Sitting of 9 December 1975

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  DOUBLE TAXATION
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:
  I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Undertakings and Their Employees) (Hungary) Order 1975 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Faroe Islands) Order 1975 he made in the form of drafts laid before your House in the last Session of Parliament.
  I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Hospitals (Wessex)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals in the Wessex area are likely to be closed in the next five years as a result of Her Majesty's Government's current policy.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): This information is not available. Health authorities are presently undertaking a comprehensive review of their existing plans, which might lead to proposals regarding closures. The area health authorities concerned would, of course, consult their local community health council on any such proposals.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that the announcement over the weekend that
    206
    the Government are reviewing the policy of hospital construction so as to revert to a policy of retaining and even building smaller hospitals will be very welcome to many of my constituents? Will he make a further announcement on that subject today? If it is so, will he confirm that no hospitals that might have been closed if present policy had remained unchanged will be closed if there is this change of policy? Will he also give me today, or in writing, soon, a specific pledge that Lymington Hospital will in no circumstances be closed?
    Dr. Owen: I understand that Hampshire Area Health Authority has no plans at the present time to close Lymington Hospital.
    As to the wider question of very large hospitals, there is considerable agreement on both sides of the House that this is a prospect which is not always supported by the patients and consumers. At a time of financial stringency. I think there is a need to reappraise the whole of our hospital building programme.
    Dr. Vaughan: In the light of the Minister's speech at the weekend and his welcome conversion to the cause of local hospitals, will he confirm that this really is now the Government's policy, and will he have all plans for district general hospitals abandoned? Will he also let us know whether there are definite plans for community hospitals and, if so, how many are likely to be built?
    Dr. Owen: It was this Government who published the paper on community hospitals, though I recognise that work had gone on under successive Administrations. There is a general recognition that there is a place for the smaller hospital. I think, however, that the relationship of the smaller community hospital does not always mean that it has to be purpose-built. It is a question of achieving a balance between the acute hospital, intensively used, and the active community hospital with rehabilitation services—not just long-stay geriatric hospitals and some smaller hospitals in rural areas. This is a question for area health authorities themselves to decide, and the balance of their district general hospital building programme will depend on the limited amount of capital available.

    Means Tests
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are being taken to reduce the complexity of means tests for social security benefits.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): Not all means tests are complex. Where it exists, complexity stems from the need to respond as fairly as possible to many different family and personal circumstances. In view of this constraint, there are limits to further simplification. If, however, my hon. Friend has anything in mind, I shall be glad to look at it.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole field of social security benefits has now become a jungle in which only the expert patrols of the Child Poverty Action Group and similar people can find their way? Is there not a real problem here, and a need for a system that ordinary people can understand?
    Mr. O'Malley: I agree with my hon. Friend that the supplementary benefit system and means-tested benefits, to which this Question refers, can often be complex and confusing to the layman. Nevertheless, the Government have tried to help in this matter, as did the previous Administration, by the use of a 12-months' award for various types of benefits, and by the system of passporting.
    My hon. Friend may wish to know that a pilot scheme, using a multi-purpose means-tested claims form, is being operated experimentally in Shropshire. There may well be lessons to be drawn from that concerning the type of simplification which all of us, on both sides of the House, would want to see.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the Minister aware that there is a man in my constituency who is now entitled to £102 a week in State benefits, tax-free? Is he further aware that this has caused great offence to many poorly-off people who find it very difficult to get the requisite amount of grant? In the name of all conscience, is it not time that the system was overhauled?
    Mr. O'Malley: I think that the hon. Gentleman has not looked carefully at the Question asked by my hon. Friend
    208
    the Member for Sheffield, Healey (Mr. Hooley), which is concerned with means testing. As I understand the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the benefits payable were national insurance rather than means-tested benefits. Under successive Governments, it has not been found possible to tax short-term benefits, and for that reason there can be only a very small number of cases, where there are large numbers of children in a family, in which a high level of total benefit is payable. The level of benefits payable in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred has been settled and agreed in this House under successive Governments.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: We welcome what the Minister said about the pilot scheme in Shropshire, but has his Department any plans to extend the scheme to other areas? When does he expect a report about the scheme, so that he can introduce a multi-purpose form for general use?
    Mr. O'Malley: It is too soon yet to say how long we shall need to run this on an experimental basis. However, the idea of multi-purpose means testing, which, if it could be operated successfully, is clearly desirable, was first conceived under the previous Labour Administration. When I left the Department in 1970, it was under way. When I returned in 1974, I found that no progress had been made. It is since the coming to power of this Government that we have introduced this scheme, and I hope that valuable lessons will be learned from it.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Referring back to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith), is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave concern amongst many old-age pensioners who have contributed 30 and 40 years for their old-age pensions and who, when they try to get a few shillings or a few pence extra, find that they cannot get it, whereas people who have come to this country and have never contributed a halfpenny—or, at the most, have contributed for one or two years—are able, month after month, to get hundreds of pounds? This cannot be fair, and it causes trouble. Will not my right hon. Friend look into it?
    Mr. O'Malley: Before Opposition Members, wanting to make cheap party political capital out of this, start cheering and jeering, perhaps they will do me the courtesy of listening to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). Successive Governments have expressed concern at abuses of the social security system, and quite properly so. This Government take an identical view to that of the last Government in their efforts to combat abuses of the system wherever they are found. The previous Government commissioned the Fisher Report on abuse. This Government, since February 1974, has successively implemented the recommendations of the Fisher Report. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are at one in opposing and doing all that they can to stop abuse of the social security system. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West said, we have also to have regard to the vast majority of people who need these benefits and are genuine claimants.
    Sir George Young: In view of the fact that there are now more than 40 means-tested benefits, with all the resulting complexity and the cost of administering them, will the Minister reconsider something along the lines of a tax credit scheme, with a view to simplifying the administration of means-tested benefits?
    Mr. O'Malley: As soon as resources allow, this Government are primarily concerned to push back the whole area of means testing, which is the exact opposite of the policy of the previous Government, who introduced the family income supplement scheme, with all its implications. The hon. Gentleman will understand that our long-term pensions scheme, the noncontributory invalidity benefit and the mobility allowance are all designed to cut back substantially over the years the area of means testing—[Interruption.] How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that there is—
    Hon. Members: Too long.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that this is not a debate.
    Mr. O'Malley: May I say briefly, on the point about the negative income tax scheme, that Opposition Members can hardly ask us to cut back public expenditure
    210
    and, in the next breath, ask us to spend an additional £2,300 million to implement such a scheme.

    Supplementary Benefits Commission
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she next expects to meet the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
    Mr. O'Malley: My right hon. Friend and I last met the Supplementary Benefits Commission on 20th November 1974, and we shall meet it as often as is useful and desirable in the future. In addition, my right hon. Friend will be meeting the Chairman at about two-monthly intervals.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend ensure, at that meeting, that the Chairman or the full SBC issues a circular making clear to all applicants what their rights are? The single-parent family groups, such as the Gingerbread Group, make constant complaints about the difficulty of obtaining information about the rights of needy people. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would consider the need for the SBC itself, because it would increase parliamentary control if the Minister and not some commission had total control of these matters so that hon. Members could bring their complaints directly to him and not be put off to the SBC.
    Mr. O'Malley: I appreciate the first point that my hon. Friend makes. The new Chairman of the SBC has, I believe, already approached the chairmen of the subject groups on both sides of the House, and I am sure that he would be pleased to discuss this and any related matters at such a meeting.
    On the second matter raised by my hon. Friend, it is the case, under the Social Security Act 1966 that the SBC has the rôle which was set down in that Act, but I also understand the arguments which can be put forward for the type of arrangement that my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Supplementary Benefits Commission, could he discuss with it, perhaps in a slightly calmer manner, the abuse of the system and investigations into it, since he has just acknowledged the public concern that exists about it? Does he agree that the

    211
    special investigators employed at the moment are quite effective, within their limited means of detection, and that they have discovered, in the local drives which the Conservative Government began, that more than 40 per cent. of suspicious cases which they investigate are cases of overpayment? As the investigators pay for themselves, will not the Minister consider doubling the present number of 320 or so, to 600, as a straightforward way of reassuring the public that there is a stepping up in the investigation of cases of abuse?
    Mr. O'Malley: I am always calm with the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), unless he says something particularly silly. At present there is a total of 4,000 staff in the DHSS whose job it is to protect the taxpayers' money. There are 381 special investigators who, during the course of 1974, investigated 27,000 cases. This Government are as keen as any Government to counter abuse by every practicable means. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said about the number of special investigators, but he will realise that his suggestion has public expenditure implications which are important at the moment.

    Pensioners (Fuel Costs)
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps she intends to take to ease the burden of increased fuel bills faced by pensioners and those on long-term benefits.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Meacher): We have, as from the week commencing 17th November, increased retirement pensions and other associated benefits for the third time in less than 18 months. In addition, the Supplementary Benefits Commission has increased by more than a third the extra heating additions payable under its discretionary powers, from the same date.
    Mr. Golding: Is my hon. Friend aware that a special grant for fuel would have allayed some of the disappointment felt by pensioners at the loss of the £10 Christmas bonus. Is he further aware that, facing massive gas bills in January, many pensioners may be driven, out of fear, to sit in the cold for the rest of the winter?
    Mr. Meacher: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but I must emphasise to him that both national insurance benefits and supplementary benefits are up-rated at least in line with the retail price index, which includes a fuel element that is a composite of all the fuels that people use. Both benefits have been increased substantially more than the increase in the retail price index. Since the present Government have been in office, benefits have been increased by 70 per cent. in cash terms, whereas prices have risen—up to last month's figure, which is the latest available—by 47 per cent. That gives a margin of about 13 per cent. real improvement in the value of pensions, which is a bigger improvement than pensioners have ever had under a previous Government.
    Mr. Boscawen: Despite the improvement, is it not a fact that many extremely poor people are taxed on the benefits which they receive, including the fuel allowance, and are brought below the minimum subsistence level by the means test?
    Mr. Meacher: No. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect when he says that pensioners are taxed on the fuel allowance. The fuel allowance is an extra heating addition under the supplementary benefits system, and it is not subject to tax.
    Mrs. Bain: Is the Minister aware that, according to a recent survey, over 700,000 pensioners in the United Kingdom are living on the verge of hypothermia? Is he also aware that a survey in Scotland by the Citizens' Rights Association in 1973 showed that 90 per cent. of pensioners living alone were living in rooms that were heated to less than the 70 degrees Fahrenheit recommended level? Is the Minister satisfied that the measures taken by the Government are adequate to protect our pensioners throughout the coming winter?
    Mr. Meacher: I am certainly not complacent about this matter, and I recognise the force of what the hon. Lady has said. On the hypothermia study, it is only fair to point out that other studies made of the same problem have come up with much lower figures. However, I appreciate the importance of this problem. It is for those reasons that the Government have increased the extra heating addition by 83 per cent. at a time

    213
    when fuel costs have risen by 70 per cent. over the same period. That, too, is a considerable improvement.
    On the hon. Lady's point about the numbers, I point out that we have substantially increased the number who are receiving the extra heating addition. The figure is now about 700,000 elderly people which, by coincidence, is the same figure as that which the hon. Lady mentioned.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: Will my hon. Friend explain why, when heating additions, supplementary benefits and exceptional needs payments for draught-proofing and various other things are available, the Supplementary Benefits Commission has ruled out the provision of grants to old people to help them to insulate their homes, thereby cutting down on the need for the additions and allowances?
    Mr. Meacher: I advise my hon. Friend that the Supplementary Benefits Commission is prepared to give some assistance in certain circumstances to overcome problems of insulation and draught-proofing. Obviously, given the restraint on resources that are available to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, the assistance is bound to be very limited, and clearly there cannot be an opportunity, through this mechanism, to provide insulation for a large number of elderly people.

    Junior Hospital Doctors
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on the progress of her negotiations with the junior hospital doctors.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): Following my statement to the House on 1st December—[Vol. 901, c. 1255–69]—the BMA wrote to me on Friday last accepting the offer which I had made two weks previously of an independent audit of the figures relating to extra duty allowances, provided that the audit covers the figures relating to EDA expenditure over the current period of April to October this year. I have replied saying that I shall be happy to arrange this, but pointing out that the latest figures yet available to me are for the six-weeks' duty period ending June 1975. Figures
    214
    for two further periods up to the end of August will be available within a week. It is unlikely, however, that the October figures will be available before Christmas, and it may be later. I have therefore invited the BMA Hospital Junior Staffs Committee to meet me this afternoon to discuss the final date for the figures which it would be reasonable to take as the basis of the independent audit. It would of course be for the Review Body to decide whether it should in any way revise its pricing of the juniors' new contract in the light of the later figures.
    I am glad that the BMA has once again made clear that it does not dispute the earlier figures on which the Review Body made its calculations. It is not a question, therefore, of our figures having been wrong it is merely that later figures are now available.
    I have always stressed that I am anxious for the juniors to receive all they are entitled to under the pay policy and, to save time, I am willing to forward the later figures to the Review Body for examination as they become available to me, pending the outcome of the independent audit. Since I have met the request of the juniors on these points in full I would expect them to agree to accept the findings of the examination of the latest figures, whatever may be its outcome, and so to call off without delay their industrial action which is causing increasing hardship to patients and damage to the NHS.
    I have placed copies of this latest correspondence in the Library.
    Mr. Aitken: I thank the Secretary of State for that brief reply. Is she aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see this damaging dispute ended as soon as possible, by settlement within the limits of the pay policy? At the same time, is she also aware that there is a widespread feeling that the Government have handled this dispute less than skilfully, especially over the quite unreasonable delays in producing the up-to-date extra-duty allowance figures, some of which at least are in the possession of the regions even if they are not yet in the possession of the right hon. Lady? Will she now give an assurance that the most up-to-date 1975 extra-duty allowance figures will be given to the

    215
    independent auditor as quickly as possible, because that is the best way of getting the doctors back to work?
    Mrs. Castle: I think that my Answer was exactly along those lines. It is quite untrue that there has been delay in getting the latest figures. We have to wait until they are collected in the areas, districts and regions, and forwarded to us. Then, by agreement, there is a four-weeks period of grace to enable late claims to be entered. Indeed, it would be contrary to the junior doctors' interests if that were not so. The figures then have to be processed by the computer.
    We have always proceeded on the basis of the latest figures that we could lay our hands on. In fixing the sum available to price the new contract, with the agreement of all sides, who were anxious to get the contract priced quickly, we took the figures which were then available to us.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend advise the House not to be too sensitive about the additional payments or the extra-duty allowances being an infringement of the £6 maximum? Overtime and payment by results have never been considered an infringement of the existing social contract and the £6 arrangement. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend advise the House that we should not be too sensitive about there being an infringement of the social contract?
    Mrs. Castle: I tell my hon. Friend firmly that the Government do not intend to breach the pay policy. Indeed, the BMA in its latest letters to me has reiterated its view that it does not think the pay policy should be breached. It is my responsibility to defend the pay policy. My hon. Friend is wrong to say that extra amounts of overtime are permissible under the pay policy. They are not. They must be included in the £6 limit. However, the pay policy does provide that if the new contract system is introduced on a given date, the expected annual flow of pay under the new system must not exceed the current flow, in annual terms, under the old system. We are trying to establish the figures for the current flow.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: Is the right hon. Lady aware that what she is now doing
    216
    is precisely what the Conservatives urged eight days ago—having an independent examination to see whether her £12 million figure was out of date? Is she also aware that we welcome this development and emphasise that the negotiations are within the policy? We urge normal work to be resumed. Does she also recognise that we have questions to raise on the Government's handling of this dispute, and will she make arrangements for a proper statement to be made to the House tomorrow.
    Mrs. Castle: I think it was on 1st December that the hon. Gentleman last urged me to take later figures. At that time I did not have available later figures than the March ones. I sent the information to him. The House must recognise that the figures are coming in periodically. At present I have only the figures to the end of June, and they arrived only last week. I did not have them at the time the hon. Gentleman raised this matter. I hope that he is not suggesting to the House that he is encouraging junior doctors to stay out on industrial action in the hope—[Interruption.] I shall continue my answer. I repeat what I said. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend said that he was not encouraging industrial action.
    Mrs. Castle: I did not say he was. I have not finished my sentence. I hope he is not—
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: You heard him say it.
    Mrs. Castle: This is a very relevant point to my talks this afternoon. I put it to the House very seriously. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not encouraging the continuation of industrial action—[Interruption.] I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if I could be allowed to complete a sentence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not encouraging the continuance of industrial action in order to enable later figures to be obtained. At the time of the pricing—[Interruption.] I put it to the hon. Member that I am currently faced by the juniors with a demand that we should produce the figures to the end of October. As I have just told the House, those figures will not

    217
    be available till Christmas, or after. I hope that the House will say that the juniors should take what figures are now available. I shall submit them to independent audit. I shall submit them to the review body. I hope that the House will now say to the juniors that they should agree to accept whatever may be the outcome of that examination and get back to work at once.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: That is a disgraceful taunt by the right hon. Lady. May I repeat what I said originally, and ask the House to listen? We urge normal working to be resumed. What we want the right hon. Lady to do is to make a statement in the House, tomorrow, on these negotiations.
    Mrs. Castle: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that if he is urging the doctors to return to work—I accept that he has always said that he does not endorse the industrial action—I ask him to face this fact: what it means is that the juniors must go back to work on the basis of the figures I have. If we are going to say "No, we shall wait for the October figures and see what they are like," we shall have the industrial action, with all its risk to patients, continuing beyond Christmas. All that I am asking the House today to say is that they endorse what I shall say to the juniors this afternoon—that I have gone to the utmost limit in producing the figures, and will they now agree to accept the outcome of the review, whatever it may be, and go back to work?
    Mr. Aitken: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Invalid Tricycles
    Mr. Hannonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations she has recently received on the invalid three-wheel carriage.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): On 25th November, I met officers and other members of the Disabled Drivers' Association and they presented their views to me. Four representatives of the All-Party Disablement Group in this House, including the hon. Gentleman, also attended the meeting.
    218
    The members of the Disabled Drivers' Association pressed their case for a car as an alternative to an invalid tricycle. They welcomed the principle of the mobility allowance, extending help to drivers and non-drivers alike, but explained very fully their reasons for seeking a number of improvements in the scheme.
    Mr. Hannam: Is the Minister aware of the sadness felt by the disabled drivers at the death of Graham Hill, who was a leading campaigner for the replacement of the invalid tricycle by a four-wheeled vehicle? In view of Government answers that show that four-wheeled cars are no more expensive to provide than tricycles, but that the latter are four times as dangerous—being involved in four times as many accidents—will he now restate his own contention and that of the Prime Minister when they were in opposition, namely, that these outdated mechanised wheelchairs should be replaced by four-wheeled vehicles? Will he cease to hold this totally indefensible position?
    Mr. Morris: There will be hon. Members on both sides who will join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the memory of Graham Hill. He was frequently in touch with me, as he was with the officers and members of the All-Party Disablement Group. The present Government have gone much further than any previous one in offering an alternative to the tricycle. I made a statement on the latest accident figures on 29th October 1975. I have arranged for the implications of these figures to be studied by my Department, jointly with experts of the Department of the Environment, in connection with our ongoing consideration of mobility policy for the disabled. I am well aware of the hon. Member's deep interest in these matters and will study carefully what he has said.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Beith. Question No. 7.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was it requested that Question No. 6 be linked with Question No. 30?
    Mr. Speaker: No.

    Hospital Patients (Visits)
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she is

    219
    satisfied that adequate provision exists to assist close relatives with the cost of visits to patients in hospital in rural areas where hospitals are at a great distance from the community served.
    Mr. Meacher: Help for those in greatest need is available through the supplementary benefit scheme except for persons in full-time work who are disqualified from receiving such help. Additionally, there are a number of other possible sources of help, depending on the hospital concerned and the particular circumstances of the patient. The hospital social worker should be asked about these.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that despite the existence of these provisions there are people in my constituency, earning less than £30 a week, who have to find £3 a time for fares from Berwick, for example, to accompany relatives to hospital in Newcastle, and that others, who are seeking to obtain treatment for themselves in non-NHS premises—particularly dental services and chiropody—have to find the cost themselves? Will he carry out a review of this difficult situation in rural areas, so as to ensure that there is a free Health Service there as well as in urban areas?
    Mr. Meacher: I take it from what he says that the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are not eligible for supplementary benefit. If that is so, the Supplementary Benefits Commission will assist in some cases, to the extent that the margin of resources above needs, as defined in supplementary benefit terms, is insufficient to meet the necessary cost of visiting. It may be that in rural areas this is a means by which, in exceptional circumstances such as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, assistance can be available.

    Abortion Act 1967
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she is satisfied with the workings of the Abortion Act 1967.
    Dr. Owen: I personally agree with the general conclusions of the Lane Committee on this subject. The gains facilitated by the Act have in my judgement clearly outweighed the disadvantages for which it has been criticised. Much individual
    220
    suffering has been relieved, while the rights of those with conscientious objections to abortion have been protected. The Department will continue to seek, through experience, to improve the administration of the provisions of the Abortion Act.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Minister agree that the Select Committee, of which I was a member in the last Session, thoroughly reviewed the workings of the Act and came up with some unanimous recommendations, which he and his Department have agreed to implement? How is that implementation going? Does the Minister agree that, if there is a desire in the House to change the fundamental law on this subject, in either a more liberal or a more retrogressive direction, it must be done by legislation and not by the setting up of another Select Committee, which could not resolve the deeply-held differences of opinion on this question?
    Dr. Owen: I am grateful, as, I am sure, is the whole House, to the former Select Committee for producing a very useful set of recommendations on the administration of the Abortion Act. As the House knows, the Government have accepted all those recommendations. This will mean, I think, that the abuses of the Act, particularly in the private sector, will be largely eradicated. The main outstanding issues in this area of the working of the Act are most controversial, and the views held by opposing sides seem to be irreconcilable, although sincerely held. It will be for the whole House to decide whether a Select Committee should be re-established. In the Government's view, that decision should be on the basis of a free vote.

    National Health Service (Resources)
    Mr. Jim Lesterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will reallocate National Health Service resources from the wealthier regions to the poorer ones.
    Dr. Owen: It is the declared policy of this Government to ensure that resources for the National Health Service are allocated in a way that is more sensitive to local variations in need. For this reason, last May we set up a working party to examine existing arrangements

    221
    and recommend a method of allocating NHS finance more equitably. I am consulting interested parties on the working party's report on a method of allocating finance to regional health authorities in 1976–77, and a copy has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Lester: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that all hon. Members whose constituencies fall within the "Cinderella" Trent Region will also be grateful. Will the Minister give a further and practical example of his support by considering again the acknowledged very serious position in Nottingham, where the extension to the City Hospital "H" Block is not built, particularly the bums unit, where they have to use the same bath for treatment and cleanliness? It might have to close because of the risk of cross-infection. Will the Minister reconsider that and redirect funds to that project?
    Dr. Owen: I am well aware of the situation in Nottingham. I am sure that many hon. Members can point to areas of need in their constituencies. We must try to allocate scarce resources where the need is greatest. We have already allocated resources to the Trent Regional Health Authority, which has a long history of backlog and neglect. However, to allocate to Trent, to the North West, and to other regional health authorities that have been deprived in the past, would mean that other regional health authorities, such as the four metropolitan regional health authorities and Merseyside, would have to have a smaller allocation.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action is to be taken to publicise the new benefits available to the disabled.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: As my hon. Friend is aware, the list of new benefits and other recent improvements for the disabled is both extremely lengthy and wide ranging. Among other improvements, we have legislated for four entirely new cash benefits for the disabled. Publicity began in September for the first of these and included distribution of posters and leaflets, Press advertisements, and the dissemination of information by voluntary bodies. I have also had help from professionally
    222
    and other interested individuals.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend realise that the actions to help the disabled that the Government have taken since they came to power constitute a success story and that this should be made more widely known, not only to the general public but to the disabled, because some of them do not realise what help the Government have given them? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that when reductions in public spending are discussed at Cabinet level, cuts will not be made in the benefits that the Government give to the disabled? Is he aware that Labour Members would prefer further cuts in defence expenditure and other unnecessary public spending?
    Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend emphasises to the maximum of her ability the claims of the disabled. I have had every possible support from her. I agree with my hon. Friend that voluntary organisations can do a great deal to publicise the improvements that have taken place in recent years. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will do their best, in their constituencies, to publicise all the new benefits and improvements that have been carried out for the disabled. I refer in particular to the leaflet "Help for the Handicapped" which my Department recently made available to all hon. Members.

    Reciprocal Health Agreements (European Community)
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many reciprocal health agreements in respect of the self-employed have been reached with the EEC countries.
    Dr. Owen: Two are in operation—with Denmark and Gibraltar—and an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany is expected to be ratified shortly.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the injustice of a situation in which the citizens of a number of our partners in the EEC enjoy free health treatment and social security benefits in this country which those partners are not, so far, prepared to extend to some of our

    223
    citizens in their countries? Is he further aware that his Government have been in power for two years and that the self-employed, who pay a higher proportion to the National Insurance Fund than do the employed, are justifiably angry that the Government have so far failed to achieve very much for them in the EEC?
    Dr. Owen: In general, other EEC countries do not make provisions for the health care of the self-employed, as we do in this country. However, following representations by this Government to the European Commission, the Commission is setting up a working party, which will include officials from the Department of Health and Social Security, to examine the question of the extension of benefits in the EEC social security regulations in relation to the self-employed and other groups not at present covered. Therefore, we do share an interest in this issue.

    Agency Nurses
    Dr. Boysonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what reduction there has been over the last six months in the number of agency nurses employed at National Health Service hospitals.
    Mr. Meacher: On 31st March 1975 there were, in whole-time equivalent terms, 6,183 agency nurses and midwives working in the National Health Service; on 30th September there were 4,544.
    Dr. Boyson: Is the Minister aware that, as in commercial services, there are certain individuals who prefer the freedom, flexibility and independence of agency services to full-time employment? Will his present policy not mean that the services of those people will be lost to National Health Service hospitals?
    Mr. Meacher: The Government are only pursuing a policy that was pursued by the previous Conservative Administration. In 1971 the previous Conservative Government advised health boards to review the use of agency nurses and to plan both short-term and long-term reductions. The only difference in policy is that where the previous Conservative Government failed, we are succeeding.
    Mrs. Chalker: Will the Minister give the House and those trained nurses who previously worked for agencies an assurance that those nurses will be employed by the National Health Service, because
    224
    at present, although they are fully trained, they are being refused employ-ment when they apply to the National Health Service?
    Mr. Meacher: If agency nurses remain agency nurses we cannot give them that assurance. Before 1st October, when the new rates were introduced, the number of agency nurses had been reduced by 1,600. Therefore, any reductions since then are only a continuance of the policy which previously existed. I appreciate the problem to which the hon. Lady referred. Nurse banks, which we have set up to try to incorporate agency nurses, have taken on 500 extra nurses for the Health Service since 1st October in whole-time equivalent terms.

  DEVOLUTION
  Mr. Wattasked the Prime Minister if he will make a ministerial broadcast on devolution.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) on 25th November, Sir.
  Mr. Watt: Now that the results of the by-elections in Bishopbriggs and Bo'ness have shown clearly that the people of Scotland want meaningful devolution, will the Prime Minister tell those people whether he will persist in denying them the right to control their own agriculture, fisheries and industry? Will he, further, tell they why he considers them fit to run their own higher education service but unfit to have control of their universities?
  The Prime Minister: I have long made it a practice not to comment even on Parliamentary by-elections, good or bad, so I shall certainly not comment on local government by-elections. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party has sometimes been misled by parliamentary by-elections. The fact that the party which the hon. Gentleman represents believes that we have not gone far enough—and, if I am right, I believe that the Tory Party thinks that we have gone too far—suggests that we have probably got it just about right.
  Mr. Anderson: The White Paper concludes that there is a "clear popular

  225
  demand in … Wales" for devolution. My right hon. Friend, who always reacts sympathetically and promptly to public opinion, must know that this is not now the case. Therefore, will he draw the necessary conclusions and allow the people of Wales to express their own views on the issue?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may know that when he was unavoidably not a Member of this House, between two very valuable periods of service, the whole Welsh Parliamentary Labour Party produced an agreed document, which we have followed in the proposals that we have made.
  Mr. Rifkind: Does the Prime Minister realise that the proposals in the White Paper, if implemented, would make the Assemblies the only single-chamber Parliaments anywhere in the Western world? Does he agree that it is necessary for this House to have a regular right of review, not merely to ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament but also to ensure a higher quality for all Scottish legislation?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is proposing the abolition of another place within this building, that is a matter to which, of course, we shall give attention. We shall consider the matter and consult all parties on it. This is a very full White Paper. Hon. Members have had a chance to read it. We called for a great debate, which has begun, and as soon as the House returns after the Christmas Recess it is intended that there will be a major debate on this matter, in which all hon. Members who are called by you, Mr. Speaker, will be able to express their views.

  ECONOMIC POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy in Bloomsbury on 23rd November, on economic policy, represents the policy of the Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Gardiner: How can the Prime Minister reconcile the call made in the
  226
  speech by the Secretary of State for Energy, for higher priority for nationalisation, with the call of the Secretary of State for the Environment for less, or his attack on expenditure cuts in contrast with the speeches made by the Chancellor, or his attack on the financial system with the Government's own use of it? Do these contradictions within the Cabinet explain the current drift and indecision on so many urgent economic matters, from import controls right through to the expenditure programme?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman feels better for having put that supplementary question. Public ownership was very clearly explained in the manifesto. We are following the manifesto. I am not sure whether the hon. Member supported us in the Lobby in fulfilment of that manifesto, which was approved at two General Elections.
  As to financial policy, my right hon. Friend said:
  "Financial orthodoxy solemnly presented by men like Sir Keith Joseph and embraced by the Conservative party and urged every day in the Press and on television, would lead to an unparalleled act of national self-destruction."
  He went on to say that
  "Labour policy is based on realism"
  as it is.
  Mr. Lawson: While the Prime Minister is explaining the Government's economic policy, will he explain the intellectual process by which he himself has claimed great credit for the Government's policy to abolish gas and electricity subsidies while at the same time castigating the Opposition for recommending a similar fate for the subsidies on cheese and tea?
  The Prime Minister: I draw some distinction between the latter items. It was certainly right for us to introduce food subsidies and rent subsidies if we were to get the agreement, which we got from the whole country. Indeed, it has been reinforced by the vote, yesterday, of the second biggest union in this country.
  I think that all I have said as regards the public industries' prices is that the present Government said that they were going to do it. The previous Conservative Government announced it. They never did it. The cost of doing it escalated, in consequence. We have had to do what they said they would do.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that on economic policy we have been led to expect, for two or three weeks now, statements on import controls, on Chrysler and on expenditure cuts? Is he aware that in the absence of these, we have government by rumour, and now we have reaction by rumour? We seem to be making a new enemy just about every week. When may we expect these statements?
  The Prime Minister: We shall certainly make a statement on import controls as quickly as possible. The right hon. Lady will recall that she was pressing the same kind of question on incomes and on counter-inflation policy in June and July. We thought it more important to get it right than to respond to her importunate questions.
  With regard to Chrysler, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will realise that on a matter of this importance, where, as I have said previously, very devastating proposals have been made by the Chrysler company, it is right that the discussions should continue. They are now in a very important state. I would not like to forecast the result. But the House will certainly be told at the earliest possible moment—I hope later this week or early next week.

  INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY
  Mr. Dodsworthasked the Prime Minister what is the division of responsibility between the Department of Trade, the Department of Industry and the Department of Employment concerning the Government's proposals on industrial democracy.
  The Prime Minister: The Government's proposals for a radical extension of democracy in British industry have wide-ranging implications. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade, Employment and Industry are all closely involved, as well as other Ministers.
  Mr. Dodsworth: Is the Prime Minister aware that the principal resource of our nation is the skill and ability of the people of this country working in voluntary co-operation? Will he make sure, by the use of the secret ballot, that the dangers of coercion are avoided when
  228
  preparing proposals for co-determination in industry?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will not, I think, have been too disappointed about the result of certain decisions of certain unions, which showed greater courage, when deciding matters of inflation, for instance, than did some Opposition Members. On the question relating to industrial democracy, the hon. Gentleman was quite right to stress what he did. This is designed to ensure that the knowledge, experience and inventiveness on both sides of industry should be fully mobilised, on a united basis, to avoid problems that we have had in this country for 30 years. In the matter of industrial democracy, we are still a long way behind some of our continental competitors—irrespective of Government complexion—as we all realise, on both sides of the House. We have got to get it right. Hence, the inquiry was set up.
  Mr. Radice: Does my right hon. Friend accept that though the delay in setting up the committee has been a matter of concern on the Government side of the House, the Government have finally come up with a pretty impressive list of names? However, will he confirm that it is still the Government's intention to legislate in the 1976–77 Session?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The committee is being asked to report within 12 months. It is our intention that this will lead to legislation in the 1976–77 Session.

  LORD MAYOR OF LONDON
  Mr. Cryerasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the Lord Mayor of London.
  The Prime Minister: On 12th December, Sir, when I shall be receiving the Honorary Freedom of the City.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is repugnant to the majority of the trade union movement and the Labour movement to see a Labour Prime Minister receiving the Freedom of the City of London and attending dinners at such an institution? Does he further accept that a Socialist economy demands control of the huge funds now under

  229
  the control of the City? Does he not feel that, far from accepting the Freedom of the City, he should be attempting to erode the last "rotten borough" in this country and to ensure that the funds controlled by the City are used by the people of this country in accordance with our manifesto in shifting the wealth of the country to working people?
  The Prime Minister: I regard this matter as an honour. My hon. Friend refers to Labour Prime Ministers. I do not recall any of my hon. Friends criticising Clement Attlee on a similar occasion in 1953.
  My hon. Friend talks about City funds. He will recognise that the City of London, as represented in Guildhall next Friday, is not the same as the particular financial institutions there.
  My hon. Friend talks about dinners. The Lord Mayor of Bradford and her guests at the civic dinner at which I was entertained last week were very disappointed that my hon. Friend did not see fit to be present on that occasion.
  Nevertheless, taking my hon. Friend's question in the same generous spirit in which he has put it, I assure him that when he receives the Freedom of the City of London I shall be the first to leap to congratulate him.
  Mr. Tugendhat: Although, unfortunately, I have a prior engagement on 12th December and will not be able to be present when the Prime Minister receives his Freedom, may I assure him of the very great pleasure that his presence in the City will give to everyone, and how pleased the City is to receive him on many occasions? I am sure that the City benefits from his visits and that he will agree that he has, from time to time, benefited from the conversations and other exchanges of view that he has had in the City of London.
  The Prime Minister: While thanking the hon. Gentlemen, I would be the first to say that I know that some of the speeches that I have made in the City—for example, the Guildhall speech—have not been universally acclaimed by those present or by the City as a whole.

  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.
  The Prime Minister: I met Mr. Cosgrave at the European Council Meeting in Rome last week. I have no immediate plans for a further meeting with him.
  Mr. Marten: If the Prime Minister should meet the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, will he discuss with him the somewhat historical oddity that the citizens of Southern Ireland have the right to vote at General Elections in this country? Will he also bring that subject into the review of citizenship that is now taking place?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps I ought to declare a constituency interest in this matter. There are many matters for discussion with the Irish Government. Discussions are continuing all the time. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to pay tribute to the courage of the Irish Government not only in the recent confrontation in which terrorists were involved but also for the fact that they have introduced, as a result of discussions between the two countries, the Republic's Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill, involving apprehension by them of those who, on the other side of the border, are regarded by us as potential criminals who should be put on trial.
  Mr. Marten: Will the Prime Minister answer the question?
  The Prime Minister: It is a matter for discussion between the two Governments, but there is a long tradition of understanding between our two countries on the right to vote.
  Mr. Fairbairn: While discussing these matters with the Prime Minister of Ireland, will the Prime Minister advise him that it is not the desire of anyone in Scotland that citizens of the Republic of Ireland should be entitled to sit in the Assembly?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman claims to speak for all the citizens of Scotland. These are

  231
  matters that can be discussed in the debates on devolution.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: I welcome the cordial relations that now exist between London and Dublin, and hope, as the Prime Minister does, for the speedy passage through Dail Eireann of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill. Will the Prime Minister ensure that there are no further muddles as there was over the Mary Kearney case, in connection with extradition? Will he ensure that the Director of Public Prosecutions and others concerned have their machinery clearly defined, and that there is the closest co-operation between the two Governments and all concerned in the matter?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think that it would be helpful for me to comment on a matter that is essentially an operational question for the police forces concerned. Even on the question of the recent terrorist act affecting a Netherlands citizen, there was the closest co-operation between our police forces. We are in regular contact with the Republic about the enforcement of the criminal law. We look forward to introducing, as soon as possible, joint arrangements for extending extra-territorial jurisdiction over fugitive offenders.
  The hon. Gentleman welcomed the closer relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic. It is only fair to say that the improvement began in the period in office of my predecessor as Prime Minister. A big step forward took place in those years.
  Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the last war many thousands of citizens of Eire came to this country, joined our Armed Forces and died fighting for this country and its beliefs? Is he aware that great cities such as Liverpool would not have been built without the efforts of ordinary Irishmen? Is it not stupid for hon. Members to begin this sort of opposition to the citizens of Eire because of an immediate problem concerning the IRA?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with the wise words of my hon. Friend on this question. It is
  232
  certainly a fact that many thousands of Irish citizens took part in fighting against the Hitler terror, and many of them died. This stems from a belief in democracy common to our two countries. Over hundreds of years we have had a close relationship with them—a love-hate relationship. There was sometimes more hate than love in the past, when, for example, they were part of the United Kingdom. I believe that in recent years the efforts of successive Governments have helped to create a much more co-operative relationship with them. As for what my hon. Friend said about Merseyside, we are both Merseyside Members, and I entirely agree with him.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the custom of the House that, if a Minister wishes to make a long statement instead of an answer of normal length to a Question, he or she asks the permission of the House to reply to that Question after Question Time. Today, in answer to Question No. 5 asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken), the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Social Services read three pages of typescript—[An hon. Member: "Four."]—I stand corrected—and as a result, Mr. Speaker, you quite properly had drastically to restrict the number of supplementary questions you allowed afterwards. Even so, only 12 Questions were reached before 3.15 p.m., when the Prime Minister decided to answer his own Questions.
Is the House given any protection by you, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to the conscience of the right hon. Lady, who is not in the Chamber now, from this abuse of Question Time?
Mr. Mike Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order that Opposition Members should explicitly ask in their Questions for statements and then complain when they get them?
Mr. Skinner: Whilst we are on the subject of long interventions and long statements, Mr. Speaker, could you prevail upon the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), while you are

233
beginning to think about answering his point of order, to try to explain what he means by Early-Day Motion No. 65?
Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order first.
I admit that there are many times when I long for brevity from both the questioner and the Minister answering the Question. The days when a Minister just said in reply "No, Sir", "Yes, Sir" or "I shall consider the matter" seem to have gone. I agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that it would have been much better in this case if the Question had been answered at the end of Question Time. I very much dislike being driven on to the course which I had to adopt of allowing no supplementary questions except from the original questioner.

