spells out clearly what the give and take is. It is no good hon. Members believing that this country has got everything stacked against it in its negotiations with the Common Market.
  It says that different countries face the problem in different ways because of the impact of the previous balance of payments situation, before the oil crisis. We were among those worst placed to face the oil crisis through our balance of payments situation before the crisis arose. But there are many other things in which we shall clearly have the advantage over our Common Market partners.
  We ought to look upon our North Sea oil discoveries as a means of giving ourselves a better bargaining hand rather than thinking that our partners will thieve it from us. The idea that we can solve our energy problems on our own is based on a combination of faded nationalism, prejudiced anti-Europeanism, and a hopelessly optimistic view of the importance of the saving grace of North Sea oil.
  Mr. Jay: All that is just verbiage. If a common energy policy means handing over control of our North Sea oil to other authorities to use it for the benefit of other countries, is that in the interests of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Pardoe: I will come to that in a moment. There is a clear answer to that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but he will use any stick to beat a dog.
  Our North Sea oil supplies are hideously vulnerable to attack, and they will always remain so. On the day when we have had a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Gentleman cannot ignore that fact, because the Secretary of State did not ignore it. There is desperate need to get our energy policies together. But the right hon. Gentleman, as always, suggests that some other international organisation should do that. He talks about the OECD and says that we do not need the EEC to do it. A common energy policy by the OECD countries would require considerable pooling of sovereignty and surrender of our rights if it were to have any effect on the producer countries.
  The answer to the problem is contained in a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman's erstwhile right hon. Friend, although I doubt whether the word

  1507
  "friendship" can be applied now. Mr. Commissioner George Thomson is reported in the Scotsman of 16th November, as follows:
  "It is absolutely clear from the Treaty that oil and gas reserves belong entirely to the country concerned, and that the country is completely free to derive the economic benefits by taxation or by nationalisation."
  The right hon. Member for Battersea, North has again raised a hare which will not run. We shall be able to use our energy reserves in the interests of this country, but if we want to protect the future of our economy along with the other Western nations we shall have to take common action, and we might as well admit that the only international organ that is likely to be able to make common action effective, and likely to be able to get it together, is the EEC.
  11.26 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: The key sentence in the document appears on page 32. I make no apology for quoting it again. It reads as follows:
  "The requisite support towards achieving all these tasks could be asigned to a Community agency having a legal personality and financial autonomy".
  The implications of that sentence for our future energy policy are serious.
  The document goes on say that the agency would be under the control of the Commission, which means that we shall be in the same position with energy as we are with agriculture. Every time we wish to act on the control or development of our indigenous power resources, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be sent to Brussels to seek permission, just as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has to negotiate in Brussels on beef, chickens and Heaven knows what else.
  The document assume that the EEC as a whole can work towards self-sufficiency in power resources over the next 10 years, but that is a nonsense. It is abundantly clear from the figures that we shall be dependent, in the Community, on imports of oil for many years yet. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to say in his observations that the oil problem as it has developed in the last nine months transcends the confines of any single country or continent
  1508
  and, therefore, demands action beyond the framework of the Community. I believe that that is right.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend is right to suggest that, to deal with the oil problem—which is serious, certainly financially—requires international negotiations on a wide scale, involving the major industrial countries and not merely the EEC countries, and also involving detailed consultations with the developing countries.
  I believe that this House would make a very serious mistake if it gave the slightest indication that it was prepared to accept the concept, enshrined in the documents of a European Community agency which, in effect, would have control over our energy and power resources, with all the consequences, not only for our own physical resources but also for the implications in taxation and the management of our economy. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will accept the amendment.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Normanton.
  Mr. John Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, in a debate which will have been far too short for such a subject, that there will have been five speakers from the Labour benches but, as far as I know, apart from the Conservative Front Bench speakers, only a single back-bench speech from the Opposition benches? There must be something wrong.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I inquire whether, in this debate, you have the power which, I understand, the Chair has in other, similar one-and-a-half hour debates, to come to the conclusion that the matter has not been sufficiently debated and to decide that it should be adjourned?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I have the power, but I am not saying that I am coming to that decision. With regard to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), as the House is aware, I have just come to the Chair, and whoever is in the Chair tries to have a balanced debate. There is an amendment, moved by the right hon. Member

  1509
  for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), and no doubt that has disturbed the balance of the speeches.
  11.28 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Normanton: It falls to my lot at this stage of our extremely brief debate to sum up for the Opposition. I need not remind the House that there has been a total lack of time for hon. Members on both sides of the House to deal adequately with the whole range of extremely important points which arise on these documents. But three points in particular have been highlighted.
  The first is the concern about the inadequacy of energy policies promoted and sought for in the United Kingdom and Europe over a long period. The second is the sluggishness of all Governments, both here and on the Continent, in responding to the realities of the energy situation. This point was well underlined by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) when he spoke of our vulnerability. Europe's future, indeed her very existence, is literally over a barrel, and the barrel is, metaphorically and literally, empty of energy resources with which to maintain a viable community in this country. Let us not forget that no energy is as costly as that which is not available when it is required.
  The third concern is the panic reaction of all Governments. They have tinkered about with solutions. They have thought and acted only in the short term. They have adopted measures which one can only describe as expediencies. Instead of concentrating also on long-term replacement investment, as they should have done, their policy will keep the pawnbrokers in business and the cupboards bare rather than promote economic growth and solvency. That applies equally to Britain and to every other member State of the Community.
  The proposals in Document No. R/ 127/74 on fuel stocks at primary power stations are realistic when considered in the round. It is not inappropriate for me as a member of the delegation from this House to the European Parliament and a member of the European Parliament's Energy Research and Technology Committee to advise the House—there is no record of it in the records of the House —that we who have played our modest
  1510
  part in the European Parliament firmly believe that 50 days is a realistic period and that it should be increased progressively as the years go by.
  Stocking is a subject that is not adequately dealt with in the document. I remind the House that stocking relates to those power stations where total output is 100 megawatts or more. I ask the Minister to consider whether by adopting a similar kind of stocking policy for generating stations of less than 100 megawatts, recommending, if not persuading or forcing through that policy, he would make a significant contribution to reinforcing the viability of our energy resources in periods of crisis.
  The arguments of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) were rolled out day and night during the course of the great debate, and this is not the occasion for a repetition of the arguments that were then unfolded at such length during that debate when the issue was comprehensively and finally decided by the overwhelming will of the House. If the right hon. Member has so little faith in the tenacity, courage, conviction and negotiating capability of Britain's delegates in the interests of the Community, he belongs to a very small group. The House has the courage to have the conviction that we have a role to play, and play it we shall.
  I turn to Document No. R/1472/74. We have to recognise that the House has repeatedly called on one Government after another to produce proposals for an energy policy. For the first time, we now have an honest attempt to produce a policy for this country and for all the member States of the European Economic Community. The keynote of the policy is cooperation. Unless there is co-operation among all the elements involved in that energy policy, there can be no effective solution to the problem of providing and establishing a permanently strong indigenous system for Britain and for Europe as a whole.
  The Minister should spell out his interpretation of what the policy is meant to achieve, and I hope that he will make it clear that he recognises that in energy as in monetary policy salvation for Britain as for Europe lies in co-operation.
  It cannot and must not continue to be a case of cut or be cut and of conflict between the various member States,

  1511
  especially when the situation is grave. The ultimate objective for an energy policy, whether it be for Britain or for Europe, must be to give greater independence from interruption of the existence and supply of all sources of energy. That is what these documents are about.
  I assure the Minister that he can count upon the support of most of my right hon. and hon. Friends—I should like to think of all of them—both in resisting the amendment and in taking note of these documents.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before calling on the Minister to reply, I should tell the House that I am in possession of greater knowledge now than when I answered the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I do not have the power of discretion applying to this motion.
  11.36 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I very much welcome the opportunity to debate these documents. Although I realise that this has been a short debate, I am tempted to debate and answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who led for the Opposition, because he embarked upon the long-term energy strategy of Britain rather than the documents before the House.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about strategic supplies of coal stocks, energy conservation, British nuclear power, and matters such as that. I do not think that such matters are relevant to the debate. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have not got the stocks that we would like—at least the coal stocks—because of the confrontation policies pursued by the Conservative Government earlier in the year. If it were not for that, we would have been much better supplied with coal at our power stations. The result of that industrial dispute earlier in the year, which was totally unnecessary, meant that essential development and maintenance work did not go ahead. I sincerely hope that this time next winter we shall be much better placed than we are now.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that we had been very slow in coming to a
  1512
  decision on nuclear power. I must remind him that in three and a half years the Conservative Government fudged or did not take a decision. They continually put it off. However, I want to be fair to some right hon. Gentlemen opposite who had responsibility—for example the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies)—who recall the difficult decision that the then Government had to take. But, within five months, the Labour Government were able to reach and take the decision to go forward backing British technology in the form of the steam-generating, heavy-water reactor.
  I hope to be in a position quickly to announce to the House energy conservation measures. Again, we had no energy conservation measures from the previous Government if we exclude cleaning our teeth in the dark and shaving by candle light with an electric razor.
  The documents that we have been discussing tonight are some of the most important documents that have yet been produced by the Commission. The Scrutiny Committee was right to draw the attention of the House to the valuable opportunities and some of the drawbacks for British energy policy.
  My right hon and hon. Friends will know that I have to go to the Council of Energy Ministers on 17th December. I shall find this debate most useful and shall have in mind the comments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I must tell the House that we do not yet have a final agenda for that Council meeting, but almost certainly there will be a resolution based on the conclusions of document R/1472/74. There may possibly be separate resolutions on coal policy, oil policy, gas policy, electricity and the rational use of energy. However, these discussions have yet to come.
  The amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) quotes the Explanatory Memorandum which was sent to the House by me. Under the procedures of the House, this Explanatory Memorandum submitted the formal Commission documents that were available. It is clear that the document has policy implications. There is no doubt about that, and we do not deny it. I said so in the Explanatory Memorandum, and I shall say so when I go to Brussels.

  1513
  Already, in Brussels we have sought, with some success, to have the proposals modified, but there are still aspects of the document that we do not like, and I frankly say so to the House. We do not like some of the proposals, and I shall not be prepared to accept them at the Council of Ministers' meeting on 17th December.
  Some hon. Members have referred to the effect that the Commission's proposals will have on our North Sea oil reserves. I am in full agreement with those who say that it is essential that the United Kingdom should continue to exercise full rights and control over these resources, because when it comes to such vital matters as exploration, depletion, disposal and taxation policies it is right that we should decide these in this House. I accept that these matters must remain in the hands of the British Government.
  The proposals that we have been discussing are concerned mainly with ensuring effective consultation between member States and the co-ordination of national energy policies. I, for my part, while respecting the provisions of the treaty, will continue to resist any proposals by the Commission that could interfere with our ability to carry through our Continental Shelf policies in accordance with the overall energy and fiscal objectives that have been laid down by the House.
  There has been comment on the suggestion in Document R/1472/74 that the objectives proposed could be assigned to the Commission's energy agency—this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley)— and that it could take legal and binding decisions and have financial autonomy over the United Kingdom Government. I must tell my hon. Friend that the Government see no need for such an agency, and we shall say so quite frankly. We see the EEC energy policy at most as the harmonisation of national policies, with control exercised by national Governments.
  I think that the Commission's proposals on coal production present us with problems, but, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said, not overwhelming ones.
  I hope that I have dealt with some of the matters raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We shall certainly take
  1514
  into account what has been said tonight in deciding our final attitude to these matters and in the discussions that I shall have at the Council of Ministers' meeting on 17th December.
  Mr. Jay: My right hon. Friend has made clear that he does not accept the proposals as now put forward by the EEC Commission. As we are anxious to strengthen his hand in his forthcoming adventures on the Continent, may I ask him to assure us that in so far as there are amended or modified proposals he will not accept them unless and until they have been debated in the House?
  Mr. Varley: I can agree with my right hon. Friend—in fact, I have already said —that we do not accept some of the implications of this document. We have some reservations on the stock-piling and power station policies. We do not accept some of the implications of the North Sea oil policy.
  I give the assurance that the House, in taking note of these documents—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Ordered, That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Pavitt.]

VACCINE-DAMAGED CHILDREN
11.45 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lomas: This will be the second occasion this year that the subject of vaccine-damaged children has been raised. The first occasion was on 31st January by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who opened his debate by saying:
"The purpose of this debate is to tear aside the veil of obscurity which has shrouded the

1515
fate of thousands of children, to suggest urgent action aimed at reducing the number of future tragedies, and to offer proposals to compensate those who are severely damaged."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January 1974; Vol. 867–68, c. 718.]
The purpose of this debate, held under a different Government, is to draw attention to the wording of Early-Day Motion No. 70, now signed by more than 50 hon. Members, which reads:
"That this House is concerned at the lack of statistics concerning vaccine-damaged children: believes that their case for compensation is at least as just as those children suffering as a result of the thalidomide tragedy; and demands an immediate investigation into the problem."
The motion has been signed by Members from almost all the parties represented in the House, and therefore I approach the problem on a totally non-political way.
The great tragedy of vaccine-damaged children does not always register as much as it might until Members are made aware of cases in their own constituencies.
I know of two such cases in Hudders-field, West, and there may well be many more, but on 17th May this year I received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Marsden of 18 Woodhead Road, Lock-wood, Huddersfield. The first paragraph of that letter read:
"We have a son Christopher, whose date of birth is 13th April 1969. He was a normal healthy child until at the age of 16 months he received a booster injection of diphtheria vaccine, and became ill the same day, being admitted to hospital. He has since spent several periods in different hospitals but he is totally incapacitated and permanently in a state of semi-consciousness with convulsions which occur frequently during both the day and night. We have been informed his condition is due to vaccine damage."
I have seen Christopher, and there is no hope of a recovery. The vaccine that damaged his brain has condemned him to permanent immobility, cut off from all human contact.
Mr. and Mrs. Marsden receive a weekly attendance allowance, but that can be no compensation for the damage done to the child and the life of the family.
Let it be clearly understood that my constituents are not against vaccination, but they do believe, as I do, and as do the Association of Parents of Vaccine-Damaged Children, that there should be some compensation from the State when
1516
such tragedies happen. There are already at least six other countries—Holland, Denmark, West Germany, Monaco, Hungary and Japan, which have schemes to help families by way of compensation —so why not Britain?
On 28th June this year I received a letter from the Department of Health and Social Security stating that the Royal Commission on Compensation and Civil Liability was considering the question of compensation for vaccine damage. This is good news, but I doubt whether the Royal Commission has powers of making payments retrospective. I ask the Minister, who is a compassionate man, to comment on this, and also to let me know when I can expect an answer to a letter I sent to him on 17th November asking when the Commission was likely to report. Perhaps my hon. Friend will also say whether there is any possibility of an interim report devoted specifically to the claims of vaccine-damaged children.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House over a number of years have tried to obtain firm estimates of the number of children damaged by vaccine, but, so far, under both Governments there appears to have been a conspiracy of silence.
One can only guess the number of vaccine-damaged children, but it is certainly around the 500 mark, and the number who suffer minor disability may be many times more. I believe that the House and the nation are entitled to those figures, as this is not a once-for-all occasion as in the other drug case of thalidomide but is happening every year.
In a letter I received dated 17th October 1974 from Mrs. Rosemary Fox, the Secretary of the Association of Parents of Vaccine-Damaged Children, she said:
"Immunisation is a nationally recommended and vigorously promoted health scheme which confers a great benefit on the majority but which has an element of risk. This risk has fallen, and continues to fall, on a minority of children with disastrous consequences, but no Government has ever felt it necessary to cover the risk. It is argued that, because the benefits of immunisation outweigh the disadvantages, the disadvantages must be accepted by the individual children and their families. This is a grave social injustice".
I agree entirely with Mrs. Fox, and I hope that this Government will do something, as a matter of urgency, to put things right.

1517
In 1972, the British Government set up a £3 million fund to aid congenitally handicapped children. Vaccine-damaged children were not eligible for help from this fund for the sole reason that they were normal healthy babies at birth, although many of them today are nothing more than vegetables, still receiving the love, care and affection of their parents.
When a baby is accidentally damaged by vaccine, parents are seldom given any explanation how the injury has arisen. They are merely informed that the child has "brain damage". In most cases parents do not realise what this implies, and they wait hopefully for their child to recover. The child seldom does.
Under the kind of strain parents have to suffer, some marriages break up, and parents suffer nervous breakdowns. The tragedy is that the parents chose vaccination for their own baby in order to protect the child, completely unaware of the risk.
The strain to which I have referred is not confined to the parents. It affects all other children in the household, and these sisters and brothers of the affected child are deprived of a normal childhood as a result. The recognition of the plight of these vaccine-damaged children is long overdue, and I believe that the Government should carry out an immediate investigation of their own.
That immunisation and vaccination will and must continue for the benefit of community health is not in question, but that there is a risk in vaccinations and that this has fallen, and will continue to fall, on a minority of children cannot be disputed. I believe that the Government must act now, and I appeal to the Minister to give an undertaking in line with the early day motion.
Those hon. Members and those people outside the House who read HANSARD who wish to help should write to or get in touch with Mrs. Fox, of the Association of Vaccine-Damaged Children, 2 Church Street, Shipston on Stour, Warwickshire.
I hope that the Government will temper justice with mercy and understanding and do something now to help these unfortunate children and their parents.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I understand that the hon. Member has arranged with the Minister, whose agreement is essential, that two of
1518
his hon. Friends may briefly intervene in the debate.
11.57 p.m.
Mrs. Joyce Butler: The Department of Health and Social Security has arranged for blanket national coverage, as it were, of small children by vaccination, but it has made no provision for compensation for those few children who are damaged by vaccination. Why is that? I believe that the Department has a moral responsibility to provide insurance for those who need protection in this way.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secre-tary to bear in mind that tomorrow and in the days to come babies and small children up and down the country will be vaccinated in very large numbers, and they have no insurance and none is proposed to protect those who may become victims of vaccine damage. The numbers may be small. We do not know exactly whether that is so. But even one healthy child damaged by vaccination is a tragedy to its family, and it is a tragedy to the child. As long as one child may be damaged by vaccination, we as a country have a moral responsibility from which we cannot escape. Other countries can make provision for this. Why are we not doing it?
11.58 p.m.
Mr. Jim Callaghan: It has been stated that between 1964 and 1971 there were 425 reported cases of adverse reactions to whooping cough vaccination. Of these, 17 died. As these vaccine-damaged children were normal healthy children who were accidentally damaged by a procedure recommended and encouraged by the State, the State should acknowledge the debt due to them.
I know that the present Government are sympathetic to these cases and do not regard them lightly. However, the expression of sympathy needs to take a more practical form for the sake of the children and their families. In all cases the parents of these children are subjected to immense strain, and normal family life is impossible. In addition, enormous expense is incurred and the cost is borne by the parents. Recognition of their plight is long overdue.
That immunisation can continue without the benefit of compensation for

1519
children already damaged, or those who will be damaged in the future, is indefensible.
I suggest that as Holland, Denmark, West Germany, Monaco, Hungary and Japan pay compensation to vaccine-damaged children, we in this country should acknowledge that such compensation is appropriate and long overdue, and that if the immunisation scheme is to continue on a moral basis a compensation scheme is now a matter of urgency. The problems endured by the parents of these children are now so urgently acute that the means must be found to meet the situation.
11.59 p.m.
Mr. Ian Percival Mr. Ian Percival (Southport) rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I presume that the hon. and learned Gentleman has reached agreement with the Minister.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris)The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris) indicated assent.
Mr. Percival: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for permitting me to intervene for a moment, because I do not under-estimate the importance of having a full reply to the debate.
I have two brief questions. Having regard to the fact that the acceptance of this vaccination is vigorously promoted, and very properly vigorously promoted, by the Government, although it is clear that there is some risk involved in it, does not the hon. Gentleman feel that it follows that there is a special duty to accept the obligation to compensate those who suffer from that inherent risk?
There is little prospect of the Royal Commission reporting even within a year, so that the time scale for action upon any recommendation coming from the Royal Commission must lie at least two years ahead. Does not the Minister feel that it will not do, though I see the attraction of it, to postpone consideration of action until the Royal Commission reports? Is it not clear that some action must be taken immediately?
12.1 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I know how deeply concerned many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides are
1520
about the problem which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) has raised with so much sincerity and force tonight. Naturally, I am grateful also to my hon. Friends the Members for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) and for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan), as well as to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), for what they added in support of the case made by my hon. Friend.
With his customary kindness, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West gave me an indication before the debate of the points which he intended to raise. I am glad that he agrees that the gratitude of the whole House is due to our hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who first raised this grievous problem in the House by Questions and then in a most important Adjournment debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South led a sustained campaign on behalf of these children.
I assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I also feel very deeply about the problem. My right hon. Friend has expressed our concern for the children who are unfortunate victims of vaccine damage, and for their parents, on many occasions both in the House and elsewhere. We have not limited ourselves to expressions of sympathy, as I shall try to explain.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Government are advised on medical aspects of immunisation by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which is appointed by the Central Health Service Council and Scottish Health Service Planning Council. The joint committee continually reviews the use of existing vaccines and considers the introduction of new vaccines.
For example, in 1968, after careful consideration of all the available facts, it recommended the introduction on a national scale of measles vaccination for all susceptible children between one and 15 years, and, in 1970, the use of rubella vaccine for all girls between their 11th and 14th birthdays. In 1971, the joint committee took the historic decision that, because routine vaccination against smallpox had proved so effective in dealing with the disease, it need no longer be recommended. It reached this decision

1521
after careful consideration of the World Health Organisation's smallpox eradication programme and concluded that the very occasional serious complication in childhood outweighed the likely risk of smallpox in Britain.
At the present time, the joint committee recommends routine vaccination against the following diseases: diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, poliomyelitis, measles, tuberculosis and rubella. The success of these immunisation campaigns can be measured by the virtual eradication of such killing and maiming diseases as diphtheria and poliomyelitis. From 1933 to 1942, there were 55,125 notifications of diphtheria and 2,783 deaths in England and Wales, whereas in 1973 provisional figures indicate four notifications and no deaths. In 1955 before immunisation against poliomyelitis was introduced nationally, there were 6,331 notifications and 270 deaths whereas in 1973 provisional figures indicate a total of seven cases and no deaths.
Similarly, whooping cough notifications have declined from 85,000 in 1957 to 2,400 last year and over the same period the number of deaths has dropped from 87 to two. I think my hon. Friends and the hon. and learned Member for South-port will agree that such figures illustrate the value of our immunisation programme and the work that the joint committee is doing.
Unfortunately, as hon. Members are well aware, no immunising procedure is entirely free from risk of ill effects or, as they are technically known, "adverse reactions". They are, however, exceedingly uncommon. Some of these risks can be avoided by recognising contraindications—for example, eczema in the case of smallpox—and care in administering vaccines. Some risks are unpredictable, and to that extent unavoidable in the individual. There is, for example, the exceedingly rare development of paralysis after live poliomyelitis vaccine.
Precise estimates of the degree of risk are difficult to make. Illnesses or disabilities reported as "adverse reactions" may often have another explanation. In the individual patient it is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the illness or disability has been causally related to the immunising procedure. Estimates of rates depend on collecting information on a series of patients and
1522
are influenced by the criteria used for determining a causal relationship.
The balance of benefits and risks from immunisation is kept continually under review, and I can assure my hon. Friends and the hon. and learned Member that all vaccines currently recommended for routine immunisation carry risks substantially less than that of remaining unvaccinated. For instance, the risk of developing serious disorders of the central nervous system as a result of naturally occurring measles is probably at least one hundred times greater than that associated with the present measles vaccine. Likewise, the risk of developing paralysis after live poliomyelitis vaccine is of the order of one in a million or less.
The joint committee has carefully reviewed the hazards on whooping cough vaccination and has reaffirmed its view that it should be continued as a routine procedure. It is known that minor reactions are common and that, very rarely, more serious reactions such as convulsions or other neurological complications can ensue. The committee has stressed that such reactions can be reduced by scrupulous regard of contra-indications to vaccination such as a history of convulsions, epilepsy or other disorders of the central nervous system. The Chief Medical Officer has written to all National Health Service doctors to convey the committee's views.
The fact that these risks exist—as with most other forms of medical treatment— is public knowledge. Parents should discuss the balance of advantage for their children with their doctors. It would be unfortunate if by exaggerating the possible risks, which by any standards are remote, current publicity were to deter parents from accepting for their child a form of protection which might save its life in the future.
My right hon. Friend is advised by another group of experts, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, on the safety, quality and efficacy of vaccines, as of other medical products. Control is exercised through a system of licensing, but the collection of information about such reactions largely relies on a system of information about such reactions whereby all doctors, dentists and manufacturers have been asked to submit reports of any cases where use of a product may have

1523
harmed a patient. Reports are assessed by doctors experienced in monitoring.
If it appears likely that risks associated with a particular product outweigh possible benefits—or that possible side effects are too serious in relation to the purpose of a product—the committee advises action to see that it is withdrawn from the market, or to restrict its availability in some way. In less serious cases the committee may decide to send a warning to all doctors about adverse reactions which have followed the use of a product. In 1967 doctors were specially reminded about the importance of reporting adverse reactions to vaccines. The information received, however, is insufficient for the purpose of making reliable estimates of the number of severe reactions to vaccination.
While 100 per cent. reporting cannot be expected under any system which requires the voluntary co-operation of so many people, I am satisfied that valuable information is being obtained, much of which can be used to identify new problems as they arise or to highlight the need to initiate new studies of existing problems. I understand that a total of about 170 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines of all types are received each year.
I must reduce the length of my speech. I am deeply apologetic to my hon. Friend, because he has raised a most important matter.
The question of compensation is a difficult one and, as hon. Members will be aware, is the subject of anxious public discussion. In general, I think we would all agree that while a vaccination programme of any kind is carried out for the common benefit of society, its primary purpose is to protect individuals and the fact that there is risk involved makes it no different from many other medical procedures. Clearly also, the implications of compensation for the ill effects of vaccination where there is no question of negligence are very wide in the medical field.
Nor is it by any means easy either to decide whether disability is due to a particular procedure or what the right level of compensation for different disabilities should be. It has, therefore,
1524
been the view of successive Government that the grant of compensation payments in these cases is not possible.
However, much has happened in recent years to alter our ways of looking at problems of this kind and the whole question is under review by the Royal Commission on Compensation and Civil Liability. The Department has seen a report from the Association of Parents of Vaccine-Damaged Children, which has been sent to the Commission, and has itself submitted evidence. I am not at liberty to say what view that evidence takes, but I can repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech, that, with my right hon. Friend, I have deep concern for, as well as the greatest sympathy with, the case for compensation, and have made this clear on a number of occasions.
Any decisions on the matter will have to await the Pearson Commission's Report. I know that the parents of vaccine-damaged children are pressing for an interim report from the commission. This is not, of course, a matter in which my or any other Government Department has any standing, but I have no doubt that the commission will carefully consider the views put to it.
Meanwhile, we do not for one moment forget the heavy burdens created for families in the rare cases where serious ill-effects result. These are recognised in the various benefits that are provided for such families, including the attendance allowance for severely disabled people. This has been extended to include the less severely disabled children since 1st October 1973. From the age of 16 those without an insurance record and unable to earn their own living are normally entitled to benefits under the supplementary benefits scheme designed both to give them an income and to meet special needs. For the disabled adult who can work, the basic provision lies in the special employment services of the Deparmtent of Employment. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point that many of the children who are vaccine damaged are much too severely disabled to work.
On 13th October my right hon. Friend announced major new benefits for the disabled. These will help vaccine-damaged