TELEVISION LICENCES (APPEAL COURT DECISION)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I have now been able to consider the implications of the decision in the Court of Appeal on 4th December in Congreve v. Home Office reversing the judgment given in favour of the Home Office in the High Court on 26th November.
I have given careful consideration as to whether I should seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords. I have decided not to do so. The clear and unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal is that it was not a proper use of my discretion in the circumstances either to refuse to issue what has come to be known as an overlapping licence or to revoke such a licence if it was issued.
My actions and those of my Department in this matter have been founded on the advice that they were within my powers and the discretion open to me in the use of those powers and having in mind our duty both to protect from loss the licence revenue, which is the BBC's main source of income, and also to act equitably as between one licence holder and another. Our action was in line with the practice which had been followed for 20 years by successive Governments, although it had not hitherto arisen in the
234
context of an increase in licence fees because such increases had not been so sharp as to make the problem real. The judgment of the High Court on 26th November upheld our action. However, what is at present much more to the point is that the Court of Appeal did not.
The immediate effect of the decision of that court is to invalidate the licence revocations already issued. Its wider implications and consequences for the future administration of the television licensing system, particularly but not only at the time of an increase of licence fees, need careful scrutiny. Fresh arrangements and perhaps fresh legislation—though this, of course, will be a matter for Parliament to pronounce upon—will in my view be necessary in order to overcome the difficulties which have arisen this year and the dilemma posed by the decision of the court of reconciling the requirements of the law with a fair, coherent and reasonably economical system of administration.
However, despite the questions raised by the decision I do not believe that it would be in the interests either of responsible government or of justice to individuals to pursue the matter remorselessly to the House of Lords. Such a course would be time-consuming and, whatever the outcome, would create new confusion. This is not a prospect which I would willingly contemplate. It is time that this unhappy affair—for some aspects of which I have already apologised to the House, and for which I do so again—was ended.
Therefore, the licence holders concerned will be asked to ignore the revocation letters they have received. All overlapping licences will run to a date 12 months from the first day of the month in which they were issued. I shall also make arrangements as quickly as possible to refund the additional £6 paid by those who took out overlapping licences and who subsequently responded to requests to pay the additional amount.
There has also been weekend controversy over what counsel for the Home Office appeared to have said before the Court of Appeal. As the House knows, Mr. Roger Parker, QC, has already made a personal statement to explain not only that what he said was not intended to bear the interpretation which has been put upon it but that it was not said either

235
on my instructions or on those of the Home Office. I would add that it would in my view be unthinkable for any Home Secretary, with the special responsibilities of his office for upholding the rule of law, to question the vital independence of the judiciary or to propound the doctrine that the Executive is in any way above or outside the law.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: It is entirely fitting that this Government, who have shown such contempt for the law and for the rights of the individual, should now fall foul of the courts. It is ironic that the right hon. Gentleman, who has been better in this respect than his colleagues, should be the victim. We welcome his characteristic apology, his characteristic decision not to appeal to the House of Lords and his intention to set the financial matters right.
Is it not unprecedented that the same Minister should be censured by the Ombudsman for maladministration and then condemned by the Court of Appeal for contravening the Bill of Rights? Surely that is a unique double. The House will be glad that the Home Secretary was exonerated by Mr. Parker's statement yesterday, as, indeed, we expected. As Mr. Parker was instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, why did not the Treasury Solicitor instruct him to withdraw his offensive remarks before the case came to an end? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why that instruction was not given.
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman, with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, ensure that in future all counsel instructed by the Government are explicitly ordered not to threaten the courts of this land by any future action by the Executive? Will the right hon. Gentleman bring to the notice of the Government the lesson of this case—namely, that the rights of the individual are far more important than the convenience of the Executive?
Mr. Jenkins: As regards the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I made my attiof my statement. I believe that Mr. Parker made his position perfectly clear. It must be within the knowledge of many hon. Members, whether or not they are tude quite clear in the closing sentences
236
lawyers, that it is not possible for any client to instruct a lawyer on exactly what he says in the conduct of a case. The matter has been made clear and Mr. Parker has made the fullest possible statement—
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Answer the question.
Mr. Jenkins: I shall answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), for whom I have considerable respect, and not the remarks of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), for whom I have little respect.
Mr. Parker took the fullest opportunity to make a clear statement yesterday. I cannot believe that any hon. Member of unprejudiced mind would not regard that as satisfactory. On his own initiative he made it clear that there were no instructions from me or from my Department which in any way justified his doing what he did.
I repeat that this has been an unhappy affair. I hope not to be associated with such an affair again, and I do not think that I have been so involved in the past. It is true that we have had a hard time from the Ombudsman and from the Court of Appeal. It is curious that their criticisms have been in different directions, although I take no comfort from that. The Ombudsman complained that we did not make it clear at an earlier stage that we would pursue more vigorously what were subsequently construed, to the surprise of many people, as illegal acts.
Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not clear that, to say the least, the Home Secretary has had some very bad advice on this matter? Does he agree that events have shown that the matter has been dealt with with an excess of arrogant bureaucracy and an absence of common sense? Will he now re-examine other methods of financing the BBC, apart from the direct grant, which could avoid this sort of occurrence in future?
Mr. Jenkins: The Home Secretary, in common with other Ministers, is responsible for the advice upon which he acts. Alternative methods of financing the BBC are very much the concern of the Annan Committee, and they are under current consideration.
Mr. Beith: On reflection, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is no bad thing that the Executive should be brought to book from time to time in this way, and that the right hon. Gentleman and other Ministers should eat humble pie? Does he agree that the humble pie should produce some fairly sharp indigestion in his Department?
Mr. Jenkins: I have already indicated that what is done in my Department is my responsibility. Although I do not wish to comment upon my digestive system, I have already indicated my view on the events which have taken place. I must make it clear that there was never any intention on the part of anyone in my Department to act outside the law. We were mistaken as to what the law was in accordance with the views which had been held for 20 years. We never had the slightest intention of acting outside the law. This is clear from our acceptance of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Our position was not by any means an impossible or unreasonable one to take up, as was indicated by the fact that the High Court found in our favour. The position is that two courts have pronounced, one in one direction and one in another. I accept the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the superior court.
Mr. Lee: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of some of my hon. Friends, including one or two who may not be such unqualified admirers as others, who believe that his attitude in this case has been proper and generous? I ask him to contrast this case with the extraordinary behaviour that occurred during the short-lived and turbulent existence of the Industrial Relations Act, when the Court of Appeal was called upon to meet on Sundays to decide some of the extraordinary decisions that arose from the court at first instance, it giving the impression of being under pressure from the Government of the day.
I ask my right hon. Friend to pass a word of advice to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Does he not agree that, if the Ocean Islanders succeed in first instance in their action against the Attorney-General, the Government will accept—
Mr. Speaker: That last matter is sub judice.
Mr. Jenkins: Even if it were not sub judice, I have enough on my hands without dealing with the Ocean Islanders. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the Ombudsman, though finding various matters of maladministration, exonerated the right hon. Gentleman for taking the advice of his departmental legal advisers? However, on reflection does the right hon. Gentleman think that it would have been better in such a highly-charged political matter not to have relied merely upon his departmental legal advisers but to have taken the opinion of the Law Officers?
Mr. Jenkins: At this stage I believe that anyone would have been better advised to have taken the advice of someone who had given the right advice. I think that that must be the natural position. The advice that was given to me was given in good faith by experienced people.
Mr. Madden: In considering any review of the television licensing system, will my right hon. Friend undertake to include the arrangements through which only 200,000 pensioners out of a total of 3 million living alone are entitled to con cessionary television licences? Is he aware that this is a system which is riddled with anomalies and injustices?
Mr. Jenkins: I am well aware that there are certain anomalies in relation to this matter. It is a subject which we have been prepared to consider in the past and will, no doubt, consider again in the future, but it does not arise directly out of this particular problem.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, much as I would like him to resign on other grounds, I would be very sorry if he felt compelled to do so on a matter like this? Will he consider whether the ideal distribution of functions in these matters is that Ministers' discretion in a matter of this kind should be questioned in Parliament? Does he agree that the courts have been forced to move into this sphere because Parliament no longer calls Ministers to account for the exercise of their discretion as it should because of the increasing rigidity of the party system?
Mr. Jenkins: The hon. and learned Gentlemen's last point goes very wide of the statement. Courts have a function to perform in calling Ministers to account, though Parliament has the primary duty to do so. The past is settled, but if it were necessary to deal with the future position I would introduce legislation and let Parliament pronounce upon it.
Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents will applaud the primary motive in this matter and deplore the statement of the Master of the Rolls who said that the average person's reaction to this piece of sharp practice would be "Good luck to them, we wish we had done the same"?
Mr. Ridley: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member in this House to question the judiciary in a judgment which has just been given? Would it not be right for the hon. Member to withdraw his last remark?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) is questioning a decision of the judiciary, he must do so by means of a motion.
Mr. Thomas: I am not doing so, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend agree that many of my constituents would prefer the judgment of my grandmother to the self-righteous pomposity of Opposition Members when she said about another dubious activity "It may be legal, but it ain't nice"?
Mr. Jenkins: I shall not be drawn by my hon. Friend except to say that there is a difficult balance to strike, as has been proved in this case rather unusually, between what is fair and what is legal.
240
We must be bound by what is legal and try to make it as fair as possible

TELEVISION LICENCES (APPEAL COURT DECISION)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
  Ordered,
  That Commission Document No. R/2357/75 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Customs Duties and Drawbacks (Tobacco and other Revenue Duties) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1943) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &c.
  That the Value Added Tax (Processing) (Jewellery) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2014) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Value Added Tax (Processing) (Boats) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2015) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Value Added Tax (Food) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2013) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &c.
  That the Value Added Tax (Exhibition Sites) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2009) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Value Added Tax (Electronic Organs) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2004) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2008) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Value Added Tax (Containers) (Variation) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2012) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings, etc.) (No. 3) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2011) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Value Added Tax (Aircraft) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2006) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.53 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In moving the Second Reading of this Bill for the second or third time—I have rather lost count how many times I have done so in one form or another—perhaps I might first refer to the novel procedure under which the House will be operating on the Second Reading and subsequent stages of the Bill. There is a motion on the Order Paper which will be discussed later when I shall elaborate more fully on the reasons why the Government are proceeding in such a manner. We are not seeking to suppress, injure or impair the way in which the House is to debate the matter. One of the many virtues of this House is that it decides for itself how to conduct debates under your benign and practised surveillance, Mr. Speaker. It can conduct its affairs in almost any way and the matters that can be discussed on this Second Reading go very wide indeed. I have no powers to limit the debate.
  However, we have already discussed this Bill, in one form or another, for about 100 hours. We are faced with the novelty of the House of Lords having exercised its powers to prevent the Bill from reaching the statute book in the last Session. I am not seeking to limit the debate and anyway I cannot do so, but as the House of Lords sent back the Bill and it has had to be revived in order that the will of the House of Commons should become the law of the land, it would be desirable, not necessarily on legal or even constitutional grounds, but rather on political grounds, if most of the debate could be confined to those matters on which the House of Lords in the end signified its disagreement with this House. I have made all the qualifications in advance and will understand if hon. Members opposite wish to carry the debate wider. I just want to indicate why I hold the
  242
  view which some of them apparently regard as curious.
  My main reason for finding the conduct of the House of Lords offensive to proper democratic procedures in this instance, as in many others, is that the House of Lords invokes this final power only when Labour or Liberal Governments are in power. It never does so when Conservative Governments are in power, and that gives a strange list to the whole constitution.
  We have some recent examples that I can cite. The Industrial Relations Act 1971 was a highly controversial measure and one might have thought that, if the House of Lords had a claim to existence on the grounds of asking this House to have second thoughts, it would have done so in the case of that Act, particularly as it was passed through this House under a severe guillotine. Yet the House of Lords did not seek to revoke a single controversial amendment included in that Act and certainly none was carried to the point to which the Lordships are carrying their opposition to one section of this Bill. This is one example of a major controversial measure passed by a Conservative Government when their Lordships did not take any action to ask this House to think again.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Do not forget the Common Market.
  Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) cites another flagrant example of the same kind of conduct. If ever there was a measure passed through this House which required consideration by the House of Lords to see whether it conformed to the will of this House or the country as a whole, it was the European Communities Act. This was also passed through this House under a guillotine without a single amendment. It went to another place and was passed there without a single amendment, yet it was a constitutional measure of prime importance to the whole country.
  These two prime examples illustrate how much the weight in the House of Lords lists to the Conservative side—and that is the argument I am seeking to illustrate.
  There is only one example, so far as I know, in British history—not a modern

  243
  one—when the House of Lords by a majority interfered with the Tory majority in the House of Commons. It happened in the reign of Queen Anne in the year 1711 when there was a Whig majority in the House of Lords that sought to interfere with the then Tory Government in the House of Commons. It was, incidentally, a highly nefarious Tory Government. I am now quoting a royal precedent since it involves Queen Anne. When the House of Lords sought to interfere with the business of the Tory House of Commons, Queen Anne intervened by appointing 12 peers. When the 12 peers went to the House of Lords, so much was it thought that they were appointed directly to overturn the Whig majority that the 12 peers were asked whether they were voting separately or whether their foreman would speak for them. It was a very good precedent.
  I am sure that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition will treat that precedent with great respect. If that kind of conduct were to be repeated by the House of Lords on frequent occasions—I do not make any insistence on the number of offences the House of Lords might have to commit to invite a remedy—there is a prompt remedy open to us, and a remedy that can be invoked. As I have pointed out, it has a most respectable precedent and I hope that another place will take that into account.
  Sir David Renton: Might it not be that the House of Lords in the last Parliament understood something which the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends did not then understand and still do not understand—namely, that there was a strong feeling among most of the people that trade union law was out of date, that the unions had become too powerful and that the then Conservative Government were still in their rights in trying to rectify that position?
  Mr. Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is all in favour of the House of Lords using its power to interfere with Labour or Liberal Governments, but he is not in favour of its interfering with Conservative Governments. He is only illustrating the case I was making.
  Mr. John Lee: My right hon. Friend the Secretary
  244
  of State for Employment puts the case rather jocularly based on a distant precedent in Queen Anne's reign, but is not that the point? Why cannot he persuade the Prime Minister to create enough life peers to cover the situation? I have already written to the Prime Minister suggesting that very course. Judging by some of the people who have already gone to the other place, the qualifications are not very demanding.
  Mr. Foot: I understand that my hon. Friend is not standing at the next election. If the appointments were within my prerogative, I should be happy to consider his application. However, I would ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that, although I was making a joke, I was also taking the point seriously. I believe that the House of Lords must be extremely careful about the way in which it exercises its powers, particularly when it exercises those powers only against Labour or Liberal Governments.
  Mr. James Prior: Perhaps I may help the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he would suggest to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he should make life peers of the whole of the Government Front Bench so that we could have by-elections. We would be most happy to abide by that suggestion.
  Mr. Foot: I thought that the possibility that I would be assisted by the right hon. Gentleman was a very wild one, and that supposition has been borne out by his intervention.
  The Bill now reintroduced is substantially the same as that given a Second Reading a year ago, on 3rd December 1974. The measure contains some significant improvements in the definition of a "union membership agreement"—improvements made partly to meet Opposition criticisms. These changes, when enacted, will enable employers and unions which decide to draw up closed shop agreements to do so on a more flexible basis than the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act allows.
  The Bill contains nothing on the Press, which has been such a prominent feature of the discussions on the Bill on earlier occasions, because if it is to fall within the bounds laid down by the Parliament Acts it may not do so.

  245
  The Government have made clear their intentions about the inclusion of a clause providing for a charter on Press freedom—in almost exactly the same terms as the previous charter in the Bill which left the House—by tabling a resolution for debate at a subsequent stage of the Bill. The Opposition have done likewise, as has the Liberal Party, and those amendments and suggestions will be debated according to the arrangements originally laid down under the Parliament Act by a Liberal Government. Notwithstanding Press resolutions, however, the Bill is primarily about industrial relations.
  The principal purpose of the Bill is to repeal or amend, where appropriate, provisions inserted by the Opposition in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act which preserve, either in letter or in spirit, provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 which proved at best unworkable and more often counterproductive in practice.
  While the amendment Bill is kept from the statute book, the Industrial Relations Act remains unrepealed and the law remains in a state of potentially troublesome uncertainty. The Government are committed by two manifestos to the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and in our most recent manifesto to the repeal of Opposition amendments moved on our earlier Bill.
  I wish to turn to a subject which figured prominently in our debates, namely, the safeguarding provisions. The Bill repeals Section 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, which repeats in substance a provision of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 by providing a statutory right of complaint, enforceable through the courts, against a union alleged to have arbitrarily or unreasonably expelled or excluded somebody from membership.
  The Government are not against safeguards for the individual against unreasonable action by a union. We have repeatedly made clear that there should he such safeguards, but that they should be workable and effective. We considered the problems with the greatest care and discussed them with those who would be primarily involved in making any safeguards work. We concluded that statutory safeguards of the kind included in
  246
  the Industrial Relations Act would not help the individual and that, if anything, they might act against his best interests.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the proposal to revoke Section 5 is carried, the Ferrybridge six will not be able to have their case heard by an industrial tribunal? Does he regard that as an enhanced or a decreased right?
  Mr. Foot: I shall come to the Ferry-bridge case in a moment.
  Mr. Thorpe: On that point will the right hon. Gentleman now say whether, if that amendment is enacted, the Ferry-bridge six will be unable to take their case to an industrial tribunal?
  Mr. Foot: No. The right hon. Gentleman is mixing up the two cases.
  Mr. Thorpe: I am referring to only one case.
  Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman is mixing up two statutes which are quite different, as I shall seek to explain. I shall not seek to evade the issue and I shall come to it in a moment. Section 5 is in any case full of many legal pitfalls. It is defective. It has legal side effects which have nothing to do with exclusions or expulsions from a union and which interfere with long-established immunities in respect of restraint of trade. It provides for resort to the High Court and injunction proceedings, which is a proven irritant to stable industrial relations. It does not take account of existing union and TUC procedures which have been so much developed and improved in recent years. But, above all, it guarantees nothing of value to the aggrieved individual.
  The equivalent right under the Industrial Relations Act was not effective. It created ill will and hostility towards the individual rather than remedies for his grievances. Understandably, individuals were reluctant to use it. Where they did, often bypassing internal procedures which could have resolved their difficulties, they won Pyrrhic victories only. One cannot expect a man to love his neighbour if the neighbour has set the dogs on him. That is one of the facts that the Conservatives should learn about the situation.
  Why, then, do the Opposition want to preserve so-called remedies of a kind

  247
  which have previously failed? Why should they work now? The Government have sought alternative, genuine remedies. The non-statutory machinery which the TUC will set up, once Section 5 is repealed, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, can build upon and complement the machinery already available in the trade union movement. It can proceed by conciliation and rely on co-operation from the unions which will have to carry out its recommendations.
  Common law remedies will still be available to anyone who is expelled from a union. Perhaps I should emphasise that point in view of the kind of misconceptions which have been spread in some quarters. As long ago as 3rd December 1974 I made clear in the debate that nothing we were proposing interfered in any way with common law rights and the right of appeal against alleged breaches of natural justice. This has sometimes been questioned, and there has been argument about whether a reference to common law rights was required.
  From the earliest stages of this controversy in May 1974, following the introduction of the first repeal Bill, right up to today there has never at any stage been any proposal or any suggested formulation in any clause or amendment, or in any other kind of provision put forward by the Government, which would in any way whatsoever have weakened common law rights as they previously existed. That is the case in relation to expulsion from trade unions generally and in relation to the clause relating to the Press. Clear words would be needed to restrict or breach common law rights.
  If Opposition Members say that I must not make any repudiation on these matters, I can only say that these accusations have been repeated. They were repeated in an article in the Observer on Sunday by Nora Beloff. Hon. Members may say that, if Nora Beloff says it positively and with assurance, one can be absolutely sure that the opposite is almost certain to be true. Since she has suggested once again that in some way or other we are interfering with common law rights, I wish to make it clear that that is not the case, Hon. Members who have witnessed
  248
  the discussions that we have had on this subject throughout the period will confirm what I say.
  Mr. Thorpe: I am not rising to reiterate my earlier point which the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking to deal with later. May I ask him another question? What does the suggested new clause purport to mean in Section 1(10) if it is not to exclude from any legal proceedings those who, having agreed certain principles in the suggested charter, then proceed to break them? It is no good saying that this is a repetition of the Tory Act, because that was devised for a totally different situation. If the right hon. Gentleman is not excluding the courts from the provisions of the schedule when its principles are breached by the parties, what does he mean should be done? We must have a clear answer on this point.
  Mr. Foot: I was speaking about common law rights as they refer to the whole Bill. There is nothing in what we now propose, concerned either with general trade union rights or with the Press, which in any way interferes with common law rights.
  Mr. Thorpe: Section 5.
  Mr. Foot: The Part of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman quoted referred to the Press provisions, and I understand that, but it does not in any way interfere with existing common law rights. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman making assertions as though they were facts. He is not aware of the facts. What I have said is the truth of the matter and is accepted by the highest legal advisers in the country, and, therefore, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept what I say.
  Mr. Prior: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up one small point? When Section 6 concerning the provision of rules was discussed in the House of Lords, Lord Justice Salmon said that union rules could be amended to allow a union executive to do what it liked, irrespective of the rules of natural justice. He then said:
  "The Common Law … would be entirely powerless to protect the working people … against oppression."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10th March 1975; Vol. 358, c. 28–29.]
  What is the right hon. Gentleman's reaction to that?
  Mr. Foot: What we are proposing in this Bill does not interfere in any way with common law rights which existed before the Bill. The whole area over which common law rights could be invoked and could prevail still remains and is not altered in any sense by what we have proposed.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: Is not the point that the Law Lord was making in the House of Lords valid? Was it not that common law protection is inadequate and that unless it is buttressed in some way it will not give protection to the individual?
  Mr. Foot: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point because he has underlined what I was saying. I am not saying that common law rights are by themselves sufficient. It is for that reason that we have sought to introduce other protections which we hope will be effective. I reiterate that the common law rights are not being interfered with by what we are proposing.
  I have referred to the proposals which the General Council of the TUC has made, which we believe can assist. There are further provisions in the alteration of the definition of union membership agreements which we believe can also assist, and we believe that these measures are much more likely to protect individuals than would be the kind of measures which were incorporated in the 1971 Act which are repealed but which are in a bowdlerised form in Section 5 of the 1974 Act and which we are proposing to remove. There is no question, therefore, of interference.
  Mr. Barney Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no direct dimunition of common law rights by the changes in the Bill. He is, however, standing by and permitting other people to reduce those rights, and he appears wholly unconcerned about that and unable to give any legal guarantee that that will not happen.
  Mr. Foot: I understand the hon. Member's argument, although I do not agree with him. I was seeking to establish, and I have now established since this part of my speech has been unanimously accepted, so far as I can see, that we are not in any way diminshing
  250
  common law rights. There is, however, an argument as to what further steps should be taken. I believe that every hon. Member understands that. I believe that the House has unanimously repudiated what Miss Nora Beloff wrote on Sunday.
  Mr. Hayhoe: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the point. Perhaps the Bill will not directly diminish the common law rights of individuals, but those rights will be diminished if the right hon. Gentleman gets his way.
  Mr. Foot: The argument now is about how to provide protection for the individual beyond that afforded by common law rights.
  Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that those rights are diminished.
  Mr. Foot: We are interfering here with a provision orginally in the 1971 Act which has been persisted with in this Bill contrary to the wishes of the House of Commons—
  Mr. Hayhoe: No, that is totally untrue.
  Mr. Foot: On the last occasion when this matter was presented to the House of Commons, the House voted according to the Government's wishes and contrary to the view of the Opposition. The Bill which was sent to the other place incorporated the view I am now expressing, and I am therefore entitled to say that the House of Commons upheld the Government's view on that occasion. There is, therefore, no question of interference with the common law.
  By repealing Section 5, however, we avoid the rancour which attaches to special law specially framed to provide new causes of action against unions, additional to those already existing at common law, based on the way in which they conduct their internal affairs. It is possible to dream up developments which could go wrong with the non-statutory machinery, which we believe is a better way of doing it; but to criticise it because it does not have the same features as the unsuccessful remedies had is an unconstructive approach to the problem.
  Its importance lies in its being a new remedy, additional to anything which has previously existed alongside the lawful

  251
  closed shop. There was a lawful closed shop situation prior to 1971, but it did not have this additional protection which we are providing under our proposals. To deny the opportunity to see whether our proposals work better than did the Conservative proposals—which were unworkable—is a negative approach.
  The Government have made clear that, if this non-statutory approach is not effective, alternatives will be considered. Our approach is perhaps experimental—we have always said that; but if one experiment has been tried and has failed, we do not want to repeat that old experiment. We want to change it. That is why we seek to repeal Section 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act—not because we want to deny individuals their essential safeguards.
  Mr. Ian Percival: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that but for Section 5 the Ferrybridge workers would not be able to pursue the remedy which they are pursuing? What remedy do the Government propose for people in that situation if Section 5 is repealed?
  Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman has often contributed to our discussions on this matter, but on this occasion I do not think he is correct. The Ferrybridge six are taking action on grounds of unfair dismissal, not on grounds of exclusion or expulsion from the union. Therefore, they are not covered by the matter raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: If the right hon. Gentleman would tell us whether his legal advisers have advised that there is an inalienable natural right of justice in common law that a man should not be excluded from work by an act of a trade union, it would help us all. If the advice is that that right is alienable, we could take a different view towards the Bill, but, if not, we shall take the view which we have taken so far that it encroaches on a man's natural right.
  Mr. Foot: The common law rights deal only with expulsion, not with exclusion. I know that the common law does not deal with the whole picture. That is why we have sought to add other protections which we think will be effective beyond
  252
  the area where the common law prevails. I agree that the common law does not cover the whole picture, and we have never sought to pretend that it did. What I contest, and have every right to contest, is the completely false suggestion throughout the whole controversy that we seek to interfere with the common law rights as far as they prevail.
  Mr. Percival: Is it not right that if the Bill had been law the Ferrybridge workers would have neither the right to claim compensation for unfair dismissal nor the right to complain about having been refused admission by a union? Anyone in a similar position after the Bill becomes law will be deprived of both those rights. What rights will they have in lieu?
  Mr. Nigel Lawson: What are the new rights?
  Mr. Foot: I have said on many occasions what are the new rights. The Conservatives wrote into the 1971 Act, and into Section 5 of the Act which passed in the last House of Commons, provisions which they thought would be satisfactory for protecting individuals in those circumstances. We have claimed throughout—and experience has justified that claim from direct experience under the 1971 Act and since—that proper protections were not provided. If our proposal—the proposal agreed to by the General Council of the TUC—operates as we think it will operate, it will have a much better chance of protecting the individual. The individual trade unionist will have a much better chance of reinstatement under that procedure than he would have had under the unworkable Conservative procedures.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to play with words? No one in the House, least of all hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches behind him, agrees with what he is saying. There is no doubt that the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act and the previous Labour Government Acts reduced the rights of individuals, and that in the case of the Ferrybridge six the rights of individuals are being trampled on by the rights of the unions.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman continues to repeat the general broad claim

  253
  which he and the Conservative Party make on this subject. All I am saying—and this the hon. Gentleman and everyone must learn—is that experience of the 1971 Act repudiates what he said.
  Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman has referred many times to the remedies under the 1971 Act having been tried and having failed. He is never specific. Let him be specific and say how many individuals were sacked without compensation and without the right to unemployment benefit while that Act and those remedies were in being.
  Mr. Foot: I shall come in a moment to unemployment benefit. The hon. Gentleman should remember that in previous debates I quoted the highest authority, none other than Sir John Donaldson. In the Langston case he said that the provisions of the 1971 Act could not be carried into effect. It was largely because of that kind of experience that the Conservatives accepted that the closed shop could not be operated under the 1971 provisions. We therefore had to try to devise some protections. I agree—I have always agreed—that in a closed shop situation some protections must be devised. If we try to devise protections under the procedures of the 1971 Act or under Section 5, the provisions will be as unworkable in future as they have been in the past. Let us try to find a method of protection which has a chance of working.
  I turn now to the question of unemployment benefit and the Ferry-bridge power station workers. I do not diminish the importance of that matter. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), in a letter which he wrote to me a day or two ago, suggested that I should state categorically whether the men dismissed from Ferrybridge should or should not be paid unemployment benefit and that I should state whether the Government were prepared to introduce legislation to amend the law to ensure that persons dismissed in similar circumstances were entitled to it.
  The main purpose of my letter to Mr. Nicholson which led to these questions being raised was to help him to understand the procedures involved in the determination of cases where eligibility for unemployment benefit was in question, and the separate process of hearing
  254
  a complaint of unfair dismissal. I made plain—this was the primary purpose of the letter—that neither I nor other Ministers had any power to intervene.
  The position is that the independent adjudicating authorities still have under consideration the question of the payment of unemployment benefit. It is not uncommon for benefit for the initial period of unemployment to be withheld if a decision cannot be given immediately because the relevant facts are still being collected. That has happened in this case. Of course, any of the men involved who experience financial difficulties in the meantime can, under the normal procedure, ask for help from the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
  In these circumstances, it would be wrong for me to do now what I have been criticised for appearing to do earlier—although I did not—and give my view on what the decision of the adjudicating authorities ought to be, or to go further and hold out the prospect of legislation to reverse a decision of such adjudicating authorities if benefit is not allowed.
  I listened carefully to the exchange at Question Time. Some hon. Members have asked that I should indicate that legislation would be announced if and when such a decision was made. I am almost being invited to perpetrate the offence that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, at Question Time, was falsely alleged to have perpetrated, and I cannot follow that course. It would be wrong in principle for me to do so. An independent adjudication has to ignore comment and pressure from Ministers and Parliament during the period in which the case is being decided, and it is clearly much better if Ministers and Parliament refrain from such comment and pressure in a matter for which independent authorities are responsible.
  It would also be wrong for me to take that course in practice, because complicated legal questions are involved, governed by the Social Security Act 1975 and the relevant Regulations, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is responsible. There are no clear precedents by way of previous decisions by the National Insurance Commissioners.
  There are many other aspects of the matter, also, which it would be difficult to

  255
  single out for special treatment—such as the closed shop aspect, and collective agreements—without raising problems in relation to other conditions of employment incorporated in new contracts as a result of collective agreements or even imposed unilaterally by the employer. However, I mention this only to point out that the issues are by no means clear and are certainly more complicated than is allowed. The right course, therefore, is to let the adjudicating authorities take their decision, and when we know that decision we will study the matter with the greatest care.
  The hon. Member for Cornwall, North wrote to me on the subject. I have no complaint about his letter, but I am entitled to complain about what he said on the radio on the programme PM". He said:
  "What Mr. Foot has said is that, because they have been dismissed for this reason, they have voluntarily declared themselves dismissed and therefore they are not entitled to unemployment pay."
  I said nothing of the sort. If I had, it would have been most improper. I have never said anything of the sort. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will understand that what he said was completely misleading.
  I think that is the best place where the House of Commons can leave these matters. I know that some other people have carried them further, and that the Editor of The Times has made some comments on the question. The Editor of The Times always seems to be rebuking us for crimes which he commits himself. He abjures me for favouring some kind of corporate State. I am bitterly opposed to any such idea, but I think that those who supported the 1971 Act were very much nearer to it.
  Then, of course, The Times feels that this is no time for undermining democracy, but nothing would undermine it so much as the kind of consensus politics that it preaches. The Editor of The Times throws his stone from a glasshouse of Crystal Palace proportions. He denounces profligacy and upholds the purity of competition in the columns of a newspaper that is more heavily subsidised than any other newspaper in history. He might be described as the lamest duck ever to waddle down Fleet Street, or—perhaps more accurately—to
  256
  quack in search of provender all the way from Printing House Square to Gray's Inn Road. I do not think that we need take too much notice of the Editor of The Times.
  Mr. Lawson rose—
  Mr. Foot: I do not see why the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) should be so gallant as to rush to his defence.
  Mr. Lawson: I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman, now that he has finished his favourite practice of attacking the Press, to answer the substantive point about the Ferrybridge six. This question goes far beyond the matter of unemployment pay. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, will it make any difference whatever to the rights of these six men, whether in terms of their right of appeal to an industrial tribunal or in any other way?
  Mr. Foot: I am not going to comment further on any other aspect of the Ferrybridge case. The matter is still being discussed by adjudicating authorities. There are several things that I could say about it—
  Mr. Brittan: Answer the question.
  Mr. Foot: If I were to answer the question, state fully what has occurred under the Industrial Relations Act and recall all that had passed in these circumstances, I have no doubt that other hon. Members would protest that I was doing exactly what I had said I would not do—comment on a case while the matter is still being judged. Instead of flinging around epithets of the kind used by the Editor of The Times and others, it is much better to leave the question to be decided by the authorities there to decide it, and when they have decided it no doubt the House and others will wish to draw conclusions, and we shall consider what further should be done. That is the best way to proceed—
  Mr. Thorpe rose—
  Mr. Foot: —and that advice applies to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) as well as to anyone else.
  Mr. Thorpe: No one is expecting the right hon. Gentleman to prejudge their case. God help us if anyone asked him to do so and he did. If the amendments

  257
  that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind are carried, is he suggesting that these men would have the same rights and same recourse to the industrial tribunal and to the common law? What alternatives is he putting forward? Is he suggesting that these proposals are better than their existing rights? These questions have nothing to do with the case as it is before the adjudicating authorities, and he cannot get out of it by saying that it is sub judice. The question of the rights involved is not sub judice.
  Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman must not be so aggrieved. I have answered the question put to me by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North about unemployment benefit. That is certainly relevant to the debate, and the right hon. Gentleman must not say that it is not. I shall come to his question. I have said that I thought it would be unwise for me to comment on a certain part of the case.
  The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has referred to common law rights. There is no interference with common law rights, as has been explained. As far as some other rights are concerned, again I am not prepared to comment on all of them, because some of them raise questions that arose at an earlier period, two or three years ago, and might be thought to affect some of these matters, because the status of the union to which the Ferrybridge six claimed to belong was raised before. Therefore, that aspect raises other questions. On the question of reinstatement—
  Mr. Brittan: What is the compensation?
  Mr. Foot: The only thing the hon. Gentleman wants, apparently, is compensation. I say—and we have argued throughout—that it is very much better, in order to preserve individual rights, that people should have the chance of reinstatement. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, as though these men do not worry about reinstatement. Most people with any experience of the trade union movement would say that men want their jobs back more than anything else. It is because of their loss of jobs that they have a grievance. The hon. Gentleman is still not facing the
  258
  issue, but we have argued this over and over again.
  Under the provisions that we put forward there is a much better chance of the individual being protected than under the law or under provisions which have not worked at all. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that the Conservative Government's system failed and, therefore, we must be given the chance to try a system which has a chance of success.
  Mr. Percival: If the Bill had become an Act in the last Parliament, people in the position of the Ferrybridge workers would have had neither the right to compensation for unfair dismissal or to reinstatement, nor the right to complain that they had been excluded from a union. They would not have had any of those rights, never mind how things turn out in the proceedings. They would not have had even the right to claim. If this Bill becomes law, anybody in the position of the Ferrybridge workers will have none of those rights. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what rights it is proposed to give them in place of those other rights?
  Mr. Foot: There are many respects in the Bill in which we have altered the law. One of the purposes in altering it is to substitute our better provisions, as we believe them to be, for dealing with the situation. It is also the fact that our provisions alter one of the Lever amendments, as they were called, that were made when we did not have quite the massive majority in the House that we have at the present time. There were two Lever amendments. Those Lever amendments, we believe, also left the law in a great state of confusion and uncertainty, and there is no certainty in the suggested—
  Mr. Percival: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  Mr. Foot: I am answering the hon. and learned Gentleman. Even under those laws, the provisions and the protections are by no means certain and, indeed, are left in a great state of confusion.
  Mr. Brittan: is not the position that, irrespective of whether or not the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the provisions giving protection in the Bill as we passed

  259
  it in the last Parliament are adequate, he is suggesting that there should be no statutory protection whatsoever in what he is proposing?
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is trying to beg the whole of the argument that we have had in these proceedings. He will not face the fact—
  Mr. Brittan: You will not.
  Mr. Foot: —that the protections for workers that the Conservatives wrote into the 1971 Act, and which they sought in a much more muddled form to re-write into Section 5, did not prove to be protections for people in trade unions. The hon. Gentleman may think that they proved to be protections but in the Langston case they did not prove to be protections nor did they prove to be protections in many other cases, primarily because they did not succeed in reconciling quarrels which occurred in trade unions. They had no success, therefore, in ensuring reinstatement, which was what people wanted in such cases.
  I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite hanker after the 1971 provisions in one form or another. That is what they want. We say that our system provides a series of safeguards in different ways dealing with different aspects of the matter. There are safeguards for individuals excluded or expelled from a union in a closed shop. We have ensured that a new piece of statutory machinery is added to the common law remedies already available. [Interruption.] I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen really think that they are showing any interest in trying to overcome these problems in the trade unions.
  The General Council of the TUC agreed to a proposal which goes far beyond anything it has accepted before. It is not that each union should be judge and jury in its own cause but that there should be an independent tribunal, presided over by a legal authority appointed by it but in consultation with the Secretary of State for Employment and the Chairman of ACAS.
  The proposal is that that body should be established to deal with the whole of the unions covered by the TUC and that those unions, when disputes of this kind occur, will have the chance to discuss
  260
  them and try to judge and repair the situation.
  Not only is that an additional safeguard over and above anything that existed in this country before 1971, but we also believe that the fact of its existence can itself play a most fruitful part in trying to ensure that the individual unions pay regard to these questions and seek to avoid disputes of this kind. That is one safeguard that we have sought to provide, and I suggest to Opposition Members that they would be very much wiser to greet it with some enthusiasm than to damn it from the start.
  On the right to resign from a union, we have a new clause. We have ensured that a legal remedy is available to the individual based on contract law.
  On the closed shop, we have ensured that the law is neutral and flexible. It neither compels nor prohibits but permits exception to be agreed on a very wide basis. We have provided specific safeguards for the religious objector.
  We have also ensured that an independent minority union, whose position is not recognised in a closed shop agreement, can seek from ACAS a recommendation for recognition. While it does so and subsequently if it is recommended for recognition, its members are protected against dismissal without compensation.
  On the question of Press freedom, we have accepted that there should be a charter, which should be given parliamentary backing and evidential status in legal proceedings.
  I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite deride these provisions, because they have said in numerous interruptions that it must be done on a statutory and legal basis. Some of the provisions which we have made are on a legal basis; our measures provide a framework of law. It is a matter of which form of framework it is to be. Although some of our measures provide legal arrangements, many of them, I fully agree, are based on a voluntary system—and a voluntary system which is working successfully.
  We believe that, if those arrangements can be made to work, not only will the atmosphere in industrial relations generally be improved but the rights of individuals within the unions can better be protected in that way.

  261
  I know that some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House—particularly, maybe, in the Liberal Party—say that we cannot have a voluntary system and that we must have the whole legal machinery, otherwise it will not work. This argument is very familiar to me. I remember all the debates we had on the incomes policy when it was going through at the end of July. We were told then that we could not rely on any voluntary system, that there was no possibility of having any agreements by consent, and that it must all be done by the reserve powers.
  Mr. Thorpe rose—
  Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman, who has interrupted me so frequently, has said that it has to be done by legal restrictions and legal agreements and that that is the only way of dealing with these problems.
  Mr. John Pardoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are reserve powers? There are 1,250,000 reserve powers. They are the unemployed, and it is the threat of unemployment which is forcing the trade unions to accept the Bill. With statutory limitations of the kind that we Liberals requested, the Secretary of State would not have to preside over the present level of unemployment.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman cannot run away with it in that fashion. We in the Labour Party believe in the processes of consent. We believe that it can be best done by establishing a general framework in which people can exercise their tolerance. We believe that the method of seeking to bind and restrict the trade unions, as was done under the 1971 Act, is one of the reasons why our society has been poisoned. We want to remove the poison. Those who wish to assist us in that process will vote for the Bill, and the sooner that the House of Lords puts it on the statute book the better it will be for good industrial relations.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. James Prior: There were only two occasions during the right hon. Gentlemans speech when he came to life. The first was when he was busy hurling insults at Mr. William Rees-Mogg and at the House of Lords, which he does frequently. The second was when he got
  262
  into the groove at the end of his remarks on the subject of the Industrial Relations Act. We have heard a good deal of that from him over the past few years.
  The right hon. Gentleman has taken great credit for sweeping away the powers of the Industrial Relations Act. It was surprising, therefore, that when he was asked specifically about rights to compensation, rights to reinstatement and rights of exclusion, he became rather coy. He did not want to give the true answer, which is that he is sweeping away those powers and putting nothing in their place. I think that it is important to get that on the record.
  We should also get on the record that we are grateful, and the country should be, that the House of Lords threw out the Bill in the way that it did. In the last few weeks, many of the difficulties into which the amended Trade Union and Labour Relations Act of 1974 would yet have come to light. This explains to me and to my right hon. and hon. Friends only too well why the right hon. Gentleman was in such indecent haste to get this Bill on the statute book. With it he could come here as the problems arose and say "This is what Parliament has decreed. There is nothing I can do about it", and wash his hands accordingly.
  However, the Ferrybridge six, the Vauxhall workers, the railway employees and many others will not go away. Such cases will keep coming up from time to time. They are the people who will go on making their protests, and they are right to do so when their freedoms and rights have been taken away.
  There will be no easy passage for this Bill. It is not just a case of one recommended amendment for the other House to consider. There are many amendments of great concern on grounds of personal liberty which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will now want to look at afresh in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's speech today and in the light of what has happened in the past few weeks outside the House. I cannot believe that there are not a number of Government supporters who are not seriously worried about the turn of events which has followed the decisions of the railway workers, of the Ferrybridge six and of others. I hope very much that

  263
  they will find it in their hearts to support the Opposition's amendments.
  The problem is that the State passes legislation which can affect the livelihood of the individual worker and, indeed, his chance of any livelihood. As we all know, if anyone is once expelled or excluded from a trade union, he does not just lose his job in that works: he may lose his job for ever and be totally unemployed. That is one thing that the State has done in passing this legislation.
  The next thing that the State can do is that, because it is such a large employer, it can insist on closed shop agreements in those categories of workers it employs. So it has done that as well.
  Again, the State is the authority responsible for paying or refusing to pay unemployment benefit. It is a transfer of rights from the individual to the State made at the behest of the TUC General Council. The further that we get away from the trade union official to the rank and file, the less support the Bill gets. The more that we move away from reality and from the robust, dignified, normal worker to the jaded, cynical, irresponsible trade union official, the more support the Bill gets.
  That is no exaggeration. I say that this Bill is the enfranchisement of the corporate society and the disfranchisement of the individual. It gives status to the organised body, and it destroys the status of the individual citizen. It elevates the irresponsible trade union official—[Laughter.] I use the word "irresponsible" in the constitutional sense. The trade union official is irresponsible. He is not subject to election, as we are. He is not exposed to pressure, as we are.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman recognises those words. With the exception of the word "Bill" which I have substituted for the word "regulation", they are the words used by Aneurin Bevan in the House when defending a situation towards the end of the war, and they are taken directly from a book written by the Secretary of State. I hope, therefore, that he will bear in mind that the circumstances are very similar to those about which Aneurin Bevan was speaking. So, when Government supporters laugh at the language that I have used,
  264
  perhaps they will understand that it is the language of Aneurin Bevan.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Let us hear the context in which they were used.
  Mr. Prior: I hope that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) will look carefully at the context.
  I turn now to one of the main arguments of the Secretary of State about Section 5 of the 1974 Act dealing with exclusion or expulsion from a trade union. Let us examine this proposal for a TUC committee, which the right hon. Gentleman calls "workable and effective" safeguards for the person excluded or expelled.
  The committee would be appointed by the TUC. The TUC would consult the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the ACAS. But that does not necessarily mean that that makes it a legal committee. It is not a legal committee, because the right hon. Gentleman has made it plain that that is not his wish.
  The individual who takes a case to the committee has to go through all the internal union procedures before the committee is set up. We know how long that can take. It can take a very long time. In another place, Lord George-Brown said that he thought that it could take up to a couple of years. What happens to the individual whilst he is waiting for those procedures to be gone through? He loses his job, or he is sent home and paid by his employer. I do not think that that is a very satisfactory procedure for anyone to undergo.
  What is the right to reinstatement? It may be true that the committee and the TUC will do all that they can to get reinstatement if the committee rules that way. But there is no legal right to reinstatement. It is just a hope. It can be no more than a hope. There can be no enforcement, and no reinstatement.
  Parliament has no say in the setting-up of this committee. The committee can work only in a closed shop situation. Moreover, it applies only to TUC unions. Can we be satisfied in matters which involve a man's livelihood and work that the TUC in its quasi-judicial capacity is properly equipped for doing this? The

  265
  right hon. Gentleman referred to the television licence matter, and I mention in passing that it was good that the TV licence holders had a judge to go to. If they had had to rely on anyone else, they would not have got very far.
  I shall refer to what Mr. Eric Jacobs of the Sunday Times had to say about the TUC quasi-judicial procedures. He said:
  "The TUC's procedures turned out to be less than fair, its rules were not clear guides to action; and it attempted even to make its own decisions take precedence over the law of the land."
  Later he pointed out:
  "For instance, it was by no means clear that the TUC disputes committee ever had a fair account of the facts"—
  he was referring to the Saga Apex case—
  "Rothwell was not allowed to attend the committee hearing and the judge was moved to issue a mild rebuke to ASTMS for apparently inflating the figures for its GA membership, thus perhaps influencing the committee's view on its appropriateness as the right union for the company's staff.
  But essentially the case was a test of the TUC's law-making abilities, and the TUC lost heavily on a number of counts".
  We are here to protect the rights of the individual citizen. Is it right that we should allow a man's livelihood to be taken away from him without a proper right of appeal to the High Court? I do not believe that even the right hon. Gentleman can believe what he is saying.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whose livelihood was at stake in the case to which he has referred? In that case the Bridlington Committee was seeking to decide which was the appropriate union to organise in a particular situation.
  Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the TUC is a fit and proper body to undertake the duties of a court of appeal. We are saying that there is nothing that convinces us that the TUC is the right body. Indeed, there is evidence available—for example, the case I have just mentioned—to prove that the TUC's rules and procedures are not suitable for exercising a responsibility
  266
  of this nature. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Bridlington rules has anything to do with the matter.
  I turn to the changes in paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 1 and Section 30 of the 1971 Act which deal with the unfair dismissal clause and under what grounds one can be excluded from a union. It is clear that under the new Bill management and unions may conclude an agreement requiring employees to belong to a specified union, or, where they are not members of a specified union, have it accepted as one. If they refuse, they can be fairly dismissed except, of course, on religious grounds, albeit that they are people who have worked for many years for an employer and are members of another union, in or out of the TUC, and have deeply held personal convictions about joining any or a specified union, or have applied and have been turned down.
  That is what will happen under the new Bill. We do not contend that closed shops are wrong, or that individual freedom cannot be maintained within such arrangements. We maintain that the right hon. Gentleman's arrangements are totally unsatisfactory for this purpose. We know that employers and employees welcome the orderly arrangements which can come from such agreements. Neither side is usually disturbed much by the odd person who refuses to join.
  However, we are deeply concerned about the safeguards. The right hon. Gentleman has argued that he is doing no more than return to the pre-1971 position. Indeed, he has put forward that argument time and time again. Lord Donovan found that to be unsatisfactory, and even the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, the Department of Employment at the time when the right hon. Lady was Secretary of State, gave evidence accordingly. Lord Donovan clearly stated that although trade unions must retain ultimate discretion about when to admit and when not to admit, he recognised that this meant that trade union rules should be clarified and that there should be an independent body beneath the courts to whom an appeal should be made. Therefore, the position before 1971 was unclear, inconsistent and certainly unsatisfactory.

  267
  If the amended Bill becomes law, the position will be quite different from pre-1971. For the first time closed shops are specifically encouraged by the defining of "union membership agreement". Moreover, appeals on exclusion and so on are to be made only to the TUC body. There are only religious reasons for not belonging. Indeed, most trade unions and closed shops up until now have always accepted other conditions such as reasons of conscience, and so on, for not joining.
  It will be fair to dismiss. There was, of course, no unfair dismissal procedure before the 1971 Act. Time and time again, through his statements in the House and outside, the right hon. Gentleman has given the official imprimatur of the Government and protection of the law and by doing so has made it clear that he is seeking the setting up of closed shops.
  Finally, the unions will be completely free, if the Bill goes through, to draw up their own rules. I should like to quote a short passage from the Observer which says:
  "In thus tilting power towards the trade union, Mr. Foot's short Bill is denying it not to the employer but to the individual worker. Trade unions are as capable of being tyrannical as any other human institution; and the individual needs proper protection against them."
  On those grounds we rest our case that the amendment Bill is totally inadequate and should be drastically and radically amended.
  We are glad that the issue of the closed shop has become much wider in the eyes of the public than the narrow Press issue on which attention was concentrated in the last Session. However, it is out of the closed shop provisions that the Press freedom issue arose. The issue was that a closed shop—negotiated in the Press by the National Union of Journalists—could deny access to the Press by individual outside contributors and thus undermine editorial freedom.
  That fear was added to by certain events which, first, prevented outside contributors from taking part, and, secondly, changed the rules of membership for editors. I do not think that this point has been brought out enough, because again the right hon. Gentleman has said that all he is doing is returning to the
  268
  pre-1971 position. That is not so. According to the Press, editors were always allowed to have associate membership up until about two years ago, but now they have to become full members.
  If they had to become full members, they would be placed completely at the mercy of the closed shop, perhaps when the union decided to come out on strike. The editor would then have to choose whether to try to produce his paper. If he did, he could be thrown out of the union and lose his livelihood. That is the point on which a number of editors or would-be editors feel very strongly.
  Mr. Corbett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even when editors with the power of hire and fire were in associate membership they were still bound by the decisions of the national executive council and to that extent, under the rules, could be called out on strike—although in practice they were not?
  Mr. Prior: My understanding is that they never had to attend union meetings and that those conditions were never enforced. But it is the fact that they now have to be full members of the NUJ in a closed shop which causes concern to editors, as expressed to me in recent days.
  The whole issue of Press freedom is far too important to be left to chance. That is why we strongly supported the amendments which Lord Goodman wrote into the previous Bill in another place. We were not entitled to write in those amendments, because they were not covered by the Long Title of the Bill, but they were written in in another place. We believe that they represent the very minimum that requires to be done.
  But I go further. I believe that we need a proper examination of the whole issue of freedom of the Press, which must go much wider than just the subject of journalists. There are more and more cases in which other unions can exert such pressure on an editor as to prevent the publication of news or advertisements which that editor in the ordinary course of events would wish to put into the paper.
  I quote two examples. First, the News of the World was printing an article by Lord George-Brown as the main story on Sunday 22nd June. The News of the World was told that if it went ahead with

  269
  publication, the paper could not be printed. It was not until two-thirds of the copies had been lost that the printers changed their minds and agreed to print.
  The second case is even more tragic, in a way. The Director wished to carry an advertisement which the unions refused to print. It was, of course, an advertisement in which Mr. Ross McWhirter was playing a leading part. They refused to print it. It says:
  "The Case of the Missing Ad".
  These are infringements of freedom which no hon. Member should countenance, a freedom for which people have been prepared to give their lives. We need a much wider review of the whole apparatus of the closed shop as it affects the freedom of the Press. I hope that the Government will pay close attention to what I have said.
  Mr. Foot: I am all in favour of protecting such rights. Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the charter which has been proposed and which would be agreed upon by the parties in the industry? Does he not think that that is one big step forward to try to secure these rights?
  Mr. Prior: Again, the right hon. Gentleman knows the point only too well. Such a proposal is totally unenforceable. All that we were trying to do the whole way along in the passage of the previous Bill was to give at least some right of redress to anyone who lost his job as a result of refusing to join a union or, if he were thrown out in some way, to give him a right of appeal to the High Court. The right hon. Gentleman knows only too well that without those assurances written into the Bill, it would be completely meaningless.
  What I am asking him now to do is proceed with the Goodman amendments. Incidentally, Lord Goodman went out of his way to try to get agreement on this. The stories that we have had from the right hon. Gentleman about what happened on that famous night were very dissimilar from those we have heard from nearly every other source with actual knowledge of what happened that night. Agreement could have been reached. I understand from my sources that a number of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues were under the impression that an
  270
  agreement was going to be reached and that it was not until he got to his office the next morning that the whole thing went wrong again. So we know that there is no great act of principle here to stop the Government from reaching a sensible decision.
  Mr. Foot: I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman picks up these rumours, but his account of the proceedings of that night and that morning is completely wrong. In fact, the final proposal which was turned down, which was one which had been agreed on by the Cabinet, was turned down by Lord Goodman. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has not given any accurate account of the facts. Of course, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman may have been misled by a statement in The Times on the subject, a statement which was equally false and which said that we had made a proposal which had been withdrawn. That also was not the case. The fact is that the discussions broke down on the same point on which they had broken down over previous months—that is, that Lord Goodman wanted to make the whole business legally enforceable and we did not accept that view.
  Mr. Prior: What I find a little disingenuous about the right hon. Gentleman's answer is why on earth, since he knew that Lord Goodman would be bound to want to give any proposal some proper authority, he bothered at all that evening to send his officials along, or they bothered to go—if he and the Cabinet were not prepared to give any undertaking along these lines.
  It looks perfectly clear to me from reading the Lords Hansard that what happened was that Lord Goodman met officials, they agreed to everything except one minor point, and Lord Goodman then went to bed in the happy expectation that all would be all right the next day, only to find that when the Secretary of State got to his office he had turned the whole thing down.
  Mr. Foot: I repudiate entirely what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He has given a completely false account to the House of Commons of what occurred and he should not do so on the basis of tittle-tattle.
  Mr. Prior: I have the Secretary of State's word to put against Lord Goodman's word. I am quoting from what was said in the House of Lords and I believe that that is a fair explanation of what happened.
  Mr. Foot: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to ask Lord Goodman to publish the facts that occurred. We shall see then what are the statements and what were the proposals. I am all in favour of every detail being published.
  Mr. Prior: I certainly hope that Lord Goodman will publish everything that happened on that eventful night. That would be by far the best way. That would be open government. I dare say that, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes Lord Goodman to publish, he will certainly do so.
  I end by coming back again to the need to protect the rights of the individual. The Government have contended all the way through that the law has no part to play in industrial relations legislation. But they have not got rid of it. The 1971 Act recognised the power of the unions and sought to ensure that their proceedings were orderly and, above all, that the rights of the individual were protected. The present Government are using the law to extend the power of the unions in a way which negates individual freedom and jeopardises fairness in uniop rules.
  But the law is there: they have not got rid of it. I believe that they risk a fundamental clash with the courts over the interpretation of common law rights. Is it of no concern to Labour Members that so many eminent lawyers and others have spoken up on this subject?
  Sir Edward Brown: Is it not a fact that, if the Bill becomes law, the House of Commons will virtually have passed 23 million workers into the hands of the trade union leadership, good Jr ill?
  Mr. Prior: Certainly they will make it much more difficult for an individual worker to exercise his rights to decide whether he wishes to belong to a union and in matters of conscience, religion and in other ways.
  This problem cannot be left where it is. It will not be forgotten and will not go away. Case after case will come up.
  272
  That is why, Parliament, with the help of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival)—
  Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he was present through most of the debates on this subject under different Administrations. A few months ago, before Prorogation, I thought I heard him say that if there was one thing he had learned, it was that in this difficult sphere nothing could be done effectively and permanently except with the consent of those who worked in industry and who were part and parcel of the trade union movement.
  In making this wide and exaggerated peroration now, is he not in danger of overthrowing what he said he had learned? Is not it much more a matter of having consent, a limited application of the law, which he has said is always present, and of reaching the kind of careful agreement towards which the Minister has been working? Is not the right hon. Gentleman denouncing what he said he had learned over the past year by making the kind of peroration that might please his ignorant and hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) and betraying that he has learned nothing during the years he was in office?
  Mr. Prior: As the hon. Gentleman has said, the fact is that the law is here now. It is weighted differently now. It is now weighted against the individual. The law will not go away. It is not as if there was no law. The Government have made a fundamental mistake in that they have swung the law from one end to the other. Other sections of society will complain about the operation of the law.
  In the amendments that we tabled in the summer of 1974 we tried to set out a number of sections in the law which protected the rights of the individual and which meant that all hon. Members could leave the law on industrial relations alone and allow it to develop. That would have met the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and it would have met our difficulties over individual freedom. I regret that that has not happened. It would have taken industrial relations out of the party political sphere. On that occasion the majority of hon. Members agreed with us.

  273
  It is only a combination of arrogance and capitulation that has produced the Bill today. The Bill will not succeed in defeating the spirit and will of a free and independent people. It is a disgrace to the Mother of Parliaments, and we reject it.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. John PardoeThe Secretary of State for Employment made a speech of which in retrospect he will be ashamed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has a long retirement—he deserves it—in which to write his memoirs and to cogitate upon the difference between the speeches of his youth and those we have come to expect from him of late. They are very different. There are many definitions of hell and I suggest that the definition applicable to the right hon. Gentleman is that he will have to try to align the speeches that he made in earlier days with those he has made more recently. He will find that today's speech was one of the most shameful speeches that he has made from that or any other Bench in this House.
  I take up the point which the right hon. Gentleman made strongly at the outset of his speech about the House of Lords. I take no more pleasure than he does in the defeat of this House at the hands of the present House of Lords. I accept that the House of Lords, with the one exception that the right hon. Gentleman cited—and that was a long time back—has always been weighted towards the Conservative cause.
  I am not in favour of the present House of Lords having the power to override a decision of this House, but not because I believe that this House should be omnipotent. This House is unrepresentative and because it is unrepresentative it should not be able to take final decisions.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Nonsense.
  Mr. Pardoe: This House is unrepresentative if a majority in this House can do what it likes when it has a mandate from only 38 per cent. of those who voted and only 28 per cent. of those entitled to vote. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It takes only two people in every 100 to put him and his hon. Friends on this side of the
  274
  House and to put the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) on the Government Front Bench. That is too unstable a situation in which to allow this House to exercise an overriding omnipotence over any decision of this sort. Therefore, there is a need—
  Mr. John Mendelson: Is it now the policy of the Liberal Party—and the leader of the party is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman—and the accepted constitutional doctrine of that party that the General Election and the majority in this House are not determined any more by the allocation of seats in the House of Commons?
  Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Gentleman should realise—I hope that he does now—that we are trying to change that situation. However, it may not have become immediately apparent to him.
  There is a need for some institution to control what this House does. The reform of the House of Lords might be one way in which to go about it. However, who was mainly responsible for ensuring that the House of Lords is such a Gilbert and Sullivan body that no one believes it has any democratic authority: It was a monstrous, unholy alliance of the heavenly twins—the right hon. Members for Down South (Mr. Powell) and Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot). This country probably needs a written constitution to ensure that this House cannot, with a mandate of 38 per cent. of the electorate do whatever it likes.
  Therefore, although I do not dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's views about the House of Lords, because I do not like its having the power to tell us what to do any more than he does. I should like to have an institution which could do that. This Bill above all others in recent years shows how necessary it is that the House has some institution to control its activities.
  The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the deep underlying principle at stake in the Bill. In particular, he does not understand why he has been called a Fascist. I am not quite sure why he does not understand that, because it seems fairly obvious to me.
  Mr. William Small: Who has called my right hon. Friend a Fascist?
  Mr. Pardoe: It is not me who has called the right hon. Gentleman a Fascist. This is set out in a fairly detailed argument in an article that was published in The Times, following an Opposition Member who said it first.
  I put to the right hon. Gentleman some words which sum up this view fairly clearly. I make no apologies for quoting this week's edition of The Economist. The right hon. Gentleman may have read the article. It says:
  "Tell a man to join a union. Then refuse his application. Then remove his pay packet. Then deny him unemployment benefit. And where then—the psychiatric hospital? The labour camp for parasites?"
  That sums up the case against the Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he thinks Cassius would have said about that. I do not mean the lean and hungry Roman: I mean the Cassius, the M. M. Foot, who wrote the "Trial of Mussolini". I wonder what he would have thought in his youth of that statement and this Bill?
  The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Industrial Relations Act was a piece of corporate Statism. I believe that this Bill is a piece of corporate Statism. It is necessary briefly to spell out the history of how we got into this situation.
  The last Labour Government established the Donovan Commission. That Commission recommended a series of extremely helpful and constructive proposals for the reform of the trade unions and labour relations generally. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I endorsed the great majority of the findings of that Commission, including its findings on the closed shop. I want to make that quite clear at this stage, because the Donovan Commission found in favour of a closed shop. Alas, and disastrously, the Labour Government set aside the Donovan Commission and established in place thereof a document called "In Place of Strife". That was a tragedy of lost opportunity.
  When the Conservative Government introduced the Industrial Relations Act, we supported the need to bring the law up to date, particularly bearing in mind the huge shift in the balance of power in our society as between the trade unions and the rest of society since previous legislation at the end of the last century and in the early years of this. However,
  276
  in our view the Tory Bill tried to do that in the wrong direction and by the wrong means. The Tories accepted that there had been a shift of power from the trade union leaderships in the days of Arthur Deakin to the shop floor. They tried to reverse that shift of power.
  That was entirely the wrong way of dealing with the monopoly power of trade unions. The Conservative Government ought to have recognised that the shift had taken place and should have created properly constituted democratic institutions to wield power where it was—namely, on the shop floor. That would have brought about an industrial democracy, which is what we wish to create now.
  Unfortunately, the present Government have come forward with this proposal. They are trying to do very much the same thing as the Tories did, by forcing monopoly membership on individuals so that they have to join a particular union even though they do not wish to do so. Therefore, both Governments are in some senses guilty of trying to create the corporate State.
  The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act was discussed in May, June and July of last year—in between the last two General Elections, when, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, he did not have the majority that he has now. Much of the argument revolved around the closed shop and the protection of individual freedom within trade unions. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends voted for the Second Reading of that Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. We had voted for the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 on the ground that we believed that there should be an attempt to reform the law. We stated quite clearly at the time that there should be major amendments to it on the lines that I have already indicated. On Second Reading we said quite clearly that if those amendments were not accepted by the Government at the time, we would oppose the Bill on Third Reading, and we did so. Therefore, it seems to me that this is a perfectly honourable and rational position to have adopted throughout.
  On Second Reading of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr.

  277
  Smith) emphasised that we were concerned with the protection of the individual within the closed shop situation. He stated then that although we were voting for the Second Reading of the Bill, we looked to the Government to take positive measures and to bring forward positive amendments in order to ensure the position of the individual, nevertheless stating that we accepted, as did the Donovan Commission—against the position adopted in the 1971 Act—that the closed shop must in principle be allowed to exist.
  In Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman will accept, we introduced amendments relating to exclusion from and expulsion from trade unions; for instance, the extension of the right not to join for reasons of reasonable conscience. The aim of those amendments was to allow people to extend the conscience clause beyond religion to reasonable conscientious objection to membership of a particular trade union. Unhappily, those amendments were not carried in Cornmittee, so the Bill emerged in a form which we did not like at all.
  On Report we tabled similar amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale again spoke in that debate. He explained our position on the closed shop. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was present at the time, I think, and heard those arguments. I have no doubt that he is familiar with them. However, we were willing to accept the existence of the closed shop in principle. In this sense, as I have said, we accepted the recommendation of the Donovan Commission, and we attacked the Conservative position at the time because the Conservatives had stated that the closed shop was null and void, and clearly that was an impossible position to accept.
  We have not received any view from the Government that shows that they are prepared to accept those criticisms that we have made of the main Act. Now we are faced with an extension of an unsatisfactory situation by this Bill.
  Along with the Conservative Opposition, we tabled certain amendments at an earlier stage. The Government are now trying to overthrow the results of those efforts. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, that there
  278
  is really only one question that we want answered—what about conscience? Where does he put "conscience" in relation to a refusal to join a trade union?
  I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to a document which he has seen and which his Minister of State has seen. It is a document which has emanated from a group of employees of British Rail's Southern Region. It goes in great detail into what might or might not be the grounds upon which an individual who had no religious beliefs at all or, indeed, any sort of religious belief, could nevertheless take a firm and fundamental view in principle and on conscience grounds against being a member of a particular union, or of any union. It is interesting to note the letter, which was written by the Archbishop of Westminster very shortly before he died, to Miss Jane Morgan. The Archbishop said:
  "I have seen in the Press that you are not alone in protesting against the ruling that only religious objections to joining unions are acceptable. I agree that one does not have to belong to a specific religious sect to have rights of conscience. Obviously there are many excellent unbelievers with a very active conscience."
  Is that the right hon. Gentleman's position? If it is, on what ground of conscience is one allowed to dissent?
  Perhaps I may put to the right hon. Gentleman a somewhat analogous argument. It is one which cropped up at the time of debates about conscientious objection in America with regard to the Vietnam war. The debate then was as follows. The American Government said "There are grounds for religious and conscientious objection, but you cannot conscientiously object or object on religious grounds to a particular war. You may object only to all wars. You may be only a total, outright, general pacifist. You cannot say 'I disagree with this war and will not fight it'."
  It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman then would have taken the view of the dissenting nonconformist minority in America—I certainly did, and I believe that he would have done so—that one should be able to object in relation to a particular war and that that would be grounds for declaring oneself a conscientious objector. Did the right hon. Gentleman take that view, and does he take it now?

  279
  Does it not apply to this situation? Albeit it must be amended considerably to bring it into line, nevertheless the principle is there. We want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman believes that one can be a conscientious objector, in the trade union context or in the con- text of war, if one has only conscientious grounds.
  Mr. Corbett: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman on the point about conscientious objection. Would it in- clude a conscientious objection to being a member of a firm's pension fund, to which one had to contribute, so that one could pick and choose whether one was a member of it?
  Mr. Pardoe: I see no reason why an individual employee should not be able to opt out. There are, however, very good reasons why a Government should be able to declare minimum standards up to which an individual must insure him- self, because if some minimum standard is not set, the rest of the taxpayers will have to pay out benefits to him in his old age. It would be a cost on others. We have had great arguments about whether firms may opt out of pension schemes fairly recently in the House. I believe that one should be able to object on the ground of conscience or, indeed, on other grounds, to this sort of corpra- tism or collectivism.
  I do not suppose that we shall ever get a satisfactory answer from the Secretary of State, because he has put forward a whole series of specious arguments today in order to defend an indefensible case. He has walked into the trade union bag, lock, stock and barrel. It is all sewn up, with him inside. He is being carried along on a collectivist tide en- tirely foreign to his nature and his politi- cal principles, and particularly to the political traditions of his family.
  There is a statue of Oliver Cromwell not far from this House. The right hon. Gentleman's father never passed it with- out doffing his hat. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should know something about the Puritan revolution. He may have read Richard Hoggart's definition of puritanism in the Lady Chatterley trial. He will remember his description of a puritan as a man who has an intense sense of responsibility for his conscience. If
  280
  that really is the definition of a puritan, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that a puritan in that sense should be able on grounds of conscientious objection not to join a trade union?
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should argue the matter without bringing my family into it. Oliver Cromwell—I am looking at the Mace as I speak—used to exercise considerable authoritarian powers in some circumstances because he thought that they were justified. I agree with my father about most things, but I disagreed with him about Oliver Cromwell. I was always on the side of the Levellers. I thought that they had a better case.
  The hon. Gentleman was asking me about conscience. We have argued that matter in great detail. That argument has gone. However questions of conscience are debated, we do not believe that they can be set down in a statute of this nature.
  I gathered that the hon. Gentleman was near the end of his speech. I asked him at the beginning to make a correction, and I hope that he will make it, particularly as he is adopting such a high moral tone. He accused me of being a Fascist, on the ground that I had said that because the Ferrybridge six had been dismissed for this reason, they had voluntarily declared themselves dismissed and were therefore not entitled to unemployment pay. I hope that the hon. Gentleman now understands that I never said anything of the sort. It was on that accusation that he based the charges that he has renewed in his speech. I hope that if there is any conscience left in him he will conclude his speech with an apology.
  Mr. Pardoe: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that I was about to conclude my speech. I was about to do so by referring back to my letter to him of 3rd December, which he has taken the opportunity to answer this afternoon. What I asked him in that letter was where he had made any suggestion in his letter to Mr. Paul Nicholson that in his view those people were entitled to unemployment pay, or should be entitled to it. That was the implication he made in his answers at Question Time. I said—and I met the right hon. Gentleman's point:
  "I recognise the difficulties of legal interpretation in a case of this sort, and I would have

  281
  thought that it would have been better to leave it at this stage to the independent adjudicating authorities to decide the question. Unfortunately, your letter of 27th November appeared to state your own decision before theirs had been reached."
  That remains the case. There is still a clear implication throughout that letter that the right hon. Gentleman believes that that kind of action amounts to industrial misconduct. If he does not believe that, will he categorically now say that he hopes that they will be adjudged eligible for unemployment benefit? If not, he is not prepared to meet my point.
  Mr. Foot: I answered the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question in the remarks I made before. I do not believe that any Minister of any Government dealing with such a situation would alter that answer in any way—that is, that the Minister should leave the decision to the adjudicating authority and perhaps make any comment afterwards.
  I entirely repudiate the suggestion that I earlier made any such imputation about the matter as the hon. Gentleman says. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman quoted on the radio was a falsification, and I ask him once again to apologise for having spread that falsehood throughout the country.
  Mr. Pardoe: It is the right hon. Gentleman who must apologise. He must apologise for the letter he wrote on 27th November to Mr. Paul Nicholson. It would indeed have been much better if he had said
  "Dear Mr. Nicholson,
  I believe that this is a matter which should he left to the adjudicating authorities.
  Yours sincerely,".
  He did not. He went on to try to justify his case. In the final paragraph on the first page he said:
  "A person who declines to fall in with new conditions of employment which result from a collective agreement may well be considered to have brought about his dismissal."
  That clearly implies, in the context of that letter, that the Secretary of State personally thought that that was true. Is he saying that he does not subscribe to that view?
  Mr. Foot: I repudiate the suggestion and implication that the hon. Gentleman is putting on the words. The hon. Gentleman is reading in a false imputation. If
  282
  he reads the whole letter he will see the difference. I hope that he will not pursue that line any more. He may have differences with me about anything under the sun, but I hope that he will understand that I am making no such imputation, and that he will accept my word on the matter. I do not ask him to apologise, if he does not want to do so, but he is misreading the letter, and I hope that he will not do so again.
  Mr. Pardoe: I am delighted that at last the right hon. Gentleman has cleared up that letter. He has said that he did not intend that implication, and has thus ensured that the letter is now universally understood. I believe that it was universally misunderstood. I could find hardly anyone who would have interpreted it as the right hon. Gentleman did. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has now said, I of course withdraw any suggestion that he implied what he did not imply. We now know what he implied. We have it on the record, and I am very grateful to him for clearing up this matter.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. John Stonehouse: In the debate on the Queen's Speech I expressed the view that too many Bills were being introduced this Session. This Bill is one that we could do without. It is conceived in error and wrong in principle. Its genesis is not a cool, calm analysis of what is required in industrial relations. It has been drafted, introduced and reintroduced, and is now being pushed through a reluctant Parliament, merely to satisfy a deal—some would say a squalid deal—done outside the House.
  The Bill is a recognition of the power of non-parliamentary forces which are determined to carve out for themselves a powerful fiefdom which will have the full power of the law to sustain it and the full authority of the Establishment to crush any individuals who do not wish to conform. The law has already gone too far in disregarding the rights of the individual. The case of the Ferrybridge six has proved that.
  It is right that the House should refer to that case today. Six power station workers resigned from their union and joined another to which at one time 316 men out of 534 at the power station belonged. Therefore, it was not a case of a small group in the works. The majority

  283
  of men there had belonged to that union, but because of the closed shop agreement between the electricity supply industry and the TUC-affiliated union, the men were given an ultimatum to join their old union again or be dismissed. The six men held firm on a point of principle, and were dismissed. Not only did they lose their jobs, but, as we have heard again today, their unemployment pay is at risk. They are still awaiting the result of their appeal.
  What are we coming to when such conformity is the order of the day, when workers are not only forbidden to join the associations of their choice, but are victimised and persecuted and forced to cope with tedious, long-winded hearings in tribunals and the courts to protect a simple principle? The dangers of these trends are immense. The basic right to work is being removed, the right to free association is being destroyed, and more power is being given to the powerful to impose their ideas on the rest. It does not matter that this policy is against the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Those concepts of individual freedom, including the right of every man not to be forced into an association against his will, are now apparently stale and unimportant in this new era of conformity which is being ushered in under the spurious cloak of progress.
  It is a crowning tragedy that the task of pushing this process still further has been thrust on a man who was once a great Parliamentarian and a noble libertarian. The thought control has gone a long way when that can happen, but we must remember that 1984 is only eight years and three weeks away. What we are organising and creating is a system of society which combines the worst aspects of authoritarianism and the worst aspects of syndicalism. It is a most dangerous mixture which squeezes out individual initiative and sucks the energies of the most active and productive in our society.
  The cult of conformity which Ministers now worship is to be strengthened still further by the effect of the Bill on the freedom of the Press. As the House knows, I have had many troubles with the Press, some of which I have brought on myself by irrational conduct. Although I condemn certain sections of
  284
  the Press for their excesses, I do not want them to be forced into the cult of mediocrity and conformity. I want the Press to be able to report and mirror events and opinions fairly without fear.
  That hope and possibility will be made much less likely if the Bill is enacted. It will impose a closed shop on all journalists, including those in managerial control of papers. It will make it difficult for outside contributors to gain access to the media. It will give enormous potential power to the National Union of Journalists, not only as it is constituted today, but how it may be constituted within five or 10 years. The NUJ will be able to decide what appears in the newspapers, because it will have the ultimate power. That is a form of syndicalism which could spell the end of free expression for the rest of the community.
  There is already to much specialisation. Too many people are locked in narrow, compartmentalised lives. The Bill will add to that specialisation, or ossification as I prefer to call it. We shall have much less flexibility than we need. The cult of conformity, of which the Bill is another demonstration, will make it very much more difficult to achieve the flexibility that we need if we are to survive as a free country, if we are to have a free, progressive and dynamic economy in future.
  I believe that these measures are irrelevant to the deep economic problems now facing us and a distraction from the positive steps which should be taken to deal with them. Instead of wasting his time in this way, the Secretary of State should be examining ways of dealing with unofficial strikes, which are crippling our capacity to pay our way Only the other day the Secretary of State for Industry confirmed that £200 million of taxpayers' money—that is approximately £10 for each employed person—has already been put into Britsh Leyland. However, because of internal disputes in that company, its viability is being destroyed. What is the point of pouring public money into a company when the workers are sabotaging production? Endless disputes will destroy British Leyland just as they have destroyed Chrysler.
  What is the Secretary of State for Employment doing about the industrial

  285
  situation? The answer is that he is doing nothing. He does nothing to tackle the problem of inter-union disputes, which undermine productivity. He does nothing to encourage those who want to abolish overmanning and restrictive practices. On the contrary, he is actively encouraging them. Instead of positive actions from the Secretary of State, we have this Bill, a measure which has been brought in at the behest of the TUC, the same body which, despite its undoubted power, has lamentably failed in the past 15 years to tackle the malaise in British industry.
  The TUC has been revealed as a vested interest that seeks to protect the vested interests of its affiliates. This is not the time to give these sections within our community still more power at the expense of the individual. That is why I shall be joining those who will vote against the Bill tonight.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. David Madel: The right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) began by referring to the Government's order of priorities. I think that a few words should be said about the priorities of the Department of Employment.
  I am sure that the Minister of State will be aware that there are two pressing matters which should now occupy the time of the House rather than again this Bill. The first of those matters is the overall unemployment situation. We desperately need a debate on unemployment.
  The second matter is the Chrysler situation. One piles amazement upon amazement when one sees our programme for the next 10 days. Today we return to a Bill which is not necessary, and on Monday we are to debate the Second Reading of the Dock Work Regulation Bill. I do not deny for one moment that the Government said in the Gracious Speech that these matters would be brought forward in this Session, but as the Session has only just begun, and as there are the difficult problems of unemployment and Chrysler before us, it is very regrettable to say the least that we should today and on Monday be discussing matters which are largely irrelevant.
  Another matter which must be mentioned when discussing industrial relations is the incredible time that the Government
  286
  have taken to set up the inquiry into industrial democracy and participation. Last Session, in Standing Committee C, the Minister of State told us that the Government were eager, anxious and raring to go. He said that they wanted the Committee to be set up so as to change the existing company structure and existing industrial relations structure. I regret to say that the Government have moved terribly slowly. Only recently have we heard the names of the members of the Committee. That is an inauspicious start to the new Session by the Department.
  It is only just over a year ago that much of the argument on this Bill was taken up with the issue of Press freedom, whether we should have a charter or whether we needed something stronger. The Secretary of State should remember the words that he used on 3rd December 1974:
  "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."—[Official Report, 3rd December 1974; Vol. 882, c. 1380.]
  It is our anxiety that that which the Government propose as a safeguard is not near enough adequate. We do not say that the Trades Union Congress or the rules of the charter would not try to alleviate matters. What we say is that something stronger is needed. That is why the argument has continued for 12 months on the Goodman amendments and on the need to have stronger safeguards for the Press. I hope that the Government will reconsider those words that the right hon. Gentleman used last year and ask themselves whether what they propose squares with the anxiety that was expressed.
  I wish to refer to Clause 1(d) which will repeal a part of Section 29(3) of the original Act. When this matter first came before the House a year ago the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), who is not in his place today, waxed eloquent about strikes in relation to what was happening overseas. He said on 3rd December 1974 that the minority Labour Government's Bill would have allowed trade unionists
  "to take international action when faced by international capital … If the Act is amended according to the Bill, we can properly take

  287
  action to strengthen the hand of Californian grape pickers."
  He said that international trade unionism might have to take strike action and strike
  "penetratingly and deeply at the multinational companies …"—[Official Report, 3rd December 1974; Vol. 882, c. 1441.]
  In view of what has happened in the past year on the industrial scene, and because of the difficult situation faced by the Government in respect of Chrysler, the House will want to know from the Government and the TUC what constructive discussions have taken place between British trade unions and trade unions in Europe and elsewhere. We should like to know what guidelines have been agreed and what the Government and the TUC think can be done about the problem of multinational companies, particularly in the motor car industry where market conditions are difficult. We should like to have heard more about co-operation and discussions between unions in this country and those in Europe now that we are full members of the EEC rather then about plans to amend the 1974 Act.
  I also wish to refer to the provisions contained in Clause 1(e). My right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) mentioned the Vauxhall situation where workers have been excluded or have resigned from the union on grounds other than religious belief. The situation at Vauxhall is sad. The Luton Evening Post referred to this matter in detail last Saturday. One of the men concerned, Mr. Tom Clarke, on joining Vauxhall became a member of the union and said that he was in favour of it. After a couple of years things became bad and there were disputes and walk-outs. Mr. Clarke decided to leave the union in protest. Mr. Clarke said that some shop stewards had accused people who did not join the union of being too mean to do so. Mr. Clarke said that that statement was rubbish and that he personally was willing to pay his subscription to a charity, but the union refused to allow him to do so.
  Why did Mr. Clarke leave the union, and what lessons can we learn from that situation? That man left the union on grounds of conscience because he did not agree with the policy of the AUEW.
  288
  We must remember that the situation at Vauxhall has been at boiling point not just because certain employees have chosen not to belong to the union. One of the shop stewards interviewed by the Press said that for years there had been a hard core of non-union members and that there had always been a lot of ill feeling. I do not believe that to be the case. I certainly believe that the present legislation is no way to get out of the situation. When dealing with the subject of industrial relations we should recognise that an individual who resigns from a union because he disagrees with its policy might in future re-apply to join the union when in due course its policy changes. I repeat that the present Bill will not help to alleviate the situation.
  We often hear Labour Members say that the trade unions prefer the rules to be loose and flexible and not laid down in a rigid fashion. But surely it is a rigid legal rule that has caused Mr. Clarke to give up his employment at Vauxhall. We should pause and try to learn some lessons from that case. One lesson we must learn is that this Bill is unnecessary and will have no effect in improving industrial relations in that organisation.
  We should now be legislating to ensure that people play a greater part in the conduct of companies. Given the present structure involving management and unions and embracing the present industrial relations set-up, I do not believe that we shall ever achieve that aim. We must seek to give the individual in the company greater status and a greater chance to play a wider part in company policy. I have heard the process referred to as "tripartism". But whatever it is called, I believe that this Bill will perpetuate the tug-of-war between unions and management. The situation must be changed and we must replace the system by a form of participation and industrial democracy—a concept which the Government say they favour but which they are extremely slow to bring about.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I welcome the Government's determination, in face of grave difficulties put in their way by the House of Lords, to reintroduce the Bill. I also welcome the fact that they are seeking to ensure that the last vestiges of the Industrial Relations Act 1971.