1525
children and adults, as they will all other groups of handicapped people. There is to be a non-contributory invalidity pension, at £6 per week at present rates, which we propose to introduce in 1975. This will benefit 200,000 people of working age, who because of their disablement have not paid enough stamps to gain entitlement to contributory benefits. There will also be an invalid care allowance of £6 per week at existing levels which will be payable to people who cannot work because they need to look after invalid relatives in receipt of attendance allowance. Payment should commence in 1976.
Another new benefit which will be introduced in 1975 is mobility allowance which will be extended to cover children aged 5 to 16. This allowance, at the rate of £4 a week, is designed to help with the cost of transport of their choice those who cannot walk because of disablement.
1526
I am especially glad that the new allowance is to be payable to severely handicapped children. The whole range of health and social services is as freely available to these families as it is to any other group of handicapped people.
My hon. Friend will be aware of the valuable work undertaken by the Rown-tree Trust in administering the Government-financed Family Fund for handicapped children. At present the resources of the fund are available only to the congenitally handicapped—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Social Contract
  Social Contract
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
  Engineering Industry (Labour Shortage)
  Engineering Industry (Labour Shortage)
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Health and Safety at Work
  Health and Safety at Work
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Race Relations
  Race Relations
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
  Journalists (Dispute)
  Journalists (Dispute)
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Supervisory Boards
  Supervisory Boards
  Activity Rate
  Activity Rate
  Northumberland
  Northumberland
  Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering
  Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering
  Employment Agencies Act
  Employment Agencies Act
  Welsh Employees (Trade Unions)
  Welsh Employees (Trade Unions)
  Equal Pay Act 1970
  Equal Pay Act 1970
  Newspaper Editors
  Newspaper Editors
  Earnings (Monthly Index)
  Earnings (Monthly Index)
  Brixton
  Brixton
  Training (Manchester)
  Training (Manchester)
  Factory Safety (Birmingham)
  Factory Safety (Birmingham)
  Dorset
  Dorset
  Household Incomes
  Household Incomes
  Industrial Wastes (Transport by Road)
  Industrial Wastes (Transport by Road)
  Springburn, Glasgow
  Springburn, Glasgow
  Industrial Wages
  Industrial Wages
  National Insurance (Benefit Claiming)
  National Insurance (Benefit Claiming)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Bedfordshire
  Bedfordshire
  Manufacturing and Service Industries (Wales)
  Manufacturing and Service Industries (Wales)
  Earnings (Wales)
  Earnings (Wales)
  Working Population
  Working Population
  Scotland
  Scotland
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Clinical Research and Ethics
  Clinical Research and Ethics
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Speech Therapy
  Speech Therapy
  Homes (Elderly and Handicapped Persons)
  Homes (Elderly and Handicapped Persons)
  Pension Scheme (Government Actuary's Memorandum)
  Pension Scheme (Government Actuary's Memorandum)
  Disabled Persons (Food Supplies)
  Disabled Persons (Food Supplies)
  Rheumatic Diseases (Research Expenditure)
  Rheumatic Diseases (Research Expenditure)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Royal Holloway College (Students' Allowance)
  Royal Holloway College (Students' Allowance)
  Remedial Education
  Remedial Education
  Northern Hemisphere Observatory
  Northern Hemisphere Observatory
  Solar Energy
  Solar Energy
  Agoraphobia
  Agoraphobia
  School Building (Norfolk)
  School Building (Norfolk)
WALES
  Carmarthen and Llanelli (Population)
  Carmarthen and Llanelli (Population)
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Rheumatology Units
  Rheumatology Units
  Doctors (Casualty Cover)
  Doctors (Casualty Cover)
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Charity Commissioners
  Charity Commissioners
  Immigration (Spouses)
  Immigration (Spouses)
  Entry Certificates (Indian Subcontinent)
  Entry Certificates (Indian Subcontinent)
  Lady Margaret Hall Settlement, Kennington
  Lady Margaret Hall Settlement, Kennington
  Television Licences (Pensioners)
  Television Licences (Pensioners)
  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Cabinet Ministers (EEC Business)
  Cabinet Ministers (EEC Business)
  LAST PARLIAMENT
  LAST PARLIAMENT
  PRESENT PARLIAMENT
  PRESENT PARLIAMENT
  East European Embassies and Trade Delegations
  East European Embassies and Trade Delegations
  University of Rhodesia
  University of Rhodesia
  Guinea-Bissau
  Guinea-Bissau
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Celtic Sea
  Celtic Sea
  World Food Council
  World Food Council
  Entry Certificates (Indian Subcontinent)
  Entry Certificates (Indian Subcontinent)
  EEC Funds (Fraud Losses)
  EEC Funds (Fraud Losses)
  Passports (Welsh People)
  Passports (Welsh People)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL INFORMATION (WALES)
  INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL INFORMATION (WALES)
  SCOTTISH COUNCIL
  SCOTTISH COUNCIL
  INSURANCE AND PROPERTY COMPANIES
  INSURANCE AND PROPERTY COMPANIES
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  DR. KISSINGER
  DR. KISSINGER
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Beef and Sugar Production (Public Expenditure)
  Beef and Sugar Production (Public Expenditure)
  Animal Exports (O'Brien Report)
  Animal Exports (O'Brien Report)
  Agricultural Research Council
  Agricultural Research Council
  Meat Storage
  Meat Storage
  Grain Stocks (European Economic Community)
  Grain Stocks (European Economic Community)
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Animals (Transport by Air)
  Animals (Transport by Air)
  Lamb
  Lamb
  Beef
  Beef
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Stationery Office Publications (Prices)
  Stationery Office Publications (Prices)
DEFENCE
  International Training
  International Training
  NATO (British Contribution)
  NATO (British Contribution)
  Central European Front
  Central European Front
  Meteorological Office (Ice Age Predictions)
  Meteorological Office (Ice Age Predictions)
  Gurkhas
  Gurkhas
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Non-commissioned Officers
  Non-commissioned Officers
  Canberra Aircraft
  Canberra Aircraft
  HMS "Reclaim"
  HMS "Reclaim"
  Personnel Strengths (NATO and Soviet Union)
  Personnel Strengths (NATO and Soviet Union)
  Army
  Army
  Manpower
  Manpower
  Ship Designing
  Ship Designing
  Her Majesty's Ships
  Her Majesty's Ships
  Soviet Aircraft (Interception)
  Soviet Aircraft (Interception)
  RAF Regiment
  RAF Regiment
  TAVR Review Committee
  TAVR Review Committee
  Aircraft Carriers
  Aircraft Carriers
  Exports
  Exports
  Reductions in Forces
  Reductions in Forces
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
ENVIRONMENT
  Alkali Inspectorate
  Alkali Inspectorate
  Motorists (Medical Tests)
  Motorists (Medical Tests)
  Private Housing (Local Authority Acquisitions)
  Private Housing (Local Authority Acquisitions)
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Transport Planning
  Transport Planning
  Cavity Walls
  Cavity Walls
  Rate Support Grant (London)
  Rate Support Grant (London)
  Animal Imports
  Animal Imports
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Accommodation Agencies Act
  Accommodation Agencies Act
  Northampton
  Northampton
  Bus Subsidies
  Bus Subsidies
INDUSTRY
  Protein
  Protein
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Tax Assessments (Welsh Language)
  Tax Assessments (Welsh Language)
  Petrol (Rural Areas)
  Petrol (Rural Areas)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Animal Welfare (London Airport Computing)
  Animal Welfare (London Airport Computing)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Finance Bill
  Finance Bill
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Whiting Prices
  Whiting Prices
  Housing
  Housing
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  World Food Conference
  World Food Conference
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Primary Batteries
  Primary Batteries
  Beer
  Beer
  Motor Fuel
  Motor Fuel
  Footwear
  Footwear
  Weights and Measures
  Weights and Measures
SCOTLAND
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)
TRADE
  Luton Airport
  Luton Airport
  Ringway and Speke Airports
  Ringway and Speke Airports
  Cheshire (Airport)
  Cheshire (Airport)
  Tariffs (European Economic Community)
  Tariffs (European Economic Community)
  Aircraft Cargo Holds
  Aircraft Cargo Holds
  Animals (Carriage by Air)
  Animals (Carriage by Air)
  Airports (Study Costs)
  Airports (Study Costs)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
The Viscount Margesson—Took the Oath.

IMMIGRATION: REFUGEE PROCEDURES
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise to the House for being absent yesterday when I had a Question on the Order Paper, as circumstances arose which made it impossible for me to be present. I beg leave to ask the Question which now stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will adopt the practice of Scandinavian Governments of reporting cases of immigrants claiming to be political refugees to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees before resorting to deportation; whether they will require immigration officers to inform the Home Office before making decisions for deportation in all immigration cases; and whether they will give instructions that all immigrants awaiting decisions shall be transferred to Harmondsworth detention centre.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH): My Lords, I assume that my noble friend is referring to the removal of passengers who have been refused leave to enter the United Kingdom and not to formal deportation. I have been unable to substantiate that the practice of Scandinavian Governments is as my noble friend has stated. The power to give or refuse leave to enter the United Kingdom is vested by Statute in immigration officers, but they are required by the Immigration Rules to obtain the authority of a chief immigration officer or an immigration inspector before refusing entry.
58
Where a passenger claims political asylum it has long been a standing instruction that he is not to be removed from the country without reference to the headquarters of the Home Office. The London representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is consulted in appropriate cases.
As to the last part of the Question, it would not be possible to accommodate at Harmondsworth all those detained at the ports, and in many cases to move them there would delay their removal from the country.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that long reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that Sweden, Norway and Denmark have a joint arrangement, not only for consultation between them but with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, before they deport a person? May I ask whether the Minister has been in touch with the United Nations High Commissioner on the proposal in this Question and, if so, what has been his view?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there are two parts to the noble Lord's supplementary question. With regard to the first part I fear that as a result of researches which we undertook after he had tabled this Question, we did not discover that the procedure in terms of consultation in Scandinavia was as he described it in the Question. So far as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is concerned, we do consult him in doubtful or difficult cases. I cannot give a guarantee that it is done in every case but it is done in many cases.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there have been at least three recent cases where applicants have said that they wished for asylum but the immigration officers have originally not understood this and therefore the cases have not been referred to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? Therefore would not the noble Lord think it worth while issuing fresh instructions to the immigration officers, that where there is any doubt whatsoever that persons wish to apply for refugee status this should be referred to the Home Office and, through the Home

59
Office, to the United Nations High Commisioner? In regard to detention at Harmondsworth, does the noble Lord not appreciate that it is particularly important, in the delicate cases that we are talking about now, that access to would-be refugees applying for political asylum should be as easy as possible so that they may speak with their advisers and with the United Nations High Commissioner or his staff, and therefore it is quite wrong to detain them in out-of-the-way places where such access is more difficult?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, on the last point, I am afraid there is just not always accommodation at Harmondsworth; it is as simple as that. On the earlier points raised by the noble Lord, first, if the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees does support a particular application for political asylum, normally his view is accepted. The only other point I would make is that in the case which I believe led my noble friend to put this particular Question on the Order Paper, concerning a Pole, in fact the man did not claim political asylum when he entered the country.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, with regard to the later parts of my Question, may I ask the Minister whether it is the case that over this last year there have been at least 20 instances where the immigration officers have refused admission, but when I have taken up the case with the Home Office that permission has been allowed? Does not that indicate that there is some desire that the immigration officers should communicate with the Home Office before these decisions for deportation are taken?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, on the last point raised by my noble friend, I have already made it clear that the headquarters of the Home Office have to be consulted before any person claiming political asylum is ejected from this country. With regard to the last point raised by my noble friend, while I do not know about the other 19 cases, in the case to which I alluded a few moments ago the man did not claim political asylum when he entered the country but, as a result of the substantial amount of publicity that
60
took place over the facts of that case in the national Press, he became a self-created refugee and on that basis, and on that basis alone, the case was reconsidered.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House how many political refugees have in fact been allowed into this country this year, and from which countries they have come?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I cannot do so, I' fear, without notice.

EEC AND OIL PRICES
2.44 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the countries associated with the EEC are taking united action to deal with the increasing cost of oil from Arabian countries, and what measures are being taken.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, arising out of the increasing cost of oil, the united action of the EEC countries is taking three forms. First, they made joint representations to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries on the inflationary consequences of oil price increases. Second, they are formulating a scheme under which the Community would borrow funds from external sources and re-lend to members who are in difficulty. In addition to its value to EEC countries, the scheme could play a part in meeting the worldwide problem of recycling oil surplus funds. Third, ways and means of reducing the EEC's dependence on oil imports are under discussion. These will be one of the items to be discussed at the Summit proposed for this month and the meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers on December 17.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that what he has just told your Lordships' House sounds all very well, but what have been the beneficial results so far? If there is unity in the EEC on the subject of an approach to the solution of

61
the oil problem, is it not somewhat strange that the right honourable gentleman Mr. Lever has proceeded to Iran to discuss the matter with the Shah? Is that united action, or a more desirable unilateral action?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the countries of the EEC are taking two different kinds of action. Some actions arc collective and united; others are actions which they take on their own account. I was asked about collective action, and I have answered the Question on these grounds.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, do we understand from that answer that this unity is variable in its operation, that it is possible for any country in the EEC to take unilateral action without dissent from the EEC?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as I understand it, none of the countries of the EEC has taken any unilateral action to which there could be strong objection by the other members of the EEC.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the Government agree that in any united action taken by European countries it should not be a question of confrontation between Europe and the Arabs? It should be presented as a genuine effort between the consuming countries and the producing countries to find a solution to a problem which may have the severest repercussions on all of them.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that tonight in another place there is a debate on an EEC Regulation which lays down that through an agency they will take over British coal, British oil and the natural gas in the North Sea? Does not my noble friend consider this monstrous?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is another question, but if it is true I would consider it to be monstrous.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the report in yesterday's issue of The Times which indicates that a House of Lords Select Committee
62
after considering the Energy Report from the EEC has expressed doubts about its validity? In effect, the House of Lords Select Committee have rejected it. What has my noble friend to say about that?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have not seen the report to which my noble friend Lord Shinwell refers, so I can make no comment.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend mind if I sent him the report? I have it in my hand now.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I never mind receiving reports.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us when Her Majesty's Government are to play their part in starting to give a lead on the saving of oil in this country?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in relation to the EEC, they may well do so at the meeting that is to take place on 17th December.
Lord HAWKE: But, my Lords, has not the crisis been with us for nearly a year?
A Noble Lord: My Lords, another Government was in power then.

JORDAN: AID AND ASSISTANCE
2.48 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in the hope of getting a more satisfactory Answer, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to state the total sums made available to the kingdom of Jordan since 1958 either in cash or in the provision of armaments.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, since 1958 we have made available to Jordan, in both grants and loans, a total sum of the order of £51 million. Of this, a sum of the order of £24 million was grants, £25 million development loans, and the

63
balance of some £2 million military assistance.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether there have been any beneficial results? What have we gained from these financial concessions which this country could hardly afford, and which King Hussein and his friends put to ill use by, so far as can be ascertained, actually selling some of the equipment to other countries without our consent?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, our relations with Jordan are long and close. They date at least from the 1946 Anglo-Jordanian Treaty, to which my noble friend was a party as a member of the Government that concluded it. Since then, over a long period of years, the amount of aid made available to this key country in the Middle East has not been excessive. In the matter of military assistance it has been very small indeed, and over the past seven years since 1967 there has been only one relatively minor contribution by this country to the military might of Jordan.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, since my noble friend has recorded an item of military history with which I am, of course, familiar, would he not agree that the personalities of that period, and particularly Abdullah, were much more sincere and wholehearted friends of the United Kingdom than King Hussein?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would very much hope that my noble friend, on reflection, might agree that Jordan under King Hussein may prove to be one of the moderating influences in this very troubled and difficult region.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us admire the courage of King Hussein?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I share in that admiration personally.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I want him to exclude me from that piece of flattery
64
from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham?
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, however long and close our association with Jordan has been—and it has been long and close—does it entitle us today in our present parlous financial condition to supply arms to it in order that Jordan may supply those arms to other countries?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are not making available anything like excessive aid to Jordan, or indeed to any other country. Indeed, the question of aid is constantly under review and is based on the criterion of development. As to the provision of arms, I agree with my noble friend that this is a very difficult question. Successive Governments have attempted to strike a balance which it was hoped would conduce to a settlement of this problem and the attainment of a just and durable peace.
Lord ROYLE: My Lords, in his original Answer, my noble friend said something like "of the order of" a large sum of money. We are hearing this term very often. Will he give any indication as to what "of the order of" means, when it is related to large sums like this?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I used the phrase "of the order of £51 million". However, if it would assist my noble friend and the House I would endeavour to give this in somewhat more precise detail. But I think the picture given of a total sum of £51 million or so in a substantive Answer is most helpful to the House.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is a fact that part of this military aid to Jordan has been sold to the Republic of South Africa and conveyed to Rhodesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, none of it was conveyed to Rhodesia. We have had assurances from the Jordanian Government to that effect. Unfortunately, some of it was resold to South Africa. May I take this opportunity of stressing once more that it is a normal condition that when our Ministry of Defence makes available to overseas countries any equipment from this country it shall not be re-sold to any other country.

65
If it is not needed, then it should be offered back to the firm providing it from this country.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether this aid is still continuing, and, if it is, would he say whether any additional conditions will be tried to stop the transfer of any of the arms or equipment from Jordan to any other country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: This condition, of course, has been, and will continue to be, imposed on all provisions, all sales, of arms from this country to other countries. We have received assurances from the Jordanian Government that they will not in the future place themselves in the position in which they found themselves a few weeks ago, and we accept their assurances.

MISPRISION OF TREASON
2.55 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: 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 it is the view of the Government that misprision of treason is still a criminal offence.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, although the existence of a common law offence is a matter for the courts, I have no reason to doubt that this offence still exists but there have been no recent cases where such offences have been charged.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply to the Question, which was put down before the recent legislation. May I ask whether the noble Lord agrees that persons who conceal the whereabouts of, or information regarding, terrorists or members of illegal organisations in return for interviews or for other reasons may render themselves liable to penalties, either under the recent legislation or at common law?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, on the first point, as I have
66
indicated in the reply which I gave to the substantive Question, the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions could consider at any time the formula suggested by the noble and learned Lord in his Question. But as a result of very substantial research in the Home Office which has taken place as a result of his Question, I can give him one piece of information which I do not think he necessarily possesses. The last occasion that we can discover when this charge was made was in 1820 at the time of the Cato Street conspirators, who were also charged with treason at the same time. To prevent a flood of letters to the Daily Telegraph or The Times, may I say that there may well be subsequent occasions when such a charge was made. As the noble and learned Lord has indicated, as a result of the passage of last week's legislation the Director and the Attorney-General will most carefully consider any situation of the kind he has in mind.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, in rejoicing to think that my Question has caused the Home Office to look into the history of our criminal law, would not the noble Lord possibly agree that we are approaching once more the same sort of situation which obtained in the Cato Street conspiracy? And will the noble Lord accept the assurance from this side of the House that should there be any such conspiracy again in St. Marylebone I will do my best to suppress it.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, will the noble Lord, or, failing him, perhaps my noble and learned friend, who was so helpful when he sat next to me at school, tell us—most of us on this Bench—what "misprision" means?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is one question to which I hesitate to give an answer, particularly in the presence of one Lord Chancellor and one former Lord Chancellor. But I will gladly give the most detailed definition I can to the noble Viscount. I have several extracts from various views of what the definition is. They are rather lengthy, and I will send them to him with the greatest pleasure.

BREAD SUPPLIES: INDUSTRIAL ACTION
2.59 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to ensure that there are adequate supplies of bread for the nation.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord BESWICK): My Lords, I understand that the independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been discussing the situation with both sides today. The Government will be keeping in close touch with events.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Would not he agree that, even if the Government are not a party to the dispute, they have, as all Governments have, a direct responsibility to ensure that there is adequate food, and particularly this commodity, which affects those who are least well off?
I would ask the noble Lord three questions, if I may: first, what positive action will the Government take if the dispute is not settled by the weekend, because there must be contingency plans? Secondly, what arrangements are being made to ensure that there are adequate supplies of flour to the shops, because people will now start to bake their own bread? In view of the fact that baking flour and yeast have gone up by 500 per cent. already, I should be grateful if the noble Lord could reply to that question. Thirdly, as shops are already short of sugar, salt, flour, bread, and even water biscuits, what assurance will he give that cakes, and other biscuits, will also not end up in short supply?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, on the latter part of the question I can give no assurance, and the noble Earl is aware that I can give no assurance. When I made inquiries about a quarter of an hour ago the talks were still continuing. I do not believe that it would be helpful for me to speak about contingency planning at this stage.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that there are no plans for the supplying of bread or alternative foods before the weekend, or afterwards?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl has rightly said that the Government have a responsibility, but they have not a responsibility to intervene in an industrial dispute of this kind. There is an industrial dispute and efforts are being made to solve it, and I should have thought that the noble Earl would agree on reflection that it would be better to see whether we can get a solution to the problem.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that it is the Government's duty to see that food of the most common and essential kind is available to all kinds of families in this country?; Is not this a further justification for prudent housewives to store food when the Government have failed to ensure adequate supplies?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I recognise that bread is an emotive subject, and obviously one would like to think that the poorer families in the country, who, after all, eat most bread, will be supplied. The production at the moment appears to be about 25 per cent. of normal. This would not provide the sort of supply necessary for any system of rationing. As I have already said, the answer to this problem must be to get some solution to the industrial dispute. There are discussions going on, and I suggest that we leave it at that for the moment.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if there is a shortage they ought to see Mrs. Thatcher, who is now food hoarding? Can my noble friend assure us that there will be a plentiful supply of flour, so that working class people at least can bake their own bread?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, instituting a system of rationing is not something that can be done overnight, and I am sure that everyone will agree about this. I understand that many of the shopkeepers are in fact already voluntarily carrying out a system of rationing of their own, and I should have thought that this was the right way to go about it at the present time.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, while of course I understand why the noble

69
Lord does not want to say anything about intervening at this stage in an industrial dispute, could not he answer the simple question put by my noble friend? If this dispute goes on, have the Government any plans, or have they no plans, for seeing that supplies will be available?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I do not think at this point I ought to add anything to what I have already said. The best way of dealing with this is by encouraging a solution of the wages dispute.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Blyton in regard to adequate supplies of flour? Coming from an industrial area, I can say that our womenfolk are able to bake their own bread, given the accommodation and if they can find the yeast for sale on the shop counters. Is my noble friend further aware, arising from the original Question, that the noble Earl should be reminded that "man does not live by bread alone"?
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, may I ask the Government, seriously, if there is an industrial dispute and this is the reason for the shortage of bread, whether some consideration is being given by the Government to offering financial support to those families that cannot afford to buy alternative foods, because if they cannot buy bread they will have to buy something more expensive? Will the Government take into consideration the financial situation caused by the shortage?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords as the noble Baroness knows, the Government have already taken into consideration the cost of bread to the families of this country and there is already a subsidy. This subsidy does not command, I might say, universal support in this House, but we have done something there. Certainly if there was a possibility of a prolongation of this dispute, then something would have to be done.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, surely the noble Lord knows that there is only a subsidy on the bread you buy, and if you cannot buy it the subsidy is ineffec-
70
tive. What you want is money in the pockets of the person who cannot buy bread now, and who must buy something else.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, if the noble Lord feels that he is unable to add to his Answer today, will not he take into account the manifest anxiety of the House in this matter and promise to make a further Statement tomorrow?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, certainly I will promise to make a further Statement.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say something about the position with regard to flour? Are the supplies adequate, or not?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Earl means. Adequate for what? If he means, are they adequate to replace the amount of bread which would be needed tomorrow, and if he is asking me whether that flour is in the shops now, I should have thought that the answer was probably, No.
Lord STRANGE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that this is a very good moment to make the bakers return some of the valuable by-products they are taking out to make the bread white and selling for other purposes, and that these by-products should go to the people they are designed for?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord SHEPHERD): My Lords, I suspect that that is a rather different Question to the one put by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I hope that the noble Earl, in responding to the answer of my noble friend about a future Statement, will allow for some consultation as to whether a Statement is appropriate. I would certainly undertake to have consultations through the usual channels.

DEFENCE REVIEW
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Winterbottom will be making a Statement on the Defence Review.