  289
  introduced by the Conservatives, are swept aside.
  In showing determination on this matter, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been subjected to the most vicious and unscrupulous attacks from a number of sources. It is to his credit that that has happened, because Labour Ministers in carrying out their tasks should not expect pats on the back from the Establishment. The Labour Government are not in power to curry favour with the Establishment, and indeed I had a slight altercation with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this score earlier today. The Labour Government are in power to challenge that Establishment. If a radical, reforming party is to change society and reflect the views of the working people, it is inevitable that the entrenched views of the Establishment should seek and good motives.
  The editorial in The Times on this matter on 2nd December was a gross and unfair attack on the Secretary of State. Far from representing a development of "corporate Statism" as The Times editorial suggests, the amending Bill removes State control over the operation of trade unions. Yet that fact is nowhere mentioned in the editorial.
  The editorial fails to point out that Sections 5 and 6 of the principal Act are being removed by the Bill and that those sections govern the operation of trade unions to an uncomfortable degree. The Bill also limits the powers of the Registrar to exercise supervisory jurisdiction. Since the Registrar will be appointed by the State, it could be argued that the Bill, far from extending and maintaining State control, diminishes it. Therefore, the charge that my right hon. Friend is extending corporate Statism is effectively refuted.
  Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman may have inadvertently referred to the charge that the Bill extends State control. That is not so. The charge is that the legislation extends the boundaries of corporate Statism, the partnership between State and trade unions—a relationship in which at present the State is the junior partner.
  Mr. Cryer: That intervention was inaccurate. The editorial refers to a corporatist system of government. That
  290
  system is what we are talking about in this debate in dealing with the present legislation. The point I am making is that by the Bill Government interference with trade unions is reduced. When I hear tepid criticisms about co-operation between Government and trade unions, the question I ask is "What is wrong with it?"
  Surely the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) was seeking some sort of co-operation between the two sides of industry. Co-operation between the trade union movement and the Government is one way of ensuring that some of the battles—not all the battles by any means, because of the inbuilt differences within our society—take place through discussion rather that confrontation. Nobody knows better than Opposition Members the methods of Governments in confrontation. That is why the Opposition are on the other side of the House and we are on this side. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) persists in making interruptions from a sedentary position. If you wish to intervene, stand up and I shall gave way. Otherwise, you should stop intervening from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): The hon. Member must not lecture me.
  Mr. Cryer: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the hon. Member for Gillingham, who is shouting out in a rude fashion from a sedentary position—something I would never dream of doing myself.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. member talks as if the only confrontations to take place between Governments and trade unions come from this side, but the present Government are involved in a very glaring case of confrontation with the junior doctors and there has never been a more intransigent Minister than the Secretary of State for Social Services.
  Mr. Cryer: I do not accept that view. The junior hospital doctors do not have the same sort of support in the trade union movement as there has been in previous movement as there has been in previous disputes. The junior doctors would be well advised to accept the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and go back to work pending the

  291
  independent audit which she has promised. The Government can hardly be blamed for the failure of the junior doctors' own organisation to represent their views adequately in previously negotiations.
  If the hon. Member for Gillingham wishes to talk about the possibility of other confrontations, I would say that there seems to be a confrontation developing between the Government and the consultants. I regret that, but I regard it as a matter of the interests of the consultants, wishing to get their greedy hands on the golden tonsils of private patients, against the interests of the community rather than a confrontation between working people and a Government seeking to crush the right of working people to combine and organise to improve their position.
  The Bill narrows the ground for objection to membership of trade unions, excluding "any reasonable grounds" and basing objection on religious grounds only. We have had arguments on this point in some detail before. That is presumably why the House is so empty tonight. There is a fear that organisations of an unscrupulous nature would use wide terms of reference not in any genuine sense but to exploit the opportunities provided thereby to break up the collective strength of trade union members.
  The Establishment will always represent half a dozen people in some obscure, quasi trade union as being pillars of individual veracity and honesty. It is significant that the whole weight of the Establishment, including papers like The Times, come out time and again for these tiny groups. That indicates the nature of the situation. These people, far from having the interests of the trade union movement at heart, are seeking to damage or wreck it by breaking the collective unity of working people.
  The notion that people in this situation are isolated and fighting alone is far from the truth. They represent that section of society which seeks to break down the collective strength of the organised trade union movement. It is not a question of a tiny group of individuals. It is a question of the owners of capital often using poor, unwitting individuals and pushing them into a position of prominence where they are persuaded by the media to accept the role of Davids against the Goliaths of
  292
  the trade union movement. In reality, they are allied to the resources of the private ownership of capital which dominates the economy of this country. We still have a small minority of public ownership in this country. We have a mixed economy, but the mix is loaded in favour of the owners of private capital.
  In the case of the Electricity Supply Union, it comes as no surprise that the General Secretary is a former Labour councillor who has stood in opposition to Labour candidates.
  Mr. Brittan: What a wicked thing to do.
  Mr. Cryer: It may not be wicked, but it indicates that his motives are not in line with those of the Labour Party, and those who say that his motives and those of his union are of the highest and are designed to promote the interests of working people can see that this is unlikely to be the case. Whether hon. Members opposite, who are currently disporting themselves in merriment, know and like it or not—and they do not, which is why they are on the opposite side—the Labour Party has the good wishes and support of the working class. People who work against the Labour Party tend to be working against working people in this country.
  Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Member has explained how the Electricity Supply Union was set up, apparently with the clandestine support of what he describes as the Establishment. Perhaps he could also explain how it is that four of the Ferry-bridge six have had their applications to join the AUEW refused.
  Mr. Cryer: I cannot comment on individual cases. It could well be that there is some sort of agreement or qualification which excludes them from membership. If people worked actively in an organisation which sought to bring about a lessening of the power of a particular trade union, it is hardly likely that they would endear themselves to that union and it is likely that their application to join the union would he viewed with a certain amount of suspicion. I cannot comment beyond that on the individual cases. A person cannot join any group of lawyers without qualifications. It would be interesting

  293
  to know whether the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) would permit a wide range of people to undertake the work of a solicitor.
  Mr. Mayhew: Does not the hon. Member realise that the AUEW is one of the four unions which the 1969 CEGB agreement requires its employees to join? There is no question of any particular qualification.
  Mr. Cryer: The AUEW is not the sole monopoly union in the CEGB. It is largely a craft union and it is not wide open to any member of the public to join, just as no group of lawyers is open for the public to join. Just as solicitors went to court a few months ago to stop, in a most ruthless manner, a perfectly legitimate housing co-operative from engaging in conveyancing work, so might a trade union exercise a certain amount of discretion. However, unions do not go to the courts and get the law on their side to fine people several hundred pounds, as happened in the recent case, to stop those people doing their work.
  We must remember that a lot of Opposition hon. Members who talk about closed shop practices do so in the comfortable knowledge that they are members of one of the tightest and best organised closed shops in the world, and it does not behove those lawyers to start lecturing us about what closed shops might or might not lead to.
  The Bill has been brought into question over the issue of Press freedom, a matter I have dealt with on previous occasions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made worthwhile efforts to refute the myth which has grown up that somehow the ownership of the vast majority of the media by a tiny group of people is compatible with freedom. It is not. Even if it were the case that the NUJ took over a newspaper completely and required the editor to be a member and also decided the general policy of that paper, that would be a more democratic system than operates at present whereby two or three people, or however many constitute the board of directors, determine a newspaper's policies.
  We should not, however, be occupied with the spectre which Conservative Members raise that in some way the NUJ
  294
  members are terribly wicked and would influence the editor. There might be as many as 100 or 120 NUJ members on a large paper and Conservatives fear that they might have some influence. They would certainly have more influence than they have at the moment, and that influence would probably be open and not clandestine. To that extent such a development would provide more, not less, democracy.
  We are, however, dealing with the situation in which the owners of the Press are frightened lest their monopoly or oligopoly might in some way be corrected or remedied in a particular situation. They have enjoyed a good run for their money so far, and they do not want that interfered with. They want to retain their influence over people. They want to be able to push forward candidates at trade union elections.
  The sudden partiality of Conservative Members for trade union elections by ballot is not because they are interested in trade union democracy but because they want to see their sort of "moderate" people elected, and because they know that their friends in the media are in an influential position with postal ballots to achieve that result. I welcome postal ballots provided that the media are under some sort of control—
  Mr. Tebbit: Ah, he wants to control the media!
  Mr. Cryer: They are already controlled by a group of people who associate themselves with the owners of capital, and they want to retain that situation.
  Nevertheless, Parliament controls the BBC and the IBA through charters. Why not have a Press charter to control expressions of opinion and the amount of space allocated to trade union elections? It would be fair if the same amount of space were to be allocated to each candidate in a trade union election. Why do not the Opposition, supporting the notion of postal ballots for trade unionists, concede that the situation is fraught with danger because it is conceivable—just—that the Press might be biased and, therefore, that the Press should be controlled to ensure fairness?
  The situation is not fair at the moment. I do not think anyone would argue that in the recent non-readoption of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

  295
  Overseas Development Mr. Tony Kelly was treated with the degree of fairness he should have had. I do not suppose anyone would deny that probably criminal offences were committed by a number of newspapers in that respect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] A Press charter would therefore ensure that the influence of the ownership of the Press was reconciled with the employees of the Press.
  It would be an important step forward to ensure not that the Press was stifled but that it was more open than it is at the moment. We have only to recall our experiences of the last few years. The situation may be different for the Conservatives, but every Labour Member has had difficulty in getting matter into the newspapers. It need not be tendentious or controversial matter but simply related to something which a newspaper has put forward and been committed to in support of the Conservative Party or some similar institution. The charter would ensure that Press freedom was maintained and not diminished.
  For the other place to attempt to interfere with the Bill yet again would not be an advance of freedom but would be simply an example of their Lordships coming down, as they traditionally do, in favour of the ownership of the Press. My remarks about the interference of the owners with editorial freedom—the right to hire and fire an editor, which often decides the policy of the paper—applies particularly to the daily Press, but it applies to a lesser extent to the provincial Press as well.
  Any Labour Member could give examples of glaring unfairness where editors have been sacked because they have not toed the ownership's line. There are examples where Labour Members have made exceptional speeches on special occasions—perhaps where an hon. Member is picked out to open the debate on the Queen's Speech, which is something of a cachet—and yet the local newspaper in the hon. Member's constituency does not even mention the speech because it was delivered by a Labour MP. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to laugh, but for Labour Members this is the daily routine of bias. It is not experienced by Conservative Members because 99 per cent.
  296
  of the Press is owned by Conservative Party sympathisers.
  Mr. Mayhew: What about the South London Press?
  Mr. Cryer: There is the odd exception which guarantees the authenticity of my statement.
  I welcome the Bill and I trust that it will get a Second Reading as it deserves I notice that one of my right hon. Friends gave a morality lecture. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) is the last person in this place who should comment on the morality of the Press or of anyone else. I believe that the majority of my hon. Friends will vote enthusiastically for the Bill tonight. We support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hilt in seeing the Bill through the legislature, ensuring a greater ability for working people to combine, as has been their traditional right for over 100 years, and ensuring that the freedom of the Press is improved and in no way diminished.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: It must be very simple for the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—I am sorry to see that he is leaving the Chamber—to make a speech by referring to the Establishment, on the one hand—I do not know how often he used that word—and to the workers, on the other hand. It was interesting that in some way the junior hospital doctors and the consultants did not appear to him to be workers and they therefore came into an entirely different category.
  All the hon. Member's principles of trade union brotherhood and sympathy were forgotten the moment he talked about this different group of workers. I reject the suggestion that junior hospital doctors are not workers in the true sense of the word. The hon. Member made a great deal about the whole question of the Establishment and the fact that newspapers take a biased view because most of them are run and organised by people who own a great deal of capital.
  I should declare a slight interest in that I am a director of a newspaper group, for which I receive a small fee, as will be seen from the register of Members' interests. I do not have large sums of money at my disposal. I am one of those

  297
  involved in the management of newspapers who does not have two halfpennies to rub together.
  The hon. Member for Keighley argued that editors had been sacked by their employers because they did not conform to the policy laid down by their newspaper proprietors or boards of directors. Like everyone else, an editor is subject to dismissal, but when an editor is sacked by his boss he still has the right at common law to claim damages for unfair dismissal, whereas if the Bill becomes law he will not have that right if he is sacked because the union requires his employer to sack him. There is a considerable difference between an editor who is sacked by the proporitor or board of directors and an editor who is sacked because the union says that he will not become a member of the union or will not follow the diktats of the union chapel.
  Mr. Corbett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that far more editors have been fired by their bosses than have been fired through the action of any union, including the NUJ, although closed shops have existed in many local, evening and weekly papers for donkey's years?
  Mr. Mawby: That may be so. That was the position before NUJ chapels began to take action. We are talking not about bogy men but about direct action designed to censor newspaper editorials, cartoons and specialist writers. Sometimes those pressures are successful. Editorials have been changed and cartoons have been withdrawn just because the chapel insisted that its members would not print the newspaper in that form.
  Mr. Corbett: Not in the NUJ.
  Mr. Mawby: It has happened.
  Under the present law the editor has a reasonable choice. He can say "The pressure put upon me is intolerable. My conscience will not allow me to change the format, so I shall refuse to do so and, as a result, I shall be fired and have no right to claim unfair dismissal." It appears that the Ferrybridge six cannot claim unemployment benefit either, but I do not wish to go into that because it has to be decided.
  The editor of a newspaper will be put into an impossible position by the Bill because pressures can be brought to bear upon him which he will find difficult
  298
  to resist. For a relatively young man with children of school age, the pressures may be so great that he will be prepared to give way rather than take the terrible risk of losing his job as editor and being banned altogether from the newspaper world in Great Britain.
  Throughout most of this year we have concentrated on one aspect—how the Press will be affected. But a much wider group of people will be affected. I am surprised to see that we were discussing this matter a year ago in Committee. I understand what the Secretary of State meant when he pointed out the number of speeches he had to listen to and to make during the passage of the Bill. This matter cannot be cleared up merely by producing a charter for the Press, although I welcome any action which will improve the position.
  In Committee a year ago I mentioned several organisations, one of which was the Association of Local Government Engineers and Surveyors. A local authority engineer who faces a strike by sewerage workers or dust cart drivers has a duty to protect public health. But he may be put in the same position as anyone else. He may be told by the union "We are out on strike, brother, and so are you". In that event the people in his area will not be assured that their health will not suffer, because no one with any knowledge will be allowed to operate the minimum services required in the interests of public safety and public health.
  It was pointed out in Committee that under membership agreements special attention was paid to an employee of an identifiable class. I suggested that, while I understood the principles of the Bridlington Agreement and the desirability of not allowing too great a proliferation of unions, in certain areas there was general acceptance that there was one union—or several unions—for the manual workers and another one for salaried staff, supervisors and so on. That applies in the electricity supply industry and on the railways.
  No doubt the Minister will plough ahead with the Bill and we shall bang our heads against a brick wall in asking him to change his attitude. Therefore, we have to go to work in another way and ask him to put pressure upon the TUC to consider each industry and

  299
  decide whether it is proper to recognise organisations which appear to cater for a clearly identifiable class. In the newspaper world that raises difficulties of demarcation. There is the editor, but when one gets to the sub-editors it is difficult to find a demarcation line. However, where there are men of good will a way may be found. A way should also be found for other organisations covering people who work in a supervisory capacity so that a person of that kind is not forced to make a decision which he knows in his heart he should not make.
  We have had an assurance on a number of occasions from the Secretary of State and NUJ spokesmen that the fears we have expressed will not come to anything, and that there is no intention, for example, of preventing any part-time people, such as specialist writers, from working for a newspaper. While I make no allegations against either the right hon. Gentleman or the present holders of office in the Government, Ministers change from time to time, as do the members of union executives. We so often hear, particularly from hon. Members on the Government side, and rightly so, "The Minister gives us his assurance, but he should write it into the Bill so that we can be certain that it will continue as long as the legislation remains in being."
  Mr. Small: In all these discussions I have never heard the view of the CBI. I have always heard hon. Members opposite attacking the unions but never giving the employers' case or that of the CBI.
  Mr. Mawby: I am talking not about the CBI but about the vestiges of some sort of reasonable control in the interests of the minority, which is basically what the Bill is about. The Bill attempts to take away rights that the minority have at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman said that the minority do not need them because there are all sorts of voluntary arrangements, already made or in the pipeline.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of a union. Would he not agree that the NUJ has a legitimate right to have a policy and be concerned about the number of part-time ghost writers
  300
  and the rest employed by a newspaper? Secondly, will he refer to the trade union membership agreement, which clearly states that the matter shall be between the employer and employees? These part-time writers are not employees in the accepted sense.
  Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman asked me the same question last December in Standing Committee. I give him now the same answer I gave then. I believe that where a craft is in operation it is right and proper that its representatives should see that it is properly used and not debased by people of a lower craft being allowed to come in ad lib.
  In a number of provincial and even national newspapers, however, we get specialists whom the public seem to want. For example, the public seem to like their football articles supposedly written by someone who plays football. I say "supposedly" because in many cases these articles are ghosted by NUJ members. I presume that the hon. Gentleman would be reasonably happy about that.
  Mr. Thomas: No.
  Mr. Mawby: Then the reason for the objection is probably that the NUJ man gets union rates while the footballer or whoever it may be gets a fee greatly in excess of the union rate. The important thing is that there should be moderation in this matter.
  Many regional and local papers cannot afford to employ a full-time gardener, for example, to give gardening hints. They cannot afford to keep in full-time work at union rates a woman who gives hints on cookery. Yet these and other articles regularly appear in our local papers and are the reason why we buy them. Without such people many newspapers would not be able to remain in being, because the public would buy something else or nothing at all. The editor has to consider seriously the tastes of his readers. Moderation, yes, but even as a craftsman myself I would object to a straightforward ban across the board on anyone putting in copy who was not a member of the union.
  Mr. Corbett: No one is proposing that.
  Mr. Mawby: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) put a question which I am trying to answer.

  301
  If the membership agreement is to be between employees and employer, in no terms can specialist writers be considered to be employees. Certainly they would not be able to obtain membership of the union, because they would not be deriving their main income from journalism. I would hate to think that the Government were writing into the Bill a tight arrangement whereby, unless a person was earning the main part of his income from journalism, none of his items could appear in any paper.
  We think that there are important protections which must be given to minorities—not only those who are not members of the union but those who are members and who may decide to keep quiet on a certain matter because of the danger of losing their union membership. Many people may say that they are wrong to have such a fear, but that does not prevent them from having it.
  The Secretary of State has said that there is no change in common law rights under the Bill. I shall not argue about that because I am not a lawyer, but over the years successive Governments and Parliaments have decided that the common law should be backed by certain statutory rights. When a particular problem has arisen, we have made the necessary change. I think that the last occasion was after the Rookes v. Barnard case, in which it was decided by the courts that the plaintiff had a case against the two members of the union concerned and he was allowed damages. The then Labour Government introduced legislation to make it impossible for that sort of thing to happen again. That is an example of how Governments and Parliaments have adapted themselves to circumstances in which, whereas we believed that a certain situation existed, the courts decided otherwise. We took steps to ensure that the matter was put right.
  The Bill takes away virtually the whole of statute law in this case, leaving in its place only the common law. The right hon. Gentleman has called this an experiment. He knows that there are considerable risks attached to any experiment. One can go through all the theory, work it all out and get the best legal advice, as the Secretary of State says he has had, and I have no doubt that it is the best he can get. But the Home Secretary came here earlier today also to
  302
  mention that he did something on the best legal advice in his Department, and the courts have decided otherwise. Therefore, there are risks attached to any experiment and it is important that where risks are involved one should always lean on the side of the right of the individual.
  While all the big battalions can normally look after themselves, the poor little individual, who finds himself in difficulties for one reason or another, must be aware of adequate ways of expressing his point of view. This is where we ought to direct any ideas of change in the law.
  We have argued the matter of the Ferrybridge six across the Floor of the House, and it is still my view, as it is the view of a number of my colleagues, that when this Bill becomes law a similar situation cannot occur in the future, and that we shall be reducing anyway the rights of six people, however misguided any of us may feel them to be. The important thing is that their rights will be reduced.
  One hopes, quite naturally, that the right hon. Gentleman, together with the TUC, will be able to find alternative voluntary ways and means of dealing with this problem, but it is a little worrying when one reads certain things in the newspaper. I agree with the hon. Member for Keighley that we cannot believe everything we read in the newspapers. Nevertheless an impression was given that four of these men were refused membership of the AUEW. Again, the point was made that the AUEW was mainly a craft union. I agree, but it has semiskilled, unskilled and women's sections. If a union is not satisfied that a man is fully apprenticed, there are other sections in which he can be placed, thereby overcoming the objections to his remaining in employment at a particular power station.
  If there is any co-operation existing between the unions involved, I should have thought that, if the AUEW felt that it could not take people into membership, it would be possible for it to tell them that either the Electrical, Electronic and Telecommunication and Plumbing Union or the Transport and General Workers' Union was more appropriate for them to join and that the

  303
  AUEW would do its best to help them to do so.
  Where we are, as the right hon. Gentleman says, to rely in the future upon voluntary arrangements and upon charters with no statutory backing, it is important that we should make sure that as far as possible the full intent and good will of those charters will be fully implemented.
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I have a sickening feeling that the longer we spend in this place talking about industrial relations and the human relations bit which is the real core of it, the more difficult we make it for men and women at all levels of industry sensibly to work out ways of getting on with their lives five days a week.
  We are, I suppose, renowned—I say this with some diffidence having been here for only a year—for believing that debate in this House, and particularly on a subject of this sort, can shed much light on problems down on the shop floor which are faced day in and day out by people at all levels of industry.
  I intervene with the impediment of some experience. I was for five years a member of the national executive council of the National Union of Journalists, and I am still a member of that body. Before I get the question, I shall make the comment that I do not know whether I was a moderate or a militant, because I do not seem to remember that the labels had been invented in those days. I was also, during the years of the Industrial Relations Act, employed as a senior labour adviser by a large firm in the publishing industry, and I had some experience of the operation of that measure on the ground.
  It is all very well standing up here and talking about defence of the rights of the individual, but I hope I shall be forgiven the comment that when I invited this support on another measure on 26th November—against the practice of people being thrown out of this country at 48 hours' notice, without even seeing the evidence against them—Opposition Members who have spoken in this debate in such high-minded tones did not choose to stand up for individual freedom. No
  304
  doubt that was simply a single small, though important, lapse on their part.
  In listening to the various debates on this matter over the past year, I had thought there was common agreement among all of us here, irrespective of party labels, that what we want is an active trade union movement, and that we want people to belong to, and take an active part in the affairs of unions and not simply to stand with their hands on the fruit machine waiting for the next pay claim to go out. Surely the best defence of an individual at work is precisely that—to take an active part in the running of his or her trade union.
  The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) raised this matter in the context of trade union rules. He painted the spectre—he is very good at this—of all sorts of monstrous things being done by trade unions, but I remind him that it is the individual members of trade unions who make those rules.
  Every individual member of every trade union in this country has the right to take part in that process, and many, if not most, unions have the most complicated and laborious procedures for either altering rules or introducing new ones. The AUEW seems constantly to be having rules revision at conference. I state that not as a criticism but simply to show the care which is taken on this matter.
  A point was also made about the involvement in ballots for the election of trade union officials. This is an important end of the trade union process, but it is not the most important end, is it? I like to think that it is not. I believe that trade unions, like any other organisations, succeed to the extent that their members feel that they can be involved and are encouraged to be involved, so that they can shape their trade union or other organisation in the manner in which they wish to see it.
  In listening to the debate I felt that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft and hon. Members around him learnt very little from experience. Sadly, it is perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who learns less than most. He must know well from his experience the great damage that was done through the operation of the Industrial Relations Act.
  I am willing to accept that the Conservative Party set out on that road with

  305
  good intent. I shall give it the benefit of that doubt. The right hon. Gentleman knows from his experience—not of men on the shop floor with whom he has had contact but from contact with management—that there was not one major employer in this country who used the provisions of that legislation in the manner in which the Government intended. I was employed in a major company at the time and my brief was to stay out of trouble while the Industrial Relations Act was on the statute book.
  I should like to make two points concerning the National Union of Journalists. First, I want to make this absolutely clear because I am not sure that hon. Gentlemen understood it. Even though there has been the change in the rule whereby, for reasons best known to itself, the annual delegate conference of the NUJ did away with associate membership and required people holding these positions to become full members, it did not alter the position in practice one jot or tittle. Even when the associate membership category was in force—at one time I was myself an associate member—in an industrial dispute the associate, like the probationary or temporary member, was still subject to the rules and discipline of the union and to the decision of the national executive council at the end of the argument, though in practice associate members who had "hire and fire" status were never to my knowledge called out in industrial disputes.
  I say in answer to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) that it is not now, nor has it been, nor have I any reason to suppose that it ever will be, the policy of the NUJ to try to force into the ranks of the union everyone who attempts to write for a newspaper. That is not the position, and it is unfair and monstrous to suggest that it is.
  In this debate we have perhaps concentrated too much on the Press issue, although it is important. We started on 22nd February last year with an attempt to get agreement between all people working in the newspaper industry—daily newspapers, weekly newspapers, the evenings and the bodies representing the editors and journalists. There was an attempt to get them round the table to see whether there could not be agreement on a charter for Press freedom.
  306
  I have refrained from saying this before but I say it now. On that occasion the editors of the national daily newspapers attended the meeting. They were horrified at the prospect of a charter getting anywhere, and they fast backed away from it, much to the disgust of the then Editor of The Guardian, Mr. Hetherington, who was making a valuable attempt to assist with the charter and produce a most useful draft, and later much to the disgust of Mr. Charles Winter, the Editor of the Evening Standard. So let us have no hypocrisy or cant about it. That was what happened. The editors of the daily newspapers in Fleet Street did not like the idea of the charter. To that extent they have encouraged the Conservative Party in all its opposition to this Bill.
  It may be that I am being too Machiavellian, but I thought it significant that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft spent very little time on this matter today. He made very few comments about it. He may say that it has all been said before and that we all realise where we stand. But it is interesting to note that following a discussion on the national executive council of the NUJ in November as a result of a ballot which put the position back to where it was and which was more acceptable—I say no more about it than that—it was agreed that the union should again take the initiative in trying to set up a meeting of all the bodies involved to see whether they could not make another attempt at reaching agreement on a charter for Press freedom.
  The response was extraordinary. The spokesman for the Fleet Street editors, giving a personal view, though no doubt he consulted his colleagues, replied that it seemed to him to be premature and that we should wait and see what happened in this House. The President of the Guild of British Newspaper Editors was consulted and gave it as his considered view that it would be premature. The words have a familiar ring.
  The Newspaper Society, which has a large interest in this matter, did not use the word "premature" but said that if the result of the deliberations of this House and along the corridor was that there should be an obligation imposed to have such a charter, it would reconsider its position. That is a very generous, responsible and responsive reply.

  307
  The Institute of Journalists, which has a great stake in this matter and feels that it is being either sat upon or threatened with extinction by the NUJ, although it is not true, might have been expected to be the first to rush round the table to see whether it could not sort out the matter sensibly. However, broadly speaking it adopted the position of the Conservative Party by saying that it would talk only if certain matters were excluded and decided in this place to underpin the position because it took the view that agreement on this matter was impossible.
  It seems to me appalling if the message goes out from one side of this House to workers at all levels in national, regional and local newspapers and in the magazine industry "We do not trust you. We do not think that you are grown up enough to agree this matter between yourselves. We are the Opposition who believe in less government and in less legislation but who on this occasion believe that we should decide what is best for you. We shall fill in the dots and the commas." If that is not arrogance—and I suspect that it is—it is a very destructive view.
  I end on the note with which I began. It is people down on the ground especially and people at all levels throughout the various bits of this industry who are best able to agree a Press charter, because then they will feel that it belongs to them and they will then all be committed to seeing that it is a success. This House cannot compel consent and agreement. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it is better left to the men and women employed in the industry. I am confident that, given the encouragement of this place, for a change, they will do it and make a good job of it.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: This is the third attempt that the Government have made to get this legislation through the House. I cannot help thinking that the shape of our discussions is rather like a musical composition in rondo form. The first movement that we debated in our consideration of this legislation was largely the question of the closed shop generally in industry. On the second time round we found ourselves concerned almost
  308
  exclusively with the problems of the newspaper industry. Today, the third time round, we are back again to a general consideration of the problem of the closed shop, largely as a result of the dispute at Ferrybridge.
  Unlike some hon. Members, however, I do not feel that our time has been wasted or that valuable time has been lost. As time has passed, the aspects of the matter which have come up for consideration have assisted us in looking at the Bill more objectively and more fully and have led us to the conclusion that the longer that we look at the Bill, the more undesirable it becomes.
  Almost a year ago to the day during the Second Reading debate of the Bill when I had the temerity to point out the possible dangers of an unlimited closed shop and the need for protection for the individual, a Government supporter who is not present today asked me to produce examples and suggested that they were theoretical worries. At that time the hon. Gentleman's intervention had some cogency. I do not think that any hon. Member today would seek to make an intervention in that sense, because in the passage of a year we have seen examples like the one at Ferrybridge showing that the fears which we expressed about unrestrained closed shops without limitations to protect the individual were not unreal and were not theoretical.
  Indeed, I believe that there are three reasons why the legislation put forward today is even less desirable now than it was on the previous two occasions we considered it. First, the examples of the evils of the unrestrained closed shop, such as Ferrybridge, have become more apparent and clear than they were last year. Secondly, the defects of the procedures adopted by the Trades Union Congress to adjudicate on disputes between its own members have been highlighted. Therefore, the House should face with even less confidence than on previous occasions the prospect of the TUC setting up a body which will be the sole determinant of the rights of individuals who are aggrieved by what they regard as unfair exclusion or expulsion. Thirdly, the implications concerning unemployment benefit have become apparent during consideration of this matter.
  I should like to reinforce my first proposition that the examples of the evils

  309
  of the closed shop have become more apparent than before. I should like to cite one example which has come to my attention, an example which is in no way unique but which vividly illustrates the type of problems which can exist. Mr. George Ryan of Guisborough, in my constituency, is the supervisor at Middlesbrough station. He was not only a member of the National Union of Railwaymen; he was chairman of the Cleveland branch. Last June he found himself in fundamental disagreement with a decision of the executive committee of the union to call a strike. He believed that that decision flagrantly ignored the views of 200 branch secretaries whom he regarded as being closer than the executive committee to the grass roots of the union membership.
  I am not in any way concerned with the rights and wrongs of that particular disagreement. What is important is that Mr. Ryan felt so strongly about his disagreement that he wrote to the branch secretary resigning not only from the branch chairmanship but also from the union itself. Accordingly, he filled in the appropriate form and ceased his contributions.
  Mr. Ryan is not hostile to trade unionism, and indeed that it what one would expect from a branch chairman. On 9th June he applied for membership of an organisation which he was qualified to join—the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, which is another perfectly respectable trade union. However, five days later, on 14th July, he received a visit from an official of the NUR asking him to reconsider his position and his resignation.
  It is at this point that the story becomes a little more unattractive. The representative of the NUR told Mr. Ryan that from October 1975 membership of the trade union would again be compulsory and he, the representative, would see to it that Mr. Ryan's application to join the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association would be opposed, which would mean that he would be thrown out of work. Happily, the union official's assessment of what the House would do last Sesssion proved mercifully inaccurate and the threat which he made to Mr. Ryan's livelihood proved to be unavailing.
  It is our task to ensure that Mr. Ryan is given not merely a temporary respite
  310
  but a proper rescue from an intolerable threat and an absolutely intolerable situation.
  Mr. Martin Flannery rose—
  Mr. Brittan: There is one other matter which I should like to mention, not because it is directly relevant but because it gives flavour to the sort of threats to which that man was subjected. The representative of the NUR, seeking to coerce my constituent to return to membership of that union, added that he, the representative, was an International Socialist and that as far as he was concerned those serving in the British Army in Northern Ireland were paid murderers. The relevance of that and the effect it had on Mr. Ryan can perhaps be better understood when I add that Mr. Ryan happens to have a son who is currently serving in the Army. Hon. Members can imagine that the union representative was adding insult to injury.
  I stress that Mr. Ryan was not a free rider or somebody seeking to obtain the benefits of trade union membership without joining the union. He was not someone hostile to trade unionism. He did not seek a public dispute. He was merely seeking quietly to resign from one union and join another. For his pains he was threatened that if the Bill became law he would lose his job.
  Mr. Flannery rose—
  Mr. Brittan: I shall conclude the story and then give way. On 27th November Mr. Ryan received a letter from the financial secretary of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association quoting its head office, which said:
  "I … have re-examined the papers in connection with this application and feel I should say as frankly as possible that the chances of successfully arranging the transfer in this instance are slight."
  Therefore, it would seem that the threat conveyed to Mr. Ryan was all too real.
  I have received from Mr. Ryan a letter which I am sure echoes the thoughts of thousands of decent trade unionists. Mr. Ryan writes:
  "I believe I have a right to be a member of a trade union of my choice and should not be blackmailed into continuing membership of a union I no longer have faith in.
  I respectfully ask you to put it to the likes of Mr. Wilson, the Prime Minister, and Mr.