TABLE OF THE HOUSE
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Clerk of the Parliaments be authorised, at his discretion, to call upon any Clerk in the Parliament Office of the rank of Senior Clerk or above to sit at the Table of the House in addition to the Clerks already appointed for that purpose.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill for the third time, I feel somewhat inhibited. To make my speech too short would be presuming that your Lordships would do what you have done twice already and give it an unopposed Second Reading, and I do not wish to be presumptuous; by the same token, I never want to be too long. However, I am now dealing in this matter with the fourth Minister. The first was the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, then the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, God rest his soul, then the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and now the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt. I welcome him, not least because he comes from my alma mater, Oxford, but more specifically because he comes from Exeter College, with which my family have had connections going back 400 years. Doubtless, today, he will try to educate me in the bureaucratic reasons for not doing what I and my friends consider to be eminently suitable and desirable. I shall endeavour to educate him in the social necessity and justice of my cause.
The Bill aims to allow a small, often isolated, community whose only village centre is the school hall to retain it rather
72
than allow it to be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds to go elsewhere in the diocese. There are dozens of examples in my file from all over the country, but I will quote again to your Lordships as an example our local community; and remember that I can quote, as I have on other occasions, many other examples where it can be proved that the villagers themselves built and paid for the hall in the first place.
In 1856 a certain Mr. Templer gave a plot of land to be a site for the village school hall. I produced the deeds for your Lordships at the first Second Reading. The local inhabitants clubbed together, my ancestor giving about the biggest dollop, and provided the school hall. To cut my story short, for 118 years that hall has been the meeting place of everything to do with the parish—the parish council, the youth club, the Sunday School (a part specifically mentioned in the original deed for the gift of the land), the keep-fit class, the Women's Institute, in fact the lot. We have no other meeting place. There is nowhere else to go in the evening except the pub, and the bar there is not large enough to hold the Women's Institute—not that I think it would be suitable anyway. The bus service to Newton Abbot runs twice a week in the afternoon.
In July, 1973, they closed the school and under the rules of the Education Act 1944 the school hall, our parish hall, was to be handed over to the diocesan board of finance to sell to the highest bidder. We all know that the 1944 Act was repealed by the 1973 Act, but Section 2 of that Act carries on the same function. My first complaint was, and is, to ask what right anyone has to hand over somebody else's hall to the diocesan board of finance? If one asks the bureaucrats the answer one receives is, "It's the law". That was the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, gave when I asked a question 18 months ago. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, then rose and said, "Then change the law". This is what this Bill is trying to do. But it is no use the Minister saying (when I say the Minister I am referring to the collective body) on 18th January at column 102, that the Church does not like being cast in the role of Shylock when the parrotlike answer I received from the solicitor to the diocesan board of finance, as well

73
as from each Minister in turn, was "It's the law". I can refer your Lordships to the Merchant of Venice, Act 1, scene 4, which contains the words:
"I stand here for the law; you know the law; I charge you by the law.…."
Secondly, my Lords, I should like to know what moral right anyone has to take away the heart of a small community? The great grandson of the James Templer who gave the land on which we built the hall wrote to me as follows:
"I can only say that my great grandfather who was by no means a wealthy man would turn in his grave if he knew the sacrifice he made for Ideford … was to be sold to the highest bidder without any regard to the local community."
While I appreciate that he was not the largest contributor he did contribute the only asset he had, which was land. To sell the land now under these Acts can be described only as immoral and little short of legalised plunder.
My Lords, there are many such places—small, isolated, comparatively impoverished—and many of them felt in a hopeless situation until the BBC in an item on Nationwide showed the village, including the only centre, the activities that go on there, and an interview with myself explaining what I was hoping to achieve by this Bill. Since then we have been inundated with examples from all over the country. People I do not know have come up to me to ask me, "Has the village saved its hall?" I am sure that I must be looked on as a pain in the neck by the bureaucrats for persisting in this, but if they and the Minister have any heart—which I begin to doubt-surely they must see what a worm I would feel if I let down these small communities and people, if I did not make one last attempt to persuade big brother Govemment to listen to the pleas of the far off peasantry.
In the last Second Reading I quoted Kipling's description of Norman and Saxon. He said:
"The Saxon is not like us Normans,
His manners are not so polite;
But he never means anything serious till he,
Talks about justice and right;
When he stands like an ox in the furrow,
With his sullen set eyes on your own;
And grumbles ' This ain't fair dealing,
My son leave the saxon alone'."
74
My noble friend Lord Fortescue, having read of the intervention of the Bishops, finished it off by sending me another couple of lines from the same poem. It reads:
"Be polite, but not friendly to Bishops Be kind to all poor parish priests."
In our case our local rector has been in the forefront of our fight to save the hall. For one thing he would have nowhere else to go for his Sunday School; this was a point specifically mentioned in the deed of Mr. Templer.
That brings me to the point which I should have thought would really appeal to the present Front Bench. When the Tories were to bring in museum charges, the Labour Party argued again and again that many of the exhibits were given by private donors for free exhibition to the local populace. I agree with that argument, especially when applied to this case. I am sufficiently old fashioned to believe that wills and trusts should not be interfered with and that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I quoted previously what was said by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, when writing to me on the subject. He wrote:
"Government departments simply love engrossing property which is originally the result of private charity."
Surely the Minister should be warned.
My Lords, I have a long list of similar places which have been lost, which are being lost and which could be lost to local communities, and it would take me a month of Sundays to go through all the letters I have about these problems. But I should like to read one letter—an umbrella to the lot—from the Secretary of the National Association of Local Councils, formerly the National Association of Parish Councils. He writes:
"Education (Amendment) Bill.
Dear Lord Clifford, I understand from the village halls department of the National Council of Social Service that you are reintroducing your Bill to enable communities to have special preference in purchasing for community use a disused school to which the community has in the past subscribed Our Association would very much support such a provision because we have seen examples of schools which have been very suitable for a village hall being sold at the market price, to the anger of all the inhabitants, and at considerable expense in fund raising or borrowing, although the original cost of the building has been subscribed by the inhabitants. The price at which the school is sold is then

75
not devoted to charitable purposes in the village but over some much wider area. If we can help you in any way with the campaign for your Bill please let us know. (Signed) Secretary."
My Lords, it would take too long to read all the letters, but I may have a go at place names when I am winding up if the Minister should suggest that I am referring only to isolated cases, although I suggest he take my word and avoid an all-night Sitting. On a point which I think was originally raised by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, one barrister writes from 11, New Square, Lincolns Inn, that having often dealt with cases within the School Sites Act he has no doubt that inequitable and often successful efforts are made to defeat the statutory reverter under the third proviso to Section 2 of the 1841 Act. I quote:
"Sometimes such efforts are made or fomented by diocesan boards of finance. Their reputation does not I think stand well with many a well-intentioned successor of Victorian donors."
That, I would reckon, was the understatement of the year. He goes on:
"Nevertheless it is dangerous stuff"—
here he is referring to a certain Bishop's maiden speech—
"seemingly to put administrative convenience before the ethic of equity."
I should like to repeat that statement:
"… seemingly to put administrative convenience before the ethic of equity."
He goes on:
"It is noted that the Education Department Under-Secretary drew a distinction between school sites which revert and those that do not. In the former alternative, however, he failed to acknowledge the unedifying efforts made by authority to defeat the reverter and in the latter he made a false point of law."
This letter was dated 30th January, so your Lordships can work out which Second Reading the writer was referring to, but the advisers are still the same. He then encloses the solicitor's letter for the National Society published in Law Notes of 1956, and further comments:
"You will observe the devious machinery commonly employed to ensure that the statutory reverter under Section 2 is defeated by an unintended use of Section 14 of the 1841 Act."
My Lords, I feel that this is not the time or the place to argue the niceties of the law. But I think that this is the time and place for us to take the advice given in our previous debates by several
76
noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and, during the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Raglan; that is, that all parties concerned should come together to solve this problem under Government aegis and that if this Bill is wrongly drafted it is for the Government to have their experts draft it properly. It is because this advice has not been taken that I am left with no alternative but to go on with my Bill (poor thing though it may be; but 'tis not solely mine own) if only not to let down the large number of people who look to your Lordships' House to right an injustice. To my mind legalised robbery of the heart of a small community stands very high in the list of crimes against society. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
3.24 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord CROWTHER-HUNT): My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for the kind remarks he made about myself and about our joint West Country links. May I say, too, how much I appreciate both the determination and the restraint with which the noble Lord is carrying on this fight from Minister to Minister. We are like a series of moving targets for him, but I appreciate both the determination and the restraint which he is displaying.
As the noble Lord said, this is the third occasion on which the House has been asked to give a Second Reading to the Bill which he has introduced for the amendment of Section 2 of the Education Act 1973. Both the principles of the noble Lord's Bill and the very substantial practical problems to which it gives rise have been fully debated on both previous occasions. Like the noble Lord, on this occasion I think I shall be justified in putting the Government's views before the House in a rather shorter form than might have been appropriate if this had been the first occasion on which we had been considering the matter. I will do my best in this context to avoid "bureaucratic arguments", against which the noble Lord carefully warned me.

77
I do not want to follow on the question of the merits of the case which has given rise to the introduction of the Bill. The decision of which the noble Lord complains was taken 25 years ago under a Statute which is now repealed, and was done in accordance with a practice which, as my predecessor explained from these Benches on the last occasion when the Bill was debated, the Department has subsequently and substantially modified. A further point is that there is now pending a statutory public inquiry into an appeal against the refusal of planning permission to develop the land on which the school is situated. So those are good reasons for not going into these points now.
But, in any case, this is not a private local Bill to put right what may or may not have gone wrong in the village of Ideford some 25 years ago. It is a public General Bill of general application and I want very much to deal with the general issues which it raises, which, of course, was also the import of the noble Lord's speech. I shall have to refer to what happened at Ideford, and, in particular to the trusts on which the village school there was held, in order to deal with some of the specific points which have been raised. But I do not accept that one can usefully generalise from what happened there. What is true of a voluntary school in the rural areas of Devon is not necessarily true of a voluntary school in the heart of Mayfair—and there is a voluntary school in the heart of Mayfair—nor is it true of a voluntary school in what was a rural area and has now become part of an urban complex.
In what I say, my Lords, I shall be critical of the provisions of the Bill that the noble Lord is bringing forward, and I want, therefore, to make it clear at the outset that what I have to say is not intended to imply any lack of sympathy for the community at Ideford with which the noble Lord is concerned. I gladly repeat, with all the emphasis which he gave them, the words of my predecessor, that the Government fully recognise the importance of that part played in community life by village halls and community centres. In particular, the Government recognise that the buildings of the village school often serve this purpose out of school hours.
78
So I come to the general issue raised by the Bill. The Bill, as the noble Lord said, amends Section 2 of the Education Act 1973. That section reproduces the substance of Section 86 of the Education Act 1944, which was enacted for the specific purpose of retaining within the public sector of education the endowments (including the proceeds of the sale of premises) of discontinued denominational voluntary schools. Statutory provision was required for this, because the ordinary law of charitable trust would have required the endowments of closed Anglican schools to be applied for purposes of denominational education in the village or parish in which the school had been situated; that is, that generally speaking they would have had to be applied for the purposes of a Sunday school. The same problem did not arise with Roman Catholic and Free Church schools which were to be discontinued, because the trusts under which such schools are provided are not usually limited in the geographical area of their application. This would have meant that as village schools closed there would have been a serious loss of the investment of the Church of England in the public sector and, indirectly, a serious loss of public funds spent on the maintenance of the schools concerned since the commencement of the dual system.
Section 86 of the 1944 Act accordingly enabled schemes to be made for the endowments to these schools to be applied by the appropriate diocesan committee or board for the purposes of aided schools elsewhere in the diocese. As I have said, Section 2 of the 1973 Act reproduces this provision of the 1944 Act, and the present position therefore—and this is the starting point, it seems to me, of the consideration we need to give to this Bill—is that when the premises of denominational voluntary schools are closed the Secretary of State can make a scheme authorising the local diocesan authority to sell the premises and apply the proceeds of the sale to the provision and maintenance of other denominational schools in the diocese. That is our starting point in looking at the changes which this Bill proposes.
In many cases buildings on the sites of schools established in the 19th century were financed by public subscription, and what the Bill of the noble Lord,

79
Lord Clifford, would do is to enable the scheme made by the Secretary of State to require the diocesan authority in such cases to offer the premises to the representatives of the local community at less than the market price, and provide for the use of the premises for purposes which are neither educational nor religious. By definition these schools are Church schools, and their endowments are held for the purposes of denominational education. As a practical matter, practically all the schools with which these schemes are concerned are schools provided in the 19th century which have been maintained wholly or partly at public expense throughout the whole of the 20th century. They represent a substantial investment by the Churches in the public sector of education, and a great deal of public money has been spent on them.
If no special provision had been made for them in 1944, as the schools closed and were replaced by modern schools, in the great majority of cases this investment in the public sector would have been lost. So that Section 86 of the 1944 Act was enacted for the specific purpose of retaining within the public sector of education the endowments of discontinued denominational voluntary schools which would otherwise have become available to the community in a very limited sense only. The importance of Section 86 to the dual system was recognised in 1973 when, with some amendment, it was re-enacted as Section 2 of the 1973 Act.
The Churches had, and have, an important part to play in the provision of education in the maintained sector, and these schools represent an important part of their capital provision for that purpose. The anxiety of the Churches that their ability to participate in the dual system should not be undermined by economic difficulties is obviously understandable. They are under very great pressure in this respect at the present time. This is partly why, two weeks ago, the other place gave a Second Reading to an Education Bill enabling my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to increase the rate of grant payable to, among others, the schools maintained by the Churches. Clause 2 of that Bill, which was introduced in another place, enables the Secretary of State to make capital grants and contributions of 85 per cent.
80
of the cost of certain expenses to the managers or governors of the voluntary schools. At present, my Lords, the limit is 80 per cent., so this is an increase of 5 per cent. in the grant which the Government will be able to make when this Bill has been passed.
The specific purpose of that provision is to enable the Churches to continue to play their full part notwithstanding the pressure of inflation, and I have no doubt that when that Bill comes before your Lordships it will be welcomed in this House. I also have no doubt that your Lordships will therefore recognise today that it would be quite inconsistent with that Bill—because here we would be increasing the charge on public funds for the benefit of the denominations—to take away from the Churches, as is provided in the noble Lord's Bill, an important source of their own funds. It would be inconsistent with the idea of providing additional State funds to pass this Bill and take away funds which themselves would otherwise belong to the Churches.
Section 2 of the Education Act 1973 is concerned with endowments,
"held wholly or partly for or in connection with the provision at"
a voluntary
"school of religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination".
We are therefore concerned by definition with trusts for the provision of denominational education at voluntary schools. It is a fundamental principle of charity law that property given for charitable purposes must be held for those purposes in perpetuity. If it is no longer possible for that property to be applied for the particular charitable purposes for which it was given, it is the duty of the trustees of the charity to take such steps as are necessary—in practice, this usually means an application to the Charity Commissioners for a scheme—to enable the property to be applied (as the legal phrase is) cy-prés; that is, for purposes as like as possible to the original ones. It does not follow from this that the school premises forming part of an endowment for denominational education must themselves be used for the purposes of a school in perpetuity. But it does follow that, when the school premises are sold, the proceeds of sale must be used for those

81
purposes for which the original endowment was enacted. The whole purpose of the noble Lord's Bill is to enable the representatives of the local community to buy the trust property at less than its full value. To the extent that the price which they pay is less than the price which the trustees could obtain for it if they were free to sell to anyone willing to pay, there is therefore a diversion of the assets of the trust to purposes not covered by the trust.
So far, my Lords, I have dealt with the principles of the Bill, but finally I must say something very briefly about the practical problems which it would create. In our view, the Bill is in certain respects unworkable, and in any event would involve the Department in very considerable additional administrative burdens. It would be necessary, for example, to make detailed inquiries into the way in which every school whose premises fell within a scheme under Section 2 of the 1973 Act was financed. Such inquiries, it would seem, would even have to extend to the religious beliefs of the original subscribers to funds out of which the schools were built; and the application of any such criteria would lead to indefensible anomalies between one school and another, according to whether or not the information could be discovered.
It is right that I should acknowledge that the Bill now before the House does, in fact, meet a number of the technical objections which were made from these Benches to its predecessor. There are, however, I suggest, serious objections of principle to the Bill. The provisions of the existing law which it seeks to amend are an essential part of the statutory provision for denominational schools. The Bill provides for endowments for denominational education to be applied for purposes which are neither denominational nor educational. In practice, it would be difficult to work the proposed legislation satisfactorily or fairly, and therefore I have to tell your Lordships that I cannot, and the Government cannot, commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.

DEFENCE REVIEW
3.39 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made
82
in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, this Statement will be somewhat longer than is normal at this hour. I apologise for this but I am sure that the House will acknowledge the importance of the issue.
"On 21st March I announced the start of the most extensive and thorough review of our system of defence ever undertaken by a British Government in peace time. The proposals which I will now outline are the result of a careful study of all the relevant considerations—defence, political, industrial and financial. They are designed for the circumstances which we must expect over the next ten years. They take account on the one hand of our economic situation and on the other of the threat to our national security, the overriding importance of NATO, our position as a leading European Power and our responsibilities overseas. They will provide for a modern and effective defence structure and will make a significant contribution to establishing our economic health and thus to strengthening the Alliance.
"The Government have decided that they should reduce defence expenditure as a proportion of the gross national product from its present level of 5½ per cent. to 4½ per cent. over the next ten years. The long-range estimates of defence expenditure as they stood in March, 1974, would have amounted to 6 per cent. of the gross national product in 1978–79 and 5½ per cent. in 1983–84. By comparison with those plans, our decision will save £300 million in 1975–76, about £500 million a year by 1978–79, and some £750 million a year by 1983–84—or a total over the whole period up to that date of about £4,700 million. This is fully consistent with our repeated pledges to reduce the cost of defence as a proportion of our national resources.
"In addition to deciding the general scale of the programme needed to meet our future defence requirements and the level of resources we can devote to defence, the Government have reached provisional conclusions about the force levels involved and the implications for our commitments, for the Armed

83
Forces, and for industry. We are today beginning our consultations with our allies in NATO. These consultations will be thorough and genuine. They are likely to last into the New Year. We are also consulting our Commonmonwealth partners concerned and the other Governments in other parts of the world who will or might be affected. We shall also now consult both sides of industry.
"First I will describe the general principles that we have followed in conducting the Review. NATO is the linchpin of British security and will remain the first charge on the resources available for defence. We therefore propose to concentrate as a first priority upon those areas in which we believe that we can most effectively contribute to the security of the Alliance and of the United Kingdom itself. These consist of our contributions of land and air forces in the central region of Europe; of sea and air forces to the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas; and in the defence of the United Kingdom and its immediate approaches. We shall also maintain the effectiveness of our Polaris force.
"We shall, however, be discussing with our NATO Allies all aspects of our contribution, including particularly our force declarations to NATO in the Mediterranean and the specialist reinforcement forces that we committed to the Alliance in 1968. In the NATO area we propose to maintain our land and air contribution to the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force but to reduce our other NATO declarations of specialised reinforcement forces to an airportable Brigade Group and a Royal Marine Commando Group, with the necessary accompanying sea and air elements. These latter declarations would be available for the central region or the Northern flank of NATO, with the Commando Group specially trained and equipped for Arctic warfare.
"The priority we are giving to our NATO contribution necessarily requires a contraction in our commitments outside the Alliance. We have reviewed these commitments case by case, bearing particularly in mind the decisions taken by the Labour Government in
84
1968 about the reduction of the British presence East of Suez. We have concluded that substantial reductions in our forces and defence facilities can be made. But we shall not act precipitately and we shall discuss our proposals in detail with our allies and partners in the Commonwealth and elsewhere before taking final decisions, recognising that the timing and method of the changes we propose may be of particular importance.
"Subject to these provisos I wish to tell the House what we have in mind. We shall, of course, maintain our obligations towards our remaining dependent territories. We intend to keep our forces in Hong Kong, although we propose to make some reductions in them and to seek from the Hong Kong Government a larger percentage of their cost when the present cost-sharing agreement runs out in 1976. In accordance with the military facilities agreement concluded in 1972 with the Government of Malta, we shall remain there until 1979. In Cyprus, we propose to make some early reductions, particularly in our air forces stationed there. We propose to withdraw our forces stationed under the Five Power Defence Arrangements in South East Asia, with the exception of a small group which we shall continue to contribute to the Integrated Air Defence System. The consultative provisions of the Five Power Defence Arrangements would, however, remain in force and it would certainly be our intention to maintain close links with the armed forces and defence authorities of our partners. We would, of course, maintain our membership of CENTO and SEATO but without declaring specific forces to either. We propose to withdraw from Brunei the Gurkha battalion at present stationed there. We would withdraw our forces from Gan and Mauritius. We do not think it would be right in present circumstances to make any changes in the arrangements we have with the Sultan of Oman. We intend to enter into negotiations with the South African Government with a view to terminating the Simonstown Agreement.
"Given the effects of these decisions in the Indian Ocean area and the Soviet naval presence there, we have decided

85
to agree to proposals from the United States Government for a relatively modest expansion of the facilities on the island of Diego Garcia which they enjoy, jointly with us, under an existing agreement with Her Majesty's Government. Their use of the facilities other than for routine purposes would, however, be a matter for joint decision of the two Governments. We and the United States Government have also agreed to pursue consultations with the aim of developing realistic progress towards arms limitation in the Indian Ocean.
"In working out the implications of these principles in terms of force levels and their effects on the three Services, priority has been given to maintaining as far as possible the level and quality of our front line forces. We shall equip them in a manner commensurate with their roles and responsibilities, and restructure and reduce the support area to match the new size and shape of the front line. The effects of our proposals on the forward plans of the three Services as they stood in March 1974 would be broadly as follows.
"The Royal Navy's planned numbers of frigates, destroyers and mine countermeasures vessels would be reduced by about one-seventh; of conventional submarines by a quarter; and of afloat support by one-third. Planned new ship construction would be reduced accordingly, including the abandonment of plans to replace our amphibious ships with new purpose-built vessels; and ship refitting would be concentrated on the Royal Dockyards, all of which will be retained. The nuclear powered submarine and the cruiser programmes would be continued. We would reduce the numbers of the Royal Marines by one-seventh, disbanding one Commando in due course.
"The Army's re-equipment plans would be substantially modified to reduce the growth of their cost. Measures would include the cancellation of the Vixen wheeled reconnaissance vehicle; withdrawal from the collaborative RS 80 project for long-range rocket artillery; and reductions in the planned purchases of light helicopters and reconnaissance vehicles.
86
"The Government attach great importance to the negotiations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries on the mutual reduction of forces and armaments in Central Europe. We are committed to seeking an outcome which, while preserving undiminished security for all the countries concerned, would help to create a more stable relationship in the area at a lower level of forces. We hope that the negotiations will be successful in achieving this objective. We do not propose, however, in advance of mutual and balanced force reductions, to reduce the forces which we maintain in Germany in accordance with our Brussels Treaty obligations. In adjusting the size and shape of the Army to meet the framework of priorities I have described and the demands of economy, the Government will make every effort to avoid a significant impact on the regimental system with its historic loyalties and traditions. The Brigade of Gurkhas will be retained, mainly serving in Hong Kong. We shall maintain the size and roles of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve.
"In the case of the Royal Air Force, we intend to preserve, and in some instances improve, the combat air forces committed to NATO on the Continent and in the United Kingdom, and to continue with the multi-rôle combat aircraft collaborative programme, though we may have to make a reduction in the planned rate of deliveries over the period. However, in accordance with the revised tasks envisaged, there would be some reduction in maritime patrol aircraft, the RAF transport force would be progressively reduced by a half and the planned helicopter force by a quarter. There would also be some reduction in the RAF Regiment; and some 12 Royal Air Force stations in the United Kingdom would be closed. We shall reduce planned expenditure on research and development by some 10 per cent. and continue vigorously to support the efforts being made within the Alliance to increase standardisation in equipment and eliminate duplication in research and development.
"Our proposals would involve reducing manpower by about 35,000

87
Servicemen, as compared with the strength in April this year, and by about 30,000 directly employed civilians, about half of whom would be civilians locally entered abroad. In the interests of efficiency, and equally of the well-being and morale of the forces themselves, the changes we propose will be carefully planned and introduced progressively over the next few years. Reductions will be achieved by normal wastage as far as possible; but some redundancies, both Service and civilian, will be unavoidable if the Services and the headquarters and out-stations of the Ministry of Defence are to be adapted to the new range of commitments, and if the balance of ranks and ages necessary for a satisfactory career structure is to be preserved. Those who have to be made redundant will be offered fair terms, and time in which to plan their future employment. We shall be examining ways in which the Government can help with resettlement into civilian life.
"The reductions in the planned defence programme are likely to reduce employment in the defence industries by only some 10,000, or 4 per cent., over the period up to 1978–79, but there will be problems in certain areas and for certain firms. But the changes in our equipment programme will be made as smoothly as possible and with the maximum of notice to enable industry to adjust its plans. I am confident that these problems are manageable; and I am in close touch with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Industry, on these aspects of the review. The views of both sides of industry will of course be taken fully into consideration.
"Our decisions will, I repeat, save £300 million in 1975–76, about £500 million a year by 1978–79 and some £750 million a year by 1983–84. But in conclusion I wish to emphasise one point. No such process of adaptation by the Armed Forces, or any other organisation, to a modified range of commitments and capabilities with a lower level of resources can be made without difficulty. But after we have completed the process of consultations on this thorough and wide-ranging
88
review and taken our final decisions, I am confident that Britain will continue to play her full part in preserving the strategy and cohesion of the NATO Alliance, and in meeting effectively her remaining commitments outside NATO. The Royal Navy, the Army, and the Royal Air Force will remain highly effective forces, equipped to the highest standards as required by their frontline NATO tasks; and the Services and the Ministry of Defence, despite the changes we will be making, will continue to offer a wide range of fine career opportunities in the years ahead.
"Early next year, when our consultations with our allies and with industry have been concluded, I will publish for Parliamentary consideration a White Paper setting out our decisions in detail and saying how they are to be put into effect. But before this we wish not only to consult our allies and partners but to learn the views of right honourable and honourable Members upon these matters; and the Government will be ready to arrange through the usual channels for an early debate."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.37 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will wish me to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement, if for nothing else. I cannot even thank him for having given me an advance copy of the Statement, because two pages are missing. But I suppose that we must be thankful for small mercies. In the opening sentences of the Statement, the Government say that this has been the most extensive and thorough Review of our system of defences ever undertaken by a British Government in peacetime. I have heard that phrase so often now that I should like to put it on record that it is totally untrue. I have been present, once at the Ministry of Defence and once at the Admiralty, when a Review just as extensive and just as important was undertaken by the Government of the day. What the Government are really doing is seeking to clothe with respectability a decision taken in advance to reduce the Forces. We shall have an opportunity to debate the subject, and the Statement which the noble Lord, Lord

89
Winterbottom, has repeated is a long one which we shall have to study.
A lot of it seems to be vague and fairly meaningless. For example, it is totally meaningless to talk about a saving of £750 million annually in ten years from now, or about a total saving of £4,500 million. Long before that, I hope that we shall have had a change of Government with a different set of priorities. However, what is important is the statement which the noble Lord has made that next year the Government intend to save £300 million, and I shall seek to discover from him how it is proposed that that shall be done. Maybe it would be better to do that in debate on 17th December, but certainly it is something which the House will want to know. However, I have a number of questions of a more general nature which I want to ask the noble Lord this afternoon.
May I ask whether, in the noble Lord's opinion and in that of the Government, the proposals which he has outlined this afternoon will make Britain more or less secure? In his opinion, and in that of the Government, will the proposals that have been made make our contribution to Western defence less or more considerable? In his opinion, and in that of the Government, will the proposals mean that the Services will be better or less well equipped? My Lords, the answer to those three questions, if the noble Lord will answer them honestly, is, less. May I ask him, then, what encouraging factor in the international scene has suggested to the Government that it is sensible or safe to cut the Navy by one-seventh, considerably to reduce the Royal Air Force front line and to postpone or cancel the re-equipment of the Army at the same time as cutting the total numbers of the Services by 35,000? May I further ask him why the Government have singled out defence for these cuts, while no comparable savings were announced by Mr. Healey in his Budget in another place three weeks ago on any other civilian Vote? Is there a rational sense of priority in a Government which for six months specialised in hand-outs to all and sundry in order to secure its re-election, but which is prepared as its first and, seemingly, its only economy to weaken our security?
4.0 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I should like also to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, because I seem to have one of his missing pages. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, three questions. First, why have the Government calculated these reductions on the basis of GNP when we know that, so far as GNP is concerned, we appear to be spending more than our allies, but when we take it on a per capita basis we are in fact spending less? Secondly, could not we save much more money more effectively by embarking on a genuine programme of true standardisation of equipment? A slight reference is made to this but no quantification. It must be possible to save a very considerable amount of money if we adopt that course. Finally, may I ask what will be our total troop withdrawals from NATO? There is no indication as to what this amounts to in terms of quantity or manpower. Arising out of that, do these withdrawals include 3 Division and 38 Group RAF? If so, this is quite an important factor.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I begin by apologising for confusion in the Department for which I am answering, which seems to have caused the noble Lord, Lord Byers, to have two of everything while the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is minus two. I shall try to find out why this mistake was made. I apologise for the confusion involved.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has quite grasped the significance of the Statement. This is not a Statement from on high. He mentioned that it was vague and meaningless. In point of fact, it is in a sense a document that we hope both Houses of Parliament will discuss and which we shall discuss with our allies, and with all the members of national groups and alliances which are affected by this Statement of Intent. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will, I hope, apply his respected intelligence to dissecting this document and, when we come to debate it in the near future—I believe this will be before Christmas, though I must not pre-empt my noble friend's ruling on this matter—then we can get down to analysing the implications of our

91
proposals. The hard core is, of course, firm, but around it is a wide area which we are discussing not only in your Lordships' House and in another place but also with our allies. So this is not a proposal laying down the last word. It is not the last word but the beginning of a discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked me three basic questions. First, as a result of these proposals, will Great Britain be more or less secure? I should imagine that the least secure Britain is a Britain that is financially "broke". Therefore, such a bankrupt Britain could not plan rationally ahead for any time at all, let alone for 10 years, which is the basis of the present document. The second question was: will our capacity be less or more considerable? Let us remember that we are not fighting the Warsaw Pact alone but as a member of NATO, and what we are doing is making to NATO that contribution which we can in fact most effectively and skilfully bring about. The final question—an important one—was: will the Services be better or less well equipped? These are value judgments. They will certainly not be less well equipped, because every major programme lying ahead—for instance, the new cruiser, the improved tanks and a whole number of other projects which I will list when I make my speech later in the month—are in fact retained. What we shall lose will be a number of obsolete ships and aircraft, but the hard core and the advanced weaponry will be retained. As regards the noble Lord's last question, as to why defence was singled out, I can only agree with him and I say I wish the cost benefit analysis that was applied to defence could also be applied to all Departments.
Turning now to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers—and I thought his questions were quite pertinent—he first asked: why is the calculation made on the basis of the gross national product? The answer is that I suppose it is the only tool we have to work with. A yard, in terms of gross national product, is not a yard: it is a very flexible instrument of measurement. But it is all we have to use, and I may say that all the forward estimates are made on the basis of constant prices. Turning to the second point, I could not agree more as regards
92
standardisation. It is estimated that the effectiveness of our NATO Alliance would be increased by 30 per cent. if we could have standard equipment. As for total troop withdrawals from significant areas, the answer is, nil.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, my noble friend in fact said that this is not the last word, and he added in the course of his observations that there were to be consultations across the board. In the light of these two statements, can he explain why his right honourable friend has injected into this Review definite and specific figures of reductions—£300 million next year, £500 million in the subsequent year, and £700 million later on? If he has made up his mind about specific figures, then why are we talking about this not being the last word? Are we to understand that these figures are subject to reconsideration and possible reduction?
May I further ask him whether his right honourable friend has taken into consideration these two possibilities: first, that before 1978–79 the GNP will have increased to our advantage, instead of having weakened. Secondly, taking the cost in manpower, even if reduced, and the cost of equipment, taking into consideration the need for more modern equipment particularly in the nuclear field, then why this Review and why specific figures? Ought not the noble Lord to ask his right honourable friend to arrange for further consultations across the board, before coming to a definite decision?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has a very great deal of experience. I recall that he was Secretary of State for the Army and has in fact a few more years' experience in these matters than I have.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that I also undertook a Review, not when I was Secretary of State for War but when I was Minister of Defence. I undertook a Review which resulted in an increase in our expenditure, but the subsequent Government, under the late Winston Churchill, reconsidered the matter and reduced that expenditure.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, needs no

93
defence from me! I am grateful for his intervention. He asked me about the precision of this Statement. As we all know, this is, in a sense, an act of faith. We do our best to peer into the future, but who knows what will happen? We might very well find ourselves with an extension of the Northern Ireland crisis in this country, which might very well cause us to reconsider all our defence plans. He is quite right in mentioning the growing national product.
I hope that I shall not be shot down if, in answer to my noble friend, I just tell your Lordships of a little calculation that I did when studying my brief. Of course we shall get out of the problems that we are in, and of course our national product will grow. In fact, the whole calculations are based on the assumption of the 3 per cent. per annum growth of our gross national product, which means that in 10 years' time we shall be having a 1 per cent. reduction of the 30 per cent. greater gross national product.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, inadvertently the noble Lord did not answer a question that I posed. I asked him what encouraging factors in the international situation the Government saw which made them think it sensible or prudent to do this.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Not encouraging factors, my Lords, but discouraging factors at home with our present economic problems.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I have three small questions. First, is the Sultan of Brunei paying for the Gurkha battalion there? If so, why pull out? Secondly, does the noble Lord think the career of the soldier 'twixt Belfast and München-Gladbach will be glamorous enough to get recruits? Thirdly, is the noble Lord really saying that there is morality in defence, and that is why we are going from Simonstown? There is no morality in defence, my Lords.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord about his question on the Sultan of Brunei. I do not know whether we pay or not.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: He is paying.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Is he? He may be feeling short of money at the moment, too. The second point was glamour. I know that a nice posting in the sun is fine, but most individuals who undertake the service of the nation in the Armed Forces—although one likes a little jam on the bread—will accept the rigours of military life out of a sense of duty. If the jam is the sun and the sun disappears, we at least have the opportunity of offering money. That is the function of the "X" factor.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, could my noble friend clear my mind? I am not a defence expert. On both sides of the House we have people who claim to be defence experts, as other people claim to be foreign affairs experts. Did my noble friend say that 35,000 people engaged in Her Majesty's Armed Forces are to be dispensed with? If that is so, how many of these people will be discharged due to wastage? Secondly, could he explain the position of any members of the Armed Forces who have signed on for periods of 5, 10, 15 and 20 years who are so affected? My last question to my noble friend is this. This is a most serious Statement—and I am not a pacifist because I believe in the security of this great country—but what effect will this have on recruiting? Through the mass media advertisements have constantly been encouraging young people to join the Forces of the Crown, to make it their career, to travel the world and so on.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I said in the Statement that a reduction in the Armed Forces over a ten-year period of 35,000 and a reduction of civilian personnel of 30,000 would, in the main, be brought about by wastage. We all know that if a man's contract of service is broken, if he is of that element that cannot be dealt with by wastage and has to leave prematurely, he will be well looked after. That has been done in the past and will be done again. The reason why we cannot let wastage cover the whole of the need to reduce the Armed Forces, as my noble friend has said, is that there is the question of the age structure of the Armed Forces. We may have too many people of middle rank who have not reached the point of retirement, and they will have to retire prematurely so that young people can come in. The career which the media

95
offer may be somewhat different in four or five years from now. But, as I said earlier, the career is still a good one.
4.15 p.m.
Lord FRASER of LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord opposite to thank his right honourable friend and the Government for having said that they will consult South Africa about Simons-town, and for not having arbitrarily arrived at a decision already? I hope I am right there. When they consult South Africa about this important lifeline, will they bear in mind that it is not so much the legal terms of an agreement about the base that matter, but the use in practice of this base—one of the very few in the Southern Seas—by ships of America, France and Britain, when they require a rest from their important duties watching the Communists?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, is correct. Consultations are starting and they are consultations, not a diktat. The facilities of Simonstown, and of course other ports on the Southern African coast, will be available to the Royal Navy when circumstances are appropriate. But no decisions have yet been reached on the so-called Simonstown Agreement.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is something missing from the Statement that he has repeated; that is, a mention of the threat to the security which any defence policy is meant to meet. May I ask a serious question about this? May I have an assurance that if the forces of the Warsaw Pact, which the noble Lord mentioned in one of his supplementary answers, continue to increase over the coming years, as they have increased in the past three or four years, and if there is no agreement with the Soviet Union on mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe, the Government will reconsider this proposal to reduce our defences?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a sophisticated House; we have all heard of the Warsaw Pact and know what it is up to. The whole of this policy predicates that the threat continues. We are not going to make any fundamental changes until—should it so happen—there is some agreement about mutual and
96
balanced force reductions. I should not think that that would happen tomorrow. We are not doing anything precipitate or final; this is a gradual shift in equipment and policies. If the situation vis-à-vis the Warsaw Pact countries, or within any of our allied countries, altered there would be time for it to be reviewed. This is a very slow, deliberate process of readjusting ourselves to what we believe is a new situation.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Statement he has made is another chicken that has come home to roost? The label on the chicken's leg is the 1957 White Paper which presents any Government—it presented this to the previous Government and will do so to any Government that may succeed this one—with a proportion of expenditure on pay and allowances in non-effective Services of between 55 per cent. and 60 per cent., the consequence being that the Government do not have the resources to buy equipment. The result is that we enter into a phase of increasing weakness. If we were truthful about it we would say that the Government were committed—although they do not admit it—to following a policy of unilateral disarmament, without making any serious attempt to secure the political advantages that could be obtained if that were a deliberate and conscious policy. Is the noble Lord sure, when he forecasts the savings in any particular year, that he will be able to offer the pay, allowances and amenities which will enable him to recruit on a sufficient basis to maintain the target figures that he has laid down?
I was staggered that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, did not pick up this point. As I understand it, the Government—I presume as part of the price they had to pay for the First Sea Lord's not resigning—are going to continue with the through-deck cruiser. But will the noble Lord be good enough to tell us what is to be on it? One of the problems which faced the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—and he, with his outstanding courage, never really faced up to it—was what they were going to do about the maritime area. This involves an expenditure of vast sums of money. Do we take it that the through-deck cruiser is to sail around the seas with no effective aircraft to place on it?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the House knows the views of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, which he has forcefully expressed and which are carefully thought through. But my role today has been to make the preliminary Statement and to answer a few concrete questions. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, will extend and expand his views in the debate which will take place shortly before Christmas.
Lord HOY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two questions? May I return to the question of standardisation of equipment raised by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. Is my noble friend aware that only ten days or a fortnight ago, when the North Atlantic Assembly was meeting in London, this question was raised very acutely, and, indeed, the estimates of savings for all countries inside the Assembly would have been so great that one could hardly believe them. If in fact the Secretary General of NATO is correct, I should like an assurance from my noble friend that something positive is being done to meet this situation. Secondly may I ask my noble friend this question. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that he had been associated with two Statements in which decisions had been made——
Lord CARRINGTON: Two Reviews, my Lords.
Lord HOY: Two Reviews. But the noble Lord went on to say that decisions had been made to cut the troops and this was a kind of apologetic Statement—the consultations were not really taking place. All I want to ask my noble friend for is an assurance that this Statement is different from the two for which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was responsible; that when he comes to this House, as his right honourable friend went to another place, he really seeks consultation; and that we shall be allowed to put our points of view—and we do have points of view—and they will be taken into consideration.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend Lord Hoy for the second part of his contribution which underlined what I said. I hope that noble Lords opposite have something positive to contribute before Christmas. On standardisation, I can only repeat what I said regarding an estimated 30 per cent. increase in efficiency by stand-
98
ardisation if we could have the same common infrastructure as have the Warsaw Pact countries.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the Minister has made a very comprehensive Statement and quite clearly we cannot deal with it before the debate. He will not be surprised that many of us, while welcoming some of his proposals, are deeply disappointed by others. Did I hear him correctly to say that there was no intention at all of ending the nuclear submarines with their warheads which this Government now possess? Is he aware that many of us regard these nuclear submarines as ineffective in defence, as insignificant in attack, and inviting the destruction of our whole population if war should occur?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am well aware that certain individuals hold the views expressed by my noble friend; but others hold different views.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware, as an old submariner, that if we do not develop our submarine force with nuclear submarines then we may as well give up trying to safeguard ourselves at sea?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I suspect that my noble friend Lord Wigg has been trying to get in a second supplementary. For my own protection I suggest that we allow him to do so, and then move to next business.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, if we are to have a realistic debate before Christmas, would it be possible for the Government to produce an abridged White Paper so that we might know their mind on such matters as the one I have raised about the maritime Harrier? There is a further point which to my mind goes to the heart of not only our military problems but many of our social problems. We are now members of the EEC. All the other countries in the EEC have compulsory military service. I should very much like the Government to introduce a Paper outlining what the effect would be, in terms of both cost and military consequences, if they introduced a policy of military service.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that through the usual channels it has been arranged that we

99
should have a debate by 17th December, and by then, quite clearly, it would not be possible to produce a Paper of the kind my noble friend has in mind. But if there is any other information that is not classified which we can give the noble Lord, I will certainly see what steps can be taken to help.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am much obliged for that. The noble Lord the Leader of the House could use his influence here, using what channels of communication he wants. He can write to me as a dummy and publish the letter giving the answers to the questions I have raised. But if the Government are profoundly sincere in wanting to take account of the opinion of the House—and I am sure they are—we must be given the information upon which we can put forward opinions. I realise they are somewhat politically awkward, but we need to know the Government's mind on these points.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will see what can be done, but clearly, taking into account the date of the debate, I cannot give any promise.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am much obliged.

EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.26 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of MANCHESTER: My Lords, I feel sure there will be very general sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that he has for a third time been compelled to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I venture to hope that a little sympathy might be reserved for myself since I do not start with the advantage of those friendly expressions which were offered to the Minister on this issue. Bishops, it seems, are excluded from such friendliness ex officio. On a question where it is easy to represent confrontation as one between David and Goliath, the rights of small communities as ever against the unsympathetic forces of Church and State, it would be much more agreeable to be cast in the role of Jonathan than that of the armour-bearer of the
100
Philistine. What is more, it falls to the Bishop of an overwhelmingly urban diocese to reply to what is essentially a case urged on behalf of rural communities. I may remark in passing that it seems to me one of the serious objections to the Bill that it is so widely drawn as to apply to situations where it would hardly be appropriate. In the case of large cities the definition of "the local community" would become a great deal more difficult than previous critics of the Bill have already alleged it to be in the case of villages.
It may not, however, be altogether irrelevant to illustrate some of the statements which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, and to mention two considerations applying to the diocese of Manchester, an area where church schools have traditionally made a large contribution to the educational system. The first consideration is that we have a very fair sprinkling of schools no longer used as such which are available to the parishes concerned as halls and which give a good deal of service to the local community as a whole. The second consideration is that since the passing of the 1944 Act we have in one diocese alone built 65 new schools, or parts of schools, and carried out major adaptations in another 84 at a cost to the Church of £1½ million; and in the meanwhile a great many school sites have been taken over by local authorities. Yet even after so great an effort it appears very likely that there will be a continuing movement in change of status from aided to controlled schools, because of the serious financial consequences of decisions made by national or local government, comprehensive reorganisation, raising of the school-leaving age, addition of nursery units and so forth.
I mention these instances of difficulties which recur in every part of the country, not in order to manifest any sense of ingratitude towards successive Governments for the great measure of assistance that the Church has received from them, and is about to receive in greater measure; but I think that they would serve at least to rebut any charge of mere denominational selfishness or unnecessarily callous behaviour in our showing resistance to the terms of this Bill. What is ultimately at stake is the preservation

101
of the dual system, even on a very modified scale, or else its total collapse in an age of serious inflation. I hope that even those who may wish for its abolition would not wish this to come about in quite such a lamentable and unpremeditated manner.
It would be improper for me to comment upon local situations of which I have no knowledge such as that out of which Lord Clifford of Chudleigh's personal concern has arisen. I also think it unnecessary to deploy again all those arguments which my right reverend brothers on these Benches and successive Ministers have already put forward. On the 2nd April the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, declared that the euphemistic language of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans cut no ice. In that case the Scotsman, to whom euphemistic language comes less naturally, may perhaps be excused from employing any more of it. It does not seem to me that this Bill as it stands is capable of achieving the end with which any right-minded person should sympathise; namely, the giving of as much opportunity as possible to a village community to have some say in the use of its local buildings when these are to be disposed of. It has already been shown more than once that the Bill is too widely and imprecisely drawn and that its effect would be to drive a coach and horses through the law affecting religious and educational trusts. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, said that he had objection to tampering with trusts, but surely that is an argument that cuts both ways in this debate.
Having said this, however, I am far from wishing to end on a purely negative note towards the intention of the Bill. Having made inquiries, I am satisfied that the Church authorities concerned would be most willing to hold a conference with representatives of the Secretary of State in order to see what can be done to meet what this House has already shown to be a strongly held point of view, without thereby sacrificing the legitimate interests which the Church of England holds in trust. It happens already in a good many places that, although the official duty of the trustees is to obtain the highest price for a disused school, arrangements are made by which a local
102
organisation, or the local church, can purchase the property. My hope is that if this Bill should not succeed, the Minister himself will be willing, sooner or later, to initiate legislation of a more precise kind in order to achieve some, at least, of the objects for which the Bill was framed.
4.32 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, this is a small Bill, and it has been presented very often, as small Bills so often are—so often, in fact, that my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh has put himself in the same relationship to this House as a tailor to a Regency Beau, in that whenever your Lordships come to town there is the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, waiting upon you with his Bill; and as often as he presents it, your Lordships, led by the Government, go back to the country and he has to re-write it and present it again. One might leave the matter there if this were not a somewhat larger and more complex matter than the brevity and simplicity of the Bill suggests, and if it were not a matter of interest and even of importance to a much larger number of people than are likely to follow its progress through the columns of Hansard.
My noble friend's concern, which is quite widely shared up and down the country, and, I believe, up and down the Benches of this House, is with the buildings of endowed schools which were endowed by members of the community for the benefit of that community but which are no longer either needed or used as schools. However, the fact that they are no longer required or used as schools does not mean that they do not still have an important role to play in the functioning of a rural community. I specify "the rural community", as have the last two speakers, because I do not think that the same problem exists in the towns. In the village the schoolroom is very often the only focus of communal secular activity and, indeed, of a great deal of communal church activity as well—none of it strictly educational and most of it ordinarily taking place out of school hours, even when the school is no longer used as a school. Many a Parliamentary election campaign meeting attended by your Lordships has been enlivened by the art of infant and junior classes attractively, and occasionally appositely, displayed behind the candidate's head.

103
When the school ceases to be used for teaching, its other function, as a focus of community activity and spirit, still has to be discharged—bazaars, jumble sales, W.I. meetings, whist drives, harvest suppers, and PCC parish council and charity trustees' meetings. I am sure that I could add to the long list which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has himself presented of activities which go on there, including Sunday schools, evening classes and the like. They all need a place in which to happen, and if they do not happen a valuable aspect of village life will rapidly be lost. The only place in which they can happen in many villages today is the village school.
If your Lordships will forgive a very brief discursus, from the earliest times the English village has centred on a meeting place. When the Angles seized the land their first action was to throw up a stockade of stakes and thorns and begin immediately to build the fire-hall of their chief; and in the body of that building, even after their own huts were built, the villagers could come for warmth, revelry and justice. In fine weather they could go to the moot-place or the green. In the Middle Ages they could go to the hall or the church. But with the gradual retirement of the gentry into a more private life, and with the church being reserved more exclusively for worship, there was again a need for a meeting place warmer than the green and bigger than the pub. From the end, or, indeed, the middle of the 19th century, it was supplied either by a village hall which was purpose built or by the accommodation of the village school.
I hope that your Lordships are actually as well as theoretically aware of the important, indeed the crucial role played by a central meeting place of this kind in any small rural community. It is, after all, common ground to Catholic, Protestant and Nonconformist, to drinker and to teetotaller, to lettered and to unlettered and—to put an old phrase to modern use—to the gentle and the simple alike. It is the only place in which all folk can meet on an equal footing and be equally at home and equally at ease. All other meeting places—chapels and the like, or pubs and the like—are the home ground of one or other of the
104
social, religious and economic groups that make up the rural community. None of them of itself promotes the sense of community and interdependence which is by far the most precious attribute of a rural village. And, my Lords, what a rare thing and how precious is such a sense of community and interdependence in this day and age. Is it not precisely for that which the leaders of both the main Parties in another place have been so loudly crying for the last few months? Does not its absence lie at the heart of our present national malaise? Is it not, where it is still to be found, something to protect and shelter like the embers of a dying fire? I believe that it is, and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me.
Having said that, I do not wish to suggest that this Bill is necessarily the way in which that problem, so identified, can be solved in its present form. There are problems and they are several; and they are not, except at first sight, superficial. I shall mention only three, and that briefly because they have been touched upon already. In the first place, there is the difficulty of establishing definitions—of establishing who were the original benefactors of an endowment and what was, and what is now, the community and whether they are co-terminous still. Was that community, for instance, principally a congregation or a population? And what happens if two ecclesiastical parishes have been merged and the administrative and secular parishes have not?
In the second place, we have the difficulty of establishing values. I believe that the duties laid upon the Secretary of State in the top paragraph on the second page of this Bill—namely, establishing the relative values of donations made perhaps 100 or 150 years ago—would call upon the resources of an economic historian of tremendous power; and one could be sure that there would be another economic historian, and only one, with diametrically opposed views to deal with him when he made his statement. Therefore I think that this is a very difficult field.
In the third place, we have the difficult moral problem—it has been treated hitherto in this debate as a legal problem—of what I would call breach of trust. If, as is usually the case, the

105
school was built and endowed to provide a local community with elementary education under the supervision of the Church of England, then it can be argued that to sell the school to the highest bidder, with unrestricted use—that is crucial to this Bill—and to use the cash so raised to further the cause of a similarly supervised school on a larger scale and at a greater distance will still benefit the community and will carry out the educational intentions of the benefactors as well. It can further be argued, and with force, that to forgo the maximum capital benefit of the sale by selling it at existing use values only, and to restrict the benefit to the local community to non-educational activities, would be a breach of trust in two senses. It would be a failure to maximise capital and it would be a failure to extend the sphere of influence of the Church in education at a time when its influence is, I believe, sorely needed.
My Lords, not all village schools were church foundations, but we have here a widely applicable and a nice balance of interest. On the one hand, we have the needs of the village as a rural and increasingly isolated community. Those needs, let us face it, are shared by the parish church since we do not today countenance jumble sales, let alone whist drives, in the chancel and since it is very expensive to heat the whole church for occasional and administrative functions. Quite apart from that, how useful it is pastorally for the rector or vicar to be able to meet members of his parish who are not of his communion, on equal terms and equal footing on neutral ground. On the other hand, of course, there is a great need for capital to cater for the education of children who would have been taught in that very school had it not been closed as a result of a recent and, I think, unfortunately pursued vogue for concentrating elementary (that is to say primary) education in larger and larger and more and more distant units. That is another subtle attack on the sense of community that I mentioned earlier on. The selling of half a dozen Victorian schools for conversion into dwellings is one way of financing Church-sponsored education that arises as a result for the village commuter school children.
So, my Lords, there is a problem and there are difficulties obstructing its solu-
106
tion, and I do not think that solution is entirely resolved or presented in this Bill as it stands. If this were the first time that a debate in your Lordships' House had directed the attention both of the Department and of the General Synod to it, I should be content to let matters rest while they reflected. But my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh embarked upon this Bill in October, 1973. It has had its fourth First Reading and this is its third Second Reading debate, and I should not like to see the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, going down for the third time.
I doubt whether the Government wish either to be, or to apear to be entirely obstructive in this matter and I am certain that the Church do not. Indeed, I am certain that what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester called "denominational selfishness" is not a motive which would be imputed. But I think inertia is one that is very likely to be laid as a charge at the doors of the Church, if they are not careful. Therefore I would propose to your Lordships, although the Bill in its present shape is not capable of resolving the problem, that we give it a Second Reading. We already know from remarks made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that the pressure of Parliamentary business is such that amendments to the Social Security Amendment Bill would put its completion back beyond the Recess, and since then we have had an addition of business resulting from the Defence Review Statement. There can therefore be no great hurry to rush this little Bill through all its stages, and the proper thing to do, I believe, perhaps with the initiative of the Minister, is for those representing the Church and those representing a rural interest—and here I think one wants perhaps to reflect upon the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, or the Parish Councils Association or some similar body—and of course the redoubtable noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, himself, to consult together and produce either an improvement on this Bill or a substitute for it, probably of a legislative nature as the right reverend Prelate suggested, but quite possibly in the form of a Concordat.
In that light I think we can proceed to better things and to the benefit of a great many communities. To reject the

107
Bill now would be a great error; it would remove from the administrative machinery, both temporal and spiritual, the pressure which alone makes it turn smoothly, and would condemn perhaps a dozen more village schools beyond reprieve. There I will close my remarks, except to welcome the introduction of this Bill by my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and to wonder whether he was wise in his passionate claims in favour of justice on behalf of Saxons in the face of Normans, or whether he should have reflected on the Norman origins of his own family.
4.43 p.m.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down to speak, but matters have occurred during the course of the debate on which I should like to comment. I am speaking as one who was for ten years the chairman of a diocesan board of finance of a semi-rural, semi-urban area, and was in receipt of much obloquy from parishes of the nature of my noble friend's parish, on which he based his speech. Most of us in the Church of England—but not all—believe that the retention of Church schools is of very great importance, because by retaining the Church schools the governors have the power to appoint the teachers and they have hopes that they can appoint teachers who are Christians and who will remain Christians. Therefore, they want to keep as many school places as possible in Church hands, even when streamlining and rearranging by the local education authority is taking place. The State pays a very large proportion of the capital sum for any new schools which are erected, but the Church, if it wishes to retain its interest, has to produce a fraction. I cannot remember the precise amount—I think that in my day it was 20 per cent.—and they are dependent upon only two sources of income. There is the schools pool, into which all such sales as the noble Lord has spoken about are put, and the quota which is levied on all the parishes of the diocese and which is met with a series of groans from most parishes.
If there were widespread action to sell the village schools to the villagers and so on at below market price, instead of
108
selling them at the top market price, which has produced a very valuable source of revenue indeed in the diocese of Chichester for the schools fund, then the schools pool would be very much more deficient that it is at the moment. Speaking for the one with which I had something to do, we were in a constant state of acute penury of debt. I dare say that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester had plenty of money up there but it did not exist in Sussex.
I think that the proper remedy for this is for the village which wants to keep its buildings with a change of user to make arrangements to buy at what could be considered a reasonable market price and possibly get help from the diocese to pay by instalments. It would be perfectly possible in some cases, if the capital amount was not too big, for the diocese to lend the amount free of interest on condition that it was paid back over a period of, say, ten years, by equal instalments. That would meet the least bad of all worlds because the schools pool would get this money over a period of years and the parish would have an easy method of re-paying for it. I believe it would be a mistake to pass this Bill because it would deal a serious blow to the schools pool, at all events in the more rural diocese.
4.48 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, in summing up may I pick up a few points which have been made by other speakers. Starting with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I really do not think he realises the situation in which so many of these small villages find themselves.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I know it only too well.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: Very well. Does the noble Lord suggest that there is an alternative place for the people of the village to meet? Does he suggest that a hamlet of 60 families can afford to buy a new hall even if they have obtained the money by means of a loan?
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely misunderstanding me. He is suggesting that they should buy it at some special price; I am suggesting that they should buy this building at a more