  311
  Foot, both of whom by some of their statements disagreed also with the policy of the NUR, if they intend to let me be put out of work because I also shared their views."
  That is what the Bill is about.
  Mr. Flannery: I should like some clarity about the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of democracy. In a trade union it is a fact that there are rules which are democratically and painstakingly arrived at. If the national executive of a union decides to call a strike, the members of that union are expected to abide by its democratic decision. If the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of democracy allows a group to decide to go against the elected leadership and do the opposite, I am at a loss to understand him.
  Mr. Brittan: I shall explain exactly my interpretation of democracy, but it is not directly relevant to what I have been saying. If the NUR wants to have a strike and decides through its procedures to have one, it is right that that should be the declared policy of the union. However, my concept of democracy is also that if an individual who is a member of that union does not go along with that view, he should have the right to resign from the union and to join another which he is qualified to join. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh., no."] I find it horrifying that hon. Gentlemen should regard that as cause for scorn.
  I should regard the matter as less serious if, under the Bill, some provisions were made for an independent adjudication of disputes about membership between a member and his union. Then the Secretary of State's contentions, which are expressed so vocally even, if illogically, could be put to the test before an objective body. However, that is not what the Bill proposes and that is why we object to it. All that the Bill proposes could be written on an empty piece of paper.
  The right hon. Gentleman is proposing that a disputes procedure should be operated by the trade union movement, with the trade union movement appointing a legally qualified chairman. That is what the Government are proposing now, when the inadequacies and unfair ness of that approach have been pointed out time and time again to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
  312
  Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that an individual who is aggrieved at unfair exclusion or expulsion will be satisfied if he is dealt with by a body appointed by the parent body against which he is appealing? Of course no one will be satisfied with that. It is as if someone with a complaint about unfair dismissal were told to go not to an industrial tribunal but to a review body appointed by the President of the CBI. That is a precise analogy and one which would be regarded as totally intolerable if put into legislative effect or even produced informally by hon. Members on this side.
  We do not believe in that approach. We think that there should be a genuinely independent body and that the means proposed by the right hon. Gentleman are inadequate also because the trade union body would have no means of enforcing its decision. The individual would be left without redress. This point was made by Lord Salmon in the debate in another place and it has not been answered. He said that, although the majority of trade unions would undoubtedly abide by the decision of the appeal body, some might fall into the hands of those who were not inclined to do so. The individual would be left with no redress.
  As my right hon. Friend has said, the whole of the withering judgment in the General Accident case recently before the courts showed that the trade union movement, with great respect, cannot be left to set up adequate procedures. That court judgment, against which there appears to be no appeal, showed that the Bridlington procedure was riddled with defects and objectionable features and it horrified a High Court judge.
  Is there any reason to believe that the procedure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, which in the last Session he would not even allow to be reviewed by the Council on Tribunals, would be even better than that which the trade union movement offers under Bridlington? There is none whatever. Yet the right hon. Gentleman asks us to write out of the statutes of this country the protection of the individual and to rely totally on the body that the TUC is to set up. He cannot responsibly regard himself as in any way concerned with the rights of the individual when he is asking the House to do that.

  313
  The third reason why the Bill is more objectionable than it was last year relates to social security. The right hon. Gentleman, in his more objective moments, I think, would agree that, whether or not his letter to Mr. Nicholson has been misinterpreted, it was certainly capable of misinterpretation, and that to write in those terms was a grave error of judgment at the very least. But I do not seek to pick on the right hon. Gentleman's letter to Mr. Nicholson in support of this matter.
  The position plainly is that, on any view, it is a possibility that someone who was thrown out of work because he was not complying with a closed shop will now find that he does not get unemployment benefit either. The right hon. Gentleman cannot hide behind sub judice rules, which he applies to his own taste, to get away from his refusal in any way to state that this is something of which he disapproves.
  Indeed, as he sought in his lengthy letter to The Times to justify his position, it seemed to me, and I hope that it will seem so to the House, that his self-justification was based upon an illogicality. He said:
  "The industrial tribunal has to determine the complaints by the six workers at Ferry-bridge under the current relevant provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act itself, but whether a case of that type is decided under that Act, or under the law in the form proposed in the Amendment Bill now before Parliament, will not affect the interpretation of the Social Security Act by its own adjudicating authorities."
  It will not affect the interpretation of the Social Security Act, but what it will mean is that more cases will come before the social security authorities since more people will be sacked because the closed shop will be more prevalent and there will be fewer exceptions to it. Therefore, it is right and relevant to say that more people will risk losing unemployment benefit as well as their jobs.
  Those three reasons seem to be cogent ones for regarding the Bill in the last Session as an abortion and in the present Session as an abomination.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Henderson: If a man from Mars were to visit us today to listen to this debate, I doubt whether he would learn much about the state of industrial relations in
  314
  the United Kingdom, but he would form a poor impression of the way in which we discuss them. We have heard arguments today many of which we have heard over and over again. I should have thought that that man from Mars might have expected from all of us some humility on what has been obviously a complex area. Instead, we have heard incredible certainty on both sides—a great deal of optimism on the Government side and considerable pessimism on the Conservative side—about the effects of the Bill if it becomes law.
  Not only our man from Mars but the vast bulk of hundreds of thousands of people on the shop floor would find it difficult to relate what has been said here today to their experience in their everyday lives. They would feel that we were discussing an area—important, but only an area—of the factors which affect their earning their livelihood.
  I am amazed, for example, that when we talk about disputes, it all seems to come down to a consideration of whether the trade unions do good things or bad things in relation to their members. We do not talk about other factors that affect people's lives and the way in which some disputes can arise. We do not talk, for example, about the impact of technology on many ordinary working people, the way in which it has made many skills redundant and stripped people of their pride in their job, their livelihood and their training. We do not talk about how it has increased their sense of boredom, which is one of the most serious industrial relations problems that we have to face in this country and every other country with an advanced technology.
  We should not be surprised, therefore, that in these circumstances defensive practices are often adopted. Of course there are, when people have gone through apprenticeships for five years and suddenly find that someone else can be taken on to the job with six months' training and their skills become of no account. We do not give nearly enough attention to that aspect of industrial relations and the way in which people are used in industry. We do not talk enough about people working "with us" instead of "for us". People today on the shop floor are much better educated and, quite rightly, have much higher expectations than a generation ago.

  315
  Nor do we talk about the fear of unemployment which many people have, which again can be a cause of disputes and difficulties. It is the exaggeration, the exaggerated statements and hyperbole that we have heard in this debate which have depressed me most. I wrote some of them down and was tempted to quote them, but when one sees them in cold print, they seem so futile and ridiculous that I will not take up the time of the House with them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I have no doubt that hon. Members who follow me will use them and perhaps even add some of their own.
  The only aspect of the Bill on which we have some concern is that of the Press. It is recognised throughout the House that this is not an easy matter, but it is something on which it is difficult to get the right form of words. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) in a previous debate said:
  "Many of us who are moderates and have had some experience of the newspaper industry look at the Lords' amendments and the Secretary of State's amendments as a hopeless Hobson's choice. Is there no middle way which recognises the unique role of editors while at the same time allowing for a strong NU.1?"—[Official Report, 6th November 1975; Vol. 899, c. 677.]
  That is a perfectly fair statement of the position. I and my hon. Friends are not satisfied that we have yet found that position.
  Mr. Foot: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. The NUJ seeks exactly what he has described—namely, a recognition of the unique position of the editor. That is one of the propositions that it has put forward in its charter, but that does not undermine its negotiating and industrial position. On that basis we could seek agreement. The Bill, in the outcome of which the hon. Gentleman and I have some interest, does not deal with the Press. That will be dealt with after the Christmas Recess. The Bill as it stands is exactly the Bill for which he and his hon. Friends have given us support in the past.
  Mr. Henderson: I will not follow the Secretary of State along the lines of that intervention. However, I want to say something about the position of the
  316
  Press, One or two other aspects should be taken into account. There is also the subject of the editor in relation to the proprietors. In Scotland we are concerned that five out of 11 Scottish produced dailies are now not within Scottish control and several of them are deeply involved with property and oil developments. We wonder whether the character of the newspapers and their control is changing and whether we should examine that aspect more deeply.
  There is a further aspect which I deeply regret having to raise. Last Friday the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—I gave him notice that I intended to raise this matter—speaking in Stirling, apparently wanted a Conservative closed shop in the Press. He said that he was not opposed to a closed shop so long as it was a Conservative one. He criticised the Scotsman, the Scottish Daily Express and the Daily Record. He went on to criticise the
  "abysmal lack of proper editorial control"
  in certain Scottish newspapers. He said that in one a Scottish National Party candidate was allowed to write the editorials. Good heavens, how revolutionary!
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman is joking.
  Mr. Henderson: He said that in several SNP members or sympathisers controlled the feature articles and news reporting.
  The Daily Record, one of the papers to which he referred and which certainly has not supported the SNP at any time in the past, said in its editorial:
  "The Tory hierarchy sadly endorses Mr. Rifkind"—
  because—
  "the text of last night's speech was sent to Scottish newspapers … by the Scottish Tory Central Office."
  Here there is a desire for a political closed shop in the Scottish Press.
  The Scotsman commented fairly:
  "We have no political closed shop."
  It said that it did not intend to have one. It described the comment as:
  "outrageous even for one whose party are not above stooping to smear tactics."
  Perhaps I might conclude on the valuable advice which the Scotsman gave to

  317
  the hon. Member for Pentlands when it said:
  "The Tories are doing badly in Scotland; self-criticism would do them more good than whining that they are the victims of newspaper bias and malice."
  I never thought to see the day when that would happen.
  The question of individual freedom, which has been raised sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly by hon. Members, is part of the much wider problem of individual freedom generally. There is the question of the rights of people in relation to bureaucratic organisations. That is a serious area with which we should all be concerned. Perhaps at the end of the day we shall be talking of a written guarantee, possibly in the form of a Bill of Rights, which will guarantee people's freedom and ensure that people's rights are properly justified.
  I recommend to my hon. Friends that they support the Government tonight.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. John Mendelson: I should like to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), whose speech I much enjoyed—if he does not mind my saying so and if that will do him no harm in his constituency work. I regret that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind), whom he has just executed, has arrived a little late for his execution. It would have been more interesting and enjoyable if the hon. Gentleman had arrived a few minutes earlier.
  I want to address my remarks to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who just now had his back to me but who is now facing me, as I am sure he would want when he is about to be criticised. The hon. Gentleman has let his Front Bench down very badly. He has done no service to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). The right hon. Gentleman has transferred his bonhomie from the farming and agricultural industry, where for many years he used to exude much friendliness and understanding, to the industrial sphere. Gradually he has developed a skill with which he tries to persuade us that he learns as he goes along, is beginning to understand trade unionists and trade unions and hopes to operate with them. The hon. Member for Cleveland
  318
  and Whitby has now made an early nineteenth century anti-trade union speech. He is blind to all the facts of the situation and has displayed the dismal ignorance that most Tory lawyers normally display when they talk about trade unions, and he has not adopted the tactics of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft.
  We have heard a lot of nonsense and special pleading from the hon. Member for Cleveland and Witby and he has even dragged into his remarks the despicable irrelevance of the tragic situation in Northern Ireland, which has nothing whatever to do with the alleged case that he quoted. He referred to Northern Ireland in order to create additional prejudice. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. There is a time and a place for every debate and he deliberately dragged in Northern Ireland because that is his style and the level of debating in which he engages.
  Mr. Brittan rose—
  Mr. Mendelson: His case was fraudulent to a degree in relation to the example he quoted, because all the time the language he used referred to wrongful dismissal. He said that he would give us an illustration which had come to hand, but which had not been available when he last spoke in a similar debate. What was this illustration of wrongful dismissal? A man who wanted to break a strike and who engaged in strike breaking resigned from his organisation. He was dismissed, and that is what the hon. Gentleman calls wrongful dismissal.
  Mr. Brittan rose—
  Mr. Mendelson: I will finish what I have to say and give way in my own good time.
  The hon. Gentleman in the end did not give us an illustration of wrongful dismissal. We never heard that Mr. Ryan had been dismissed by British Rail. He will have a chance to tell us later whether Mr. Ryan has ever been dismissed by British Rail. He told us of a member of the National Union of Railwaymen who disagreed with a decision of that union. This man did not wish to take part in a strike and so left his organisation because he disagreed with its decisions and joined another trade union. Apparently this other trade union, under

  319
  what used to be the Bridlington Agreement, investigated the case and, quite properly, said that it was rather doubtful whether it would be right and proper for it to accept the man in the circumstances. That case is as far removed from wrongful dismissal as any illustration could be.
  Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has certainly shown himself to be an expert in fraudulent representation, for the simple reason that behind all that abuse there is a fundamental misconception—namely, that I did not say a word about this being an example of wrongful dismissal.
  Mr. Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Britian: If the hon. Gentleman would listen for one moment, he would realise that what I said was totally inconsistent with such a suggestion. He will recall that in the case I cited the man was threatened that that would happen if the Bill were passed.
  Mr. Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman will listen patiently for one moment, he will appreciate that that plainly could not be a case of wrongful dismissal. It was a case of a man being threatened that having resigned from one union, he would not be admitted to another and that if this legislation were passed, the inevitable consequence would be wrongful dismissal. I need no lessons from the hon. Gentleman as to accuracy.
  Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the legal profession and he knows very well how far the sort of evidence he has just produced would get him in court. He deliberately produced an illustration that had nothing to do with wrongful dismissal and then spoke all the time about wrongful dismissal.
  The hon. Gentleman was equally fraudulent—I am choosing my words carefully—when he then proceeded to attack my right hon. Friend about the famous letter. The hon. Gentleman was quite unable to prove—and he knew that he was unable to prove—that that had anything to do with the decision about paying unemployment benefit, or any other kind of benefit. The hon. Gentleman had to use another door—a back
  320
  door—to prove in a roundabout way to his own satisfaction, though not to anyone else's satisfaction, that it could not directly affect the issue but that, as there would be some dismissals if this legislation were passed, obviously there would be more instances of people not receiving unemployment benefit. If that is a relationship that may be regarded as evidence, Heaven help the hon. Gentleman's clients.
  The origin of this debate has, happily, nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman. It has to do with something much more serious. That is that the Government side of the House was pledged to the country in two General Elections to put right a grave injustice and to eradicate a nonsense from the statute book—the Tory Industrial Relations Act. The Government proceeded to do it and invited Par liament to pass the legislation.
  My first point, and my main reason for intervening in the debate, concerns the role of the other Chamber in this affair. I can well understand why the Government are not making too much of it at present. I generally support them in this attitude. The country is going through a very difficult period. We have many grave economic problems ahead of us over the next two years. We have our hands full. I do not believe that I would want to advocate a major constitutional crisis. However, it is quite clear that if the other Chamber were to continue deliberately and advisedly to destroy major legislation endorsed by the electorate at a General Election and then enacted by the House of Commons, there would be enough Members of this House who would not be prepared to accept it for any length of time and would, therefore, insist that legislative action be taken to change the legislative situation.
  I support the method that the Government have chosen on this occasion, for the reasons that I have indicated, and I am quite satisfied that it is the right method. However, it is completely out of keeping with the spirit of the times for the other Chamber to set itself up as a body which arrogates to itself constitutional powers which it has not got and was not meant to have when in 1911 the Liberal Party clipped its wings.
  I mention in passing the peculiar attitude adopted by the Liberal and Conservative Parties this afternoon. We saw the

  321
  strange spectacle of a Liberal spokesman speaking on behalf of his party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Liberals?" We are not missing them; they have said their piece, and we can do without them. However, the official spokesman of the Liberal Party, with his party leader sitting next to him—let us remember that he is the spokesman of the party which introduced that great reforming Act of 1911—said that because of a certain constellation in our allocation of constituencies at a General Election, the House of Lords has now acquired the right to destroy legislation passed in the House of Commons. That novel doctrine ought to be put on record as the new Liberal view of the other Chamber.
  Then we had the official spokesman of the Conservative Party welcoming with delight the rôle of the other Chamber in this affair. That also ought to be remarked upon. It ought to be regarded as particularly significant, because the right hon. Member for Lowestoft did not contest the idea that it is against legislation put forward only by a Labour Government, or perhaps, by a Liberal Government, that the House of Lords acts in this way.
  It is, therefore, only natural that all democrats in the Chamber tonight ought on principle, if on no other ground, to reject this position and reject the view of the House of Lords.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: I do not dispute the general tenor of the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, if the House of Lords would automatically agree to legislation passed by a Labour Government, would the hon. Gentleman attack it as being purely a rubber stamp?
  Mr. Mendelson: No, I would not. My views about two-chamber government are very straightforward and are the same as those expressed by the Abbé Siéyès, one of the statesman of the French Revolution. He said "A second chamber, if it agrees with what the first chamber says, is superfluous; and if it disagrees with them it is a damned nuisance". That is my view about a second Chamber. It is my answer to the hon. Gentleman. I have never changed my view on this matter. However, that is not where we are at now. Hence my comment and the way in which I made it.
  322
  To come to the Bill, apart from the rôle of the other Chamber in this important matter of legislation, I believe that the Opposition are doing something rather dangerous and shortsighted in turning this into such a propaganda campaign. Whatever view one takes about industrial relations in this country in the last six or seven years, there can be only general regret about the time that was wasted by mistaken legislation that was not acceptable to those most directly concerned.
  All the talk that we have heard this afternoon from the hon. Member from Cleveland and Whitby and other hon. Members, including the right hon. Member from Lowestoft, has been so much nonsense. They really ought to know better by now. All this talk about the tyranny of the trade unions and the great power that they have accumulated is far removed from the reality of our industrial life. I say this partly in reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East who charged us with not concentrating enough, perhaps, on the more important subjects.
  Although I would plead guilty to some of the charges, I certainly would not accept that we have ignored the factor of unemployment. That the hon. Gentleman cannot justify. I for one have not let a week pass without referring to unemployment and demanding special debates on unemployment and referring to the influence of the tragic factor of unemployment on our industrial relations situation.
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful for having given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of clarifying his position, but will he say when we last debated unemployment?
  Mr. Mendelson: We had a debate on economic affairs in which prominent Ministers dealing with employment and the provision of employment opportunities took a leading part. We could have had the debate on unemployment that I had demanded a week earlier, but the Government have adopted the reasonable position—I emphasise the word "reasonable"—that they do not want it to be an academic debate. They want to go into such a debate able to announce a number of the measures that they are taking at the same time and on the day

  323
  when the debate is taking place. That is a reasonable attitude and I approve of it, because my purpose in pressing for the debate was to hurry the Government along to take these measures and not merely to enable us to wring our hands and to say how terrible it was that there were so many people unemployed. Therefore, there is nothing lost in having the debate a fortnight later if we get the announcement of practical measures at the same time—if we get that announcement.
  What is wrong and dangerous in the attitude of the Opposition is that they ought to have learned from the experience of recent years that there is no point in these propaganda speeches. Even if the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby does not know any better, his Front Bench ought to know better, because in industrial relations one can do nothing without the support of the people directly concerned.
  Although I believe that it would be misguided, I could understand a Government, of my party or any other party, saying "All right. The trade unions do not agree with the Government's policy on Vietnam or South-East Asia. That is their point of view, but we ignore it. We as a Government know better, and we shall go ahead with our policy on Vietnam". The Government can go ahead with such a policy opposed by the trade union movement, but that attitude is impossible when it comes to industrial relations, because no Government can have an industrial relations policy that does not have the day-to-day consent of people in industry.
  The country turned against the previous Conservative Government on precisely those grounds. Long before polling day, many practically minded people, who were not at all doctrinaire, would ask Members "What has happened? What these people are doing does not seem to make sense, because people in industry do not know what they are asked to do. We do not know where this lot are going, so we shall not vote for them." That is the history of the two General Elections in 1974.
  That brings me to my third point, that it is therefore nonsense for a Conservative Opposition to mount this propaganda campaign against the Bill, which is based
  324
  upon the principle of consent and agreement with those who work in industry. That is a cardinal principle. It is possible to disagree about details. The Government have never claimed that they are all-knowing and that some aspects of the Bill might not be improved later. But the Opposition are wrong to mount a campaign as if the Government were selling the past and betraying our heritage of freedom. The Government that I support also had industrial policies between 1964 and 1970 that did not have the day-to-day support of the trade union movement, and accordingly came to grief. Therefore, I am not making a party point when I say that for the first time in many years we have a Government who work with the trade union movement.
  There is a good hope, though no certainty, that this industrial legislation will work. It gives a great deal of freedom to the initiative of those concerned. I know many employers who wish the Bill well. There is no vast number of employers in my part of the country lining up to march on London to protest against the Bill. They would think that one was not right-minded if one suggested such a thing to them. They do not have sleepless nights over the Bill, and they know a great deal about what is going on in industry. The Opposition's campaign is wholly misguided. There is no reason for it.
  My fourth point concerns the Press. A number of my hon. Friends who have been active in journalism have discussed with my right hon. Friend in public and in private the importance of the clauses dealing with the Press. I have referred to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft, who has now returned to the Chamber. He will be able to read in the Official Report what I have said. I make no criticism of his absence. He has been here for most of the debate, and he cannot be here every minute. He is never discourteous. If he has to miss a speech, he might as well miss mine.
  Press freedom is very important. I have not taken part in this aspect of the debate so far, but I have followed with great interest what some of my hon. Friends have said. I absolutely agree with all those who have said that here we are not dealing with an ordinary commodity. The product of a factory is important, but producing it is not like

  325
  writing an article or producing a book. That is common ground. Therefore, there are special reasons for giving special consideration to this problem.
  But I found it a little peculiar and ironic that the leader of the Newspaper Proprietors Association should regard himself as the man more concerned than anyone else with the freedom of the Press. Many hon. Members have a good record in the fight for the freedom of the Press. I do not count newspaper proprietors as among the heroes in the struggle.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East told us of a Conservative Member who was hotly critical of the fact that members of the Scottish National Party wrote leading articles for the Scotsman. I have no bias in the matter of who writes leading articles for the Scotsman. although I regularly read that newspaper. I know that, whoever writes the leading articles, it will not be a Socialist. Therefore, I am not in the competition.
  However, I believe that we all stand together in regarding it as unacceptable that there should be a growing tendency to assume that there can be dictation as to who might have the right to take part in writing and having his material published. That is the supreme interest that we all have in the Miltonian principle of the freedom of publication. That must be safeguarded at all costs.
  I cannot understand why it should be regarded as possible to achieve that only by a legal enactment. It has never been achieved by legal enactment in this country. All that has been achieved by legal enactment in the history of Press freedom in this country is the opposite. It is the people who have wanted to suppress freedom of publication who have resorted to legislation. Those who have favoured freedom of publication have always regarded the absence of legal enactment as the best guarantee of such freedom. I am open to challenge on that, but I do not believe that a challenge can easily be made.
  Mr. Tebbit: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman says, but what the Press is concerned about is that legislation is being passed through the House which will lead to censorship of the Press, and it is saying to the House "If you wish to do that, in God's name give us at least
  326
  some protection in law from the censorship you are about to pass."
  Mr. Mendelson: If the hon. Gentleman goes with me part of the way, which in this House is normally the essential beginning of any attempt to argue ourselves together, I would say to him that the best way to protect those who write, those who edit, those who publish, those who are in Parliament and the public at large, including small groups throughout the country, is to say today that we shall work with the good will of those who make up the majority of all those people.
  That is the point that has been emphasised time and time again. There can be no doubt that our best allies are the majority of journalists. To mount a major campaign to put them in a particular category of distrust is the worst possible thing to do. There can be no doubt—and the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) must know as well as many journalists as myself—that that is the view of many of the most experienced journalists. They would fight and go to the stake on that principle if they would not fight on anything else.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's theme, but I must put forward an example which contradicts it. Let us suppose that there is a militant chapel which seeks to black copy or to censor the Press in some way. In that situation is it not a good thing that there should be a Press charter with legally enforceable safeguards, to which it might well be the majority of workers in the newspaper concerned whose copy was being blacked by the militant group in the chapel would have recourse, and recourse backed by the sanction of law if necessary?
  Mr. Mendelson: In all seriousness, I was about to move to that point. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I would say that the opposite is true. I believe that such recourse would not help. In a critical situation in which there was strong feeling such as the hon. Gentleman described, a small group might make such a decision. Those people would not care tuppence about any paragraph in a statute: they would act regardless of any legal sanction. They would immediately attract the solidarity and support of dockers, railwaymen and others

  327
  it punitive measures were taken against them under a paragraph in the law. That would mean that what had been an isolated dispute would grow much larger.
  I would say that wisdom is not on the side of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). To adopt the course that he advocates would not be to strengthen the hand of those who would be involved in dealing with such matters. If we study the few disputes of this nature that have occurred we will find that they have been resolved by discussion and reasoning on the part of other journalists and printers. Sometimes they have come from an outside chapel. I am utterly convinced that that is the way in which we should continue to settle these affairs. In this argument my right hon. Friend is attempting to maintain that position.
  I have not liked the drawing in of personalities in this discussion. The matter is far too serious to warrant bringing in personalities. I do not charge the hon. Member for Thanet, East with having done so. The matter is too serious to warrant trying to twist the Minister's tail, as it were. Surely it can be common ground that there are people on both sides of the argument who have spent a lifetime as adherents of the principle of freedom of publication. They regard that principle as at least as important as any other principle to which they have ever been wedded. It helps no one to treat as light propaganda material a lifetime of service to that principle.
  My last point concerns the way in which I think this matter should be resolved. As I said at the beginning, in spite of my profound disturbance about the attitude of the other Chamber, I would not be in favour of mounting a major constitutional crisis in the immediate future. I think that Members of the House of Commons on both sides should have a silent agreement among themselves not to encourage the other Chamber in what it has been doing in the past few weeks.
  I think that we should act as House of Commons men and women. I hope that we shall reject the suggestion that the other Chamber has some superior and mystical right derived from nowhere to overturn the decisions of the elected legislature. I believe that we should
  328
  accept this legislation in the form in which it now exists and give it a try. We should then consider our decision as a House of Commons. We should not make this a propaganda issue. Industrial relations are too serious to treat in that way.
  By allowing a greater amount of freedom to those who are directly involved in the Press on both sides and by proceeding with the good will of the trade unions and the good will of the employers, a better success may be made of this legislation than of other types of legislaintroduced in recent years by Governments from both major parties in the House.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: I must say that the distaste which I normally hold for the views of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) is in no way lessened by having heard him make a plea for a period of calm, a period in which we see how this legislation is received. The hon. Gentleman urges us to give it a fair trial, adding that it was in the Labour Party's manifesto. If he and his colleagues had taken that same view five years ago when the Conservative Party was in Government and when the Industrial Relations Act was introduced, there might have been a different story.
  There was no question of giving that Act a fair chance. There was no question of the Labour Opposition saying "Let's see how it goes". From the start there was bitter opposition, and amongst a good many an egging-on of trade unionists to go as close to the brink of the law as they could. It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to say that it is our duty to give this legislation an easy ride in the name of comradeship and good industrial relations.
  We have heard little about industrial relations today, and that is probably because the Bill is not about industrial relations. Instead we have had some interesting meanderings. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) told us how he was a good NUJ man and how he moonlighted as an industrial relations consultant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman had the appropriate card. We had an imitation from the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) which even

  329
  surprised me, familiar as I am with the way in which Mike Yarwood imitates the Prime Minister every Tuesday and Thursday. Even I was taken aback by the hon. Gentleman when he imitated the prosecution in a Solzhenitsyn-style trial concerning the rights of unfortunate minority groups. The hon. Gentleman appeared to ask "Who are these fellows who set themselves up against the majority?" He continued "Let us have control of the Press to ensure that nothing mischievous is printed." That is the sort of thing with which we are becoming more familiar day by day.
  This has been a surprising debate all in all. I never thought that I would feel sorry for the Secretary of State for Employment for his performance at the Dispatch Box. Clearly the right hon. Gentleman was taken apart by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), the Leader of the Liberal Party, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and others. They all put questions to him which he either could not or would not answer. I do not know which it was, and it is for him to say.
  Let us have one thing plain. I did not come to the House, and I do not speak now, as a man who is opposed to trade unions. I have spent most of my life as a member of a trade union. I have been a trade union official. I have had the job of saying to the chaps, when I thought it right, that they should withdraw their labour.
  That was not in a closed shop situation. That was in a union which had sufficient support from its members to enable it not to think it necessary to have pickets to stop anyone crossing a picket line. That is because it had the support of its membership. When I and some of my colleagues disagreed with the union on another occasion and refused to go along with the union in withdrawing our labour, we were respected by our colleagues and it was understood that we had that right.
  I have no objections to unions seeking 100 per cent. membership. It is right and reasonable that they should do so. However, I believe that there is an obligation upon them to understand that there are those who may disagree with their views. The importance of liberty is infinitely
  330
  greater than the importance of 100 per cent. membership.
  As for free riders, I do not like them in any place. I would welcome any arrangement under which those who did not wish to belong to a union still paid subscriptions to the union—not even to a charity—for the work the union carried out on behalf of its members and others. But the right of conscience if a man does not wish to join a union is an absolute right embodied in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
  Today's debate could not have been given a better start this afternoon. It was preceded by a statement made by the Home Secretary. That right hon. Gentleman is not a member of a tribunal somewhere but is a Minister of the Crown. He was found by the Master of the Rolls to have a cynical approach to the law and to have contravened the Bill of Rights, to have misused his discretion under Acts of Parliament and to have made an attempt to levy charges without the authority of Parliament.
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: Do you want to shoot him?
  Mr. Tebbit: I would not go as far as that, but he does not deserve to be a Minister of the Crown when he behaves in that manner. We should bear in mind that if a Minister of the Crown can behave in that way and be brought to book only by the courts of the land, and if our citizens can be protected only by the courts against the misuse of power, we would be unwise to assume that the trade union movement as a whole, or any individual union, would always behave in a better way than the Home Secretary behaved on this occasion.
  The Bill with which we are now dealing is a nasty little Bill. Events have moved on since it was first introduced. Indeed, its nastiness is becoming clearer as time passes.
  The narrow point of Press censorship has been discussed almost ad nauseam, but it is an important narrow point. I hope that hon. Members will have noticed what happened in Australia. Journalists struck because they did not like the contents of the newspapers there. They felt that the newspapers were biased against the Labour Party. I have not read the Australian newspapers and I do not know whether that is true, but the journalists

  331
  took it on themselves to try to silence the Press in Australia. They felt that they knew whether it was biased.
  Fortunately, although Australians have endured a great deal, they have not had to face laws such as those now being proposed in this Bill. It was possible for newspapers in Australia still to be published. Under the present proposals, if in a future General Election the NUJ decides that the Press is biased against one side or the other, it can take certain action. Indeed it might be encouraged to do so, because already the Prime Minister has said that the BBC is biased and also that the Press employed hordes of journalists to go round the country looking for anything discreditable about the Prime Minister.
  One does not have to employ hordes of journalists or to spend much money to do that. That, however, was the accusation, and that was the way in which the Prime Minister tried to stir up people against the media. If he achieved his aim, and if the Bill allowed a journalist to say "That is it. Shut the Press", we could find ourselves in the middle of a General Election with no Press, television or radio. What happens to freedom then? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Penistone shouts "shocking".
  Mr. John Mendelson: I did not say "shocking".
  Mr. Tebbit: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would regard such a prospect as shocking even if he did not actually use that word.
  Mr. Mendelson: The word I used was awful.
  Mr. Tebbit: I shall not take the matter any further as to what the hon. Member for Penistone had in mind about possible future events.
  We have some idea how things may go. Early this year we had the Sharman Press dispute in which NUJ members were fined sums ranging from
  Mr. Mendelson: The word I used was awful.
  Mr. Tebbit: I shall not take the matter any further as to what the hon. Member for Penistone had in mind about possible future events.
  We have some idea how things may go. Early this year we had the Sharman Press dispute in which NUJ members were fined sums ranging from £15 to £20 for working. I repeat that they were fined for working. However, in future it will not be necessary to fine them. They will be expelled. In that way, inconvenient people who do not find themselves in the majority will be got rid
  332
  of. They comprise the minority, people about whom this House seems to have very little care. But freedom, like the law, is indivisible. It will not be just the Press or the intellectuals who will suffer once the whip is on.
  We have heard a good deal in this debate about the Ferrybridge six. I believe that the Ferrybridge six will be remembered for at least as long as the Shrewsbury two or three or whatever they are. Who will it be tomorrow?
  Will it be the Vauxhall workers? I do not know the answer to that question, but the next in line might not be the awkward squad but others. The Ferry-bridge six are men with principles and ideas of conscience not easily bent. They will be the first to suffer, but who will be next? It will be the man who falls out somehow or other with the unions. It may not happen over an issue of principle, and perhaps not even at work.
  We know that in the past a man who fell out with the foreman could find himself fired from his job. In future the same will be true of the man who falls out with the shop stewards. He will be told that the remedy lies not, as in the old days, with the employer but with the trade union and, indeed, with his own shop stewards. Is not that a laughable concept?
  My remarks about the Ferrybridge six led to the editorial in The Times. That newspaper picked up the comment:
  "If this is indeed so, it is an example of pure undilated Fascism."
  Perhaps the cruellest part of The Times first leader was the following:
  "Mr. Tebbit is therefore using fascism as a legitimate descriptive sense when he accuses Mr. Foot of it".
  The last line contains the real bite:
  "The question is not therefore: is Mr. Foot a fascist?' but 'does Mr. Foot know he is a fascist?'. To that at least we can give a charitable answer."
  I agree that we can give a charitable answer to that last question. I think the Secretary of State has deluded himself; he has misdirected and confused himself; he has allowed himself to become captive of the leaders of the trade union movement.
  What the Secretary of State is saying in effect tonight is that, because a law has been opposed by a great vested

  333
  interest, the protection in the law for the individual should be ended and that instead there should be substituted the great new protection of the tribunal. What sort of tribunal? How will it conduct its business?
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has repeated words that he knows are highly offensive. Those words were taken up by The Times. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was here when he heard the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) withdraw those words because he agreed that he had misunderstood the situation. I hope that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) also will have the courtesy to withdraw those words and I hope that, following his example and that of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North the editor of The Times might even be persuaded to render to me the same courtesy.
  Mr. Tebbit: There is nothing for me to withdraw. My words were correctly quoted in The Time's first leader. "If that is so, it is an example of pure unadulterated Fascism." I repeat the phrase "If that is so". The "if" hinged upon the letter written by the Secretary of State for Employment and the outcome of that letter.
  Let us deal with this once and for all. There are two parts to this matter. The first is what one thinks of a man who believes it is right that men and women should be deprived of the right to work because they belong to the wrong union or to no union. It is no good the Secretary of State shaking his head. One must believe either that it is right or that it is wrong. I shall gladly give way if the right hon. Gentleman wants to say it is wrong to deny men and women that right to work. He has taken the first step down the road to being a fully-paid-up member of that group of corporate state men colloquially called Fascists.
  The next step along the road is whether, having denied a man his job and his right to work in a particular job, one then denies him unemployment pay. The wording of the Secretary of State's letter of 27th November, which was written in reply to a telegram of 31st October and a follow-up letter of 4th November, leaves a great deal to be desired. Whether or not it was designed to put into the mind
  334
  of tribunal members a certain attitude and give them the impression that they were being told by the Secretary of State that dismissal for not being a member of the right union was fair dismissal, it certainly gave that idea not only to me but to as distinguished a journalist as Mr. Rees-Mogg and to as distinguished a former colleague of the Secretary of State as Lord George-Brown.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Member has got it wrong again. The idea was put into the mind of the editor of The Times, apparently, after he had read only one or two sentences torn from my letter. If the whole letter had been available in the office, The Times would presumably have published it at the same time as the attack on me. Presumably it had only part of it. It has been shown to have made a complete misreading of the situation. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North also misread the situation and went on radio and made a false statement on the basis of that. He has had the honour to withdraw. Will the hon. Member show himself to be honourable as well?
  Mr. Tebbit: When the right hon. Gentleman makes a statement such as the one he has just made—
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: You are a creep. I repeat it. You are a creep.
  Mr. Tebbit: There are some people from whom I would take remarks of that sort and some from whom I would not. The hon. Member had best behave himself or get out—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. That is a matter for the Chair. We must do away with words of heat.
  Mr. Tebbit: The Secretary of State stated flatly that the editor of The Times had not seen his letter. I do not know whether the editor has told him that. If not, the right hon. Gentleman has no way of knowing it and is unwise to assert it. After the letter was published in The Times, the editor still stood by what he had said and I stand by what I said. I see no reason to withdraw a word of it.
  Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the editor of The Times published this article with the highly