109
or less market price and borrow the money from the diocese and then repay by instalments.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is missing my point, which is that in this case and in hundreds of others which I have in my file, the one and only village meeting place is (or was) the original school which was built by the local population. We have the list, we know the percentage they paid and we know what the contributions were. It seems completely unjust to the local villager that this hall, which over the years he has considered to be his own, because he, his father and grandfather before him had paid for it and had considered the hall as being theirs already, should be paid for again. The argument put forward is that they should now go and buy the hall again, having already provided it. I really think that is missing the point.
My Lords, if I may now turn to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I greatly appreciated the way in which he finished, because it was exactly the same way, I think he will agree, in which I ended my own speech. Since I first introduced this Bill, I have recognised that it contains imperfections. But I wanted to achieve the object. I have had support from inside and outside the House. All I have asked of successive Governments—and this has been asked for by other noble Lords as well as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—is that we should get together and produce something which would have the effect we are aiming for; that is, that we do not lose our small local centres. The noble Lord said that there were difficulties in definition. But I say that in our case we know exactly what was contributed by whom. I should have thought it was easy enough to say, "Right, if it was 100 per cent. then, it is 100 per cent. now; if it was 50 per cent. then, it is 50 per cent. now".
My Lords, I return to the question of what has been spent on the buildings since the 1944 Act, when they were taken over by the local authority. The village has paid rates, and part of these rates has been spent on upkeep, so I do not think there is any difficulty there. Turning to what was said by the right reverend
110
Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, I noticed that he made reference to the episode of April 2. One of the Bishops sat next to me at tea afterwards. I was glad to know that, no matter what was said in Hansard, on the whole the Bishops realised our predicament. Fundamentally, they were only saying what they were told to say, to keep hold of this gratuitous gift that arose from the 1944 Act. I would say to the right reverend Prelate that an urban community would not want to take advantage of a Bill like this. The operative word is "may".
My Lords, we have heard many times from the Minister phrases like, "We are sorry"; "We are full of sympathy", and, "We have no use for it so we must turn it down". What is suggested now by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—and it was suggested before him by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and before that by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan—is that we must save these local centres. Why cannot we get together? Why will they not get together? Why will they not allow some meeting whereby we can put forward a workable Bill, or find some other way of achieving the object? There are many small communities in the country who are, or may be, in danger in the future of losing their own village meeting centre if the present system is allowed to continue.
One reference was made to the question of trusts. Surely it is still educational, adult education particularly; and surely it is charitable because it is not run for a profit. It is religious, and religious denominational, if you like, in this and many other cases. Where else could the rector have his Sunday school? So I do not think it is going against the trust at all. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill another Second Reading. I have not pretended that it is perfect. I have taken advice. If there is anything wrong, if, as successive Ministers have said, they are in sympathy with what I am trying to achieve, then please do what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested. But since I have not had that offer from the Government, I hope your Lordships will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SAFETY OF SPORTS GROUNDS BILL [H.L.]
4.56 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: 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.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Applications for certificates]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to say that in the light of the reorganisation of local government that has already taken place in England and Wales, and which is due to take place in Scotland next year, we have been looking again at the various places in the Bill, of which Clause 3(3) is an example, in which separate mention is made of the local authority and the fire authority. In fact, the local authority and the fire authority are, or will be, one and the same. Some re-drafting may be necessary on this account. I hope to put down appropriate Amendments on Report for the consideration of your Lordships.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
After Clause 4.
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 4 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
112
safety certificate issued in relation to such sports stadium."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List is the same Amendment, in identical wording, as that which was moved a year ago tomorrow on behalf of the Labour Party from those Benches. I do not want to weary your Lordships. I should have liked nothing better than just to read the speech I made a year ago, because the arguments I put forward then are the arguments I put forward today. I believe them to be true. I thought that members of the Labour Party, many of whom sit on these Benches today, who went through the Lobby believed them, too. That belief was emphasised because when the Bill went to another place, the identical Amendment—suitably amended, of course—was put down there. The Labour Party en masse went through the Lobby. Senior Members who sit on these Benches, like my noble friend Lord Balogh, voted for that Amendment a year ago. I sincerely trust they will vote for it today.
Having made that point, I wish to make a second. My interest in this matter is confined to what I say. I speak for nobody but myself, except for the organisations which I mentioned on Second Reading—the Football League, the Football Association, the Central Council for Physical Recreation, and many clubs or organisations which have sent messages to me, including one telegram I had as I came into the House, from the chairman of the Middlesbrough Football Club, who hopes very much that your Lordships will listen particularly not to what I have to say, but to what others have to say. That includes, I am glad to say, the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, who spoke on that occasion and voted; and he as chairman of Newcastle United and with his long membership of the Football League and the Football Association speaks with very great authority. Indeed, let me say that there is no difference between supporters and opponents on one particular point. I cannot do better than read what Lord Westwood said in regard to the licensing of sports stadia:
"… as it is of paramount importance that the safety of the public should be safeguarded at all times".—[OFFICIAL REPORT,20/11/73, c. 951.]

113
That is basic. Everybody accepts the necessity of this Bill; the Conservative Party accepted it when they were in Government, the Labour Party when they were in Opposition, and now the positions are reversed; judging by the speeches of the spokesmen, we all accept that.
What is at issue is how it is to be paid for. When the Bill was debated a year ago I expressed my dissatisfaction or—let me put it more mildly—my lack of complete satisfaction with the form of words on the Marshalled List. I have the same doubts today. The late Lord Garns-worthy said that the Amendment was not perfect. That is not what we are after. On Second Reading I made the same point. All that we ask for is that the Government honestly and sincerely—with a mind to the great issues involved here—look at this problem. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, coming along and saying, "I was not here then". If I may say to him with great respect, his opinions on any subject are of great importance but are not all that important. We are not asking the noble Lord, Lord Harris, we are asking the Government—and he is the spokesman of the Government—to explain to us what it was that converted the Labour Party from their view in Opposition to their view in Government that football clubs are commercial undertakings.
I excuse the noble Lord who spoke on Second Reading. I intended, if he had been here, to argue a little with him about his somewhat juvenile views, but as he is not here it would be unfair, not having given him notice, to argue with what he said. But let us take what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. He said:
"It is a long-established principle that those who, in the course of a commercial enter- I prise, put the public at risk should themselves bear the cost of any statutory safety measures which thus become necessary. The Government see no reason to depart from this principle in the present case. But while no grants or loans from public funds will be made to the football clubs, we have been considering whether there are other ways in which help may be given."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 19/11/74, Col. 986.)
Let us consider for a while the extent to which football clubs are commercial undertakings in the fullest sense of the word as advanced by the noble Lord and another noble Lord on the other side. First of all, all dividends are limited to 10
114
per cent. Directors cannot receive any remuneration either as directors or employees of the club. Of course, there is another fundamental difference, and it is this: football is a highly competitive business for a very few. The noble Lord, Lord Westwood, made this point. There are not eight or ten clubs in the country which are commercially viable. Nor can that number ever be exceeded, because only eight or ten clubs can reach the highest honours, but in order to reach the highest honours they must have other clubs to beat. So the game of football—as practised and followed by some 35 million people a year—is a game in which there can be very few winners, but in order that the game shall have life blood and shall be meaningful to the thousands who go through the turnstiles there have to be many losers. Therefore, it is quite impossible to maintain or sustain the argument—if it is asserted—that it is a commercial undertaking.
What I want to ask is: if the Government hold the view that this is a principle which has been long maintained, why did not they cite it both in this place and in the House of Commons a year ago; because if that principle is eternal, as enunciated by Lord Harris, it was equally as valid on 4th December 1973, as on 3rd December 1974. I have not asked for large handouts, although what I said was caricatured. I am asking for nothing of the kind. I am not even asking for any money. But I want once again to remind noble Lords of a few basic facts.
Your Lordships will perhaps have a little personal sympathy with me, because I fought the battle on my own at one stage in two particular fields. The revenue from betting and gaming when the Labour Government came to Office in 1964 was £33 million and no more. When the case was made that it ought to be looked at there was a stout denial. No, this was impossible. Winston had failed; when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had tried to tax gambling, and he had failed. The late Mr. Iain Macleod, in the course of the debate on the Finance Bill in 1966, forecast failure. He was kind and generous enough at a later stage to admit he was wrong.
But what is it today? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in a supplementary Statement on the recent Budget debate forecast that this year there will be £240

115
million from gambling. For football I used a figure a year ago which was not far out; I projected the amount in respect of football would be of the order of £72 million. This year it is not less than £85 million. On the general betting duty, which concerns horseracing, dogs and the like, it is of the order of £130 million. These are great sums. But I am not making the mistake, and I do not assert, that this money is taken from football or taken from racing. It is no more taken from racing or football than it is taken when a man pays tax on a gallon of petrol or a packet of cigarettes. I reject the principle of hypothecation and I said that I renounced it in 1961. Again almost on my own, when the Bill was going through the Committee stage in the House of Commons, I voted against my own Party five times in order to establish the levy.
However, when the Minister comes along and says: "We cannot give any money. This offends against the basic principle which has just been dug out of the archives in the Home Office or possibly the lower dungeons of the Treasury", I do not believe him. When he says, "Yes, we are going to give a little help by way of football pools and possibly through lotteries", how very kind of him! In 1968, Sir Norman Chester presented a Report which had been called for by the Minister of Sport; he was then a junior Minister of State in the Department of Education. In paragraph 64 there is a recommendation that there should be a levy on football.
The Minister, when he was replying, said: "We cannot give much help. We cannot do it this way but we can do it in other ways, football pools and lotteries." He said, "The Government are under difficulties, but the matter is under consideration and we shall be reporting as soon as possible". If it takes from 1968 to 1974—and remember that the present Home Secretary was Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Report was presented so he could have done it then if he had wanted—if six years is as soon as possible, would he be kind enough to tell me how long is "as long as passible"? It has taken six years and I the truth, although the Minister may not know it, is that there is as much chance of getting a levy on football as there is
116
of a celluloid mouse going through Parliament. There is no chance at all!
For this reason I ask noble Lords to go back and read a very erudite speech by Enoch Powell on the Peppiatt Report. Remember, my Lords, that the Government of Mr. Butler was in difficulties about getting their legislation on betting and gaming through this House, and they set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Leslie Peppiatt. When the Report was presented, Enoch Powell got up and put forward the traditional view of the Treasury, "No hypothecation. No assignment of revenue in advance". It is for that reason that the recommendation of the Norman Chester Committee has never been accepted. If, as I say, it has hung about for six years, what chance has it now?
We now come to another argument. I had a really rough ride, because I had the temerity to oppose piecemeal legislation on the interdepartmental committee that had its basis in this document which was presented to Parliament in 1973. Its basis was dishonest, because the Conservative Government were in difficulties. They were in difficulties because they had put a limit on bingo—or the Gaming Board had done so—but there was no limit on football. So they got it out of their court by setting up a departmental committee under the chairmanship of a very able civil servant, and they produced a Report which was debated in this House.
Then a Private Member's Bill went through the House of Commons, and when the Government failed to defeat it it came to this House. I spelled it out as clearly as I could, not that I was against the principle of the Bill, but that there should be no piecemeal legislation. It was no good approaching this complicated and controversial subject piecemeal. It had to be done by a Government which took this Report, accepted what parts they wanted, and came not only to the House but to the country as a whole—because the consequences of this are extremely far-reaching.
I noticed with interest that with an act of sublime political courage, when I divided the House and I managed to persuade the House that the Bill should not be read a second time, all the Members of the Government Front Bench

117
abstained from voting. I also noticed a Question that was answered in the House of Commons on 21st November last by Dr. Summerskill, who was the Minister, a departmental colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who on the Second Reading of this Bill had accepted this Report in principle, although it had never been accepted by either the Conservative or Labour Governments, and who said on the subject of lotteries:
"The Working Party's Report is fairly complicated. It deals with a wide range of subjects some of them very controversial. It is necessary to consider the whole of football pool legislation and not deal with it piecemeal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 21/11/74; col. 1509.]
So we are not to have it dealt with piecemeal. It is to be looked at as a Government measure. Yet both in the field of football pools and in the field of lotteries, the only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, could give, not only to football but to sport as a whole, was that, "We have discovered a principle. We are looking to see whether we can give help in one of two fields." Yet the Government know perfectly well that nothing will ever come out of the first, and the chance of getting more than 2p out of the second are extremely remote.
On 25th July, I wearied the House with the exercise that had been done by the GLC on the question of lotteries. They had worked it out that what they would get were a few thousand pounds, but they forgot to take into their calculations that lotteries would be subject to 40 per cent. pool duty, so that at the end of the day if they ran lotteries the chances were not that they would make anything, but that they would not get anything at all. The positive case that I am putting to the Government is this. The financing of sport and the wellbeing of sport are of major national importance, and it is no good the noble Lord, Lord Harris, coming like an echo from the 1930s, with the real old voice of laissez-faire, the authentic voice of Chamberlain and all he stood for, and saying, "We cannot do it now." I would not laugh. I would hang my head in shame if I had to advance arguments of that kind. What does it mean to the young whose chance may come?—"Nothing for you my son. We cannot afford it." My generation suffered from that. This country as a whole suffered from that. Education in this
118
country was so neglected that when the war came we did not have the manpower to handle the technical equipment that was available. That is the price you pay if you turn around and say, "No, we cannot afford it."
Of course it is difficult. Of course in a time of great financial stringency you cannot give vast sums of money that will benefit people who go to Ascot, those who go to football matches, or those who play squash and the like. What you could do is to look at the problem as a whole, face it squarely and examine the basis of the finances of sport in this country. If the Government want an alibi, do not say, "We are leaving the question under review and we will get a reply as soon as possible. It may be football pools and it may be lotteries", when they know very well it will not. Set up a Select Committee to examine the financing of sport in the professional sense, from the point of view of the safety of spectators or the integrity of the sport, and also look to see what facilities should be provided for our young people in participant sports. Look at it as a whole. See how you can raise the finance. You have taken £240 million. You are bleeding the industry white, and it has no means of recouping this.
The noble Lord, Lord Westwood, will tell your Lordships that at the present time, because of the lack of social discipline which is largely occasioned, in my judgment, by successive Governments' refusal to face the problem, it costs more at many football matches to pay for the police than it does to pay for the team. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, would use that argument. It is an argument of validity. The behaviour of young people is very much occasioned by the way they behave at sporting functions. I think it is a crime if any racecourse in this country, any stand in this country, any facility in this country is not used to the maximum.
What is wanted here is not only money. What is wanted is intelligence, vigour and the abandoning of laissez-faire. I should have thought that this problem was too hot for any Minister. It is too hot for the Home Secretary because he, like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is concerned only with the social aspects of the problem. I have no doubt whatever that the

119
present Home Secretary has protested against the decision of the Treasury not to provide money for sport. I am sure, too, that the present Minister for Sport, while he has said one thing in Opposition, is forced to say another in Government. But the matter needs to be looked at right across the board.
My plea is this. You are not going to get anything unless you exercise pressures. Do not get taken out for lunches; do not get taken into conferences; do not listen to the soft words of the noble Lord. Lord Harris, reading from a departmental brief which is not completely intellectually digested. Do not take any notice of that. What we want to do is to make a case, and to understand our case ourselves, for all sport in this country to get around the table—certainly the Football League and the Football Association—if you like under the chairmanship of the Minister for Sport. They should go to the Prime Minister and say, "If you do not provide the facilities—if you do not look at the position of this country vis-à-vis the other countries who lay claim to greatness in terms of the sporting facilities which are available—it is a crime, not only against this generation but against generations to come". Therefore, in the name of logic I certainly ask all those who last year voted on the same issue when they were sitting opposite (including the Minister, because men are judged not only by what they say but by what they do) to go through the Lobby chis evening if we do not receive a satisfactory reply from the Minister. I appeal to other Members of your Lordships' House who were not present on that occasion—or who may even have been persuaded to vote against—to join in on a non-Party basis, and the Government for all their power, if they do not like it, to take it to another place and say to another place that here on this issue on a non-Party basis we are agreed that this problem should be looked at and we should not be given the sob stories that were given on Second Reading. I beg to move.
5.21 p.m.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: I cannot claim that I have as much interest in football as my noble friend Lord Wigg who, although he declared he had no financial interest, betrayed a
120
tremendous interest in the game and the sport itself. Perhaps I should declare that my interest is that the same manager of Middlesbrough Football Club who was in touch with my noble friend Lord Wigg was also in touch with me, probably because he is my nephew, Charles Aymer, a man who has risen from very humble beginnings, like myself, and who has made no money out of Middlesbrough Football Club. My guess is that it has cost him quite a lot of money so there is no financial interest there. My interest, I think, is the same as his. I have not been to a football match for years, although I rarely miss Match of the Day on television on a Saturday night, as do thousands more in this country. But I travel round the country and see various football pitches on which amateurs are playing and enjoying the sport and trying to emulate the skill of those they see when they go to professional football matches.
When I first looked at this Bill I wondered how much money we could ask the Government to put into an industry—I think it is now an industry—which was paying such tremendous transfer fees for the players and which reflected an impossible financial situation so far as the industry was concerned. This money merely circulates within the football industry; it neither comes in nor goes out. I have often questioned the ethics of buying and selling the footballers as if they were animals inside this industry and the footballers themselves receiving so little from the proceeds at the end of the day. But I was impressed when I listened to Jack Charlton on television talking about football to a group of very young people who were intensely interested and were concentrating on the large amount' of money people were making—players, managers and people of that character. I believe I said that my nephew is a manager: he is chairman of that club. I must correct that point for the record. Jack Charlton pointed out that very few people were receiving these high salaries for playing football and that thousands of professional people were receiving very low wages for playing the game simply because they loved it.
I am more interested in this from the point of view of safety because of

121
my experience in the industrial world. For over half a century I have fought for safety inside the industrial groups of this country and have always had problems in getting through legislation. The trade union movement has spent millions of pounds in getting through legislation in respect of safety. But it is no good passing safety regulations, or any other regulations, unless there is power to enforce them. I remember that when the Industrial Relations Act went through we informed the Government that there was very little hope of their being able to implement the legislation that they were passing. In the event it proved to be so. When one is dealing with masses of people one finds that legislation becomes inoperative if they do not want to abide by it. So one must be wise and see that one's legislation is sensible from the beginning. America learned this many years ago when she introduced prohibition; it was impossible to apply. I want to stop the Government passing legislation on safety unless there is financial power behind it to ensure that it is effective.
The legislation calls for very expensive safeguards at the football grounds—and rightly so after the Ibrox disaster. These safety regulations must be passed but they must also be effective, and unless there is enough money behind the legislation to ensure that the safeguards required will be provided and paid for it will be a useless exercise. What will be the consequences if at the end of the day it means interference with the sport and, perhaps, the closing down of football clubs? The football club at the top of the First Division today may well be the club at the bottom of the Second Division tomorrow. There is no guarantee that any club will have enough finance in a couple of years to put this legislation into operation, so we have to ensure that we have the money for it.
Imagine the feeling that will run through the country if, for example, one of the top clubs (I will not mention one that was in my mind) ran into financial trouble and inside of a year was in the Second Division and, not having implemented this legislation, it had to close down. That is the ultimate unless the money is there to implement the legislation. Suppose some of the
122
smaller clubs were in that position as they certainly may be; some may have to close down immediately. If that happens there will be mass rebellion from people who love football. That mass rebellion will express itself with sanity with 90 per cent. of the people, but the vandals who are roaming this country at the present time will love the opportunity to latch on to such a situation to create more vandalism in the train of this legislation. If they do that they will draw to themselves the decent people in sport who will support them, because their cause is good even though their remedy is wrong. The Government must not allow themselves to get into a situation of this character and the money must be provided.
I do not know whether there are resources other than the Exchequer for this purpose; there may be. My noble friend Lord Wigg touched on this point and I am not quite sure what the other sources are. But one point I make definitely; whatever the sources of this finance are they must be contained in the legislation. There must be no piecemeal legislation; with that I agree 100 per cent. My only plea to the Government is that if this legislation is going through—I not only hope it does, I know it must—it must be accompanied, not followed, by financial provisions to ensure that it is satisfactorily carried out and does not cause a lot more trouble than it is designed to remove.
5.30 p.m.
Earl COWLEY: I intend to speak on this for only a very few moments. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said, this Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord is the same as the Amendment to our Bill moved by the late Lord Garnsworthy almost a year ago. That Amendment was resoundingly defeated by 84 votes to 34. Now the same Amendment has been dusted off and brought before the Committee once again. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is asking your Lordships to amend the Bill so that public funds can be made available to those people who are required to implement the terms laid down by local authorities in the safety certificates. Our attitude to this Amendment has not altered during the last year, although of course since last February our places in the Committee have been changed.

123
As was said by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in Committee stage on the Bill last December, we believe it would be wrong as a matter of principle for public money to be provided so that commercial enterprises can fulfil safety requirements. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, agrees with this line of thought. When someone goes into business and consequently puts members of the public at risk, he should not be provided with funds from the State so that he can ensure that people do not get hurt. Even if one did not hold to this principle and this Amendment was accepted by the Committee, I think it would be wrong at this time, when the economic situation in this country is so serious, for the Government further to reduce funds available to existing areas of Government expenditure and divert money to football grounds and other stadia so that they can implement necessary safety requirements. Likewise, it would be just as damaging to increase Government expenditure at a time of high inflation to meet the Amendment's terms.
I find it impossible to support a proposal making Government finance available to football grounds for something they should be doing anyway, and which many football clubs are doing, when much more worthwhile requests for funds, for example for housing and social services, are not being fully met. To pass this Amendment in such circumstances would be politically and morally difficult to defend. I well recognise the economic difficulties faced by the majority of football clubs in this country, but they are not alone; there are many other enterprises facing equally serious difficulties at present. One has only to look at the newspapers to see that. Also, the Bill does not require that all the safety standards have to be implemented at the same time. This work can be done stage by stage according to the financial standing of the individual club, and as the safety standards are implemented so the numbers of spectators permitted into the club can be increased. I feel that, in light of what I have just said, if the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, presses his Amendment to a Division I must advise my noble friends to oppose it in the Division Lobbies.
5.33 p.m.
Lord WESTWOOD: I must first apologise for not being in your Lordships' House when the Second Reading of the Bill took place on 19th November. This was entirely due to my being in Rotterdam attending an international football conference about the problems which face football, not only in this country but in the whole of Europe. May I also again inform your Lordships that I have a keen personal interest in the sport by declaring my interest, as I did when the Bill was before the House in November, 1973. I have had promotion since then: I am President of the Football League, which controls the 92 professional clubs in this country, and Vice-President of the Football Association, the governing body of the game which controls over 36,000 clubs in England. I am also chairman of a club with great football tradition, Newcastle United. With all due modesty, I think that I can claim to have some knowledge of the game and also a great interest in this Bill.
I can assure your Lordships—it has been stressed time and time again—that football clubs are not against the Bill. But we want to know, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, says, who will pay for all the work. It is all right my noble friend saying that we cannot do this and we cannot do that, but the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has to keep coming back and all he gets is sympathy, which is all that football gets. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has moved the Amendment, which I strongly support, and I trust the matter will be carefully considered by your Lordships. The position in football is serious—do not let us forget it. There are few professional clubs making a profit. My own club—this may be amazing news to your Lordships, because we were in the Cup Final last year—lost over £32,000 as our balance sheet for the year ended 31st July showed. We were successful in getting to the Cup Final, but not successful in winning the trophy.
A well known sports writer recently described the game of football as the "game of the people", which sums it up. If I may, I will give your Lordships some information which will, I am sure, reveal what the game is facing now. Criticism is frequently levelled at football because

125
of hooliganism. The Press, radio and television media repeatedly refer to it. But the great majority of acts of hooliganism take place not inside the stadia but away from grounds and after the match. There was an incident in Bristol two or three months ago when about 390 people were arrested, but only 11 people were arrested in the football ground, most of them being young men. The clubs do everything they can to control the spectators. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that in 1972 the cost of having police at the 92 League Clubs was £308,254. In 1973 the cost was £530,100. We estimate that the cost for this season will be three-quarters of a million pounds due to two increases in police salaries. I often wonder who pays for the police on duty at the large "pop" concerts in Windsor Great Park, or the police who have to turn out on Sundays to march beside demonstrations and processions. I hazard the guess that it is not the organiser of these functions who pays. But football has to pay for them and yet they get criticised. We do not think this is playing the game. We are asked to install extra seating at our grounds to stop hooliganism. The cost of installing extra seating is expensive, but we have done it this past season. And what happens? We are thanked by getting an increase in our rates because we put in extra seating! No matter what we do in football we do not seem to be able to win.
On several occasions it has been suggested that the Football Pools Promoters' Association should be asked to pay a levy towards the cost of running football. But they, too, are in trouble because of increase in taxation. I have figures which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, may not have. In the year to 31st July 1974, the total turnover of the five main pools—and there are many others—was £194·3 million. The tax paid to the Government in betting duty was £68,247,000, and the dividends paid to the punters totalled almost £70 million. Yet we in football are struggling for existence. It is really farcical. Surely the Government can do something to keep our national game going. Why not tax punters' winnings? I am sure that anyone who wins a half-million will be delighted to pay some of it to keep football going.
126
I remember making my maiden speech in your Lordships' House in December, 1956, when I appealed for assistance for the cinema industry which was being taxed very heavily. I well remember I said at that time that if the Government did not do something to help the industry it would be in trouble. I finished up by saying, "There's no business like show business, but if the Government do not help there will be no business—period". At that time there were nearly 5,000 cinemas in this country—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will remember this—while today there are approximately 1,500 cinemas, and many towns and even cities are either without a cinema or perhaps have only one. That can happen to football if we do not get help from some source to enable us to comply with the terms of this Bill.
What your Lordships and the Government are asking us to do is to make bricks without straw, and we just cannot do it. We have had delegations to another place and we have met Members of all Parties. We get sympathy and hopes, but no help. Football is not the only sport that is in trouble. Cricket, too, has problems as your Lordships will have read this week, and I hear that sponsorship from Gillette and Rothmans may not be forthcoming for cricket and tennis next summer. We cannot blame the sponsors, because they, too, have their problems.
When this Bill is passed and licensing then becomes compulsory, I know there will be many clubs which do not have the money to comply with this law. If sections of their ground are closed to enable them to comply, which is allowed under the Bill, then the club's revenue will fall and they may well have to close down and deprive the town of its football club, as has happened in the case of over 3,000 cinemas. Football, cricket, rugby, athletics and all other sports need financial help, and they need it soon. I hope the Government will look into the possibility of a tax on the pool dividends or a change in the Act on small lotteries, or at whatever source we can get money from. I would ask the Minister to accept this Amendment, which is exactly the same as one moved by the late Lord Garnsworthy, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has told us. I can assure your

127
Lordships that every sporting organisation in the country will be grateful if noble Lords stand by their previous policy.
Lord ST. HELENS: I am no expert on this subject, and for that reason I shall be extremely brief. But I would remind your Lordships that a little while ago we listened to an extremely serious announcement by the Government to the effect that they are to cut our national defence by a very large sum of money over the next few years. If on the same day the Government were to grant an increase for the development of sport within the country, I could think of nothing which would have a more disastrous effect upon our Allies in NATO. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will oppose this Amendment most strongly.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: May I, first of all, say—and I do not think this will be of particular surprise to the Committee—that, as I indicated in my Second Reading speech, an Amendment on these lines is not acceptable to the Government. That was the position when I made my Second Reading speech, and of course it remains the position today. May I also say that I am deeply appreciative of the kind and gracious words uttered about me by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He uttered them with that degree of restraint and quality of understatement for which he is appropriately famed.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, pointed out with perfect truth that the Amendment before us today—and this point was repeated by the noble Earl—is in exactly the same terms as the one on which the then Labour Opposition divided the House. That is of course so, and the answer to the question, "Why have you changed your minds?", is, I should have thought, fairly apparent. As I pointed out in the reply I made to the Second Reading debate on the Bill, we face a rather serious economic situation in this country. The noble Lord who has just sat down pointed this out. We have had two General Elections, and I should have thought that the one point upon which all three political Parties agreed in both of those General Elections was that we faced economic problems with-
128
out parallel, certainly since the war and arguably for a great deal longer. In a situation of this sort it is quite impossible for the Government to accept an Amendment on the lines of the one that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has put before us today.
I repeat, and I do not want to weary the Committee by going through the arguments that I deployed on Second Reading, that when we are having to limit expenditure not only on defence, to which the noble Lord has just alluded, but on education and the social services generally, it would be quite impossible for the Government to find arguments to justify a decision of the kind which we are being asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, to take this afternoon. I accept, of course—and the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the noble Lord, Lord Douglass, have all discussed it—the serious financial problem facing football; and, indeed, as has been pointed out, problems of this sort are facing many other sporting organisations. It is one of the prices we pay for what is historically an extremely high rate of inflation.
All I can say is that of course we appreciate the difficulties facing football. That is a matter which obviously is at the centre of our argument this evening. That is why, under the legislation which is before us now, local authorities can first of all require a club to do only what is reasonable. They can allow the necessary work, which has to be carried out in order that the appropriate safety certificate can be issued, to be completed by stages—subject, of course, to safeguards. There would have to be safeguards, because we could not run the risk of a repeat of the Ibrox Park disaster. The sort of safeguards that there would have to be are such that until certain works were carried out there would have to be some limitation on numbers—perhaps extra stewards and things of this sort.
There is also a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, which is not unimportant, because some of the issues which could be involved in an appeal would be the financial ones that have been raised in the course of this debate; and, certainly, if what was being asked was inherently unreasonable that would be a

129
factor to be taken into account in considering whether or not a local authority was behaving reasonably.
The second point I would make is that, as I indicated in our last debate, the Government are perfectly prepared to consider further help, though obviously it would go far less far than the football authorities would wish us to go. There is the possibility of a levy on football pools, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, mentioned a few moments ago, but as I pointed out in my speech on Second Reading this is the least attractive of the two possibilities which I mentioned. The second possibility is the extension of the law on lotteries. I recognise the fact that there has been delay in this matter, but I hope we shall be in a position to move towards a decision before long, and certainly I recognise that there is a certain amount of wholly justified impatience to get a clearly defined position on this from the Government. But, also, recognising the problems that face the football clubs, we have undertaken to provide tax relief on expenditure on structural alterations—the sort of structural alterations made necessary by this Bill. I recognise, I repeat, that this does not go as far as the football authorities wish us to go, but in the light of the current economic situation it would be extremely irresponsible for the Government to take any view other than the one which Ministers are now taking.
Lord WIGG: On Second Reading I made the point that the issues in this Bill were similar in character to—indeed, they reflected—what is wrong for the nation. I would turn my attention first of all to the speech from the Conservative Benches. There is the traditional, authentic voice—"Housing, social services; in view of all these demands we have to look at the problem in blinkers". They are quite incapable of looking as a whole at the problems which face the nation if it is to be argued, as we heard from the third Bench back, that, in view of the Statement this afternoon, everything that we now do has to be judged in terms of what we do in relation to defence. If we cannot afford defence, then we cannot afford anything else—be it education or anything. There is the total argument: We are "broke" and we cannot do anything about it.
130
I am obliged to the Minister for his complimentary remarks about my normal forms of expression, for which he said I am famous. For one thing at least I am famous. It is that I do not say one thing and do another; I do not say one thing this year and then, when it is politically convenient, crawl across the Benches and say the opposite. If I may use my own gracious phrases, I say that it is physiologically impossible to lick up my own vomit and seem to enjoy it. I hope that that is clear. I hate humbug, whether it be from the Tory or the Labour Benches. It is humbug which the noble Lord and the Government will come to regret, because they have milked the cow of gambling in this country and they did not even know how to do it—and if they knew how to do it, they have done it regardless of the consequences. The Home Office does not even know the consequences of what one Minister says. In the same answer which the Minister gave on the issue of small lotteries, she also said that the total amount wagered in terms of gambling as a whole was £441 million. She got her sources wrong; and she got her sums wrong in terms of the overall figure. It is of the order of £2,700 million. But if you take the total amount gambled and deduct the amount taken by way of tax it is something like £441 million, and £183 million is taken out, plus £65 million taken out by the pool promoters.
The noble Lord, Lord Westwood, is absolutely right. I do not raise the issue of hypothecation. I understand perfectly well the traditional arguments against hypothecation, which is an assignment of duty for a specific purpose. That I accept; but both the Conservative Party when in Government and the Labour Party in Office now, know that no Chancellor can go on taxing without being aware of the fact that there is a law of diminishing returns. Sooner or later, if you go on milking the cow and do not feed it, you kill the cow and get no milk. That is the logic of this situation.
I should have been "warned off", as it were, in the case that I have tried to put, if the Minister had said that there is a grievous economic situation; that of the taxation we raise we must have every penny. But what we promised to do was to consult with the Football Association, to consult with the Central Council for

131
Physical Recreation, to show some awareness of the problem and to meet them and discuss with them, against some agreed timetable, how we can help not only football but racing as well. Racing is in a desperate plight. Let us make no mistake about that. If the argument is that we cannot give money to help football, or cricket or swimming, we certainly will not be able to give money to racing; and then, in turn, our export market will go. This is the way to national disaster. What the young man who spoke from the Tory Benches does not realise is that when defeat comes, when national humiliation comes, it does not come like a thief in the night but as a result of one step after another in which, for reasons of convenience and comfort, nations and those who lead them refuse to face the facts.
The case that I am putting is the case for sport as a whole. It is a case for the use of leisure time by the nation as a whole, leisure in all its wide aspects. It may be that as a result of the Government's economic policy—and certainly if
the attitude of the Government as a whole is the attitude of my noble friend Lord Harris—the British people will have a lot more unwanted leisure time than ever before. Therefore I say to him: Do not let them kick balls round the streets; do not deny them the opportunities for facilities. Let us look at the problem. I realise that it is a very difficult one; I am as aware as he of the economic situation. What wise men do is to take a position which looks to be an embarrassment and try to turn it to advantage—if only for the political well-being of the Government. But I am speaking for wider issues. The Minister has given us nothing. If I may say so graciously, he has not even shown that he has read his brief. He does not understand what he is talking about. Therefore, if I can find someone who can join with me as a Teller then I will divide the House.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 93.

CONTENTS

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Caradon, L.

Macleod of Fuinary, L.

Westwood, L. [Teller]

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wigg, L. [Teller]

Hall, V.

Shinwell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Long, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Allan of Kilmahew, L.

Ferriers, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Maelor, L.

Alport, L.

Fortescue, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Amulree. L.

Garner, L.

Melchett, L.

Arwyn, L.

George-Brown, L.

Meston, L.

Auckland, L.

Gisborough, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Balogh, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Newall, L.

Belstead, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pannell, L.

Berkeley, B.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Birk, B.

Gowrie, E.

Reay, L.

Blyton, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bridgeman, V.

Greenway, L.

St. Helens, L.

Castle, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sandys, L.

Champion, L.

Hamnett, L.

Seear, B.

Chorley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Collison, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Simon, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harvington, L.

Slater, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Stedman, B.

Cowley, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Hughes, L.

Strang, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Killearn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kimberley, E.

Strathspey, L.

Denbigh, E.

Kindersley, L.

Swinton, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Terrington, L.

Elton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Thurlow, L.

Todd, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Vernon, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Young, B.

Walston, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I draw attention to the fact that, under the provisions of Clause 5(4), the local authority ought to have the right as well as the parties already named to be heard in the course of any appeal proceedings conducted on behalf of the Secretary of State. A similar point in relation to appeals to the Crown Court arises on Clause 10(4). The Greater London Council have also drawn our attention to these omissions and we hope to put down appropriate Amendments for consideration by your Lordships on Report.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

RESERVOIRS BILL [H.L.]
6.8 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARLY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness BIRK): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Birk.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Viscount Goschen in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Ambit of Act, and interpretation.]
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after "1969" insert" or artificial channel for the continuous flow of water, including a canal, canalised river or other embanked water course;".
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment deals with a point which I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, because it seemed to me to go to the root of it. I raised it because I had had discussions with the British Waterways Board, which is immediately concerned
134
with this problem, and which approached me. In this House one speaks entirely on one's own responsibility, but it seemed to me the point was one of public interest and that it ought to be raised, so that is why I raised it on Second Reading.
I then asked my noble friend Lady Birk whether she would tell me that she would give careful thought between Second Reading and Committee stage to the point about which I was concerned. She has done so, writing me an extremely helpful letter and showing that she has taken a great deal of trouble and has very carefully considered the arguments which I propounded. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend and your Lordships will not think that I am ungrateful or that I am being difficult if I refer to the matter once again in Committee. I have carefully examined her letter and have taken the opportunity of further discussions with the Board. As a result, I feel I can only tell your Lordships that the Board is still very concerned over the matter and that I think its concern is justified.
First, on the question as to whether this is a minor matter on which I ought to trouble your Lordships, I would say this. The British Waterways Board is, after all, a very large public corporation. It originally derived powers which belonged to the Transport Commission and is responsible for all inland waterways in this country. As such it has direct responsibility, so I understand, for something like 2,000 miles of inland waterways, largely consisting of canals. In addition, it is responsible for some 93 reservoirs and under direct responsibility, in relation to them, to take safety measures to prevent what can be extremely serious accidents involving not only property but also loss of life. I hope that if an anxiety which the Board feels is expressed by me in those circumstances, your Lordships will not think that I am dealing with a trivial matter. It is a matter of major public concern.
The anxiety is this. This Bill imposes upon undertakers, including the Board, a number of responsibilities to take precautions to see to it that the public are safeguarded and that accidents do not occur

135
owing to water overflowing from reservoirs. That is a highly laudable purpose which I am quite certain would be supported by everyone in this House. There was a previous Act in 1930 which dealt with the same topic. The major difference between that Act and the present Bill is that this Bill contains the most elaborate enforcement machinery, and indeed contains provisions which would result in an undertaker finding itself criminally liable if it failed to take certain steps. The previous Act did not contain those enforcement provisions.
Therefore one has the situation of a Board with this very heavy public responsibility upon it, faced now—and rightly faced—with enforcement provisions which will have the effect of ensuring that the Board and other undertakers comply with their obligations imposed upon them by this Bill. In those circumstances, I should have thought it was eminently reasonable that the Board, and indeed any other undertaker, should say: "Certainly we will comply with our obligations, but we want to know precisely what is the extent of them." The short question which this Amendment raises is the following one: are they under obligations in respect of the artificial part of canals? If they are, then in the case of the Board this immensely enlarges the scope of its responsibility. It will impose upon the Board a very much greater financial responsibility than it has at the moment.
I recognise at once that it is not the Government's intention that the expression a "reservoir" which they use in the Bill should cover canals. They have made it perfectly plain that they do not mean to include canals in the scope of this Bill. But, as I ventured to point out, the Government and the Executive in this country have no control over the courts. It is not for the Government but for the courts to interpret the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and if the question ever arises as to whether the Board have been guilty of failure in relation to a canal, it is for the courts and not for the Government to determine whether the Board and other undertakers may be under some civil or criminal responsibility as a result.
I hope I have laid the foundation, at any rate, for an argument to the effect that it really is only fair and eminently in
136
the public interest that one should know precisely what is the scope of this Bill, and precisely what is the scope of the obligation which is imposed on undertakers in relation to whatever a reservoir is. However, if a "reservoir" was an expression of precise import, no question would arise, but the whole reason for my moving this Amendment is that the expression "reservoir" is not an expression of precise meaning. My noble friend pointed out in her letter that it is an expression which has been used for a hundred years. It is an expression which was used and has been defined ever since in the 1930 Act, and there is an approximate definition in Clause 1 of this Bill. Neither of those definitions, in my view, imports certainty into the matter.
The doubt which I raise is this. If you have a canal with banks artificially built up, designed to contain water in order to support vessels navigating over it, is there any very obvious reason why a court should not say in due course, when the matter comes before it: "A canal of that sort, to contain water with artificial banks, perhaps having the result of raising the water above the level of the surrounding ground, is within the scope of the expression ' reservoir '. It is a kind of elongated reservoir." A reservoir can have any shape. It can be round or square, so why on earth cannot it be elongated?
If you say "Oh, yes. I know what a reservoir is when I see it", I should like to ask one or two questions. Is the Round Pond in Kensington Gardens a reservoir or not? It exists to have water in it, and children sail their boats upon it. I do not know whether or not in ordinary English parlance one would say that the Round Pond is a reservoir. Why it should not be, I do not know. What excludes it from the category of "reservoir", I cannot think. If I may pursue the question still further, take the pond at the top of Hampstead Hill. It is artificial, at least in part. It is constructed in order, to quote the words of the Bill,
"… that it may contain water as such".
What in the world, in that context, the words "as such" mean, I really do not know. They are really as obscure and unsatisfactory for the purpose of definition as any words could be, I should have thought.
Are those two pools of water reservoirs, or are they not? If not, would my noble friend tell me in terms why they are not reservoirs, and what stops them from being reservoirs. If they are reservoirs, why cannot an elongated canal be a reservoir? It partakes very much of the same feature as characterises those two pools of water. It contains water and it contains it in order that vessels—not children's vessels, but larger ones—can navigate on the surface of the water contained in the canal.
Ordinarily, I should have thought people would probably say that a canal was not a reservoir. But why on earth cannot we have some certainty? Why are Parliamentary counsel—and I have great respect and affection for them—sometimes, at any rate in my view, so obstinate? Why cannot they put in something to set this doubt at rest, so that the Board and other undertakers may adjust their proceedings upon the basis that they can measure up to any responsibility that legislation imposes upon them? The Bill should embody appropriate language to say whether or not the canals for which the Board are responsible are within the scope of this term "reservoir".
I really press upon my noble friend, grateful as I am to her for the trouble she has already taken, that this matter is one which should be further considered between now and Report. I gather that Parliamentary Counsel are anxious that if reservoirs in some way are excluded from the scope of the definition, other things may have to be excluded as well. Why not? If there have to be other exclusions, let us take the bull by the horns and exclude them. Why not exclude them and, instead, rest content with this ambiguous expression "reservoir" which I do not believe anybody could very clearly define.
There are already canals parts of which are blocked up, and which it is not altogether easy to distinguish from an elongated artificial reservoir. I was given the names of three reservoirs: I do not know the particulars of them. The Lancaster Canal has some such features, so do the Crompton Canal and the Grantham Canal. They have features which approximate them, at any rate to some extent, to the characteristics of an elongated reservoir.
I am not asking my noble friend to give me a full answer now. She has obviously carefully considered the arguments which I used before, but which I did not put forward in the detail that I venture to do this evening. I ask her to say that she will not close her mind to the subject but will give further thought to it between now and the Report stage of this Bill, recognising that this is a gigantic public corporation which experiences genuine feelings of anxiety on what it regards as an uncertainty in the terms of this Bill. That is my case. I merely ask my noble friend to say no more than that she recognises that she should not regard the matter as closed. I do not want to ask your Lordships to divide upon it; I want to put that to her and ask her to say that she will give further thought to it, in the hope that some way may be found between now and Report stage of this Bill to set these doubts to rest and to make the ambit of this Bill perfectly clear beyond chance. I beg to move.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has to say in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, because the principle behind his Amendment is similar to the principle behind my Amendment. I am not at all satisfied that the definition of the term "reservoir" is yet right in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord has picked on the specific instance of a canal, and it seems seems to me, on re-reading the Second Reading debate, that it is absolutely clear that it is not the intention of the Bill that canals should be brought within the scope of the Bill at all. I think I am right in saying that when these matters come to court the proceedings in Hansard are not taken into account—it must be the interpretation of the Act as it is passed.
One thing that even my short Parliamentary life has taught me is that it is very necessary to get the definition correct. I am aware that the British Waterways Board have expressed real concern that Clause 1 might apply to their canal system. Apart from anything else, if this were to be so it could involve them in very considerable expense. I do not think that is the real argument today because we are not debating whether canals should or should not be within the

139
terms of this Bill. We are all agreed that they should not. The whole question is to find a way of making certain that they are excluded, and the purpose of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is to make this clear. It may well be there should be other categories of lakes—and I will advance this argument when I come to speak to my Amendment—which ought also to be excluded. I would join with the noble and learned Lord in asking the Government to have another look at this matter, to see whether they can come to Report stage with a better definition.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: I am very grateful for the felicitous way that my noble and learned friend moved his Amendment. Of course I never find him difficult; but I would agree, being married to a lawyer, that lawyers are obstinate. There is however no difference between my noble and learned friend and myself over the aim to be achieved here; and this applies to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. The difference between us is whether in fact there is a doubt. Looking back on the Bills in which I have participated during the time I have been in your Lordships' House, I have always been extremely keen on the particular point that if there is a question of doubt it should be resolved. I always attack anything with that firmly in my mind. I must say after close consideration—and my noble and learned friend is right, I studied very carefully what he said I do not believe that there is in this instance a doubt. I will explain why, and also why I believe that his Amendment would make the definition less clear than it is at the moment. As has been said, it has always been the Government's intention that the Bill should not apply to canals. The point at issue is simply whether it is necessary or desirable to state specifically in the Bill that canals are excluded. When the noble Lord raised this point during the Second Reading debate, I gave him an assurance—as he was good enough to acknowledge—that canals were not covered by the Bill, but I also undertook to look very carefully into what he had said. We have now taken further legal advice. I can assure my noble friend—as I did in my
140
letter to him—that the advice we have received is absolutely clear-cut and leaves no doubt that the Bill as it stands does not apply to canals or any offshoots of canals which my noble and learned friend has mentioned.
This is an interpretation which is well and firmly rooted in past practice. The term "reservoir" has been used in legislation for over a century and in no case has it been found necessary to exclude canals. This is a point which should be taken strongly into consideration. It has been understood throughout this time that canals are not embraced by the term "reservoir" and there has never been any indication to the contrary.
A case very much in point is of course the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act of 1930. During the 44 years that the Act has operated, there has been no suggestion that it covered canals and the British Waterways Board have not of course subjected their canals to inspection under the Act. There are no differences between the interpretation provisions of the 1930 Act and the Bill which are such as to introduce any doubt on the scope of the Bill in relation to canals. The Board have never thought it necessary to apply the requirements of the 1930 Act to their canals and it is hard to understand why they should feel concern about the Bill.
The first point I want to make therefore is that there is no need for any amendment to the Bill to make it clear that canals are not covered. I am also advised that the proposed Amendment would not just be unnecessary; it could indeed do harm by casting doubt both on the scope of the Bill generally and on the use of the term "reservoir" in other legislation. It would carry with it the very undesirable implication that the 1930 Act should be complied with in regard to the structures excluded. The 1930 Act is of course still in force and will continue to operate until any new legislation is commenced. It would surely be unwise to run this risk in the face of legal advice that it is entirely clear that the Bill as it stands does not apply to canals.
The term "reservoir" is defined in the Bill as a "reservoir for water as such". My noble and learned friend queried this phrase. It is one that I have been into carefully myself because I agree it is a

141
rather technical expression. These words "for water as such" have the effect of excluding mine or quarry lagoons, which are sometimes raised above the level of the ground and do, in fact, contain some water. However, they are not designed to store water as such, which means water alone. The words in brackets—which state that the expression "reservoir for water as such" does not include a mine or quarry lagoon which is a tip within the meaning of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969—were included because the 1969 Act prescribed a safety code for such tips and it was thought right to indicate that the two codes laid down by Statute are not in contradiction.
Canals, by contrast, fall outside the scope of the Bill because they are not reservoirs. Here the addition of the words "for water as such" makes no difference in relation to canals and has no relevance to whether or not they are included in the Bill. This is one of the reasons why the Amendment of my noble and learned friend would detract from the definition rather than clarify it. I assure him that I have examined his point with great care. I am personally convinced that there is no need for the Board to have any fears whatsoever on the scope of the Bill. But, in view of the extremely courteous request he has made, and knowing how strongly he feels about this, I will take this matter back again for consideration. I suggest that this time it might be a good idea if he met with the Department's lawyers and Parliamentary Counsel so that there could be a face-to-face attempt to try to sort out what is obviously a rather knotty problem.
Lord STOW HILL: I am most grateful to my noble friend for the way in which she has dealt with this matter, and am entirely content. I will, of course, do anything that I can to assist in resolving what I accept is a knotty problem, and if anybody invites me to attend a meeting I shall be only too happy to do so. In the meantime, I should like sincerely and cordially to thank my noble friend for her courtesy and help, and ask the Committee for leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 2:
142
Page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, which I think follows directly from the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I would say at the outset that this is a probing Amendment designed to clarify the definition of the word "reservoir". Although I realise that the intention of the Bill is to bring up to date the legislation of the 1930 Act on the safety of reservoirs, nevertheless in this clause there is an extension of the definition of the word "reservoir" and it is important that we should get this definition right.
If I have properly understood the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has just elaborated on the reasons why canals would not be included in the present definition, it is largely because in the past legislation has always automatically excluded canals and, therefore, it can be assumed that it is doing so in this case and that they have a quite separate safety code. Suddenly, we have in Clause 1(2) of the Bill the intention to extend the definition of a "reservoir" to include a lake or a loch whether or not use is, or is intended to be, made of the water. So included in the definition of the word "reservoir" is an ornamental pond or an artificial lake or loch.
I am not in principle against an extension of the term 'reservoir" because I can well appreciate that in a Bill the intention of which is to increase the safety of reservoirs it is necessary—particularly in our crowded island—that any danger that there could be from seepage must, of course, be prevented. I entirely accept that. But what I say is that, despite the fact that this is so, this extension, so far as I can see, is not one of the suggestions which were made by the Committee on the Safety of Reservoirs on which the Bill is based and it has therefore been included at a later date. Not only is it something new that has been added, but it seems to me that it could be open to serious objections because a great many people will not be certain whether or not their ornamental lake is included.
I understand that the definition relates to the holding of more than 25,000 cubic metres of water. One finds that that is not a very large size if one does the arithmetic to arrive at what is to me much

143
simpler to understand—the area at the top. The term could therefore by definition include the artificial lakes and ponds of many individuals, lakes and ponds belonging to institutions, and to universities; it could, of course, cover the kind of point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, raised—the Round Pond in Kensington Gardens. Municipal parks of all kinds, so far as I can see, might well find themselves suddenly covered by this definition. Furthermore, it has been pointed out to me that there is a difference in practical terms between an artificial lake in someone's grounds—perhaps, a National Trust property—and an artificially-created loch in the Highlands of Scotland. The dangers caused by one or the other would obviously be very different; if the water is simply emptying on to a moor, or is about to empty on to a village lying just below the estate where the artificial lake is situated. So it may well be that this also is a matter which should be examined and that the definition should be much more tightly drawn than simply relating to the volume of water artificially created. Given that there is to be an extension of the definition, there must be a great deal of publicity about this matter.
I was grateful for the long letter which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, wrote to me answering the points I raised on Second Reading, but it would be helpful to have on the Record the Government's intentions in this matter. Furthermore, it is necessary because of the time-scale. As I understand the Bill, once it becomes law, within nine months owners will be expected to inform the local authorities whether they come into this, or the local authorities, at any rate, will be expected to draw up their register, if not to have already completed it. This is a relatively short space of time. It would be unfortunate if private individuals or private institutions were unaware that they fell within the terms of this Bill.
I would also ask a question about the cost. If the definition of a reservoir is to be extended in this way, does it mean that the local authority pays for the collection of the information for putting these lakes or lochs on the register, or that the individual owner will pay for the tests that have to be made to find out whether they fulfil the requirements of
144
the Bill? Who pays for the monitoring of these lakes, which under the terms of the Bill must be carried out at, I think, three-yearly intervals in the following years? I feel that these are very real, practical problems. May I say that this matter must be looked at again in order to draw more tightly the definition of a reservoir. As I said at the beginning, I am not myself against the extension, because I can see the point of it, but in fairness to the individuals and organisations which could be involved we really must get the definition right. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The subsection which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, wishes to delete extends the Bill to any place where water is artificially retained to form or enlarge a lake or loch, and, as she pointed out, such artificial lake or loch will be affected by the Bill only if it is capable of holding more than 25,000 cubic metres of water above the level of any part of the adjoining land. I will not go again into the point on canals. I answered that point as fully as I could in reply to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. All that I would say is that the noble Baroness made reference to the fact that the only reason why it was accepted that canals should not form part of the Bill was because they had not been part of the Bill for many years.
However, there is another point. Canals are used for the purpose of transit, whereas reservoirs are not. This is another factor which differentiates canals from reservoirs. It seems to me that the effect of deleting the subsection would be to obtain a result which is quite contrary to the result which the noble Baroness wants. It would preserve the uncertainty of the 1930 Act as to whether artificial lakes are covered by the legislation.
The noble Baroness was quite right when she pointed out that the report of the Institution of Engineers, upon which so much of this Bill has been based, did not mention this specific point, but later it was felt, and, I think, felt quite rightly, that this particular section should be included. The deletion would not necessarily eliminate such structures from the scope of the Bill, because in 1964 the West Sussex County Council obtained an order under the 1930 Act requiring an