  335
  offensive accusation against me while my letter was in his possession and that it was not published in the newspaper when the attack was made, he is making an even greater slur on the editor of The Times. It may be that the editor deserves it. The only honourable course for the hon. Member, if he wishes to retain that title, is to withdraw as did the hon. Member for Cornwall, North instead of snivelling on and making dishonourable action even worse.
  Mr. Tebbit: I am not responsible for what the editor of The Times writes and I do not know what letters he had in his possession when he wrote the article. The right hon. Gentleman appears to claim to know. I have said nothing which requires me to withdraw and I have seen nothing in The Times which requires the editor to withdraw. On that point I leave the matter and go on to the point I was making when I started this interchange with the Secretary of State.
  The Secretary of State proposes that in place of courts of law there should be tribunals. We are entitled to ask what sort of tribunals. Will the procedures be approved by anyone independently? Who will appoint the tribunals? Will the Press have a right to be present when the tribunals are hearing cases or will they have the right to operate in secret? Will plaintiffs have the right to be represented, legally or by friends? Will a plaintiff be able to secure aid to make legal submissions? The system is like saying that at a time of war conscientious objectors should have to appear before a tribunal made up of Army officers with an independent chairman appointed by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff in consultation. That is how fair it will be.
  The editor of The Times and I fear that there has been a shift of power in this country from this place and the courts to small groups within the trade union movement and that we have moved from the law of courts to the law of tribunals. This is the basis of my charge and The Times' charge against the Secretary of State. The only question which remains to be answered is whether it is Willie Rees-Mogg who has changed in recent years or the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member has laboured this
  336
  matter. In all honour, he should not use the word to which the Minister has objected. He has made his point and it would be honourable if he were not to use that expression. It is not a word properly used in this House in a personal sense.
  Mr. Tebbit: I shall not use that word, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  There has been a shift of power away from this place. We all know it, and that is why on many days there is hardly anybody in this Chamber. We know that there has been a shift of power away from the courts of the land because there are some who blatantly defy the courts. This Bill is part of the shift from the democratic society which we knew towards a society in which some groups are above the law and have powers which are denied to the ordinary man and woman. That is the basis of any corporate State.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: I do not wish to comment in great detail on the speech by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). If the kind of scurrilous editorial which appeared in the Sunday Times is to be the end result of Press freedom as we have been debating it, quite frankly we need to take another very careful look at this whole matter. When a newspaper like the Sunday Times can make such a scurrilous attack on my right hon. Friend those who insist that we in this country have a free Press which is worth preserving, must realise that all their talk about a free Press is so much hogwash. How frequently during the time of the Industrial Relations Act, when dockers were put in prison, were Conservative Members attacked by the Sunday Times or any of its stable companions?
  Mr. Esmond Balmer: It was not the Sunday Times. Get your facts right.
  Mr. Thomas: The Industrial Relations Act would have provided that anyone who told the truth about an industrial dispute could have been regarded as committing an unfair industrial practice and be put in prison.
  Mr. Percival: Will the hon. Member explain the process by which he believes that that situation could arise, because unless he can, he should withdraw what he has said.
  Mr. Heffer: Read the debates that took place at the time.
  Mr. Thomas: Sections 96 and 97 of the Industrial Relations Act refer to the giving of financial or any other support to a group of workers committing an unfair industrial practice. The newspaper or individual concerned could end up before a tribunal and, ultimately, in contempt of court and in prison.
  I wish to draw attention to the technical schizophrenia which is displayed by the Conservatives on trade union and industrial relations matters. In their legislation and their White Papers they talk about the need for strong and effective trade unions, but if we are to judge by their speeches, particularly that by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), all they really want is trade unions to be racked by dissension. The hon. Member insisted that an individual should have the right to choose whether to join a trade union and to choose which trade union to join. Having joined it, he should then have the right, if he disagreed with a democratic decision by the union, to rip up his card and join another union. He could go through the whole process again in the new union if he so wished.
  At the time that the Industrial Relations Act was passing through the House I spoke to the manager of a large engineering firm. He said that an individual should have the right to join the trade union of his choice, but then I suggested that perhaps one of his workers would want to join the National Union of Seamen. He said to me "We do not want that; we have enough blasted trade unions in this place already."
  Our Liberal Friends are even more schizophrenic. One of them said during the Committee stage of the Bill that an individual should have the right to join the trade union of his choice. I asked for confirmation that Liberal philosophy sought one trade union for each industry. He confirmed that this was so. The logic of being able to hold both views escapes me.
  We have seen plenty of crocodile tears shed by the Conservatives for that group of workers who are being denied unemployment pay. For years queues of working people have been waiting to appear
  338
  before tribunals either to establish their right to unemployment pay or social security benefits. The situation of that group of workers is not unusual, yet since I came to this House 12 months ago I have heard nothing from the Conservatives about the plight of all the other workers. Employers create the situation in which all an employee can do is leave, or else a worker is sacked for industrial misconduct and then has to apply for social security benefit or unemployment pay. Whenever there are strikes or redundancies thousands of workers face those problems.
  The main part of the Bill concerns arbitrary or unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from trade unions. During the currency of the Industrial Relations Act—whatever Conservative Members say, we should continue to refer to that Act because it gave us our first experience of authoritarian legislation—it was said that trade unions, shop stewards and national officials could not do certain things and that the law must be brought in. In the well known Langston case it was argued that a work group should be forced to work with an individual because that was what the legislation said.
  We know that that legislation failed completely. It was never applied to arbitrary or unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a trade union. I do not know how one can proceed in those terms. It is not within the philosophy of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, because he thinks that an individual should be allowed to join a different trade union each week if it suits him.
  Tied up with this is the whole question of unfair industrial practices, trade union rule books, and so on. To determine whether a person has been arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded from a trade union it is necessary to examine in detail the rule book of the trade union, the bargaining unit in which the individual operates and the whole collective bargaining machinery within that industry. That takes one right back to the Industrial Relations Act and Schedule 4.
  I hope that we have learned our lessons from the Industrial Relations Act. One major lesson we have learned is that it is far better for workers and management

  339
  to resolve these difficulties between themselves. The Bridlington Agreement outshines anything achieved by the Industrial Relations Act. I agree with the Secretary of State that the trade unions can develop machinery to deal with these problems. Nothing in the Bill takes away from the individual his common law rights. Opposition Members do not appreciate that within a trade union there is usually a final appeal court of elected members who can make a decision binding on the national executive and every other body within the union.
  Mr. Brittan: In view of the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction with trade union disputes procedures, is he saying that there is no need for an independent trade union appeal body? If he does not say that and accepts the need for a trade union appeal body, surely he accepts that it will have to operate in as clear cut a way as any other non-trade union body. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also note that I do not accept the fantastic theories which he has ascribed to me. Nothing I have ever said supports his ascription of them to me.
  Mr. Thomas: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he read a letter from a constituent advocating that he should be allowed to join a union of his choice. At any rate, that was the theme which came across to me. My judgment is that the trade unions can set up machinery to deal with this problem which, if it works as effectively as the Bridlington Agreement, will be fairer and more effective than any tribunal or industrial relations court or any other legal regulation which the hon. Gentleman might suggest.
  As far as closed shops and union membership agreements are concerned, the Government have done no more than neutralise the position. They do not advocate them, but, on the other hand, unlike the Conservative Government, they do not ban them altogether. If there is a spectrum, the Government come down in the middle. The unions and the employers have to sit down and negotiate these agreements. The Secretary of State will not be there.
  In my judgment, the definition of a union membership agreement fully covers the position of editors or any other group which the parties to an agreement wish
  340
  to leave out. It makes clear that it refers to employees of an identifiable class, and ipso facto refers to those outside the agreement.
  The cries about Press freedom draw an enormous red herring. In the present monopoly control of the Press, it is nonsense to talk about Press freedom. I felt that my right hon. Friend was wrong to go so far along the road plotted for him by certain people in the House of Lords. He has gone too far already in setting up the charter. I believe it wrong to isolate a group of workers, as in the case of the NUJ, and say "We are going to have legislation which will go right across British industry, but we shall isolate you from it because of a special reason."
  If there are problems of freedom of the Press, they should not have been tackled in this Bill but in different legislation, because they have prevailed over a long period, during which the Opposition have not said anything. The NUJ has every right to be concerned about part-time writers who are taking away craftsmen's jobs. It has every right to be concerned about developments in its own industry.
  Why stop with the Press? What about the whole range of publishing? What about Equity and the theatre? Is it not possible that Equity could be captured by Maoists who would insist on the injection of social realism into Hamlet? What about universities and all the different areas of education? Imagine the Maoists taking over the Association of University Teachers and making them teach nothing but the thoughts of Chairman Mao! Is not that a possibility? I do not know where we draw the line in this regard.
  I was very disturbed when the Secretary of State started along the road to isolate the NUJ in this way. I know he did it from the best of motives, but people in the other Chamber took advantage of those motives. We should not be sitting here now if those unelected individuals in the other Chamber had not taken advantage of the good will of the Secretary of State, who, if I may say so, bent over backwards to try to meet their objections.
  I think that it was the present Prime Minister who once said that when the House of Lords agreed with the Commons it was superfluous, and when it

  341
  disagreed it was obnoxious. I should like to know how obnoxious it has to be before we get rid of it.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) straight away in the reference he made to the Bridlington Agreement and to its successful operation, because it is by reference to the provisions of the Bridlington Agreement that the AUEW justifies its rejection of the applications of four out of the six Ferrybridge workmen who have applied to join that union.
  The provisions of the Bridlington Agreement that are relied upon are apparently those which prevent a trade union from accepting an application for membership from a former member of another union or a member of another union under discipline or in arrears. That is the ground upon which the rejection of these four of the Ferrybridge six is sought to be justified—not the ground put forward by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) earlier in this debate that for some reason or other they did not comply with the craft qualifications or requirements.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Keighley is in his place, because he sought to draw an analogy with the trade union of the Bar, saying that barristers took care to achieve for themselves as close a closed shop as it would be possible to imagine. He could not have made a more telling point against himself. Indeed, the General Council of the Bar is my trade union, but it does not insist that I should belong to the General Council of the Bar if I seek to practise before the courts. It so happens that I belong to it, but I would be permitted to practise before the courts if I were not a member of the General Council of the Bar because of a religious objection or some reasonable objection of a secular kind.
  That is the freedom that the law provides for those who are its professional members, and the law does not display the double standards that we have long associated with so many of those who support the Secretary of State but which we have only recently, alas, come to ascribe to the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  342
  It is the policy of the Government, as I understand it, to encourage all workers to join a trade union. I agree with that policy, but I agree with no more than that. The Government encourage so long as they advocate, so long as they urge, so long as they persuade and so long as they advise, but when they provide for dismissal without compensation as the price that a workman must pay for refusing to join a trade union they have passed beyond encouragement and resorted to blackmail.
  Mr. Cryer: Is it not true that the General Council of the Bar is in the habit of sending round letters suggesting that, if people do not join, membership will have to be made compulsory?
  Mr. Mayhew: The General Council of the Bar has urged members to join. The General Council of the Bar has it within its power to adopt any restrictive practice that it chooses, but it has not done so. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps know that a recent suggestion that sanctions should be imposed upon members of the Bar met with decisive disapproval at the general meeting.
  The Bill is designed to make blackmail lawful. As it stands at the moment, the Act says that it shall be lawful to dismiss a worker for refusing to become a member of a specific trade union. But the Bill removes the saving clause which protects a worker who genuinely objects on any reasonable grounds to joining that union, and we now know from Ferry-bridge that there exist in real life workers who say "We are not against joining any trade union. We are against joining or remaining in this one." Alas, we also know what can happen to them if they are dismissed.
  In the weeks to come, I believe that many more instances will come to light. There are many employees of British Rail who find themselves in just that category. Under the Act as it stands, they can claim that they have an objection based on reasonable grounds and also on the ground of religious belief to joining the union which British Rail now requires them to join. That claim will be tried by an independent statutory tribunal. If the claim succeeds, they will be entitled to compensation for dismissal. If it should fail, at least they have no grievance that their claim has not had a fair trial.

  343
  I ask the Secretary of State why, if he is prepared to make a concession for those with religious beliefs, he will not retain the concession in favour of those who have objections based upon reasonable grounds. Surely the only reason for giving a concession to those whose objections are based upon religious belief is that it is thought right that one should defer to another man's culture. But why should it be supposed that it is only those with religious beliefs who have cultures? Why should not an agnostic be entitled to the same respect for that which he believes morally and socially binding upon him which the Bill confers on thosc with religious beliefs whom the Government are prepared to continue so to favour?
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman how in these circumstances he can claim, as he did today, that these measures are much more likely to protect individuals than are the provisions of the Act as it stands. The Bill provides no measures as an alternative to what it takes away in respect of unfair dismissal.
  I want to consider briefly the kind of people whom we have in mind. In many instances they are employees who have given the greater part of their working lives, and in some instances the whole of their working lives, to a single employer. They now find that their contracts of service are changed. They are obliged to join a trade union. They are among those who are described by a phrase of which I approve completely and which is often used by the Minister of State. They are those who have invested their lives, as distinct from their capital, in the businesses which they serve. They are now to find themselves out, with no compensation, if they are unable to justify on reasonable grounds their refusal to join a trade union.
  Having considered the type of people whom we are discussing, I go on to consider one or two of the possible grounds on which they may rely. It is not absurd to suppose that there are many who feel that it is wrong that innocent third parties should be made to suffer hardship by virtue of trade union industrial action. They may not wish to belong to a union for those reasons. There may be many who
  344
  believe that one man's pay rise is another man's price rise and that the specified union they are required to join is hostile to the Government's policy set out in the document "The Attack on Inflation".
  It is not fanciful to suppose that some people may heed the wise advice that it is the duty of every trade union member to attend his branch meetings and play his part in union democracy. Some people may say that they are physically unable to do so, or they do not have the time and so on, and therefore they do not think they should be members. Those are serious and reasonable objections which not all of us would share but which none of us can possibly deride. I accept that those people may now properly be told to join a specific trade union. However, that they should be excluded from redundancy payments if they refuse, and be shut out from unemployment pay, is to subject them to a degree of injustice and oppression that has hitherto been reserved for those who have the misfortune to live in countries behind the Iron Curton. Nor can I possibly accept that they should be deprived of the right, conferred upon them by Section 5 of the Act,
  "not to be—(a) excluded from membership, (b) expelled from membership, of a trade union or a branch or section of a trade union by way of arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination."
  It was sickening to hear the Secretary of State pay lip service to the principles of natural justice this afternoon. What does he seek to establish in compensation for the removal of the rights conferred by Section 5? He proposes to set up a body which is not even a statutory body, and that itself is an affront to the principles of natural justice. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) referred to that matter.
  One of the principles of natural justice is that one's case will be tried by an impartial tribunal and not by a tribunal which is in part or in whole judge in its own cause. The Trades Union Congress will have as an affiliated member the very union which is a party to the case. No doubt it will receive affiliation fees. It will thus have an interest. In these circumstances, how can it be said that a workman can possibly feel that he has had his case determined in accordance with the principles of natural justice? It

  345
  is to defeat that as well as the provisions concerning unfair dismissal that I oppose the Bill.
  The Act as it stands does not bring industrial relations within the purview of the courts. It gives the only effective means of protection that there is for minorities against the Establishment—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Keighley—of the trade union movement. For the first time in our modern history we are discussing a Bill which seeks to write into the statute book a blackmailer's threat to deprive the subject of a basic freedom, and as such it should be utterly condemned.
  Mr. Small: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have had an opportunity of consulting "Erskine May". This evening the word "Fascist" has been trotted out in the Chamber. According to "Erskine May", an hon. Member is not allowed to use unparliamentary terms by the device of putting them into somebody else's mouth, as was done by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Therefore, the quotation of that word from The Times was unparliamentary.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has dealt with this point. "Fascist" is not one of the specified unparliamentary expressions. However, it was drawn to the attention of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that "Fascist" was an improper expression to use. Towards the end of his speech the hon. Member for Chingford withdrew it.
  Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I trust that in your ruling you will make it clear that there is nothing in "Erskine May" to prevent an hon. Member from reading an extract from The Times, even if it is not to the liking of other hon. Members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: An hon. Member may not in making a quotation from a newspaper article use that device to say something unparliamentary concerning another hon. Member during the course of a debate.
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: As the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) endorsed the suggestion in The Times, may Government Members ask that he be called upon to withdraw the word?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman now understands the position. It is the belief of the Chair that the hon. Member for Chingford has accepted the ruling of the Chair. We should now proceed with the debate.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Barney Hayhoe: Much has happened since our debate on the Second Reading of the Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill in December 1974. The dangers we foresaw are coming to pass. The complacency of the Secretary of State and of Government supporters has been exposed, for this is a bad, a divisive, and an unnecessary Bill.
  The Bill seeks to extend the privilege and power of trade unions by taking from the weak to give to the strong. It will widen immunities and protection for those engaged in strikes and industrial action in furtherance of industrial disputes in this country or abroad, whether or not those taking the strike action have any direct connection with such disputes at home and abroad.
  In other words, the Bill would provide an immunity, as indeed an hon. Member opposite thought it right that it should, if people in this country with no connection with the soft fruit industry wanted to strike in favour of the grape pickers of California with whom they had not even the remotest connection. The Bill would provide the full protection and immunity which would be given to a strike of the more normal nature which we recognise and in respect of which in the past Parliament sought to legislate some protection for those taking part.
  The Bill will also demolish safeguards for individuals in the closed shop situation. Not only does it put people's jobs at risk. It may also put their entitlement to unemployment benefit at risk. This is a new element which is coming in—the fact that the Bill can have that very damaging side effect.
  The Bill restricts the grounds for objection to membership of a trade union very narrowly indeed. It stipulates that such an objection must be based on a religious objection to membership of trade unions. This is an exceptionally narrow provision which has been universally condemned by people of all parties and of none.

  347
  The Bill also eliminates perfectly reasonable and fundamental requirements concerning union rules which were proposed by the Donovan Commission. Why should the provisions of Section 6 of the 1974 Act be eliminated?
  The present Government seek, wrongly, to make the unions the only channel for workers' representation, the only way in which their voices may be heard. We saw this with the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act, when they insisted that the safety committees should be staffed or worked by union representatives. We saw it in the highly-loaded terms of reference given to the committee of inquiry about industrial democracy.
  That is part of the reason why it took them four months to get a group of people to sit on that committee. The Government said that they would announce the names "very shortly". Heaven knows what would have happened if they had said they would announce them only "shortly ": we should be waiting until well into the next decade. If the Government see this enhanced and monopolistic role for trade unions, why not accept the minimal reasonable requirements for their rules recommended by Donovan?
  The right hon. Gentleman began his speech—what a pathetic speech it was—with a foray into constitutional history. I shall not go back to Queen Anne, but I would remind the House that the action of the House of Lords last Session was perfectly constitutional and was based upon powers confirmed by the Attlee Government in 1949. Criticism of its action is based upon misconceptions if it is not recognised that the other place behaved quite legally. It set an example to many others in society by abiding strictly by the rule of law. I wish that many more would do the same.
  The right hon. Gentleman is misusing this House by seeking to impose the tyranny of a minority. The amendments which the Bill seeks to eliminate were made with the support of hon. Members of parties which had been accorded 18 million votes at the February 1974 election and opposed by Members of parties with only 13 million. So the electorate was certainly on the side of the amendments. Now the right hon. Gentleman is
  348
  seeking to remove these amendments when those voting with him in the last Session represented 12½ million votes and those who opposed him represented 16½ million. So this democrat is seeking to use his parliamentary majority to impose the tyranny of the minority.
  It is worse than that. I am certain that if this individual issue could be put to many who voted for the Labour and Scottish National Parties—the latter, in their curious role, have sustained the Government on this issue throughout—
  Mr. Donald Stewart rose—
  Mr. Hayhoe: No, I will not give way at this moment. The Scottish National Member and those who served on the Committee—
  Mr. Donald Stewart rose—
  Mr. Hayhoe: No, I will finish my point. The Scottish National Member on the Committee dealing with these matters was hardly ever there and when he did come all that he was prepared to do on nearly every issue was to support the Government.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: I shall not deal with the ridiculous comment about the Scottish National Party: I got to my feet before the hon. Gentleman made it. As for having a mandate, do I understand from the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic that the Conservative Party is now in favour of proportional representation? If not, this whole approach is hypocritical.
  Mr. Hayhoe: The supporters of those who vote in favour of the elimination of these amendments are a minority. The supporters of those who are behind the parliamentary majority which the Secretary of State can cobble together are a minority of the voters in this country. It is a perfectly proper point to make because the coalition that has come about between the Labour and Nationalist Parties in support of the Bill, even on a voting basis, has less legitimacy than any previous Government in my lifetime, and in voting terms it has less support from the electorate than any major Opposition party has ever had since 1945.
  Let us not have much talk from the right hon. Gentleman about the constitutional issues. The House of Lords was entirely justified in its action. The right hon. Gentleman has also said that the

  349
  Bill does not do very much—it just restores.
  Mr. Tebbit: Does not my hon Friend agree that the number of people represented by those on both sides of this controversy is a matter which their Lordships should properly take into account when deciding whether to use their powers? He has probably observed that on this occasion, when there is one defection from the Government ranks and it is possible that the Government could be defeated tonight, the Scottish nationalists will bail them out.
  Mr. Hayhoe: It is of interest to note that when these matters have been discussed in another place and taken to a Division, support for the view in the House of Lords has come not only from the Conservatives, the Liberals and cross-bench opinion, but from senior figures in the Labour Party whom Labour Members in this House were only too willing to cheer when sitting behind them in years gone by. Now they are only too willing to denigrate them when they disagree with their view.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has said that the Bill restores the pre-1971 position. I have always rejected this view. If we are merely going back to that previous decision, let the Minister of State tell us how many people were sacked, given no compensation and denied unemployment benefit before 1971 because they were unwilling to join a specified union in a closed shop agreement. If the hon. Gentleman cannot point to people who were denied unemployment benefit in those circumstances, changes have occurred and we are not taking a backward step.
  Certainly there is no justification for the right hon. Gentleman's repeated assertion that he is not doing anything very important. He also used to claim great urgency for this measure. A year ago he said.
  "The Bill is urgent because as long as the Act remains unamended"—
  that is the 1971 Act—
  "it can give rise to highly explosive and dangerous industrial situations."—[Official Report, 3rd Dec. 1974; Vol. 882, c. 1398.]
  What extravagant and irresponsible language when we think of what has happened in the past 12 months! It would
  350
  have been bad enough if that language had been used by one of the Left-wing extremist agitators who, the Prime Minister tells us, are infiltrating the constituency Labour parties. However, when it is used by one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, it deserves censure. Let us contrast that with what the right hon. Gentleman said today. He said nothing about
  "highly explosive and industrial situations".
  Today he has reduced it to "potential troublesome uncertainty". That from the master of the English language.
  The right hon. Gentleman also made heavy weather of his assertion that common law rights and the rule of natural justice for the individual would not be harmed by the Bill. The technical legal jargon that he was using and, indeed, the rather flat, dull tone of his voice as he was reading from the official brief were I think, designed to conceal the reality of the situation, because this Bill will permit—perhaps its passage will encourage—erosion of these individual rights.
  That is not merely my conclusion. It was the conclusion of Lord Salmon, a most distinguished legal authority, when he spoke so impressively in another place. He concluded that the common law would be entirely powerless to protect the working people of this country against oppression if Sections 5 and 6 of the 1974 Act were eliminated, as this Bill seeks to eliminate them.
  That is an immensely serious point. It has not been answered by the right hon. Gentleman. I doubt whether it will be answered by the Minister of State. Why? They know that it can happen. Why do they not seek to do something to prevent this erosion of human rights? Or is the real answer the answer that they cannot give, yet what most of us suspect to be true—that the trade union leaders have vetoed any action of this kind, and the right hon. Gentleman with his tail between his legs, does their bidding?
  The right hon. Gentleman certainly has not been able to deny that the safeguards for individuals are being demolished He has sought earlier today, as he has done so often previously, to hide behind some blanket condemnation of the 1971 Act, of remedies which have been tried and failed. When I asked him

  351
  about this and about how many individuals were sacked without compensation and without an entitlement to unemployment benefit during the period when the 1971 Act was in force, no answer came, except a reference to the Langston case.
  But the Langston case was such tha' the individual concerned did get compensation. He was not denied unemployment benefit. As far as I know, he remained in employment and then, when his employment was terminated, he was given compensation. Compensation was awarded to him and his individual rights were protected.
  Where the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong was that the judgment given in the Langston case had within it words which he has quoted previously, words about the ineffectiveness of the law in seeking to outlaw closed shops. I should not have thought that this was a matter of great difference between us now. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman wants to refer to the Langston case, let him recall that section of the judgment which commented upon the AUEW's attitude, when the judge said that the AUEW had adopted a policy with regard to the Act such as had not been seen for centuries; it had denied Parliament's authority to legislate without first securing its approval; it had denied the authority of industrial tribunals and the court to administer the Act even for the benefit of its own members; it had denied the democratic rights of the community to make laws binding everyone.
  Which of the hon. Members sitting on the Government Front Bench gave the greatest support to the AUEW at that time but the right hon. Gentleman himself? In those circumstances, therefore, I think that he should remain quiet about the Langston case. If it means anything at all, it is a great criticism of the sort of attitude that he supported.
  Perhaps in passing one may comment on what a difference there might have been if the elections which took place only a short time ago in the AUEW had taken place two years ago. I am certain that the union would then not have been adopting the attitude which it adopted towards the National Industrial Relations Court.
  352
  The right hon. Gentleman also likes to try to re-write the history of the Industrial Relations Act and to perpetuate the myth that it caused great industrial unrest. He was concentrating on that today. He has previously tried to describe the 24 million days lost in 1972 as being caused by the workings of the 1971 Act, whereas his own Department's statistics give the figure as being under 400,000—in other words, less than 2 per cent. of the total.
  Then, after the other place had taken its view of the Bill, there was a statement from the TUC. Under the heading
  "TUC hints at union disruption",
  we read in The Times:
  "The TUC said yesterday that strikes of the kind that prevented the functioning of the Conservatives' Industrial Relations Act might follow the constitutional clash between the Lords and the Commons over the Government's Bill to legitimise the closed shop."
  It reported Mr. Len Murray as saying:
  "This could create the same sort of industrial disturbances as were caused in 1972 and 1973 by the Conservative Government's Industrial Relations Act."
  It is worth looking at what actually happened in 1972 and 1973. The question was answered by the Minister of State on 3rd May last year when he said, as reported at column 567 of the Official Report, that the number of strikes caused by the Industrial Relations Act 1971 in 1972 were three—three out of a total of about 2,500. He added that in 1973 there were 10, out of nearly 3,000. That shows that the industrial disruption that flowed from that Act was very small. What caused the industrial disruption of those years was major unions seeking to break the Government's pay policy. Strikes of that kind accounted for the vast majority of the days lost.
  Now valuable parliamentary time is being wasted on this Bill. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) seemed to agree that valuable time was being wasted in going over this ground. I thought that he was complaining that we were debating the pro visions of the Bill rather than dealing with other matters, but now that the Bill is before us we must debate it.
  No one wants the Bill, except the trade union bosses, and they are often out of touch with, and misrepresent, their members. Many of them have very little

  353
  electoral legitimacy on the basis of the number of members who voted for them when they were elected. In addition to the trade union leaders there are the docile Government back benchers. The Manifesto Group Members will be going shoulder to shoulder with their Tribune comrades through the Lobby tonight in favour of a Bill which damages individual freedom. We have unemployment at record high levels, but the Government give priority to the Bill.
  Why do we not have a Bill to give the Secretary of State power to defray the costs of postal balloting if unions want that sort of help? Why do we not have provision for voting at the work place or even within working hours? We hear a great deal of talk from the Government about industrial democracy. I want to see industrial democracy and democracy in the unions. The higher the poll in union elections, the better pleased I am. I am happy to accept the result, whatever it is, provided there is a reasonable turn-out of the members concerned.
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) said about union members playing a full and active part in their union. I go further. I would recommend all those who are eligible to join unions to join them and play an active part. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), I was a member of the appropriate trade union when I was working in a drawing office and in a factory. I believe in 100 per cent. trade union membership, as he does, and, like him, I believe that it should be achieved voluntarily. Voluntary 100 per cent. membership is something worth achieving. Compulsory 100 per cent. membership can be justified only if there are reasonable safeguards.
  The issue of the closed shop, of trade union monopoly powers, is central to the issue of Press freedom. I have not said much about that tonight, because we shall return to it at a later stage, but the last few times I spoke on the Bill's predecessor my speeches were concerned mainly with Press freedom. The fact that I say little about it tonight does not mean that I underrate its importance. I wish to stress the wider implications of the Bill.
  354
  One of the great problems of a free society is to achieve a proper balance between the rights of groups and the rights of individuals, between the interests of majorities and the interests of minorities. The conflict of interest is perhaps nowhere quite as sharp as that which results between trade union membership and human freedom, individual liberty and the closed shop. I freely admit that we did not get the balance right in our 1971 Act. If the right hon. Gentleman has his way, the balance will become even more wrong.
  Parliament should be seeking to achieve a proper balance between these conflicting rights and interests. It did that in the previous Parliament by amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. That was not the perfect solution, but the amended Act was much better than what the Government now propose.
  A year ago, on 3rd December, I said that this was a mean and tatty little measure. I was too kind. In 12 months we have had much debate and we have the Ferrybridge affair, so clearly illuminated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. We are now having people sacked from the Vauxhall works merely because they will not conform, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) explained. We have had the example of Mr. Ryan, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). These incidents, and there are many more that will follow if the right hon. Gentleman gets his way, demonstrate that this is a nasty, vicious piece of sectarian legislation. It will damage individual liberty and it will make it easier for unrepresentative minorities to gain control of unions.
  This measure will put at risk the freedom of the Press. Only a Minister totally besotted and overborne by the leaders of the TUC could pursue so single-mindedly such a disastrous policy for so long. The right hon. Gentleman has done enough damage. Why cannot he now offer some service to the cause of freedom in the national interest and perhaps salvage something of his crumbling reputation by withdrawing the Bill and resigning from office? It is time that he was gone.
  9.28 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): As my right hon. Friend made clear at the outset of the debate, the purpose of the Bill is to repeal or amend the provisions inserted into the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 by the Opposition which preserve in letter or in spirit the parts of the Industrial Relations Act which proved unworkable and counterproductive. It is a Bill to remove impediments to the improvement of industrial relations.
  Although the Bill is substantially the same as the Bill which was introduced on 3rd December 1974—and I very much hope that this will not become an annual event—this measure contains improvements in the definition of a union membership agreement. Some of the improvements were made to meet certain Opposition criticisms that have been voiced, but this does not appear to have been acknowledged by the Opposition in today's debate. The amendments which the Bill contains will enable employers and unions to draw up union membership agreements on a more flexible basis.
  The Bill amends the definition of union membership agreements in Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act in two ways. First, it removes one of the Lever amendments which purported to allow an employee to belong to an appropriate union of his choosing but which did not achieve that objective and left the law in an ambiguous state.
  Secondly, and possibly more important, it makes clear that once the Bill is passed the closed shop agreement will be valid for the purpose of the legislation even if it exempts employees or classes of employees on any ground not connected with their terms and conditions of employment. It would be valid if it exempted them on grounds of age or existing union membership. Surely the Opposition should welcome these matters.
  The Bill will make clear that a union membership agreement will not be regarded as having lapsed if it is not enforced against all who do not belong to a union, as apparently they are required to do by the agreement. It will make plain that a union and employees can agree that membership of a minority union which is not a party to the closed
  356
  shop agreement can satisfy the requirements of the agreement. This will not only enable closed shop agreements to be more flexible than appeared necessary to meet the unfair dismissal provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. It will bring the law into greater accord with the normal practice in industry and enable minority views to be more effectively accommodated.
  It is worth reminding the House, in view of some of the statements made in this debate, that the only reason why it was necessary to define a union membership agreement in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act was that we continued and extended the unfair dismissal provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. That is the only purpose for which we have to define a union membership agreement. Our aim is to enable employers and unions to determine whether a closed shop should be established without either encouraging them to do so or deterring them from doing so.
  The Opposition have not opposed the principle of the closed shop. They have tried to create a deterrent to the employer by rendering him liable to unfair dismissal compensation. They have never suggested that any other breach of terms and conditions by an employee should be treated in quite the same way. Apparently other breaches of terms and conditions by employees should enable employers to sack employees without conferring on them the benefit of unfair dismissal compensation. For this specific purpose, however, the Opposition want to create a specific deterrent to the employer to enter into a union membership agreement.
  However, there is one way in which the rights of employees in respect of unfair dismissal have been changed since we last debated the Bill on Second Reading in December 1974. Since then the House has enacted the Employment Protection Act in which there is provision for a union to refer a claim for recognition to the ACAS and to ensure that while such a claim is being considered its members will be regarded as if they are covered by union membership for the purposes of unfair dismissal and that this protection will continue if the ACAS recommends recognition.

  357
  Questions have been asked about the effect of the Bill on the Ferrybridge six. First, the effect of passing the Bill, and in particular of removing Section 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, will be to bring about the creation by the TUC of a trade union tribunal that will consider all cases, or certainly undertake to consider them, where exclusion or expulsion from a union would result in an employee losing his or her job. That is the first effect.
  I am answering the question about the Ferrybridge six in the widest possible terms because I take it that hon. Members will want to know the effect on people in similar circumstances in future if the Bill is passed. That would be the effect. If anybody in that position were to hold that he had lost his job in those circumstances as a result of exclusion from one of the National Joint Industrial Council unions in the electricity supply industry, one of the signatories to the membership agreement to that industry, he would have the right to go to the TUC tribunal on the grounds that he was losing his job as the result of exclusion.
  Mr. Hayhoe: What will be the possibility of a person going to an industrial tribunal and claiming compensation for unfair dismissal? Will the Minister answer the following question? Before the passage of the 1971 Act, could anybody be denied unemployment benefit as a result of being discharged because he would not join a union in a closed shop situation?
  Mr. Booth: I shall come later to the question of the Ferrybridge situation and the claim of unfair dismissal.
  The basic test of entitlement for unemployment benefit has not changed. The test is whether somebody left employment voluntarily or was sacked as a result of misconduct. That is the test which will be applied first by the national insurance officer, on appeal by the national insurance tribunal and then on further appeal by the commissioner. It is not possible to give figures from before 1971 of people being dismissed as a result of not complying with the conditions of closed shop agreements, but there is no doubt that closed shops operated in this country before 1971, and, by defining a union membership agreement more closely in accord with actual industrial
  358
  practice we must be creating a situation very close to that which existed then.
  As a result of the passing of the Bill, the Ferrybridge six will not have the right to use Section 5 to go to the courts with exclusion or expulsion claims. However, I pose the question of how many people have regained reinstatement in jobs in the industries and services of this country as a result of using Section 5 of the 1974 Act. If we are talking about the practical effects, as I hope we are, this matter must be considered. The Bill amends Section 30(1) of the 1974 Act which defines a union membership agreement to make it clear that the reference to an "appropriate union" means an appropriate union specified by the parties to the union membership agreement, and I think that this would probably narrow the chances of people in a Ferrybridge six type of case securing unfair dismissal compensation.
  However, the other change made by the Bill to the definition of union membership agreements will improve people's chances of winning compensation and improve their chances of not being dismissed in the first place. We have evidence that recent union membership agreements have been made with very close regard to the definition of an agreement contained in the 1974 Act. If the greater flexibility that the law provides for in the Bill results in great flexibility and tolerance, and in union membership agreements that are more nearly in accord with normal industrial practice before 1971, which is still practised where people consider themselves free to make these agreements, this will help the situation.
  There is another effect of changes in the law which are not the direct result of the passing of this Bill. A legal change has taken place in the last 12 months which is most important for small unions seeking membership in situations which might be thought analogous with that at Ferrybridge. Under the Employment Protection Act, when the appropriate sections are brought into force by the commencement order a union will be able to apply to the ACAS for recognition, and while the ACAS is considering the claim, the union's members will be protected from unfair dismissal as if they were covered by a union membership agreement. Of course, if the ACAS recommends that

  359
  the union should be recognised, irrespective of any subsequent change in the membership agreement, its members will continue to have that protection.
  Mr. Percival: I have tried to follow what the Minister of State said, but it is very complicated. Is not there a simple point? It is proposed in the Bill to amend paragraph 6(5) of Schedule I. Would not the effect of that amendment be that by definition a dismissal of people in the circumstances of the Ferrybridge case would be fair and that, therefore, they would have no right to claim damages? May I suggest that the point is as simple as that and that it would radically change the rights of persons in the Ferrybridge situation?
  Mr. Booth: I take the hon. and learned Member's point, but I am trying to answer the question as widely and fully as I can. I have made clear in dealing with the specific instance of the Ferry-bridge case as it now stands that one of the two amendments to the definition of a union membership agreement would in my opinion—and I am not a trained lawyer—probably reduce their chances of securing unfair dismissal compensation.
  We must consider the other amendment in the light of its practical effect, the future and the way in which the Bill will operate if it becomes law. Many of the speeches tonight have suggested great horrors which will flow from the consequences of the Bill. We must consider how people make membership agreements, respecting the rights of minorities and fitting their membership agreements to the situation in their own workplace. Even given the Opposition's position on the matter of safeguards against unfair dismissal and on closed shop agreements, I should have thought they would welcome the second amendment to the definition.
  On Ferrybridge, the CEGB and the unions with which it negotiates consider that it should be a requirement that all employees should belong to one of the recognised unions so that they are properly represented in collective bargaining. It is believed to be in the interests of good industrial relations that they should be free to impose such a requirement; it should not be forbidden or
  360
  encouraged, but the parties must be left free to make their own decision.
  There are circumstances in which arrangements such as those made by the CEGB and by the unions may be logically concluded by an employer with a few strong and effective unions rather than attempting to deal with numerous small and weak unions. The Opposition claim to support stable collective bargaining arrangements based on having a few strong unions. I remember, in the debates on the 1971 Act, the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), the then Secretary of State for Employment, spoke in terms which indicated very clearly that he wanted good and effective negotiating agreements. He wanted strong unions which could negotiate on behalf of their members. He did not indicate to the House that he wanted small minority unions challenging recognition by others and creating fragmentation.
  It is relevant to consider—without prejudice to the future consideration by the ACAS of an application from the ESU—that the National Industrial Relations Court considered the request from the ESU that the CIR should be asked to examine its claim for recognition at Ferrybridge as the bargaining agent for power station workers. The NIRC considered that the case against interfering with the established collective bargaining procedure was so overwhelming and that the ESU was so patently ill equipped to act effectively as the union in negotiation with the employer that the case was not worth referring to the CIR. The ESU will be able to refer the recognition claim to the ACAS as soon as the relevant provisions of the Employment Protection Act come into effect if it considers that it has a case for recognition.
  I recognise that the previous consideration of this case by the NIRC took place in a different situation from that which exists today, and that the law in respect of that court is not the same as that which applies under the Employment Protection Act. I say that without prejudice to any future consideration of that case or the case of any other small union.
  The men involved in the Ferrybridge six case previously belonged to a different recognised union from that which they are apparently willing to join now. Under normal Bridlington procedures worked out

  361
  by the TUC and its members for the avoidance of membership disputes, a union cannot take into membership someone who has previously been a member of another TUC union without inquiries first being made. Under the terms of the closed shop agreement, the men had the opportunity to appeal against the closed shop requirements on the grounds that they had been refused membership of one of the specified unions, but they chose not to do so.
  The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) expressed the view that because the Bridlington Agreement did not resolve one particular problem the House could not rely upon the TUC to be able to set up an effective tribunal to consider individual cases of exclusion and expulsion. It ill behoves the Opposition to attack union efforts to resolve difficulties which could lead to industrial disputes. It is generally agreed that the application of the Bridlington principles to questions of who should belong to which union has been extremely valuable in avoiding difficulties. In the recent court case involving TUC procedures which was quoted, what was at stake was union mergers, not which union an individual should join. In any case, the usefulness of the Bridlington principles was not questioned.
  Mr. Brittan: The point at issue is not whether the Bridlington procedures are useful—we accept that those procedures are not directly analogous to what is involved now—but rather whether a procedure that the TUC had set up to consider disputes operated properly. The Opposition were pointing out that the court found that the procedure was gravely deficient in a number of important respects. That leads one to be doubtful whether a TUC-appointed body is an appropriate one to consider appeals by individuals against unfair exclusion or expulsion.
  Mr. Booth: The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby should recognise that that was a peculiar case. It involved one union taking another union to court to resolve a matter which was said not to have been satisfactorily dealt with under the Bridlington procedures. Cases of that type do not come to the courts every day. That is a rare case—in my
  362
  experience, unique—and not a good basis on which to judge whether another form of tribunal set up by the TUC dealing with another type of problem will or will not be effective.
  Mr. Brittan: The objection is taken not to the case but to the procedure. Even in a sector where it is operating comparatively smoothly, the TUC has not been able to produce a satisfactory procedure on which an individual would wish to rely.
  Mr. Booth: I accept that the court took the view that the procedure in that case was not satisfactory. One of the trade unions involved took the view that the result was not satisfactory. What I am saying is that it does not follow, because of the views expressed in court as to the unsatisfactoriness of the procedure in a rather peculiar case, that the TUC's way of conducting appeals against expulsion or exclusion will involve an unsatisfactory procedure. That does not automatically follow from what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) complains of the amendment of Section 29 to bring the law on overseas trade disputes into line with reality by removing the words providing that industrial action in support of a trade dispute overseas is given the relevant immunities only if that dispute directly affects the workers on strike in this country. That proviso merely plays with words so as to introduce great uncertainty into the law. How can one properly judge in every case whether British workers' interests are affected by an overseas strike? In any case, why should not British workers act in the interests of international trade union solidarity? The increasingly international organisation of trade and industry demands as much.
  Mr. Hayhoe: Is the hon. Gentleman, with the authority of a Minister, encouraging trade unionists in this country to strike in support of any old dispute anywhere in the world with which they have no direct connection? If not, why did he use those words?
  Mr. Booth: I realise that the hon. Gentleman did not perhaps have time carefully to consider his words before making that intervention, but what he said is insulting to trade unionists if he

  363
  thinks that on any old issue—to use his words—anywhere in the world they would go on strike. That is not what I have just said. What I said was that, where a group of trade unionists in this country determine that they should go on strike and have an industrial dispute in support of workers overseas, it is the Government's view that such a dispute should carry with it the same immunities as if they were having a dispute in this country, or a dispute relating to an action overseas which had a bearing on their terms and conditions in this country.
  Mr. Madel: Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Government and the TUC, perhaps together, should find out the facts of the case abroad.
  Mr. Booth: We are finding out facts. We have examined developments which have taken place in multinational companies and in international trade unionism and the number of instances—they are not a great many—in which workers in this country have taken action in support of workers overseas. These are cases where we believe that it is not right that the law of this country should discriminate, in the indemnities it provides in an industrial dispute, between strikes which take place in the interests of the terms and conditions of the British workers involved and those which affect the wider trade union interest. We believe that the development of multinational companies and their corporate actions, affecting the terms and conditions of employees all over the world, show that such a provision is apt at this time, if not overdue.
  Mr. Tebbit: Before the Minister sits down, will he tell us something more about these tribunals? Will they be held in public? Will the Press be present? Will legal representation be allowed? Will there be financial aid to aggrieved persons to be represented legally?
  Mr. Booth: I do not intend to discuss further the position of the TUC tribunals. I hope I shall be acquitted of any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but there are a few points with which I must deal before sitting down.
  First, there is the question of the application of the Bill to journalists. I agree with the right hon. Member for
  364
  Lowestoft in one of his comments. This is an Industrial Relations Bill, and neither the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act nor the original amendment Bill contained any reference at all to the Press. This has not prevented reference in the media to this Bill as a Press freedom Bill. Many more words have been printed in newspapers on this subject than on the contents of the original Bill. In the final analysis it was this issue of the application of the Bill to journalists and to newspaper offices which prevented the Bill being passed into law last Session.
  The Government are responding to the expressed views of many Members of the House by proposing the addition of clauses providing for a charter on Press freedom. In my view, however, this does not mean that the Government believe that freedom of the Press can be guaranteed by restricting the rights of journalists to organise and to bargain on their terms and conditions of employment.
  Opponents of the Bill have shown that they can be very selective in their criticisms of trade union activity, but I should have thought that those who can respect the right of junior hospital doctors to take industrial action, conscious of the effect that that action has on patients of the National Health Service, should also be able to respect the right of journalists to take industrial action, conscious of the effect of their action on newspaper readers.
  The Opposition have attacked the Bill as an elevation of collectivist principles at the expense of individual liberty. Leaving aside the sense in which that can be said to be true of most Acts of Parliament, there is a weakness in its analysis and an inconsistency in its approach. This is not a conflict between collective and individual rights that we are considering but the balance that must be struck between individual rights which are in conflict—the balance of rights between shareholders and workers, between management and unions, between the member of a union and his union, and between unions and unions. It is a matter of the balance of rights.
  In matters such as the closed shop, of course, we appreciate that if the Opposition were now the Government the line would be drawn in a different place, but

  365
  we think that the viewpoint held by the majority of individuals should prevail over the viewpoint held by the minority of individuals. That is particularly true where there is a conflict on terms and conditions of negotiating. Such a balance is normally held to be democracy. In The Times of 2nd December it was described as Fascism.
  I think that there are sufficient fair-minded Members in this Chamber to ensure that the resentment which that editorial caused is not confined to one party or to one side of the House. The editor of The Times, I suggest, should consider the position taken by that paper at a time when Hitler was destroying the leaders of the German trade union movement and taking from German trade unionists the right to organise. He
  should also consider the view which that paper took when Mussolini destroyed democracy in Italy.
  I hope that such a consideration will bring a realisation that my right hon. Friend has fought Fascism longer and more consistently than those who now use an editorial chair to make such unjust and unwarranted attacks on his aims and his motives.
  The Bill is a genuine attempt to improve our industrial relations law. It recognises the rights of those who invest their working lives in industry. As such I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 276.

  Division No. 11.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Crawford, Douglas

  Gourlay, Harry

  Allaun, Frank

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Graham, Ted

  Anderson, Donald

  Cronin, John

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Archer, Peter

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cryer, Bob

  Grocott, Bruce

  Ashley, Jack

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Hardy, Peter

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Harper, Joseph

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hatton, Frank

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Deakins, Eric

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bates, Alf

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bean, R. E.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Henderson, Douglas

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Hooley, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Dempsey, James

  Horam, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Doig, Peter

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Huckfield, Les

  Boardman, H.

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Booth, Albert

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Edge, Geoff

  Hunter, Adam

  Bradley, Tom

  Edwards, Robert (Woiv SE)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  English, Michael

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Ennals, David

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Janner, Greville

  Buchan, Norman

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Buchanan, Richard

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Faulds, Andrew

  John, Brynmor

  Campbell, Ian

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Cant, R. B.

  Flit, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Flannery, Martin

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Carter, Ray

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Judd, Frank

  Cartwright, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Ford, Ben

  Kelley, Richard

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Forrester, John

  Kerr, Russell

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Cohen, Stanley

  Freeson, Reginald

  Kinnock, Neil

  Coleman, Donald

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Lambie, David

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Conlan, Bernard

  George, Bruce

  Lamond, James

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Corbett, Robin

  Ginsburg, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Golding, John

  Lee, John

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Gould, Bryan

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Ovenden, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Owen, Dr David

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Padley, Walter

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Lipton, Marcus

  Palmer, Arthur

  Swain, Thomas

  Litterick, Tom

  Park, George

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Parker, John

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Luard, Evan

  Parry, Robert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Pendry, Tom

  Thompson, George

  McCartney, Hugh

  Perry, Ernest

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Tierney, Sydney

  McElhone, Frank

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Tinn, James

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Tomlinson, John

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Tomney, Frank

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Radice, Giles

  Torney, Tom

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Reid, George

  Urwin, T. W.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Madden, Max

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

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

  Magee, Bryan

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Mahon, Simon

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Ward, Michael

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Watkins, David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rooker, J. W.

  Watkinson, John

  Marquand, David

  Roper, John

  Watt, Hamish

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Weetch, Ken

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Welsh, Andrew

  Meacher, Michael

  Sandelson, Neville

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  White, James (Pollok)

  Mendelson, John

  Selby, Harry

  Whitlock, William

  Mikardo, Ian

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Millan, Bruce

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Moonman, Eric

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Sillars, James

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Moyle, Roland

  Silverman, Julius

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Small, William

  Woodall, Alec

  Newens, Stanley

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Woof, Robert

  Noble, Mike

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Oakes, Gordon

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Ogden, Eric

  Stallard, A. W.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Stoddart, David

  Mr. J. D. Dormand and

  Orbach, Maurice

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Peter Snape.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Alison, Michael

  Buck, Antony

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Budgen, Nick

  Dunlop, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Durant, Tony

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Burden, F. A.

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Carlisle, Mark

  Elliott, Sir William

  Banks, Robert

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Emery, Peter

  Beith, A. J.

  Carson, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Bell, Ronald

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Channon, Paul

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Farr, John

  Benyon, W.

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Fell, Anthony

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Biffen, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Blaker, Peter

  Cockcroft, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Body, Richard

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cope, John

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cordie, John H.

  Fox, Marcus

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Costain, A. P.

  Freud, Clement

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Fry, Peter

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Crouch, David

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Brittan, Leon

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  368

  369

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Lloyd, Ian

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Loveridge, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Luce, Richard

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Gorst, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  McCusker, H.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C)

  MacGregor, John

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Gray, Hamish

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Grieve, Percy

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Eldon

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Madel, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Grylls, Michael

  Marten, Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  Hall, Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mather, Carol

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maude, Angus

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Hannam, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Speed, Keith

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Spence, John

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sproat, Iain

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stainton, Keith

  Heseltine, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hicks, Robert

  Molyneaux, James

  Stanley, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Monro, Hector

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Holland, Philip

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Hordern, Peter

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Stokes, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Storehouse, Rt Hon John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stradling Thomas J.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Taylor, R (Croydon NW)

  Hunt, John

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Neave, Airey

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nelson, Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Neubert, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Newton, Tony

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  James, David

  Nott, John

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Jessel, Toby

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Trotter, Neville

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Pardoe, John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Jopling, Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Percival, Ian

  Wakeham, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Kilfedder, James

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Wall, Patrick

  Kimball, Marcus

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Walters, Dennis

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Warren, Kenneth

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Raison, Timothy

  Wells, John

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Knox, David

  Rawllnson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Lamont, Norman

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Lane, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunt*)

  Nicholas Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Younger, Hon George

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lawson, Nigel

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Lestor, Jim (Beeston)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole house.—[Mr. Pavitt.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Motion relating to trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill (Procedure) may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL (PROCEDURE)
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: On a point of order. Can you help the House, Mr. Speaker? We have an unusual motion before us. It states:
  "That when an Order of the Day isread for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that Notice of an Instruction"—
  I do not know what that instruction is, and perhaps other hon. Members also would like to know—
  "has been given, and on the Committee stage of that Bill the Chairman shall forthwith put the Question that he do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House without putting any other Question, and the Question so put shall be decided without Amendment or Debate."
  That seems to be a complicated motion and I wonder whether, for the benefit of hon. Members, you can explain exactly what is involved and what this instruction is.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not follow the hon. Member's point. I am about to call the Secretary of State to move the motion. No doubt he will explain it to the hon. Member's satisfaction and we shall then know what it is about.
  10.17 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
  That when an Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that Notice of an Instruction has been given, and on the Commitee stage of that Bill the Chairman shall forthwith put the Question that he do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House without putting any other Question, and the Question so put shall be decided without Amendment or Debate.
  372
  I fully appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), which others may also raise in the debate. I hope to explain why the Government think this the right way to proceed. I fully understand the anxieties and questions which may arise, because this procedure is novel, since it is only rarely in the history of Parliament that the Parliament Act has had to be invoked and this procedure considered. I therefore hope that the House will permit me to state why the Government think that we should proceed in this way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I should say for the assistance of the House that I have not selected the amendment.
  Mr. Foot: This motion is concerned with the procedure to be followed during the remaining stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring into the early part of his remarks an explanation of how the motion affects my constitutional position?
  Mr. Foot: I shall comment on the hon. Member's constitutional position. I am sure that it will be a great relief to him to know that one of the reasons why I have looked at his amendment with sympathy is that it appears to accept the principle which underlies the motion. I am glad to have his support on the general proposition. It is in that sympathetic spirit that I shall approach the later part of what he said, even though his amendment has not been called.
  There are few precedents for the way in which a situation such as this has to be dealt with. The motion is concerned with the procedure to be followed during the remaining stages of the Bill in the Commons. Its effect, if passed, would be to make formal the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. The result of this motion taken by itself would therefore be that the next stage of the Bill would be the Third Reading. However, I have also tabled a resolution containing suggested amendments to the Bill. We intend that, together with other amendments which may be tabled, these suggested amendments should be debated immediately before Third Reading.
  The motion before the House tonight does not directly affect the suggestions

  373
  Stag—that is the subject of a quite separate resolution—but I thought I should explain to the House the complete procedure that we propose to adopt and not merely part of it. It was in order to acquaint the House from the outset with the proposed procedure that the Government intended to follow that we tabled both the motion and the resolution on the same day as the Bill itself was introduced.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government have put forward suggested amendments for debate and that other amendments will also be debated. Do we understand from that that amendments other than his own will be given Government time?
  Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman will permit me, I shall deal with most of the points he has raised. We are seeking to follow as closely as possible—although we do not claim that the precedent is precise—some of the precedents laid down when a Liberal Government were last in power. As that last Liberal Government had to contend with some of the difficulties with which we have had to contend, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will sympathise with me.
  The Government will be tabling some of these suggestions but, in effect, they are the same as amendments and proposals. They are amendments to amendments, but there will also be the possibility for others to make suggestions. Certainly it would not be the Government's wish to prevent such amendments or suggestions being debated.
  Mr. Thorpe: There will be time?
  Mr. Foot: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, the question of time depends on accommodations reached at the right moment. We are not seeking to truncate this discussion. I have given the right hon. Gentleman the answer to his specific question. It is not the Government's intention, by adopting this procedure, to truncate the essential points which hon. Members might wish to raise. Therefore, when we come to that part of the procedure, I fully expect to have on the Order Paper not only suggestions in the name of the Government, with the amendments that have been tabled by other hon. Members, but also suggestions which other hon. Members may wish to
  374
  table, and those matters will also be for discussion then.
  The motion before the House is certainly unusual. I do not deny that in any sense. I can appreciate that many hon. Members will regard it with caution for that reason. That is a natural and proper approach for the House of Commons to take to any motion of this novel character. However, the procedure that we propose is well grounded in the precedents, such as they are—I shall refer further to them presently—which are to be found in the fortunately rare cases when a Government have had to reintroduce a Bill in a second Session intending to present it for Royal Assent under the Parliament Act if it is not passed by the House of Lords.
  If there is a possibility that the Parliament Act is to be invoked, we must ensure that the Bill meets the conditions laid down in that Act. That means that the Bill which is sent to the House of Lords in the second Session, after rejection by that House in the first Session, has to be the same as the Bill that went to the House of Lords in the first Session, with certain limited exceptions set out in Section 2(4) of the Parliament Act. Today's Bill satisfied that test, the only variation being to Clause 2(4) which follows the wording inserted at the Lords Committee stage on 10th March and subsequently agreed to by this House. This change, because it is an amendment already agreed by both Houses, is an allowable exception under the Parliament Act to the principle that the Bill must be the same Bill as went up to the Lords in the first Session.
  Of course in this case, when this Bill goes to the Lords, it may well be that the Lords will agree with it and there will be no need to invoke the Parliament Act. Indeed, the Lords have already agreed to the Bill in the form in which this House has just given it a Second Reading. That is one of the ironies of the situation. The only amendments on which the Lords ultimately insisted last Session related not to the Bill in its present form but to the Press clause which is now the subject of our suggested amendment and which we shall be debating at the later stage prior to Third Reading.
  The main purpose of a Committee stage and a Report stage in this House, in its normal practice, is to examine a

  375
  Bill in detail and to suggest amendments to it. In a case of this kind, however, an amendment of any consequence made by this House in Committee would mean that the Parliament Act procedure could not be applied to the Bill should that become necessary. The usual Committee and Report stages, if they were to serve their normal purposes, would conflict with the primary aim of the Parliament Act, which is to enable this House, after an interval, to insist that a Bill to which it has already given its approval should be reintroduced and become law even if on the second occasion the Lords rejected it.
  That is the first reason why we say that this particular procedure should be followed, because otherwise the invocation of the Parliament Act could be frustrated, which we believe would be an improper way to approach the matter.
  However, there is also the argument—a lesser argument if the House cares to call it so—that the Committee stage is perhaps also the less necessary in this sense as the issues here have all been debated at considerable length in this House over the past two years and, of course, the intention of completing the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act was part of the Government's programme. However, I do not need to enlarge upon that point. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is relevant."] Yes, but it has been upheld by the vote of the House a few minutes ago.
  The procedure embodied in this motion the kind of procedure that we are recommending to the House now, was adopted in 1948 and 1949 when the Parliament Act 1949 was debated for the second and third times in this House, as was then necessary, and it was also the procedure which was followed in 1913 and 1914. Therefore, although I do not know whether the Conservative Party takes the view after all these years that the procedure adopted then was offensive to Conservatives, short of the Conservatives I should have thought that the whole House would have agreed that the propet way for us to deal with the matter was, as far as we could, to follow the precedents that had previously been set. However, I must acknowledge that the precedents are not precise and exact,
  376
  because in some respects there is no precedent that fits exactly this position.
  The suggestions that we wish to make and that others may wish to make and have debated before we send the Bill to the other place are suggestions of a more far-reaching character than those that were envisaged in the kind of suggestions procedure referred to by Mr. Asquith when he was Prime Minister and dealing with this question way back before the 1914–18 war. However, there is nothing in the precedents to exclude the way in which we are dealing with the matter. As I have indicated, I should have thought it to be the commonsense approach to the matter. Indeed, we have not seen any other method of approaching the matter which would not be open to the kind of problems and difficulties which I indicated a few moments ago.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am trying to follow my right hon. Friend's speech. If accepted amendments are amendments which were as of March, what happens to those amendments that many of us supported, and I know that my right hon. Friend warmly supported, which happened after March?
  If the Bill, leaving matters substantially as we wanted them in October, goes to another place and is rejected, it will in time become law under the Parliament Act, but what happens if an amendment is moved and carried that makes the Bill substantially different from the Bill that was put forward by this House? Does it not then fall foul of the Parliament Act procedure?
  Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend said that he was trying to follow me, and I trust that he was succeeding. I am sure that he was making a strenuous effort to do so. All that we are proposing in our suggestions under this procedure—it is a procedure invented not by me but by Mr. Asquith—is to add amendments to the Bill which cover all the points on which we had agreed before dealing with the issue of Press freedom, assuming that the House proceeds on the basis on which it has just voted. There are slight amendments in the wording but they do not alter the sense and effectiveness of the Bill in any way. Assuming that we get the vote of the House, we shall add our suggestions to the Bill which goes to

  377
  another place. We would do so prior to Third Reading.
  Mr. Keith Stainton: What happens if the other place—
  Mr. Foot: I am in the middle of answering my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon). The Bill will go to another place and we hope that that place, as I have already indicated in my remarks which my hon. Friend was following so closely, will accept it and that there will be no necessity for the invocation of the Parliament Act. We hope that it will follow that course following the vote of this House on Second Reading. That would be the happiest outcome both in constitutional terms and from every other point of view.
  It is possible for the other place to say that it will continue to resist the parts of the Bill which deal with Press freedom along the lines that it has already taken. It may be that it will make that choice, although I must say that there are some indications to the contrary. No one can be sure what course the other place will take. I am not saying that there was a commitment, but some suggestions were made to the effect that it might be prepared to accept what we send to it again following the consideration that it asked us to give to the matter.
  It is conceivable that the other place will continue to reject this measure. If that were to be the case and if the other place were to persist in that course over a long time—for example, until the end of this Session—we would be entitled to invoke the Parliament Act. As I have already indicated, that is not our desire. We do not believe that that is the best way of dealing with the matter.
  I have already said on an earlier occasion that, if the other place were not to accept what this House now proposes and if it were to insist on altering the Press freedom provisions as we send them to it, the Government would seek by some other means to pass the measures on Press freedom which the House has agreed upon. We believe that those measures should be accepted. I have said that we wish them to be accepted, and we think that that would be the correct way in which to proceed.
  378
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen are becoming so enraged. I am trying to explain the matter in the most sensible fashion.
  Mr. Goodhew: The right hon. Gentleman talks about Press freedom. Is he not aware that the measures he is talking about are against Press freedom and that the measures we are talking about are in favour of Press freedom? Some of us who have been trying to follow his arguments were not here at the time of Mr. Asquith. Will the right hon. Gentleman give his mind to what he meant by saying that notice of instruction had been given?
  Mr. Foot: I am seeking to explain as clearly as I can what would be the position.
  I understand that there is a difference of view in the House about the measures to be taken about Press freedom. But the hon. Gentleman must understand that the majority of Members in this House, as well as the minorities, are entitled to rights. The majority of the House of Commons happens to have passed on a number of occasions the views, procedures and proposals which we have put forward on the subject of Press freedom We say that we are entitled once again to send those proposals, coupled with the rest of the measures, to the House of Lords and that the House of Commons will have a further opportunity to vote on those proposals when we come to suggestions and procedures. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to get so excited.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I find a certain constitutional difficulty here. Since the proposals to which the Minister is so anxious that the House of Lords should be compelled to agree contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, Article 12 states that no man shall be compelled to join an association. [HON. MEMBERS: "Say it again."] I will say it again. It says that no man shall be compelled to join an association. Since the House of Lords, as part of Parliament, has upheld the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in Paris on 12th December 1948 by Clement Attlee on behalf of this country, how is it wrong

  379
  for that House to resist a contravention of that declaration in this House?
  Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a question on the substance of the matter, which we have debated on numerous occasions during the passage of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It has been replied to on many occasions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not now?"] I believe that it would be unwise for the House at this stage to discuss the substance of the matter. On the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, I would inform him that at the time of signature of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it was made clear that such provision should not be regarded as excluding the possibility of closed shop arrangements.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Rubbish.
  Mr. Foot: The same was made clear at the time of the European Convention on Human Rights. This matter of substance can be further debated when we debate the rest of the Bill.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I am a very illiterate person and I was not politically aware in 1948. Will the Secretary of State advise this House of the alleged documents, arrangements or other matters that were effected in 1948 excepting the concept of the closed shop from the total commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is doing anything but misleading this House falsely.
  Mr. Foot: I am not misleading the House in any sense whatever. As I have said, it is not my belief that the proper matters for us to be discussing at this moment are questions of substance. We are discussing the procedure.
  Mrs. Millie Miller: It may have escaped my right hon. Friend's memory that Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not say what the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) told us it said. In fact, Article 12 reads as follows:
  "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference".
  380
  If Opposition Members wish to quote the Declaration of Human Rights, it might help their case if they quoted it accurately.
  Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. [An HON. MEMBER: "Look at Article 20."] I gather that we should now refer to Article 20. I must repeat that on this procedure motion I do not think we should discuss matters of substance. Since, however, there is reference to Article 20, I should tell the House that when Article 20 was discussed at the General Assembly of the United Nations the New Zealand representative made clear that his Government did not consider that that article was at odds with the closed shop. That line was endorsed by the United Kingdom representative and was not contradicted during those discussions.
  I come back to the question of procedure raised by the hon. Member for St. Albans. I did not answer it previously, but I am glad to do so now, particularly as I have discovered the answer. The hon. Gentleman raised a point about Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair and so on
  "notwithstanding that Notice of an Instruction has been given".
  The practice of the House is that if notice has been given of a motion that an instruction be given to a Committee of the whole House, this is discussed after the Order of the Day for Committee has been read and before the House resolves itself into Committee. Since the Committee itself is to be formal, there is no point in moving the instruction, although it would remain technically possible to do so. The words in question remove that possibility.
  Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, although the motion says that notice of an instruction has been given, in fact it has not been given, and we must assume that it has been given although it has not?
  Mr. Foot: Whatever I was saying, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was nothing as foolish and contradictory as that. I was trying to simplify matters for everyone, including the hon. Gentleman himself.
  In conclusion, for those reasons—
  Mr. John Peyton: I wonder whether the point has been reached when the right hon. Gentleman feels that he would be assisted by the presence of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to explain the niceties of the motion which he, after all, has put on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Foot: I am sure that the whole House is always eager to have my right hon. Friend's assistance, but he has other business to attend to as well.
  Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Within the hearing of the House the Secretary of State told us that the Leader of the House had other business to attend to. The implication was that that other business was more important than his business as Leader of the House. Should not the Secretary of State tell us that the primary duty of the Leader of the House is to this House and also tell us where his right hon. Friend is?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Member has not raised a point of order. The Ministers who are available are here to deal with the matter. There are two names appearing on this Order, those of the Leader of the House and Mr. Secretary Foot. The latter is present. I hope that human rights have not bypassed the occupant of the Chair and that I shall be able to get some peace and quiet.
  Mr. Michael Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not intolerable that the Secretary of State should treat the House with such contempt and say that the Leader of the House has more important things to do than to come here? Should we not now send for Mr. Speaker to rule whether there is anything more important for the Leader of the House to do than to attend to his duties here?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have had enough experience now to feel able to rule on that point of order without having to send for Mr. Speaker. The Chair, whether occupied by Mr. Speaker or by one of his deputies, has no power to compel any hon. Member to attend the House.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a point of order, Mr.
  382
  Deputy Speaker, I thought I heard you say that the House had to be content with such Ministers as were available. This doctrine will lead us into difficulties. For instance, if Prime Minister's Questions were answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, it could be said that he was the only Minister available and we would be plagued with him rather than plagued by the Prime Minister himself. Is there to be a doctrine that the House is to put up with the Minister who is available rather than the Minister who is in charge of the business before the House? The Leader of the House is in charge of procedure motions. The House is not concerned with whether he is available or not. The House wishes him to be available. The House would not accept for one moment that only such Ministers as are available should be here to promote Government business. The House would prefer that Ministers in charge of the business before us were here, otherwise it will be impossible for us to proceed. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on reflection you will feel that such Ministers as are responsible should be here.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member knows full well that he has not strictly raised a point of order. I am only correcting what he has said. I did not say "whatever hon. Member is available". I pointed out that the name of Mr. Secretary Foot appears on this Order and that, therefore, he is entitled to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether notice of an instruction in accordance with the motion had or had not been given, but he seemed unable to reassure us on that point. That being so, would it be possible for the Leader of the House to tell us?
  Mr. Foot rose—
  Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether it was Divine intervention which brought the Leader of the House here or whether his unavailability has now, coincidentally, become availability?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members not to treat this matter

  383
  in a frivolous fashion. The Leader of the House is here now.
  Mr. Foot: I am sure we can all rejoice at the universal acclaim which has been shown at the appearance of my right hon. Friend. I am glad that the House is united on that proposition.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: I understood the Secretary of State to be saying that, if the other place did not accept the Press charter suggestions which he was putting forward, he would seek to find some other way of advancing those suggestions so that they may come into effect. Does he believe that those circumstances would require completely fresh legislation? If so, does he intend to introduce yet further legislation on the matter, and, if so, when?
  Mr. Foot: I should have thought that, whatever right hon. and hon. Members might think about the different issues involved here, they would have agreed that this was a reasonable way to proceed. If the House of Lords decided not to accept what we were proposing on Press freedom, the House of Commons having voted with considerable majorities a number of times on the subject, it would be a false position to accept the decision of the Lords. It would mean that the only aspect of the legislation which could reach the statute book would be the part which could go forward under the Parliament Act.
  I hasten to add, so that there is no misapprehension, that the only part of the legislation which could reach the statute book would be the part which left the House now. If we introduced, as I think we should in order to carry out the will of the House of Commons, measures dealing with Press freedom, those measures would still be subject to the possibility of the House of Lords taking any action that it might wish concerning it. That measure would not be subject to the Parliament Act and could not be placed on the statute book by the operation of that Act.
  For the various reasons I have already mentioned—the rigid framework of the Parliament Act and the fact that this House is reaffirming rather than initiating legislation which has been debated at considerable length—I commend the
  384
  motion to the House as the best way in which to deal with this matter.
  The part of the Bill with which the Lords disagreed—the Press clause—cannot be regarded as part of the Bill for Parliament Act purposes. Therefore, if we are to include provisions on the Press, we must make use of another provision of the 1911 Act whereby we make suggestions to the House of Lords which, if agreed by that House, become part of the Bill, but only if accepted by the other House. Those suggestions will be put before the House when times are arranged through the usual channels. To a considerable extent this can be regarded as an alternative to the Committee stage in the procedure we have adopted.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain his concern for what I put as my constitutional position? How are any possible amendments which could have been put down at Committee stage restricted by using the procedure he is putting forward?
  Mr. Foot: I apologise for not coming back to the matter which the hon. Gentleman raised originally. I meant to do so. It was in my interest to do it, because his amendment appears to accept the validity of the case that we are presenting. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's case is that he was not a Member of the last Parliament and was not able to engage in the discussions. The same exclusions might apply to some other Members in the last House who were not members of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman will have the earliest opportunity of entering into the discussions on these matters when we have a debate on the suggested amendments, or suggestions as they are called under this procedure.
  I do not believe that the whole of the procedure should be altered. The procedure is not laid down by me. It is laid down by the Parliament Act, with suggestions as to how it should be applied by the Prime Minister of that time. The hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House should be satisfied with that procedure which we are seeking to apply.
  Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman is doing himself less than justice. What he suggested earlier was that we

  385
  would be able to debate not only the Government's suggested motions and the amendments thereto but other suggested motions which might emanate from any part of the House. That implied that the Government would favourably consider giving Government time to suggested motions other than those emanating from the Front Bench. In the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, he did not give that impression. I am sure that he would wish to make that abundantly clear.
  Mr. Foot: I was not seeking to qualify anything I said before about the way in which that debate should proceed. What I said was that, when we came to that point in the procedure, not only should the Government be able to put down their suggestions and others be able to amend the Government suggestions, but that others should be able to put down their own suggestions. That should apply not only to the official Opposition or unofficial Oppositions but to Back-Bench Members. That is a perfectly reasonable procedure. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to put his case then.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is anxious to catch the eye of the Chair later. Surely he can make all his points then. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Minister was good enough to give way to the hon. Gentleman, does not that speak for itself?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am considering the general convenience of the House. That is the duty of the Chair. The hon. Gentleman, who has intervened several times already, had an amendment on the Order Paper which was not selected by Mr. Speaker. I gather that he will try to enter the debate. I am simply pointing out that he will have an opportunity to make his points then.
  Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, if the Minister is prepared to give way, he is deciding whether he will give part of his time to the hon. Member who
  386
  wishes to intervene. That is a well-established principle, and in my view it should not be subject to any threat or comment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I said, I rose only in the interests of right hon. and hon. Members. I was not trying to prevent the hon. Gentleman from making his intervention.
  Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may assist you. I am sure that you did not mean in any way to oppress my hon. Friend or take away his right to address the House. We all very much welcome your concern for what you rightly described as the convenience of the House. The trouble this evening emanates not from any remark from the Chair but from the absurd motion, which in no way deserves the description of convenient". That is what upsets us.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for being able to make this intervention. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not enough to say that Members should be able to do as much as they would in the Committee stage, and that they can do as much in putting down amendments?
  Mr. Foot: As I have already said, the procedure has been operated on only a very few occasions, because the possibility of invoking the Parliament Act has occurred on only a very few occasions. I confirm that it is certainly the Government's intention, subject to any choice of speakers by the Chair, which is not within their province, to allow suggestions and amendments not only by the official Opposition, or the official Oppositions, but also by Back Benchers if they wish to make them.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that one way in which the rights of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) will be restricted is that under the procedure which the Secretary of State is recommending the Mace will be above the Table and my hon. Friend will be able to speak only once, whereas in Committee, when the Mace is below the Table, he is not so limited?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am concerned only with the fact that the Mace is above the Table.
  Mr. Foot: We have proposed this procedure because we believe that it is the best way to take into account what has already been done on previous occasions under the possibility of the Parliament Act being invoked.
  We have taken into acount the considerable debates we have had upon this subject and what we believe to be the convenience of the House in the matter, as well as the representations which have appeared on the Order Paper and the point perfectly properly made across the Floor of the House about the rights of Back Benchers also to put down amendments.
  The House may wish to discuss the matter further. That is natural enough on a procedural motion of a novel character, and I perfectly well understand it, but I hope the House will seriously consider that this is the best way in which the House of Commons can proceed to deal with the problem that has been presented to us by the House of Lords.
  Mr. Goodhew: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State has already sat down. I shall now put the Question—
  Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you rose to your feet, I was on my feet to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, before he sat down, he would answer a question that I had put to him earlier. It was a very simple question. I was seeking to ask him whether he would reply to a question whether—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State had already completed his speech. Mr. Fletcher-Cooke.
  Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to insist, but I wish to protect the rights of Back Benchers. I was on my feet before you rose to yours, and I wished to question the Secretary of State before he sat down.
  11.7 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The Committee stage of a Bill is deeply entrenched in the constitution, and to
  388
  abolish the Committee stage of the Bill is a very grave step indeed, as I think the right hon. Gentleman realises. I know of only one precedent—indeed, I think that there could be no precedent like this in any other legislature in the civilised world—by which, by a simple resolution of one House, the constitution may be suspended in this way. The only precedent I know is that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. It ocurred in 1913, when Mr. Asquith abolished the Committee stages of no fewer than three Bills in one fell swoop—that dealing with Scottish temperance, that dealing with Welsh disestablishment, and that dealing with Irish home rule.
  Mr. Ridley: Devolution.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Scottish drunks, Welsh clergymen, and Irish rebels—a primitive form of devolution, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has said. That was the precedent of Mr. Asquith. But, as was freely admitted then by Mr. Asquith, the suggestions that he put forward were a very inferior form of alternative to the Committee stage.
  They are inferior in many ways. The first concerns time. It is only by the grace of the Government that these suggestions are given time at all, whereas in a Committee stage time is a matter for the Chair. Under these suggestions—which are themselves motions and resolutions of the whole House—selection is entirely in the hands of the Government and not a matter for the Chair at all. In all other ways, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) indicated, all the advantages that Back Bench Members have in the Committee stage, such as speaking on more than one occasion, are removed, and all is only by grace and favour.
  It is true that the right hon. Gentleman has gone some way to say that grace and favour will be pretty extensive. I am not sure that he realises how far he has gone. At the time the Leader of the House was not in his place, any more than he is now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] If the right hon. Gentleman is really saying that as much time will be given for the suggestions, which is the technical term, as would be given a full Committee stage and that the selection of the suggestions will be as

  389
  impartial as it would be if it were in the hands of the Chair and not those of the Government, he has gone a very long way in giving away time and giving in other ways, and we shall hold the Government to that. Of course, Mr. Asquith was not quite so foolish. He said that the suggestions would be only those—
  Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: Was not Mr. Asquith a Liberal Prime Minister?
  Mr. Thorpe: If the hon. Gentleman did not know that, he has a lot to learn.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Yes, he was, and he said that only suggestions within the spirit or within the principle of the Bill would be debated. Who would be the judge of the spirit or the principle of the Bill but Mr. Asquith? Again, he said that only suggestions correcting inadvertences and mistakes or mollifying and making more acceptable its substantial provisions could possibly be moved as suggestions. That is the precedent, and if the Secretary of State is saying that he will not observe that precedent and that we shall have what, in effect, is a full Committee stage in another name, the Opposition's objections to this procedural motion, although great, somewhat disappear.
  But I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that. If he is saying that, there is no need to move this motion. He knows that he will get his amendments through this House, that he will get his resolutions through this House and that he will be able, by the use of his majority, to defeat whatever amendments the Opposition or anyone else might move in Committee. So why is he frightened of having a Committee stage?
  There seems no point in abolishing the Committee stage unless it is because the right hon. Gentleman knows, or those advising him know, that suggestions are a very inferior form of debate and are really only within the Asquith rules as I have related them. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has not convinced us that the abolition of a Committee stage is either desirable or necessary.
  It is not desirable or necessary for two reasons. The first is that since we last had a Committee stage time has moved on. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have been over this again and again
  390
  and that he cannot see why we should want to discuss it again. However, although we are here, events have moved—not the least being the Ferrybridge six. Since we had the last Committee stage, we have come to know exactly what will happen as a result of this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman was very nervous about it throughout our Second Reading debate. For that reason, we need to have another Committee stage, because some of the amendments might attract a little more support this time than they did before we realised the full horror of the Bill.
  But not only has time moved on. Our composition has changed. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) has pointed out that he had no chance to move amendments during the last Committee stage. It is the inalienable right of every hon. Member, whether on the Standing Committee or not, to table amendments to a Bill. That is within the constitution. To remove that right from an hon. Member because it is inconvenient and because we have discussed these matters before seems seriously to tamper with the constitution. If the right hon. Gentleman, who is a great constitutionalist, does not realise that, he does not realise anything.
  For these and other reasons I suggest that it is not good enough to say that we have all been through this before. Time has marched on and personnel have changed. To deprive us of a Committee stage is a very severe act of the Executive, especially when it does not need to do so. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he can get his way even letting us have a Committee stage, and it is only because he wants to save time and trouble that he has adopted this peculiar and disgusting procedure.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise if at an earlier stage I got myself and the House into trouble by my interventions. I was trying to establish from the Secretary of State the exact way in which the proposed procedure, if the motion is adopted, will cut my rights.
  Many hon. Members have witnessed what has happened since December last in terms of the practice of employers dismissing people, and that is only one

  391
  matter raised during the Second Reading debate about an hour and a quarter ago. When we discussed the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the right hon. Gentleman quoted a New Zealand delegate who, it is alleged, said something apposite to the situation in the United Kingdom.
  It was put to the right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago that under the proposed procedure it would be possible for myself or other hon. Members to table as many amendments as could have been tabled during a normal Committee stage. That proposition was not contradicted by the Government Front Bench. I hope that there will be no contradiction when I ask that the time available to consider amendments, whether they be substantial or probing, should be as much under the proposed procedure as in a Committee stage. I remind the Secretary of State that there were six days for the Committee stage a year ago and I calculate that that amounted to some 15 hours. If I felt like going on for three hours, I could take up a fifth of that time now.
  I should like to give two or three reasons why the Bill needs searching scrutiny and much amendment. When he replied on Second Reading, it was clear that the Minister of State was unable to answer the points raised by the Opposition. There was not only insufficient time, but the Minister did not have the arguments to support him. If that is so, the need for a detailed and searching Committee stage is established automatically. It was also apparent that many of the arguments and questions advanced on Second Reading had not been advanced in the same way a year ago, partly because of the Ferrybridge case, and partly, and even more seriously, because of the present situation facing many British Railways employees.
  The British Railways Board heads a nationalised industry. It is difficult to discover exactly how the proposals which the Trades Union Congress will bring forward, with the Secretary of State's approval, will affect many of the Board's employees who are now declining to join the clerical union. They have circulated to hon. Members detailed arguments and reasons, on grounds of conscience—on what are generally accepted to be reasonable grounds other than those of religious
  392
  belief—for objecting to joining a trade union. I do not think that they are putting forward the case that they object to having their terms of employment settled by collective bargaining. They object to joining trade unions on a number of grounds.
  I shall save the time of the House by not reading out the details of all their arguments. However, I should like the Secretary of State to assure me that he will answer all the observations by the representatives of the clerks within British Rail and that he will answer in detail their objections to joining a trade union. If that assurance is not forthcoming, I shall be tempted to go through the matter in detail now to demonstrate why the motion is unacceptable not only to me but to all those who will be affected by the Bill if it is passed unamended.
  As there is no indication from the Secretary of State I had better start by reading the whole of the letter.
  The first of the arguments used follows:
  "Mrs. A's conviction is that it is wrong for any one person or group of people to pressure his or their own demands by holding uninvolved other persons or the public at large to ransom or to cause them loss or suffering or in fact to bargain on the basis of an underlying threat to do so. She is committed to alleviating the adverse effects on the public of industrial action and will frequently find herself in opposition to union factional activities. She believes that she cannot be in both camps and puts her loyalties to her fellow citizens before her loyalties to fellow employees. Mr. Foot says that if Mrs. A's fellow employees in a closed shop say that her loyalties are in the wrong order then she may be sacked without compensation or redress."
  On Second Reading of the Bill hon. Members on the Government Benches referred to strike breakers and blacklegs. I wish to refer to the attitude of the Secretary of State for Social Services when discussing the dispute over doctors' pay.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going very wide of the motion. It is a procedural motion. The debate should be restricted to that.
  Mr. Bottomley: If the debate is restricted to the procedural motion—and this is what I have been trying to do during these few minutes—I shall need to repeat that the Secretary of State has accepted without contradiction the