145
inspection and report to be made on a hammer pond—a pond which was originally constructed to drive a hammer but which is now used for ornament or for fishing; or it may not be used at all. It seemed to be far tidier and also far safer to include such a pond in the new Bill because, as the noble Baroness herself pointed out, 25,000 cubic metres is not an enormous size, and the use made of a stretch of water does not necessarily make any difference to the dangers which it presents. If it is capable of bursting and flooding the surrounding land, an artificial lake is as dangerous as a water storage reservoir and may not, unless included, be subjected to the same rigorous supervision. It is true that many owners of ornamental lakes have complied with the requirements of the 1930 Act. but in bringing this Act up to date and in bringing in a new Bill in order to improve the standards of safety, it seems to us to make sense to enlarge the definition in this way.
The noble Baroness referred to the question of publicity, and I welcome the opportunity to put on record what the Government have in mind concerning publicity. May I therefore thank the noble Baroness for giving me this opportunity. A wide range of interests has already been consulted on the Bill, and I can let any noble Lords who are interested have a copy of the list. They include the Confederation of British Industry, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association. Their members will presumably be made aware of the Bill through their membership of these organisations, and also the readers of a number of trade and technical publications in which the Bill has been reported.
However, after enactment we intend to take steps to publish guidance and to contact representative bodies. Under Clause 24(4) every local authority will have a duty to publicise the requirements for undertakers to notify the enforcement authority of reservoirs not later than nine months after the commencement of the Act. This duty will run for the first three months after commencement. If people are informed, together with the publicity that we intend to give to this, I do not think that nine months is a short time.
146
So far as cost is concerned, as I understand it the undertakers will notify the enforcement authorities of their reservoirs. That is not a very great cost. So far as notification is concerned, all that the local authorities have to do is to enter these in a register. With the exception, perhaps, of one or two local authority areas, one in England and one in Scotland, there is not a very large number of reservoirs in any local authority area, so this can involve only a small amount of clerical work.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for not pressing her Amendment, which in any case I am afraid I should not be able to accept.
Viscount LONG: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her answer to the Amendment of my noble friend. May I say that most of what I have written down has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and my noble friend Lady Young. However, I come back to one point. I do not think that we are defining how big, or how large, or what area a reservoir should be. So far as I can see, we have 25,000 cubic metres written into the Bill. For my part, I feel that a better measurement could be taken, such as acreage or hectares, where not only the quantity of water would be included but also some measurement of how big or large a reservoir should be. I am very glad that we have dispensed already with the canal system because I feel that to try to bring in canals—canals being in such a bad way at the present time—would be asking for trouble. Therefore one isolates canals and looks just at lochs, swimming pools and areas of water. One looks at what height they should be, or how one should define them in height, and at whether they are at ground level, or whether they are raised reservoirs. When one looks at water, any water, the smallest pool, is a reservoir. Therefore in thanking the noble Baroness, may I leave her with those points.
Baroness BIRK: I thank the noble Viscount for his support over the question of canals. If I may deal with the point upon which he put a question, frankly,

147
and without being by any means a technical expert on this, it seems to me to make sense to measure water in terms of water measurement. I do not think that I should be happy if people started to measure fields for me in cubic metres. May I rest my case on that.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her answer to the various points which I have raised. It is now very much a question of looking at the record to see what she has said. As I said at the beginning, I do not intend to press the Amendment, but it may well be that in the light of her answer we shall move another Amendment on Report.
Before we leave this Amendment, may I ask for one point about cost to be clarified? Am I right in thinking that in compiling the register and the subsequent monitoring of reservoirs, whether they are used for the storage of water or whether they are ornamental lakes or lochs, the cost does not fall upon the owner but falls upon the local authority? This is of particular importance to the private owner.
Baroness BIRK: As I understand it—and if by any chance I am shown to be wrong I will immediately let the noble Baroness know—the question of registering it with the local authority must be undertaken by the local authority and is a minimal clerical cost; it is done by employees who are already there. The noble Baroness spoke about monitoring. I think she was there referring to all the other clauses which cover what the undertakers have to do in the Bill—and that cost is covered by the undertakers.
Baroness YOUNG: In fact what the noble Baroness is saying is that the private individual would therefore have to pay for the regular inspections?
Baroness BIRK: That is so.
Baroness YOUNG: I think this is a very important point to get absolutely clear. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Registration of large raised reservoirs, and enforcement of Act, by local authorities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.51 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: I wish to raise a point on this clause because I submit that subsections (5) and (6) are quite unnecessarily obscure and complex. Clause 2 establishes the obligation on a local authority to keep a register, and subsection (3) provides that the local authority in whose area the reservoir is situated is to be what is subsequently described as the "enforcement authority", whose business it is to see that the obligations which the Bill creates are in fact carried out.
I should have thought that subsections (3) and (4) go a long way towards achieving the whole object that the Parliamentary draftsmen have in mind. Subsection (3) says that the local authority in whose area a reservoir is situated shall be the enforcement authority; subsection (4) deals with the case where the reservoir is in the area of several authorities, and it says that in that case the enforcement authority must be the authority among those that they agree upon or which is determined by the Secretary of State to be the appropriate enforcement authority. I should have thought that was what the clause was intended to do.
Then one proceeds into what I must confess is, in my view, quite unnecessarily obscure. I took steps to ask that an intimation might be given to my noble friend that I should be asking questions on these lines: can she really explain what the Parliamentary draftsmen desire to achieve by subsections (5) and (6)? In regard to subsection (5) I can see the purpose, although I must confess that I do not think it is very well expressed; subsection (6) seems to be wholly unnecessarily obscure, and I simply fasten on one aspect of it. I look at the words which are included in brackets at lines 9 and 10, and which read
"(and, where the context so requires. includes the authority that would be so charged if the reservoir were a large raised reservoir)"
I do not know whether my noble friend can indicate to me where it is that "the context so requires". Can she point to

149
texts in this Bill which require that the authority should be the enforcement authority "if the reservoir were a large raised reservoir"? I thought that was always the case and I really cannot see the purpose of those words.
If my noble friend says that she is not precisely briefed on that I shall understand and I sympathise with her. But I think this is really—and I do not wish to mince my words—thoroughly bad drafting, and in raising this point on the Question, Whether the Clause stand part of the Bill? what I am really asking her to do is to take these two subsections back and to ask her advisers to consider them further, to see whether some degree of simplicity and intelligibility could be introduced into them, which at the moment seems to be absent. It really is not fair on the subject that he should be required to conform to the provisions of Acts of Parliament unless they are reasonably intelligible.
Baroness BIRK: I hope I can explain the meaning to my noble and learned friend. Curiously enough, I picked them out myself for some further explanation, and when I have given that explanation I am also quite prepared to take them back to have them looked at to see whether it is felt that they are in fact as clear as they should be.
Clause 2(5), to which my noble and learned friend referred, is, as I think he agreed, fairly clear. What it means is that where a reservoir extends into the area of more than one local authority they have to agree among themselves which is to be the enforcement authority. In other words, one must be the enforcement authority; the task cannot be shared. If, however, one of these authorities is the undertaker, Clause 2(5) ensures that this authority cannot be the enforcement authority upon its own reservoir. I should have thought that this made good sense and was also an important point so far as enforcement is concerned.
Clause 2(6), which I agree is a little more complicated, certainly for the layman, defines the term "enforcement authority" and ensures that a local authority cannot be the enforcement authority for a reservoir wholly within its area. The words in brackets to which my noble friend referred, which are:
150
"(and, where the context so requires, includes the authority that would be so charged if the reservoir were a large raised reservoir)",
are inserted to make clear that the enforcement authority has certain functions regarding structures which at the material time are not large raised reservoirs. For example, under Clause 21 undertakers have to inform local authorities of their intention to increase the capacity of a reservoir in order to make it a large raised reservoir. Under Clause 8 an enforcement authority which has reason to believe that a reservoir is being enlarged to make it a large raised reservoir but that no qualified civil engineer is responsible for the work, can take action against the undertakers to require them to appoint a qualified civil engineer.
I think I should add that if a local authority's reservoir extends into the territory of another local authority or authorities, then one of those other local authorities will be the enforcement authority under Clause 2(5). The local authority must report to the Secretary of State as to the way in which they have discharged their duties, both as undertaker and enforcement authority under Clause 3 of the Bill. This of course refers to where the reservoir is contained within the area of just one local authority and is in order to safeguard and control the position of the undertaker being the enforcement authority at the same time. In this way any shortcomings of undertakers of a reservoir entirely within their area would become known to the Secretary of State, who could order an inquiry. I think I should add that criminal liabilities under the Bill apply to local authorities as to other undertakers. I hope that has made the matter clear to my noble and learned friend.
Lord STOW HILL: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for having taken all that trouble to expound the purpose of the draftsmen in choosing this language, but I hope that between now and Report she will give it further consideration to try to simplify this, I think, wholly unnecessarily complicated language.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Qualification of engineers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.0 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: Clause 4 is, of course, a technical clause entirely concerned with the qualifications of the engineers. There are two specific points which I would like to ask, but before I do so I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will confirm that I am reading the Bill correctly. It says in subsection (1) that the panels shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, and he will be appointing them on the advice of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I think that is correct, but I should like to be assured of that.
The two specific points that have been put to me are for clarification of subsection (4), which sets out in considerable detail—more detail than the 1930 Act—the position of people appointed to these panels. Under subsection (4)(a), what happens if an engineer wishes to resign from one of the panels? Presumably he is entitled to do so. Although so much detail is spelt out this is not included. My second question is on subsection (4)(b) which might be read, at least by someone like myself, as a statutory extension of the terms of a contractual agreement, and therefore implies an extension of that agreement written into the Bill. I cannot think that that is what is intended. It is probable that I am not reading it correctly, but I should like to have an assurance from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that that is not so. If she cannot give me this very detailed information at this point, I shall be perfectly happy if she will write to me on the subject so that I can consider her reply before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: As regards the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on subsection (4)(a) about an engineer resigning when he wishes, this must be the position. We could not possibly have a situation where someone did not have the right to resign if he wished so to do. But, obviously, it will be tied in the same manner as other appointments by the period of notice which is part of the agreement. The second point raised by the noble Baroness is a little more complicated, at least for me. I do not suppose that for the experts it is so complicated. Rather than taking
152
an inspired guess—although I think I know the answer—I should prefer to write to the noble Baroness about it.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Certificates of construction engineers]:
7.3 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7, line 26, leave out "(unless otherwise stated)".
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment, with Amendment No. 4, is consequential on the substantive Amendment to Clause 20, which is Amendment No. 12 in the Marshalled List. With permission, I should now like to speak to all three Amendments. These three Amendments consist of a substantive Amendment to Clause 20 and two consequential Amendments. Clause 20 is headed, General provisions as to reports, certificates, etc., of engineers. Under Clause 20(5), as the Bill stands at present, where an engineer has been appointed after notice by the enforcement authority for the purposes of Clause 8, his certificate as to the execution of works which he has to send to the enforcement authority need not include the annex containing drawings and descriptions of works.
Although this annex is not strictly necessary to the enforcement function, we think it desirable that copies of it should be held by the enforcement authority, to ensure that essential information about a reservoir is not lost through change of ownership, or some other cause. Deletion of subsection (5) of Clause 20 would achieve this. This would be consistent with the requirement that a copy of the certificate of completion of works by the construction engineer, which he is required to send to the enforcement authority, must also be accompanied by the annex. Therefore the words, "unless otherwise stated" in Clauses 7 and 8 refer to the exclusion of the annex provided for in Clause 20(5). On deletion of the latter, to which I hope the Committee will agree, these words then become superfluous. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her explanation of this point which I think is quite

153
clear. But I should like to ask one question on it. What happens in the case of a statutory authority or an undertaker which may not have the original documents? These may have become misplaced. After all, I believe that some reservoirs are of considerable age. What happens in such a case? This is no doubt a somewhat unlikely occurrence, but I can imagine it being possible. It does not particularly arise on Clause 20, but it does on Clause 24. It seemed to me that it was a point worth raising on this Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: It seems to me that when the documents are not in existence they cannot be produced or stored. There would just have to be notification that there was not an annex in a certain case, and that would have to be the end of it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, herself pointed out, where these drawings and descriptions of works are available and in existence, but for which we have not made provision, they should be stored with the local authority.
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount LONG: May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, a short question on Clause 7? Clause 7(2) refers to a "construction engineer", but I notice that as the Bill goes on it moves from the term "construction engineer" to "civil engineer" and "engineer in charge". I am given to understand that in the previous Bill, or in the Institution of Civil Engineers, the terminology is just "engineer". I wonder whether the noble Baroness could enlighten me on this point, because unless we tidy up this Bill the authorities will not know which type of engineer is to be in charge or otherwise. It is a very small point, but perhaps the noble Baroness could clear it up.
Baroness BIRK: I take the point. It is perfectly true, at first glance, that there seem to be a great many labels attached to the engineer. It is quite clearly set out in the various clauses what are the functions of the engineer concerned, and it is the functions that vary according to the nature of the responsibility of the work. For instance, the object of the construction engineer is to design
154
and supervise the construction or alteration of a large raised reservoir, and he or she would be appointed by the undertakers. The construction engineer will also have to issue certificates governing the filling and use of a large raised reservoir.
The inspecting engineer is the person who makes the periodical inspection and report, who is also appointed by the undertakers. The supervising engineer is the only one of the category who has what I think I would call a continuous job. It is his job to supervise the reservoir, advise the undertakers on safety aspects of its behaviour, and recommend when a special inspection is needed under Clause 10. He is also appointed by the undertakers.
The qualified engineer acts as a construction engineer in the event of noncompliance with the requirements as to construction or enlargement of reservoirs. I think I should say that we all realise that all these people are qualified engineers, but their functions vary and obviously their experience will vary as well. The qualified civil engineer is appointed by the undertakers in response to the enforcement authority's notice; this is under Clause 8. Under Clause 9, the qualified civil engineer has to make inspection and report on the re-use of an abandoned reservoir and issues certificates governing filling and use, and he also supervises the carrying out of safety methods recommended in the periodical inspection report. So if something results from an inspection engineer's report, then he has to see it is carried out and certify completion.
The 1930 Act requires the construction of reservoirs to be under the supervision of a qualified engineer, and requires the inspection of reservoirs at intervals of not more than ten years. There have been no difficulties about the supply of engineers for these duties, and we do not expect any difficulties over the supply of qualified engineers for the somewhat increased duties specified in the Bill.
I think the noble Viscount will find, as I am sure he has already, that all these different categories have been defined in the appropriate places in the Bill. I looked through it myself, because again at first glance it struck me that there are a lot of descriptive labels; but it seems

155
to me that it is the right way to do it, because it does pin down in the various clauses what the function of the particular engineer is. If we had an overall generic phrase, "qualified engineer" or "qualified civil engineer", there would be a certain amount of doubt as to what their functions were under a particular clause.
Viscount LONG: May I thank the noble Baroness for that very able answer, because to go through the ranks of the consulting engineers or civil engineers is really something. I am most grateful to her for explaining it.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Powers of enforcement authority in event of non-compliance with requirements as to construction or enlargement of reservoirs]:
Baroness BIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 6, leave out ("(unless otherwise stated)")—(Baroness Birk.)
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Periodical inspection of large raised reservoirs]:
7.14 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 11, line 43, after ("effect") insert (", after consulting where practicable with the inspecting engineer who has made the recommendation,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment deals with a small point, but I would submit it is a useful Amendment which would be likely to improve the working of the scheme embodied in the Bill. Clause 10 deals with the inspection engineers, and the Amendment which I propose relates to subsection (7) of Clause 10. That subsection provides that if an enforcement authority finds a situation in which—and I refer to paragraph (b)—the inspection engineer has made,
"… a recommendation as to measures to be taken in the interests of safety that has not been carried into effect as so required",
it can serve a notice on the undertaker requiring the undertaker inter alia to
156
carry out the recommendation contained in the inspecting engineer's report.
The Amendment which I would submit is desirable is one which would require the notice to specify that the recommendation is to be carried out by the undertaker
"after consulting where practicable with the inspecting engineer who has made the recommendation".
I accept that sometimes it may be difficult, sometimes impossible, to get in touch with the inspecting engineer, and that therefore it is not practicable to make it an absolute obligation to consult him. All that my Amendment does is to try to prevent duplicity of thinking, to try to bring it about that when the undertaker complies with the notice its representative will first, at any rate, have spoken to or have had some sort of discussion with the inspecting engineer.
A recommendation is not always expressed in the fullest and most explicit terms, and it is felt by those with whom I have been able to consult that the Bill would work better if there is, not an absolute obligation to consult with the inspecting engineer, but that wherever practicable in the circumstances the engineer whom the undertaker appoints to carry out the requirements contained in the notice should consult with the inspecting engineer. I move the Amendment because I submit that it will improve the working of the Bill. It may well be said, "Obviously he would do that anyhow", but it is not unuseful in my submission to the Committee, to have, as it were, in the letter of the Act a reminder that such consultation is, where practicable, to be embarked upon. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The principle on which the Bill is based, as my noble friend knows and indicated, is that all technical matters arising from the construction and maintenance of reservoirs should be entrusted to the qualified civil engineer. An enforcement authority which intended to serve a notice on an undertaker who has failed to carry out the recommendations would certainly need to seek the advice of a qualified civil engineer in fixing the time limits for the work. We have in fact had it in mind to advise enforcement authorities to do this in the guidance we propose

157
to issue after enactment. Therefore, I am most certainly in agreement with the general purpose of my noble friend's Amendment.
It is not, however, if he will forgive my saying so, quite satisfactory in detail. The wording leaves a doubt as to whether it is the enforcement authority or the undertaker who has to consult the inspecting engineer. But, more important, it would be undesirable to limit in any way the discretion of the enforcement authority over which engineer to consult. The inspecting engineer might be unavailable, and there could be circumstances in which the enforcement authority thought it preferable to consult another engineer; for example, where a start had been made on work, this might be the engineer employed to supervise it. A preferable approach, I should have thought, would be to require the enforcement authority to consult simply a qualified civil engineer, leaving the choice to it. If my noble friend will agree to withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake to put down a Government Amendment on these lines at a later stage.
Lord STOW HILL: I am most grateful to my noble friend for her extremely helpful answer, and I think that her arguments were convincing. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord STOW HILL: In line 27, on page 11, has not the word "that" been omitted in the expression "as soon as he is satisfied it is so"? It is a small point, but Parliamentary Counsel might just look at it.
Baroness BIRK: It seems right to me, but I think I had better take it back for examination by Parliamentary Counsel.
Clause 10 agreed to. Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Supervision of large raised reservoirs]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.22 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: I thought it better to seek to speak on the Question, That the clause stand part? rather than move the Amendment, because the Amendment docs not really achieve what the Board with which I consulted have in mind. What I would venture to say to your Lordships on the Question, That the clause stand part? is that the Board are concerned that this obligation imposed upon them with regard to the supervising engineer will impose a very considerable strain on them. They will not, so they believe—bearing in mind the wide scope of their responsibilities—be able to supply supervising engineers from engineers on their own staff. There are simply not enough of them, and the work would be beyond that which they could undertake. That would mean that they would have to look for engineers outside.
It is not easy to recruit engineers of this standing outside. No doubt it can be done in due course, but it would take time and, in addition, it would involve considerable expense. Therefore, I think it right to say to the Committee that the Board—I speak for the Board because they are the only undertakers with whom I have been in contact—will, of course, do their level best to comply with their obligations. However, they think it right to state now that it would probably mean that they would have to undertake considerable expense in excess of that which they are really able to carry at the moment, and that it may take time, and create difficulty, to recruit the additional staff that they would require to supply the necessary number of supervising engineers in addition to those engineers who are already on their staff.
Baroness BIRK: It is true that there will be a new panel of supervising engineers to carry out this function. I would point out that the qualifications for appointment to this panel have yet to be decided, but they are likely to be such that some engineers who are not qualified for appointment to the existing panels as inspecting engineers—possibly by reason of experience, or for other reasons—would qualify as supervising engineers. We must remember that it is also true that supervising engineers will undoubtedly each have responsibility for several reservoirs. We are not envisaging a situation where there is one engineer to

159
one reservoir. It is impossible at the moment to know how many, since this would depend on the distribution of the reservoirs and the quality of supervision which exists at lower levels than that of the supervising engineer.
A supervising engineer could be an existing employee of an undertaking, which means that he would already be involved there in other work as well, or he may be employed in a part-time consultative capacity. In general, we anticipate that he will be an existing employee of the undertaking. We do not envisage that supervising engineers will necessarily have experience of designing and constructing dams. I shall not enlarge again on this point since I dealt partially with it in answering the noble Viscount, Lord Long.
Clause 4 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to determine the qualifications for appointment to the panel of supervising engineers, and perhaps my noble friend will be reassured to know that these qualifications will be determined after consultation with interested bodies. We shall try to ensure that the qualifications are such that sufficient qualified people come forward for appointment without prejudicing the important part they have to play.
I can assure noble Lords that the points which have been raised will all be taken into consideration when determining the manner of appointment of supervising engineers. Speaking personally, I hope that there will be greater encouragement and opportunity for women to enter this field. One of the reasons why the Institution of Civil Engineers support the provision that the supervising engineers should not be independent—which was the substance of the Amendment that my noble friend was good enough to withdraw—is so that the construction engineer would be able to become the supervising engineer in the early years of the reservoir's life. Finally, I should point out that the Institution of Civil Engineers, in its report, recommended the appointment of supervising engineers. I have confirmed that they are well aware of the contents of the Bill, and they have not expressed a view that insufficient supervising engineers will be available. I feel that if there had been any disquiet about this point, then the Institution of Civil
160
Engineers would certainly have contacted us about it, but we have received no representations.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very glad to have that explanation because, in view of the observations made by my noble friend Lord Long on this complicated series of definitions of an engineer, it is important that we shall not have, as I understand it, the possibility of yet another definition being introduced of one who might be an outsider and not a construction engineer, a supervising engineer, or a qualified engineer within the meaning of the Bill. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has a point, because there is a great variation in the numbers of reservoirs in different parts of the country. I understand that some water authorities have up to 100 reservoirs in their area, and therefore they will require many more of these people than other authorities. In the drawing up of these panels, it will be necessary for there to be enough people in the right areas for them to be able to do that work. Can we have the assurance of the noble Baroness on this point?
Baroness BIRK: It is very difficult at this stage for me to give a detailed assurance so far as different areas are concerned. The numbers of reservoirs within different local authority areas vary enormously. But taking into account, as I have already said, the consultations with the bodies concerned and the note we are taking of the comments which have been made during Second Reading and at this Committee stage, I think I must come back to the overriding purpose of the Bill, which is to improve the safety standards of reservoirs. We have to start from that point, and from there discover the best way to find and equip the necessary supervising engineers. At this stage I have no reason to believe that any difficulties are envisaged.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Emergency Powers]:
7.30 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 15, line 37, after ("reservoir") insert (", after first consulting with the undertakers where practicable,")
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is very much on a par with the Amendment which I moved a moment ago. It requires that the enforcement authority, when it decides that emergency action is necessary, shall first consult with the undertakers concerned. That wording is qualified by the addition of the words "where practicable". I accept at once that you may have emergency action which is necessary and which must be taken at once, and that any question of consulting anybody cannot be seriously entertained. On the other hand, the urgency may not be as great as all that, and those with whom I have consulted point out to me that when you operate reservoir safety precautions and have to bear in mind the volume of water, the escape provisions for water and the area to which the water is to be permitted to escape in case of need, a great deal of expertise is required. It is all one scheme, and knowledge as to the features of the scheme is in the assumed circumstances, possessed, almost exclusively, by the undertakers themselves.
In those circumstances, again it was thought that the Bill would work better if, when there arises the question of emergency measures to be taken, those who decide to take them should, before they embark on the task of carrying out the emergency measures, at least where practicable contact the undertakers and ask what are the relevant circumstances which they should bear in mind in deciding how to deal with the emergency. That is what the Amendment does. It does not, I submit, impose any unreasonable burden on anybody, and because the words "where practicable" are present, it does not inhibit the enforcement authority from carrying out at once necessary measures in order to eliminate all delay, and proceeding at once to carry out the safety precautions. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has to say on this matter. It touches on a point I raised on Second Reading, about the necessary staff which an enforcement authority must have. The enforcement authorities under this Bill are the local authorities, county councils, the GLC and the district and island authorities in Scotland, and they are most unlikely themselves to have this kind of
162
highly qualified staff, a point I think which was accepted by the Government when we discussed this on Second Reading. We all hope that it will be extremely unlikely that they will have to deal with emergencies or enforcement in this way. I quite accept, and I think I am right in saying, that there has been no emergency since the 1930 Act. Nevertheless, this provision is quite rightly written into the Bill, and it seems to me that the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is a very practical one. It appears to be a very sensible suggestion that wherever possible the undertakers should be consulted, because almost certainly they will have the staff and will know all about the reservoir in question. I hope the noble Baroness will very seriously consider these points.
Baroness BIRK: With respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, this is not anything like the same as his Amendment to Clause 10. Clause 16 deals with emergency powers, which is an entirely different situation. It is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, very unlikely that a reservoir supervised and inspected as required by the Bill would suddenly become so unsafe as to require emergency action. If it did, it is likely that the undertakers would be the first to hear of it. If the news reached the enforcement authority first, it would get in touch with the undertakers immediately—it would be almost a reflex action. We cannot, however, fetter it in such a way as to create delay in the exercise of its emergency functions. We are talking only of circumstances in an emergency, which makes the situation quite different from that raised on other clauses and by the noble Baroness on Second Reading.
To make it a statutory requirement that the authority should consult "where practicable" with the undertaker before taking any action, would open the way to subsequent dispute as to whether the authority had done all it could to contact the undertaker, and to cover itself the authority might be inclined to delay taking action while continuing its attempt to contact the undertakers. I submit that where lives may be at stake an inhibition of this kind is not acceptable. I urge the Committee to recognise that we are talking of something which we hope will never happen but which would

163
be a situation of such emergency that there should be no hampering. I think that would be the unfortunate result if an Amendment of this sort were accepted. Therefore, regretfully I have to resist my noble and learned friend's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Powers of entry]:
7.38 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 17, line 23, after ("entry") insert ("(which where practicable specifies the nature of the works to be carried out)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This, again, is not dissimilar from previous Amendments I have moved. Clause 17 deals with the case in which the emergency authority authorises its representative to go upon the undertaker's property in order to discharge the functions specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1). All that the Amendment does—and again I stress that it is very modest, but I hope not unuseful—is to require that the representative—
"where practicable specifies the nature of the works to be carried out"
Paragraph (d) provides that the representative may enter the land in question—
"for the purpose of carrying out any survey or other operation needed to determine whether any or what measures should be taken under section 16 above. …"
It is not unuseful, I would submit, supposing a situation has developed in which the enforcement authority may feel that some sort of emergency action is necessary under Clause 16, that it should be able in consequence to send in to the land its authorised representative to survey the situation and decide what measures ought to be taken in order to deal with the emergency. If that is the situation which is envisaged it is not unreasonable to provide that that representative, when he goes on the land, should give some indication to the undertaker as to what works he has in mind and what type of operation may be involved. It may greatly help him, it would avoid ignorance on his part which may be no fault of his but which may
164
hamper him in lighting on the best method of approach, and it would generally promote an interchange of information which cannot be unuseful. That is the simple purpose of this very modest Amendment. Again it is qualified by the words "where practicable" which are the important words. I would submit that it would improve the Bill and I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My noble friend has clearly explained the effect of this Amendment. I will say only that its purposes are that the enforcement authority has power to enter upon land and where notice of intended entry has to be given under Clause 17 to determine whether a reservoir is classified within the ambit of the Bill, and to exercise the reserve powers in Clause 15. It would be surprising if in either of these situations the undertaker was unaware of why the enforcement authority wanted to enter upon his land. But the normal practice would be for the authority to indicate the reason in its notice of intended entry.
If an authority were to serve a notice without a reason being given, the undertaker would be likely to refuse entry. This would lead the authority to seek a warrant from a justice of the peace under Clause 17(5), who would then have to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for entry. However, while I believe that the way in which the Bill is drafted should not cause undertakers to fear unreasonable behaviour on the part of enforcement authorities, I am wholly in sympathy with the purpose of my noble friend's Amendment. If he will agree to withdraw it I shall arrange for a Government Amendment to be tabled at a later stage, simply because, unfortunately, due to lack of time—and through no fault of my noble friend—the drafting has not yet been considered as carefully as we should wish.
Lord STOW HILL: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for yet one more of her helpful answers. In view of what she said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [General provisions as to reports, certificates etc. of engineers]:
7.42 p.m.
Baronness BIRK Baronness BIRK moved Amendment No.11: Page 20, line 19, at end insert——
"( ) Where an enforcement authority receive a certificate of an engineer acting for the purposes of section 13 above or a copy of such a certificate, and the reservoir is situated partly in the area of another local authority not being the undertakers, the enforcement authority shall send a copy of the certificate to that other local authority."
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple and short Amendment. Clause 13 provides that where a large raised reservoir is altered, under the supervision of a qualified civil engineer who certifies that the alteration has been completed satisfactorily, and it is no longer capable of holding more that 25,000 cubic metres, the enforcement authority shall remove it from its register. The Amendment ensures that when the altered reservoir extends into the areas of other local authorities, they will receive a copy of the engineer's certificate and will, therefore, remove the reservoir from their register. This is a tidying-up Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I have already referred to Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 20, leave out subsection (5).—(Baroness Birk.)
Clause 21 [Duty of undertakers to furnish information]:
Baroness BIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. Since the provisions of the Bill apply only to large raised reservoirs, it is necessary to insert the word "raised." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 4, after "large" insert "raised".—(Baroness Birk.)
7.45 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 21, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) with copies of the reports made by inspecting engineers on any statutory inspection of the reservoir; and".
The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 together. The effect of these two Amendments will be to ensure that any engineer appointed for the purposes of this legislation shall have available to him the inspecting engineer's reports on any statutory inspection. As the Bill stands at present there is possible ambiguity in paragraph (c), suggesting that only the report of the last inspection may be required and only if the engineer asks for it. By these Amendments the engineer will have a picture of the behaviour of the reservoir over as long a period as possible. In addition, they will make it clear that the Bill keeps the corresponding provision of the 1930 Act unchanged. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 28, leave out from "require" to end of line 29.—(Baroness Birk.)
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Notification to local authorities of existing reservoirs]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 23, line 35, leave out from "it" to end of line 36.
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is the same as that of the Amendment to Clause 20(5); that is, to ensure that the enforcement authority has an opportunity to copy any drawings and descriptions of works. Although this is not strictly necessary to the authority's enforcement function, it is a safeguard against loss of this information through change of ownership. I beg to move.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Reservoirs constructed before commencement of previous Act];
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 25, line 27, leave out from "above" to end of line 28.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is of the same pattern as those which I have previously moved. Its purpose is the same as that of the Amendments to Clause 20(5) and Clause 24(2)(b); that is, to ensure that the enforcement authority has an opportunity to copy any drawings or descriptions of works. Although this is not strictly necessary to the authority's function, it is a safeguard against loss of this information through change of ownership. I beg to move.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

MILK (EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF CONTROL OF MAXIMUM PRICES) ORDER 1974
7.48 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to move, That the Draft Milk (Extension of Period of Control of Maximum Prices) Order 1974, laid before the House on 5th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: The present statutory powers to fix maximum prices for milk stem from the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964. Section 6 of that Act extended the Government's powers to control milk prices until 31st December, 1969, with provision for renewal by Order in Council for further periods of five years. In 1969 Parliament approved an Order in Council extending the Government's powers until 31st December, 1974, and the purpose of the Draft Order now before the House is to extend these powers for a further period of five years.
My Lords, the price orders which are made under these powers concern retail prices. Therefore, the question before the House is whether the Government, as has been the case with previous Governments
168
over the last thirty years, shall have power to control the retail price of milk. Successive Governments have had this power for, I think, two reasons. The first is the nature of the market. In the case of milk, first-hand sales are made by the milk marketing boards, and at the other end of the scale the processing, packaging and distribution of milk to the doorstep is very largely in the hands of a number of very large distributors. But there is another reason, and that is the importance of milk in the national diet. As a nation we drink about 1,650 million gallons of milk, and the value, including the subsidy, exceeds £1,000 million. Milk is therefore one of the most important items in the food diet. Given the nature and importance of the market, it is not surprising, perhaps, that successive Administrations have taken the view that Government should be in a position to ensure that producers and distributors get a reasonable return, and that milk reaches the final consumer at a reasonable price. Powers to fix maximum retail prices are essential to this objective at the present time, and I therefore hope that the House will approve this Draft Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Milk (Extension of Period of Control of Maximum Prices) Order 1974, laid before the House on 5th November, be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
7.52 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for giving such a very clear and concise explanation of this Order. There are, however, a few points on which I think we should be very grateful to have his further assurance. In the first instance, my Lords, I should like to express concern in one matter, and that is in regard to the supply position. The noble Lord will be aware that at the present moment milk for manufacturing purposes—that is, for processing through various means for the manufacture of butter, cheese and also dried products—is down by 60 per cent. I think the noble Lord will be able to confirm that either little or no butter is being produced in the United Kingdom in present circumstances from home-produced milk. In view of the present position, does he believe that the Order as set out at the present moment gives a sufficient flexibility and control over our affairs?

169
In the second place, while appreciating what the noble Lord has said in regard to the reserve powers which Governments have retained over the last thirty years, does he not recognise that a five-year period appears to be rather longer than may perhaps be necessary in present circumstances? All I require, my Lords, is an assurance that in the Government's view this is entirely satisfactorily. Finally, I should like to stress once again the rather uncertain position in regard to the present situation vis-à-vis Europe. Perhaps the noble Lord can assure us that if we pass this Order it will in no way affect the present negotiations being conducted in Brussels.
7.54 p.m.
The EARL of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has most eloquently expressed the view of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of this maximum milk price Order; and I should like also to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, on the questions that he has raised. Unfortunately, a great problem is looming on the horizon due to the fact that there will be an acute shortage of milk in the shops in the near future for the simple reason that the dairy farmer is rapidly being forced to leave the industry. Indeed, my Lords, I myself have been driven to your Lordships' House. We have already had a warning from the Milk Marketing Board that dairy products for Christmas could well be in jeopardy, and that if dairy supplies fall by more than the amount already forecast we shall have to import cream. This has been brought about by the lack of confidence which the dairy industry has today, coupled with the high consumer demand for milk, which has been stimulated by Government subsidies.
I should like to mention briefly what it costs the dairy farmer to keep a cow, as I feel this is pertinent to the Motion we are debating this evening. To maintain a cow costs £1·21 a day, and if the animal is happy, healthy and yielding three and a half gallons of milk a day the farmer makes a profit of about 5p. However, out of this 5p he has to pay wages (which have increased, due to the threshold payment rises, eleven times in seven months), lighting, refrigeration, rates, veterinary bills, insurance, fuel,
170
fertilisers and the maintenance of his dairy equipment, as well as innumerable other expenses. This shows that in actual fact the farmer is losing money every minute of the day, and that the entire dairy industry is heading for total disaster and bankruptcy. If the price of milk to the consumer was increased by 1p per pint, this would cost the pint-a-day consumer £3·65 extra a year, which is equivalent to less than half-a-pint of beer a week. Where is our sense of values? If we are to have this maximum price Order continued for a further five years, let it at least be at a realistic figure so that the farmer, who is currently being used as a political football, will not be kicked to bankruptcy and we may have a healthy, thriving and expanding dairy industry, to the benefit of our whole nation.
7.58 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would first thank the two noble Lords who have taken part in this mini-debate on the Milk Order. I shall try to answer the questions which have been raised. The first, I think, was the question of the shortage of milk. My Lords, there is no shortage of milk for liquid consumption. The margin of production over liquid demand fluctuates, and is at its lowest in the winter; but it is still substantial, and supplies for liquid consumption are not at risk. Sales have increased by about 2 per cent. over last year. Because earlier this year the hoped-for expansion of milk production did not materialise, supplies of milk for manufacturing have been lower than had been expected. In spite of this, home production of cheese is forecast to increase by about 35,000 tons. On the other hand, there has been a substantial drop in butter production. The recent measures that the Government have taken were designed to help stimulate milk production and thus give more milk for, particularly, the liquid market and also for manufacture.
So far as flexibility is concerned, the powers which the Government would have, as has been the case with past Governments, would be permissive. There is therefore flexibility. So far as the period of five years is concerned, this has always been the period and we see no reason why it should be altered now. Furthermore, there are special reasons

171
why there should be this power at the present time. Milk is being subsidised by this Administration as it was by the former Administration, and when you subsidise you have to take some steps to try to ensure that the subsidy reaches the consumer—and you can best do that by the control of retail prices. So far as the EEC is concerned, this Order is concerned with the control of retail prices. That is not forbidden by the rules of the EEC, and most of the countries of the EEC in fact control the retail prices of milk. So we should not expect any difficulty there.
My Lords, on profitability, the measures that the Government took in October had the effect of increasing the returns of milk producers by some 8p a gallon over the winter months, October to March. These took account of the high cost of feeding stuffs and the present low returns on culled cows and calves. The more recent measures taken for beef may give additional help here. The October award was worth about £100 million. It should give the industry new confidence to reverse the decline of milk production and put dairy farmers in a position to expand their production. The 1975 Annual Review which is just about to start will involve a detailed examination of all factors affecting the dairy industry. It is not possible to anticipate the determination; but the points that have been made in this debate will be borne in mind. As the Government have made clear, their aim is the expansion of our home agricultural industry and the milk sector is an important part of that industry. It was against this background that the recent measures were taken and that the Annual Review will take place.

AGRICULTURE (TRACTOR CABS) REGULATIONS 1974
8.1 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulation 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved. The purpose of these Regulations is to fix a new date by which all new tractors used in agriculture will
172
have to be fitted with a "quiet" cab. Under the 1973 Regulations this date was 1st September 1975; the date in these draft Regulations is 1st June 1976.
Perhaps I could just remind your Lordships that just a year ago, this House approved the 1973 Tractor Cab Amendment Regulations which required that as from 1st September 1975, all new tractors must be fitted with a cab with a restricted noise level. The introduction of the safety cab has undoubtedly saved many lives on the farm, but it has the unfortunate drawback of concentrating the noise of the tractor which could reach a level where the hearing of the tractor driver might be impaired. The Regulations limited the noise level to 90 decibels on the "A" scale. The date of 1st September 1975 was fixed as being the earliest date by which the industry could meet the demand for tractor cab combinations complying with this new noise level requirement. Unfortunately, we have been advised that the industry now considers it will not be able to meet this obligation until June 1976.
Your Lordships will know that during last winter, industry had many problems to contend with, which hindered production. The tight timetable for the "quiet" cabs, to which the tractor manufacturers were working, was severely disrupted. Representations were received by the Ministry that the manufacturers no longer felt able to meet the deadline of 1st September 1975.
Designing a "quiet" cab is an exceptionally difficult problem and has involved major re-engineering of many of the items involved. The industry has been faced with formidable difficulties and we are satisfied that manufacturers are not now able to meet the original target date. A letter of consultation was sent to all interested organisations and all who replied accepted the postponement, although RoSPA and the NUAAW expressed regret at the necessity for this action. We have therefore accepted that a postponement of nine months is necessary.
Postponing the date will not, of course, affect the flow of "quiet" cabs on to the market and I am sure that manufacturers will do their utmost to meet the demand from the agricultural industry. I think I should stress that there is no restriction

173
on the fitting of "noisy" cabs to tractors supplied to agriculture before 1st June 1976, and that such approved safety cabs will not need to be replaced by "quiet" cabs. Also the date of 1st September 1977, by which all new safety cabs will have to satisfy the noise level requirements remains unaltered. The draft Regulations also consolidate the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1967 and the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) (Amendment) Regulations 1973. This action has been taken following an inquiry from the Joint Statutory Instruments Committee when they considered the 1973 Regulations.
Moved, That the Draft Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on 5th November, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
8.6 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for explaining this draft Statutory Instrument. As will have been heard, it has a considerable history. Those of us who have served on agricultural executive committees over the past several years, until they were wound up, are aware of this particular problem in farm safety, and it is encouraging that in the closing month of National Farm Safety Year these Regulations should be brought before the House for approval.
There are a number of matters which arouse concern, among the principal ones being the question of cost. Going over the history of this particular problem of finding a safe cab, and in addition a quiet one, we have had, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, informed the House, a group of Regulations over the past seven or eight years. Perhaps I may be allowed to draw your Lordships' attention to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, when in another place on 2lst June 1967, in which he said:
"Reference was made to the present price of cabs. We expect the price to fall considerably when full-scale production begins."
Most unfortunately since that pleasing and optimistic statement was made (in Vol. 748, col. 1671) we find ourselves living in quite a different world. One can appreciate the desire of Lord Hoy (one shared by all of us) for a cheap and safe cab, but unfortunately, the cab which in those days was estimated to cost between £70 and £100 has today attached
174
to it various prices ranging from about £200 to £250 and more. It is an alarming feature that a safe cab and a "hush" cab, if I may be allowed to call it so, is going to be more expensive than a second-hand tractor. This places this special provision beyond the purse of a number of the younger farmers—those on smallholdings and those who are now particularly concerned with the costs of their whole enterprise.
I should like to emphasise that at the end of a very long queue of additional imposts by the present Government, there comes this Regulation which makes it compulsory to fit cabs of a very costly nature. Therefore I would ask the Government whether it is intended to apply a specific grant or some particular tax relief for this purpose. I feel there is a strong case for doing so because by 1977, although we naturally wish today's prices to be held—or to fall, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, optimistically suggested—it is quite conceivable that prices may be substantially higher.
I turn to another matter. That is that there is a certain lack of consistency in the Regulations. There are a number of points to which attention has been drawn in another place and there was no conclusive reply from Her Majesty's Government. This is a small point and I do not wish to make a large one of it: it is in regard to Regulation 1(3), which states:
"A tractor is properly fitted with a safety cab for the purposes"——
Lord STRABOLGI: That is Regulation 2.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, it is indeed. I beg your Lordships' pardon. Paragraph 2(3) says:
"A tractor is properly fitted with a safety cab for the purposes of these regulations if the safety cab is ….
(b) equipped with an efficient automatic wiper for any windscreen it may have."
Further on in the Regulations, under Regulation 6 an obligation is placed on workers to report overturning or damage and, under sub-paragraph (c),
"any defect in the windscreen wiper if one is fitted."
Perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to tell us whether this is consistent or not.

175
My Lords, finally, there is a matter of management. Your Lordships will be well aware that the freedom to drive tractors without cabs which at present exists is something which in fine weather is a pleasing experience. There are those who suffer from claustrophobia in a variety of different degrees, and it is the contention of some of us that these Regulations might quite possibly make it difficult or impossible for a number of agricultural workers to continue in their present occupation of being tractor drivers. It is therefore hoped that the exemption clauses in regard to this particular malady should be applied with a degree of relaxation and that certificates of exemption should be granted with some ease to those who suffer from claustrophobia. My Lords, I do not wish to say more at this stage about the Regulations, other than to welcome their production before your Lordships this afternoon.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I want to say very few words at the end of a long day and not in any sense in opposition to this Order which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has moved very clearly and simply and which I support. However, I should like to make one or two comments since my own experience gained in farming and in tractor driving—which I have done for hours and hours in hay and harvest fields—helps me to know something about driving tractors. The first thing that is a little alarming for the ordinary farmer is that this will be an exceedingly costly business. The other day I went to the expense of buying a new tractor, because I did not have one which was sufficiently good for the purpose. I managed to turn in another one against it, which helped to bring down the price, but it was enormously expensive. I hope and believe that it is fitted with a safety cab. I have not examined it very closely, because I bought it before these Regulations were brought forward, but I think it must be.
The number of older tractors on many farms is very great and if one has to alter all the cabs on old tractors—and by "old" I mean those which are two, three and four years old, which is a perfectly good age for an ordinary farm tractor—it will be most enormously expensive.
176
In addition, I am very much afraid, because one has had this experience before, that when the manufacture of the safety cabs really gets going they will be very expensive. It is very hard, as one has no bargaining power and must take the cab as the manufacturer produces it. One cannot shop around for a cheap cab, because such a thing does not exist at these standards. Therefore, one will have to pay a very high price and this will make a great deal of difference to a lot of farmers, particularly those who do not have a great deal of arable land, who use tractors because they are vital on every farm—the hill farm, the small farm and so on. This will add tremendously to a farmer's costs, and I should like the Government to consider that this will weigh very heavily indeed on a great many hill farmers and small farmers. When the Government are estimating costs and thinking about the Price Review, these costs will definitely have to be taken into consideration.
My Lords, Regulation 5(4), which gives exceptions where it is permissible to use a tractor without a cab, states:
"Nothing in this regulation shall apply to a tractor—"
and it lists sub-paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d). No doubt this is very good and very valuable, but I should like to suggest that the Government might add one or two other exceptions. For instance, today's modern cattle sheds often have a tractor with a shovel on the front which is taken into them in order to shovel out the dung. It is quite unnecessary to have a tractor with an enormous cab for this work, and it is very unlikely that such a tractor could get inside a cowshed, because the height of these modern "cow-kennels" as they are called, is often fairly low. They do not need to be very high. I should like to suggest that the Government might consider including this in Regulation 5(4). The cleaning of cowsheds, the handling of slurry and the use of the shovel do not require a safety cab or anything at all. They require only someone who can operate a small tractor efficiently.
There is also the fact that a lot of cultivation with tractors is not really dangerous, since it is done on the level on great areas of flat land. There, again, I feel it is possible that a tractor does

177
not need to be fitted with such an elaborate and expensive cab, because the chance of accidents is very small. If one is farming hill land such as that in Wales, Scotland or the West of England, the position is quite different and the safety element is extremely important.
Then my Lords, there is the question of second-hand tractors. This is another factor which plays a great part in the budget of the average farmer because, as I have said, if one buys a new tractor, one can very often turn in a second-hand one against it. Similarly, if one is a farmer who has not a great deal of cultivable land but to whom a tractor is necessary for ordinary farm activities, a secondhand tractor is quite good enough. I hope very much that these new Regulations will not suddenly knock out a mass of second-hand tractors which are very useful and are more within the reach of the small farmer and the hill farmer than the very large and expensive tractor which can take a four-furrow plough or very heavy machinery of one kind or another.
I am very keen about the question which appears under Regulation 3 of the safety cab being fitted with a steel frame of some kind so that it is safe when upset, but I am not so worried about the question of noise, because one can always open the window of the cab if it is a little noisy—I think they all have sliding windows. I have great difficulty in preventing my agricultural workers from removing the doors altogether, because they hate driving with doors and prefer to be able to hop in and out quickly. If they must have a tractor which is very closed in, with doors and windows, I shall be in trouble because I have the greatest difficulty to get them to keep doors on tractors even in the middle of winter, and a great deal of work is done on farms at times of year when the weather is very bad.
I am not so desperately keen on the question of noise. I agree that one should try to have as quiet a cab as possible, but if we are to do away with noise, as the noble Lord rather indicated, one may have to re-design completely the engines of tractors, and that could possibly delay this Order far beyond 1976, which is the date suggested by the noble Lord. "The best is the enemy of the good" is a very old motto and it applies in many cases.
178
There is something to be said—if one has a very large and heavy tractor—for insisting on having a cab, but with small tractors, such as the Massey-Ferguson 135, these are not at all noisy and noise in the cab can be dealt with simply by opening a window.
I wanted to make these suggestions because the importance of these Regulations is very great. I am in favour of them and I do not make these suggestions in any carping or critical way, but simply to give a warning that this could be immensely important in the future. When the Price Review is being undertaken I hope that some allowance will be made in whatever grant aid is given, although no doubt we cannot expect anything to be specified at the moment. Some years ago—I have forgotten how many years but it was probably about ten—we did receive grants for tractors. They were gradually done away with. I do not say this critically, and, indeed, I am not sure that it was not done by a Conservative Government. But those grants were done away with and a certain number of other grants—particularly those on buildings—are today less than they were then.
So I hope the Government will look on this as an obligation which is placed upon the farming industry and which will cost a great deal of money. I am glad that the time schedule has been lengthened because I am sure the manufacturers will never have the quantity required by 1975: indeed, I should be rather surprised if they had them by 1976. I hope that with rising prices and all the other complications we have to face, the Government will be kind enough to include these costs with other rising costs which farmers will have to face when the Order passes, as it will tonight.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I feel that the noble Baroness has taken a little of my fire and thunder about tractors, with or without cabs. I am entirely in favour of a tractor which does field work, whether on flat land or hilly land, having a cab, but I think that a tractor which works only around the farm buildings need not have a cab. Would not it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to give two forms of licence for tractors, one with cabs and the other without? The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, answered the question I was

179
going to ask about the fact that secondhand tractors before a certain date will not need to have these expensive new cabs. I am entirely in favour of safety cabs, but there are many justifiable exemptions to be made. These should be examined in much greater detail than time permits tonight, before these new Regulations come into force.
8.25 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for the welcome they have given to these Regulations. I shall do my best to answer the points they have raised.
On the question of the cost of implementation in terms of 1977 prices, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and also by the noble Baroness, I am quite unable to give a forecast. It is a hypothetical question. We do not know the rate of inflation and we cannot estimate the other imponderables in the future. I could give a figure, but it would be a guess and I should prefer not to do that. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, thinks this would be an extra burden on the farming community. I would remind him that this Government have injected £300 million into the farming industry since they came into Office at the beginning of this year. However, we will consider very carefully what has been said about possible future grant aid or relief which might be given in this particular sector, though I must stress that at this stage I cannot hold out any hope.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked about windscreen wipers and referred to possible inconsistencies between Clauses 2 and 6. The Regulations do not require that a cab frame should have a windscreen. Some in fact are left completely open. But if a cab does have a windscreen then it must have an efficient automatic wiper, and the worker is obliged to report any defect in a windscreen wiper, if one is fitted. I would refer to the relevant words in Regulation 2(3)(b):
"equipped with an efficient automatic wiper for any windscreen it may have."
I am very glad the noble Lord raised that point. It was raised also in another
180
place, where it was out of order, because they had to stick strictly to the terms of this particular Order; but here we can range far and wide over the whole of the farming industry where tractors are used. We are none the worse for that, and I listened with the greatest interest to the points which were raised.
The noble Baroness asked about exemptions. The certificates of exemption under Regulation 8 can be granted for special individual cases; for example, for research and development work. She also asked—and I though this was a very interesting question—whether it was necessary to enforce the same controls on easy terrain such as, for example, airfields. Certain exemptions are already granted in the Regulations, but there is a continuing risk of tractors overturning on all terrains. On level surfaces, accidents can be caused by excessive speed, by turning at speed and, indeed, also by badly adjusted brakes.
The noble Baroness also referred to Regulation 5(4)(a) to (d) covering exemptions, and these exemptions cover situations in orchards, hop-yards and buildings where it is not reasonably practicable to use a tractor with a safety cab fitted. Operations in cowsheds, and other low buildings, are covered also by these exemptions in Regulation No. 5. The noble Baroness also raised the question of old cabs. I can confirm that old cabs will not have to be replaced if they are approved safety cabs. All tractors supplied into agriculture since September 1970, will have had approved safety cabs fitted under the 1967 Regulations.
I was very glad to have the welcome of the noble Earl. Lord Kimberley, to these Regulations. They of course consolidate the existing Regulations which were introduced by the previous Government. These are consolidating and postponing the date, but the policy was the same under the previous Government, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, may say now in criticism. It was the policy of the previous Government and we are glad to be able to carry it on. They consolidated the existing Regulations which provided a range of general exemptions covering those circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable to operate a tractor fitted with a safety cab. I hope I have answered all the points which noble Lords have raised.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I may press him a little further on the question of cost? Despite his remarks in regard to the expenditure of £300 million since the present Government came to Office, I feel it would not be a sufficient assurance for either my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood or for the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, to hear that this will be borne in mind. I wonder whether he would give an undertaking that he will draw his right honourable friend's attention to our very great concern on the cost of these safety cabs? Furthermore, I referred to the impasse into which the Government have placed and intend to place the self-employed. This is a matter of grave concern to the industry, and the noble Lord will be well aware of the fact.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I will certainly give that undertaking. Of course, all these questions are and will be kept under continuous review. We will take very careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said, and I will cer-

Case

Place in which the patient was diagnosed

Centre to which the patient was taken for treatment

1.

South Western Hospital, London, S.W.9 …

Long Reach Hospital, Dartford, Kent.

2.

St. Mary's Hospital, Harrow Road, London, W 9

Long Reach Hospital, Dartford, Kent.

3.

West Hendon Hospital, London, N.W.9

Long Reach Hospital, Dartford, Kent.

4.

West Hendon Hospital, London, N.W.9

Long Reach Hospital, Dartford, Kent.

5.

West Hendon Hospital, London, N.W.9

Long Reach Hospital, Dartford, Kent.

SMALLPOX: HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are reviewing the guidance on hospital provision for persons suffering from smallpox set out in Ministry of Health Circular HM(67)35 dated 19th June 1967, in the light of the World Health Organisation eradication campaign; and what interim advice has been given to Regional Health Authorities on this subject.
tainly undertake to bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Third Report from the Joint Committee made, and to be printed.
  SMALLPOX CASES
  SMALLPOX CASES
  CONTRACEPTIVE DRUGS
  CONTRACEPTIVE DRUGS
  CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICES
  CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICES
  PRICE OF HANSARD
  PRICE OF HANSARD
  LOANS TO INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BANGLADESH
  LOANS TO INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BANGLADESH
  EAST AFRICAN AIRWAYS
  EAST AFRICAN AIRWAYS