  393
  assertion that the motion is acceptable only if every hon. Member has exactly the same rights as he would have in a Committee stage. If the Secretary of State, having indicated his assent, says after the debate on the procedural motion "I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Woolwich, West will be unable to speak more than once on the suggestion he has put forward", he will stand condemned by hon. Members and by those who, like myself before I entered the House, held his personal views and his personal defence of liberty in high esteem.
  I assert that an hon. Member may speak many more times than once on the proposals in the motion, in the same way as if it were a Committee stage. The Secretary of State nods: he agrees that this will be possible.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Is it clear whether the Secretary of State was nodding off or shaking his head? Will he give us some indication?
  Mr. Bottomley: I have established that. I have asked the Secretary of State to intervene if he wishes to contradict my assertion.
  Mr. Foot: I fully appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Members, because we are dealing with a novel procedure. I am not responsible for that. The Parliament Act puts us in this position. Therefore, the House must take its own steps to deal with the situation. The hon. Member has put his case fairly a number of times and I have already given him the answer—that I believe that it will be possible for him and others to put down suggestions for debate on that day.
  I also said earlier that Mr. Speaker would be in charge of the proceedings, and I cannot make statements about the calling of hon. Members. It would depend on Mr. Speaker's ruling, but I should have thought that it was the common sense of the situation that he would be prepared to call an hon. Member on the different suggestions and not exclude him from speaking on the second, say, because he had already spoken on the first. But the House is asking that we should deal with the matter in respect of the House of Commons, and it must understand that Mr. Speaker will have to decide on the procedure himself.
  Mr. Bottomley: It is clear that there is a great area of uncertainty, and that the novelty of the situation behind which the Secretary of State hides is nothing like the novelty of the situation of the Ferrybridge six and the British Rail clerks.
  I should like to offer the same facilities to the Lord President, who is now present, to give us guidance on how the procedure would work in practice—what the rights and opportunities of a Back Bench Member like myself would be, how many days there would be for debate, and how he could assure us, if necessary, that there would be at least as much time as there was in Committee when the previous Bill went through. If neither the Lord President nor the Secretary of State, on reflection, can give us such assurances, is it not clear that they are trying to lead us into a situation in which they have no knowledge of what will happen?
  This should concern Labour Back Bench Members as much as me, because they represent just as many working people who will be affected by the Bill. Is it not clear that we should not consider the motion for the time being, but wait until either right hon. Gentleman can tell us what is involved?
  Why does the Secretary of State think that it is the Parliament Act that has got us into this situation? It is open to the Government to dissolve Parliament and go back to the country to see whether views have changed. Humble though I am, I should like to point out that in June this issue and others were put to the test and that the test showed that the popular view supported the arguments put on this side, not those which the Secretary of State advanced today.
  This proposed procedure gives no guarantee to me that I can put forward the amendments that I want to make. After all, even if I were not on the Committee, I could still put forward amendments for consideration in the normal way. I hope that instead of using the paper-thin Government majority in this way—the majority may not exist on the Bill and I hope that it does not exist on the motion—the Secretary of State will withdraw the motion and allow the Bill to go into Committee as it should.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: It is a pity that the Lord President did not move the motion, especially as he was, apparently, available after all. It is trying our love and affection for the Secretary of State too far to have to listen to him resting on precedents, becoming the great bulwark of conservatism—with a small "c"—telling us all the reasons, 50 or 60 years ago, why the House should give up its privileges in the matter of legislation—he who was the champion of the rights of Back Bench Members in days gone by. Such reputation as he had as a champion of Back Bench Members has long since been submerged by his actions as a member of the Administration. It was as if Keir Hardie had become chairman of the Stock Exchange, Aneurin Bevan had been made Lord Chamberlain, or Tariq Ali had been made chief of the Metropolitan Police.
  The right hon. Gentleman used to have a reputation, at least, for revolutionary zeal and also—a strange combination—for the championing of the rights of Parliament. He is now a sort of punctured spare wheel on the vehicle of Government, and he is no longer interested in the rights of Back Bench Members, nor in the liberties and freedoms of our people, because the issue in the Bill and in the other place throughout the previous Bill was the issue of individual rights and human freedom. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was the champion of the rights of the individual and that he believed in the freedom of the Press. I thought that he believed in the freedom of the individual to belong or not to belong to a trade union.
  We have no Bill of Rights. We have no entrenched clauses in our constitution. We have nothing but the sovereignty of Parliament, with the one exception of another place.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Oh, ho! Who is talking now!
  Mr. Ridley: We have another place. I went to a debate in the Oxford Union a fortnight ago at which the brother of the right hon. Gentleman, Sir Dingle Foot, debated against me. He was arguing the need for a Bill of Rights to be entrenched in our constitution. Yet here we have the Government coming up
  396
  against the only entrenched part of our constitution, which is that another place has the right, on a matter which concerns human freedoms and the freedom of the Press, for a short time to obstruct a Bill designed purely and simply to restrict the freedom of the Press. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to steamroller through a proposal that will dislodge the one part of our constitution that is entrenched. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has made his peace with Sir Dingle, but he will have to do so, because I am sure that Sir Dingle would not agree with this. This is the one determined attempt that has been made in a century to steamroller away from the people of this country that which is their right.
  As to the procedure, why is it that the Government are not prepared to let the Bill go to a normal Committee stage? Why is it that we cannot go to Committee and Report stages, as we did with the Bill last time and as we do with every other Bill? It is because the Government do not actually want to send the same Bill back to another place. They have already admitted that they will be making suggestions which will transform the nature of the Bill, and they want both to invoke the Parliament Act and to send the Bill up in a different form. Therefore, they are trying to have their cake and eat it.
  Although it is asking too much, I should like to make the point that the House would be wise to vote for having a proper Committee stage and a proper Report stage, because by these means the House can make such amendments to the Bill as it wishes, which will then force another place either to accept those amendments, thereby destroying the possibility of using the Parliament Act, or to throw out those amendments, in which case it would be complying with the Government's wishes.
  Those Opposition Members who do not particularly want this Bill to go through, with its restriction on the freedom of the Press, who are not satisfied with the so-called suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman with all his tradition of parliamentary democracy and liberality behind him, wants to put into the Bill, and who want to preserve the freedom of the Press, would be wise to amend the Bill in any silly way that they want to amend

  397
  Clauses 1, 2, 4, 6 or 10—any clause we care to amend. That would make it another Bill and the Government could not invoke the Parliament Act. They would be floored in their rather shoddy, sordid attempt.
  After all, what is the hurry? We have another four years of this miserable Government, and we have run out of manifesto points—thank God. What shall we do for the next four years? The manifesto is finished and done. The Government are barren of ideas. Could we not spend the next four years debating the Bill? Could we not have it in Committee, on Report, in the House of Lords and back again? We could play tennis with the Bill for the next four years. That would be much less damaging than allowing the Government to have their lousy Bill.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote down this motion so that we can have a Committee stage on the Floor of the House—we have accepted that it should be on the Floor of the House and that it is as important as that—and when we vote in Committee we can amend the Bill in some minor respect, which will prevent the Government from invoking the Parliament Act. Their Lordships can do what they like with the Bill. They can go through the proper process of legislation. Then their Lordships can decide to be the ultimate guardians of the freedom of this country and save us from the rabble and mob on the Government side which in the name of "democracy" could destroy every freedom which the British people have enjoyed for a century.
  11.39 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Not for the first time, the Government have got themselves into a hopeless state of procedural confusion. The motion seeks to curtail and does curtail the rights of Back Bench Members. But the Secretary of State spent the whole of his speech arguing against just exactly the proposal that he was advancing. He sought to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) that, despite what appeared in the motion, the rôle of he Back Bench Member would still be safeguarded.
  398
  The motion stands in the name of the Lord President of the Council. His name appears there first, not that of the Secretary of State. Many Opposition Members believe that it would have been much more appropriate if the Leader of the House had moved the motion, because it is a motion affecting the rights of Back Bench Members, of whose rights he is traditionally the guardian.
  The Bill goes to the heart of the fundamental rights of the British people. It is therefore a Bill which, above all, should be debated fully on the Floor of this House in accordance with the normal procedures. For the Secretary of State to say that we are to debate the Bill less fully than is normally the case is to cast him in the rôle of someone who is opposed to the rights of Parliament, despite his long and honourable record. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman one of his favourite quotations from Emerson:
  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
  It is high time the Secretary of State abandoned his foolish consistency in this matter and withdrew this miserable motion.
  11.41 p.m.
  Mr. John Peyton: It might be helpful if I intervened now, without in any way intending to deprive any of my hon. Friends who might subsequently wish to address the House of the opportunity to do so.
  The debate has so far achieved three justifications—namely, a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), a very fine speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and an admirable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). I very much regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West was not a Member of the House at an earlier stage of the Bill's history. Nevertheless, we look forward with confidence to his subsequent contributions on this subject and many others. Apart from that, I can think of no other merits that the motion may possess.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West appeared to draw from

  399
  the Secretary of State the rather remarkable statement that he was not responsible for the procedure. The right hon. Gentleman had previously said, rather delicately, how grateful he was to Mr. Asquith. It is nice and quite touching when someone as skilled a parliamentarian as the right hon. Gentleman pauses to wave a friendly hand over the generations that have preceeded him, even if it is only for them to share the blame with him.
  The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the intention of the Parliament Act is to give the House a second chance to look at important issues. It is such a pity when the House is immediately deprived of that second chance by the blind determination of the Government not to have second thoughts, heedless of public opinion, heedless of justice and completely careless of liberty.
  I do not think that I have ever more greatly admired the skill of the right hon. Gentleman than tonight. However, I cannot believe that he was particularly proud of his own performance. One felt that the House had been immensely deprived in that the right hon. Gentleman was on the Government side of the House instead of sitting on the Opposition Benches as the real champion of common sense and liberty, whom this miserable motion deserves and requires. How well the right hon. Gentleman would have fulfilled that part in dealing with this awful motion! It is nasty in its language and worse in its purpose.
  However, the right hon. Gentleman has been very helpful about the later stages of the Bill. I cannot help feeling that if his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had been in the House a little earlier and had been a little closer to him on the Front Bench, a few friendly nudges would have controlled the right hon Gentleman's generosity. If that had happened we might never have been given the valuable undertakings for which we are most grateful, and about which in a modest way we shall remind the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues at a later stage.
  The Secretary of State for Employment let fall one or two pearls. He said that the precedents were not precise or exact, and that there was no precedent that precisely
  400
  fitted. He went on to say—and this was his great trump card—that nothing in the precedents could exclude the way in which we were now dealing with the matter. What a vindication for a perfectly filthy procedure!
  I am sorry that my right hon. and hon. Friends were not here in larger numbers earlier, because they deprived themselves of a treat of oratory from the Minister of State, Department of Employment, whose lucidity of argument did not do anything to conceal the deficiencies of the Bill. He did his best loyally and staunchly to defend his right hon. Friend, despite the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not been at his best. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman has been engaged all day, as in earlier stages of this affair, in encouraging the Administration as it shyly lurches its way towards the elimination of embarrassments—embarrassments that concern the protection of the individual.
  What a pity today that the right hon. Gentleman came before the House of Commons in the guise of Faust, having sold his soul and almost everything the right hon. Gentleman used to believe in to a devil—[Interruption.] How deprived is that claque below the Gangway of the right hon. Gentleman's presence. How shoddy they look when they are deprived of that gloomy shield. We all remember earlier in the debate the sudden outburst of almost mirthless laughter from the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson): it was one of his most eloquent contributions.
  The points with which we are concerned in this debate are the following. The courts have become a bit of a nuisance to the Government, who are looking for some substitution. The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "our better provisions". Let him explain those provisions in full. My hon. Friends and I prefer a judge in a properly-established court to a diktat of a Secretary of State.
  The Secretary of State and his colleagues have adopted some very quaint ideas about the law and have made clear their preference for bureaucratic dicta and procedures. We face a vacuum in the law. Instead of having the law clearly enshrined in the common law and on the statute book, we are to have some kind of tissue of pretence, such as solemn

  401
  and binding undertakings, on which, when the challenge comes, no delivery can take place.
  What the Government are saying to us in this Bill is that one can take away a man's rights and yet tell him that he is better off. The House of Commons has not for years heard such cant and rubbish. I believe that the time is coming when the nation is tired of this chorus from the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Our people are tired and sick of that wretched tawdry manifesto which is dragged up on every occasion, and they want to see an end to a Government who, whatever their spokesmen have said in the past, have shown their utter lack of concern for the freedom of the individual.
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I make no apology for entering the debate—[Laughter 1—and the mirth of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will not deter me. The Secretary of State has been defeated by Parliament but he is not prepared to accept his defeat. As in the Clay Cross situation, the rules of the law and of Parliament are clear, but the right hon. Gentleman does not want to play by them. We have a two-chamber Parliament, but the right hon. Gentleman prefers to ignore the Second Chamber. Whatever the future of another place may be, so long as it exists it is the Second Chamber of this Parliament.
  The people cannot afford to have ignored, by the Opposition, the ministerial arrogance which the present Government are showing. We have had the television licence case and the sewerage rate dispute. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was a Tory Act"] Hon. Members say that it was our Water Act, but the Government have had 21 months in which to do something and nothing has been done. They have tried to ignore the courts of law. It is entirely fitting that the Secretary of State for Employment should try to put this motion over on the House of Commons just after the judgment in the sewerage dispute.
  My hon. Friends have mentioned the Ferrybridge six. I suspect that we shall hear more of the Ferrybridge six. If the Government find that objectionable,
  402
  let them count up the times they have brought the Shrewsbury two into the Chamber as paragons of virtue, and let them compare the activities of the Shrewsbury two with those of the Ferrybridge six. I know on whose side I would rather speak.
  The Secretary of State has rewritten Orwell. He believes that all individuals have rights, but some have more rights than others. He believes that all trade unionists are equal, but some are more equal than others. Are these the great freedoms about which his party wrote in its manifesto in February 1974?
  I shall close by quoting the Opposition spokesman in the debate in 1913, of which we have heard so much this evening:
  "When you use these methods of violence—for they are methods of violence—to pass your measures through the House lest the ordeal of ordinary discussion should be fatal to them, or to you, you go one step further down the road that we have been travelling. You do something more to destroy that respect, and to dissociate from us the obedience of the people."—[Official Report, 23rd June 1913; Vol. 54, c. 835.]
  Nothing would be more relevant to tonight's debate.
  For a Government supposedly elected to counter confrontation, they are setting a very poor example, not only in the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Social Services towards the medical profession, but by the Secretary of State towards this House tonight.
  11.55 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It is important that we should appreciate, as I am sure the Secretary of State does, that we are discussing a procedure which not only abrogates the rights of the House, but does so in order to abrogate the rights of individuals.
  The Labour Party claims to be interested in civil rights and the rights of the individual in the constitution. None claims this more than those below the Gangway. There are no bounds to my amazement at the fact that when civil rights and the rights of the individual are being dealt with, hon. Members below the Gangway prefer to try to laugh them out. They may not think this important. They do not think the law is important. They do not think that civil rights and the rights of the individual are important—

  403
  until they can twist them to fit their own perverted doctrines. I would have thought that some of them might at least take the matter of principle seriously, even though they have none themselves. The rights of the individual and after all, the Shrewsbury pickets are just individuals—[Interruption.] Hon. Members below the Gangway can go on mocking. The more they mock, the more they are mocking themselves. They are mocking because they are not interested.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Bring back Sir Alec.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I have not the slightest doubt that Labour Members would like to bring back Sir Alec, because he is now in the House of Lords. He was put there by them, as was Lord George-Brown, who is also against their proposals. Yet they pretend that the other place is a constitutional anachronism created by someone else. The noble Lords who were put there by the Government are opposing their filthy legislation which is so unpopular. [Interruption.] Labour Members can jeer and jitter as much as they like, but they will never shout down in this House or in the heart of the Secretary of State, I trust, concern for the freedom of the individual or the rights of the constitution. There is no guarantee for anything that anyone believes in unless there is support for the constitution and a defence of the rights of the individual. The Bill is designed to destroy the rights of the individual.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have permitted a great deal of latitude so far. The hon. and learned Member should now refer to the terms of the motion, which deals with questions of procedure.
  Mr. Fairbairn: We in this House are guardians of the rights of the individual and the constitution, and tonight we are discussing the constitutional rights of Parliament. Mockery from the Labour Benches will not divert me from saying that this motion is designed to prevent Parliament from having a proper procedural discussion of a Bill which removes the rights of the individual.
  The Secretary of State, who has always been a champion of the rights of the individual, has been chickened by the
  404
  Leader of the House into presenting a measure which he knows to be bogus and false. We are being asked to undermine parliamentary procedure, for which the Labour Party pretends to be so concerned, with a motion which forces through a measure which can be described in one word only—tyranny.
  12.5 a.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am delighted to follow my amazed, or amazing, hon and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). He has reminded the House of the tyranny which the right hon. Gentleman—one of Hampstead's many Socialist intellectuals—seems determined to foist on the country.
  I want to deal with the weather-house of the Government, the Leader of the House, who has displayed tonight all those sterling qualities of cheap, nasty little foreign weather-houses in which the man goes out when it is dry and the woman goes out when it is wet. His behaviour is being outside when this motion was being debated, then coming in and going outside again, leaving us to the tender mercies of a mere departmental Minister to explain the procedures and rights of Members, should go on record as one of his worst performances—and that is not very difficult.
  By now the Leader of the House might have understood that he has a duty occasionally to doff his political hat and put on his hat as guardian of the liberties of Back-Bench Members on both sides. Quite frequently he is attacked by Members on his own side and forced eventually to eat humble pie. Tonight that does not seem to be happening.
  The Leader of the House needs to be told firmly that we are not prepared to accept this procedural motion without two simple questions being answered. The Secretary of State is quite incapable of answering them—no blame to him, because it is not the job he is paid for. The Leader of the House is paid to explain the procedure. If he is incapable of doing that, he had better appoint one or two more paid political advisers, because at least they can perhaps come up with some answers. [An HON. MEMBER: They will be up to Blackburn.] In the intervals between going to Blackburn.
  Mr. Ridley: Would it not help if the Leader of the House were to pay an official visit to India to consult Mrs. Gandhi on the rights of Back-Bench Members?
  Mr. Finsberg: My only comment on that is that on a recent trip we disembarked in the transit lounge of an Indian airport and were told that we could not take British newspapers into the lounge because they had not been censored. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that a good lesson could be learnt there.
  The two questions which I want answered, and which I believe any Back-Bench Member interested in the rights of the House wants answered, are these. Will there be every opportunity for each suggested amendment to be debated fully, not merely those selected by the Government? Secondly, and even more important, will hon. Members be entitled to speak three or four times on each suggested amendment, as they would be if the House were having a genuine Committee stage?
  It is no use the Secretary of State for Employment sitting benignly on the Front Bench. The person who ought to be answering those questions is the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Hal Miller: Is there not a third question that my hon. Friend would like to have answered—the one asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew)—whether an instruction has or has not been issued, and what it is?
  Mr. Finsberg: In fact, there is a fourth question I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer. I have put the first two questions, and I am happy to pass on as the third question the one asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew). The fourth question is this: if the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to answer, or is incapable of answering, why does he not resign?
  12.10 a.m.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: I have a difference with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). I do not think that it was mockery from the Government Benches that he heard
  406
  during his speech. I think that it was a cry of agony as men were having their principles twisted further than anyone should have his principles twisted in a public place.
  I also disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) on one point. I do not have such a poor opinion of the Leader of the House as my hon. Friend has. There have been a number of occasions when the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself in a good light, not least when answering Prime Minister's Questions, when he gives answers now and again, which is something to which we have not become used. They are not very good answers, but they are answers, and the right hon. Gentleman is reasonably brief.
  Therefore, it would be very helpful if the right hon. Gentleman were to answer the debate. There are two good reasons why he should. First, he might understand the motion. The Secretary of State clearly does not understand it, because we have got no further on the question whether the instruction has been given, and what it is. That question intrigues the whole House. The Leader of the House might even pass a piece of paper to the Secretary of State, who might be able to read it. It is noticeable these days that the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box with the air of a man very glad to have a piece of paper thrust under his eye, so that he has something to read, because he has nothing to say. If it could be written down for him, and he could read it out, we should all be grateful.
  Secondly, the Leader of the House is the man who can tell us how much time we should have under the procedures which we are asked to accept. That is the key to the whole matter. Naturally, we are interested to know whether we can speak once or more often on each amendment. We are interested to know how many amendments can be put down and how many will be called.
  It all turns on this unpleasant procedure, which is not required under the Parliament Act but which has been foisted on us as a method convenient for the Government. The man who can tell us how much time the House will have is the Leader of the House, which I suspect is why he was outside the doors lurking instead of coming in when the

  407
  motion was moved. I take it that the Cabinet has decided how much time it is willing to give this business. If the right hon. Gentleman will not tell us, I imagine that it must be because he does not want the House to know.
  We want to know whether hon. Members can speak on each amendment, whether every amendment tabled will be called, and, if not, who will decide which will be called. Then we might consider giving our assent to the motion, provided we can also clear up the dark mystery of the instruction which has or has not been given, and what it is. I should be grateful to the Secretary of State if tonight, for once, he could give a straight answer to a straight question.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Foot rose—
  Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I endeavoured before the right hon. Gentleman sat down to raise a matter with him. Now that it is apparent that he had sat down at the end of his speech, perhaps I may ask him to make clear the piece of paper that he read to the House purporting to say something to the effect that, though a notice of instruction had not been given to the House, we were to assume that it had. I hope that he will make that clear in his reply.
  Mr. Foot: If the House will permit me to reply to the debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman does not require the permission of the House. He moved the motion.
  Mr. Foot: I thought it was necessary for me to have the leave of the House to speak again, and I was asking for that permission.
  I should like to reply very briefly to the many points raised—not because I think they are not important in any way, but because I think that some of them at least were dealt with in my original remarks.
  I did not express any surprise at the beginning that the House was anxious about the procedure we had proposed. The procedure is novel, for the reasons I stated earlier, and therefore, of course, it is necessary that the House of Commons
  408
  should examine what we are proposing to do and see why we wish to do it.
  I believe that, despite the remarks made in many quarters on different aspects of the matter, the House of Commons will appreciate the reasons for making the proposal. There are a number of reasons for the Government proposing this procedure. Essentially, they all relate to what might be described as the form or logic of the Parliament Act itself and to the purposes underlying the Parliament Act.
  The form of the Parliament Act means that the Bill has to be in the same form as it went to the Lords last Session. The main purpose of the Act is to enable legislation that has been passed twice by the elected House in successive Sessions to become law although the Lords reject it.
  It was not for reasons of pedantry, obviously, that this procedure was devised and the Parliament Act designed in this way. The procedure would not be particularly meaningful if we could pass a substantially different Bill in the second Session and then present it for Royal Assent on the ground that the Lords had rejected it twice. That is the reason why we thought—all the advice we had about it tended in this direction—that it was not logical to have a Committee stage on this basis.
  Moreover, we searched the precedents to see what happened on previous occasions, and what I gave to the House when I first spoke was a perfectly candid account of the precedents. I said that the precedents did not cover the whole situation. I said that, in so far as there were precedents for dealing with the matter, they pointed in this direction.
  The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has said that the Lords have a perfect right to force us to invoke the Parliament Act. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have a perfect right to take the kinds of procedures that have operated before and to seek to apply them. Although I do not claim that the precedents are exact, we are following them as nearly as possible.
  I understand the sensitivity of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) because he does not like Mr. Asquith and apparently still has a grievance

  409
  against him, and therefore he does not want us to follow that precedent. I am no great fan of Mr. Asquith, as it happens, but it is the fact that he is almost the only Prime Minister who offers us a precedent on this matter. We should be willing to follow the 1948 and 1949 precedents, too, but there was no opportunity or requirement then for the suggestions procedure, and there was no extra time for the kind of debate that we are saying the House can have under this procedure. So for all these reasons, I think that this is the right way for the House to proceed.
  As for the form of the debate when we come to it, I have made it clear—pe that the House will accept that I have done so in as forthcoming a manner as possible—that the debate will be subject to the decisions of Mr. Speaker. Therefore, it is not possible for me to lay down the law as to how the debate itself will proceed. I have no such powers. Mr. Speaker himself will exercise those rights, but I am sure that he will take into account what has been said in the House tonight. But, as I said at the outset, the House of Commons itself can almost always devise procedures which suit its own circumstances.
  This is the best procedure for dealing with the matter under the Parliament Act, that is, to deal with the problem that we now face. It is the action of the House of Lords which has presented us with this problem, and we seek to solve it in the best way to suit the interests of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Julian Amery: The right hon. Gentleman referred to Mr.
  Asquith. Mr. Asquith may have been right. He may have been wrong. But Mr. Asquith walked tall. He was no Short. This chicanery to which the right hon. Gentleman has stooped is a course of action to which Mr. Asquith would not have stooped. It calls to mind, if I may be permitted to misquote it, the Biblical injunction.
  "If thy Foot offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee."
  Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman had followed the matter more closely, he would have known that we were citing Mr. Asquith precisely because he provided the precedent. What we are proposing is no offence against the traditions of the House, and when Opposition Members say that I am offending against the traditions of the House or my allegiance, I deny it. I am attacking the attempt of the House of Lords to dictate to the House of Commons. That is what we should resent.
  Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will hon. Members please resume their seats? It has been moved "That the Question be now put."
  Question put,That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided:Ayes 311, Noes 265.

  Division No. 12.]

  AYES

  [12.23 a.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Boardman, H.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Allaun, Frank

  Booth, Albert

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Anderson, Donald

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)

  Archer, Peter

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bradley, Tom

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Ashley, Jack

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C.)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N.)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W.)

  Corbett, Robin

  Atkinson, Norman

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S.)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Buchan, Norman

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Buchanan, Richard

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Cronin, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Bates, Alf

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Cryer, Bob

  Bean, R. E.

  Campbell, Ian

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S.)

  Beith, A. J.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Cant, R. B.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Carter, Ray

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cartwright, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C.)

  Deakins, Eric

  Kerr, Russell

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Lambie, David

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dempsey, James

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rooker, J. W.

  Doig, Peter

  Lamond, James

  Roper, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N.)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Eadie, Alex

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Edge, Geoff

  Lipton, Marcus

  Selby, Harry

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Litterick, Tom

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Luard, Evan

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  English, Michael

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Ennals, David

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W.)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C.)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McElhone, Frank

  Sillars, James

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Silverman, Julius

  Faulds, Andrew

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Small, William

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W.)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Flannery, Martin

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)

  Snape, Peter

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Madden, Max

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Magee, Bryan

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ford, Ben

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Stoddart, David

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stott, Roger

  Freud, Clement

  Marquand, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Garrett, John (Norwich S.)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S.)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  George, Bruce

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Swain, Thomas

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Meacher, Michael

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Golding, John

  Mendelson, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Gould, Bryan

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Millan, Bruce

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Graham, Ted

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N.)

  Thompson, George

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Grant, John (Islington C.)

  Moonman, Eric

  Tierney, Sydney

  Grocott, Bruce

  Tinn, James

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tomlinson, John

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tomney, Frank

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Torney, Tom

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Moyle, Roland

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hatton, Frank

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Newens, Stanley

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Noble, Mike

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

  Henderson, Douglas

  Oakes, Gordon

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hooley, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Ward, Michael

  Horam, John

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Watkins, David

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Watkinson, John

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Watt, Hamish

  Huckfield, Les

  Ovenden, John

  Weetch, Ken

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Owen, Dr David

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)

  Padley, Walter

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Hunter, Adam

  Pardoe, John

  White, James (Pollok)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Park, George

  Whitlock, William

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Parker, John

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Parry, Robert

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Janner, Greville

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Penhaligon, David

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Perry, Ernest

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E.)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  John, Brynmor

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W.)

  Woodall, Alec

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Woof, Robert

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Radice, Giles

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S.)

  Young, David (Bolton E.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Raid, George

  Judd, Frank

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr. Jame Hamilton and

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Mr. Donald Coleman.

  412

  413

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Mawby, Ray

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Alison, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Arnold, Tom

  Goodhart, Philip

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Moate, Roger

  Baker, Kenneth

  Gorst, John

  Monro, Hector

  Banks, Robert

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bell, Ronald

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Moore, John (Croydon C.)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Gray, Hamish

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S.)

  Benyon, W.

  Grieve, Percy

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Biffen, John

  Grist, Ian

  Mudd, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Blaker, Peter

  Hall, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Body, Richard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Neubert, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Newton, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nott, John

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Hannam, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Brittan, Leon

  Hawkins, Paul

  Percival, Ian

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Brotherton, Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hicks, Robert

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Buck, Antony

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Budgen, Nick

  Hordern, Peter

  Raison, Timothy

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Burden, F. A.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hunt, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Hurd, Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Carson, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Channon, Paul

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Churchill, W. S.

  James, David

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Clark, William (Croydon S.)

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Clegg, Walter

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Cockcroft, John

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W.)

  Jopling, Michael

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Cope, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Cordie, John H.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Costain, A. P.

  Kilfedder, James

  Scott, Nicholas

  Critchley, Julian

  Kimball, Marcus

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Crouch, David

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Sims, Roger

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Knox, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lamont, Norman

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lane, David

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Speed, Keith

  Dunlop, John

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Spence, John

  Durant, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lestor, Jim (Beeston)

  Sproat, Iain

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stainton, Keith

  Emery, Peter

  Lloyd, Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Eyre, Reginald

  Loveridge, John

  Stanley, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Luce, Richard

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Farr, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stokes, John

  Fell, Anthony

  McCusker, H.

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stradling Thomas J.

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  MacGregor, John

  Taylor, R (Croydon NW)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N.)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Madel, David

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fox, Marcus

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S.)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Marten, Neil

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Fry, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Mather, Carol

  Trotter, Neville

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Maude, Angus

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  414

  415

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Younger, Hon George

  Wakeham, John

  Wells, John

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Wall, Patrick

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson

  Walters, Dennis

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly:—

  Division No. 13.]

  AYES

  [12.35 a.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Dunn, James A.

  Kerr, Russell

  Allaun, Frank

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Anderson, Donald

  Eadie, Alex

  Kinnock, Neil

  Archer, Peter

  Edge, Geoff

  Lambie, David

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Ashley, Jack

  English, Michael

  Lamond, James

  Ashton, Joe

  Ennals, David

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N.)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Atkinson, Norman

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N.)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bates, Alf

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Bean, R. E.

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W.)

  Litterick, Tom

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Flannery, Martin

  Luard, Evan

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ford, Ben

  McCartney, Hugh

  Boardman, H.

  Forrester, John

  McElhone, Frank

  Booth, Albert

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Freeson, Reginald

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Bradley, Tom

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  George, Bruce

  Maclennan, Robert

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W.)

  Ginsburg, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S.)

  Golding, John

  Madden, Max

  Buchan, Norman

  Gould, Bryan

  Magee, Bryan

  Buchanan, Richard

  Gourlay, Harry

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Graham, Ted

  Mahon, Simon

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P.)

  Grant, John (Islington C.)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Campbell, Ian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marquand, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hardy, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Harper, Joseph

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Carter, Ray

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Meacher, Michael

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Cartwright, John

  Hatton, Frank

  Mendelson, John

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Mikardo, Ian

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Millan, Bruce

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N.)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hooley, Frank

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Coleman, Donald

  Horam, John

  Moonman, Eric

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C.)

  Huckfield, Les

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Moyle, Roland

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hunter, Adam

  Newens, Stanley

  Cronin, John

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Noble, Mike

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Cryer, Bob

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Ogden, Eric

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S.)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Janner, Greville

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Orbach, Maurice

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N.)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ovenden, John

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Owen, Dr David

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C.)

  John, Brynmor

  Padley, Walter

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S.)

  Park, George

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Parker, John

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Parry, Robert

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Doig, Peter

  Judd, Frank

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Pendry, Tom

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kelley, Richard

  Perry, Ernest

  The House divided: Ayes 290, Neos 286.

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Sillars, James

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Silverman, Julius

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

  Price, C. (Lewisham W.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Small, William

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Radice, Giles

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Ward, Michael

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S.)

  Snape, Peter

  Watkins, David

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Spearing, Nigel

  Watkinson, John

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Weetch, Ken

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Stoddart, David

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Stott, Roger

  White, James (Pollok)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Whitlock, William

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Rooker, J. W.

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W.)

  Roper, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W.)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E.)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Selby, Harry

  Tierney, Sydney

  Woodall, Alec

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Tinn, James

  Woof, Robert

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Tomlinson, John

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Tomney, Frank

  Young, David (Bolton E.)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C.)

  Torney, Tom

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Tuck, Raphael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mr. John Ellis and

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mr. J. D. Dormand

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Alison, Michael

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Paul

  Arnold, Tom

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Awdry, Daniel

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Henderson, Douglas

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Dunlop, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Baker, Kenneth

  Durant, Tony

  Hicks, Robert

  Banks, Robert

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Beith, A. J.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Holland, Philip

  Bell, Ronald

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Emery, Peter

  Hordern, Peter

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Biffen, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Hunt, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Hurd, Douglas

  Body, Richard

  Farr, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fell, Anthony

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  James, David

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N.)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jessel, Toby

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Brittan, Leon

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Fox, Marcus

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Jopling, Michael

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Freud, Clement

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fry, Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Buck, Antony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Kilfedder, James

  Budgen, Nick

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Burden, F. A.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Carlisle, Mark

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  Knox, David

  Carson, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lamont, Norman

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lane, David

  Channon, Paul

  Gorst, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Clark, William (Croydon S.)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gray, Hamish

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Clegg, Walter

  Grieve, Percy

  Lestor, Jim (Beeston)

  Cockcroft, John

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W.)

  Grist, Ian

  Lloyd, Ian

  Cope, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Loveridge, John

  Cordie, John H.

  Hall, Sir John

  Luce, Richard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Costain, A. P.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Critchley, Julian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  McCrindle, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Hannam, John

  McCusker, H.

  418

  419

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  MacGregor, John

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Raison, Timothy

  Stokes, John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Stradling Thomas J.

  Madel, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Taylor, R (Croydon NW)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Marten, Neil

  Reid, George

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mates, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maude, Angus

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mawby, Ray

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Thompson, George

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Trotter, Neville

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Moate, Roger

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Monro, Hector

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Viggers, Peter

  Moore, John (Croydon C.)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Wakeham, John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S.)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wall, Patrick

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Walters, Dennis

  Mudd, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Neave, Airey

  Shepherd, Colin

  Watt, Hamish

  Nelson, Anthony

  Shersby, Michael

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Neubert, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Wells, John

  Newton, Tony

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Welsh, Andrew

  Nott, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Onslow, Cranley

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Speed, Keith

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E.)

  Pardoe, John

  Spence, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Penhaligon, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Younger, Hon George

  Percival, Ian

  Stainton, Keith

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stanley, John

  Mr. W. Benyon and

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Mr. Carol Mather

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That when an Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that Notice of an Instruction has been given, and on the Committee stage of that Bill the Chairman shall forthwith put the Question that he do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House without putting any other Question, and the Question so put shall be decided without Amendment or Debate.

  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL (PROCEDURE)
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

  RICHMOND, SURREY (ENVIRONMENT)
  12.49 a.m.
  Sir Anthony Royle: First, I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on his recent appointment to ministerial office in the Department of the Environment. I wish him good fortune with what I understand to be his
  420
  maiden speech as a Minister. I hope that he will be able to make a more satisfactory reply to my remarks than the replies which his predecessor managed to make on the two previous occasions when I raised the subject of the environment in my constituency in two areas—namely, Barnes and Kew. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish in his maiden speech to send away a satisfied Member of Parliament.
  I seek to raise three issues which affect the environment of Richmond. The first issue is something which is being caused by the bureaucrats who live in County Hall under the aegis of the Greater London Council. The details follow on from the debate I had on Kew in November 1974 and underline the fact that the GLC is about to crucify Kew. The GLC is proposing to widen a road in the middle of Kew Village. This widening proposal was first put forward in 1969, and in 1972 there was a public inquiry. I raised the matter for the first time in a debate in November 1974. I said on that occasion that nothing was being done by the GLC in Kew and that the GLC was not interested in Kew.

  421
  The Minister's predecessor and myself agreed that Kew Village was unsuitable for juggernaut lorries, but since then the GLC has decided to press ahead, with compulsory purchase orders, to widen the road where it joins the Mortlake Road from Kew Green.
  What is the background? Kew is a small village on the edge of the Thames in the corner of my constituency. Kew Green and Kew Gardens are world famous. There is an ancient and beautiful church, and there are many attractive eighteenth-century and seventeenth-century houses round the Green and the Royal palace. Around the area where the GLC now proposes to widen the road are several extremely attractive Queen Anne houses. The proposal is to widen the road to facilitate juggernaut lorries passing along the South Circular Road which use the lane running through the middle of the village.
  In fact, the problem is more complicated. After the lorries pass the widening point, leaving Kew Bridge behind them, they funnel into a narrow tunnel under a railway. That narrow tunnel, which is 14 ft. high, will not be widened. Therefore, the money that will be spent by the GLC in widening the road where it leaves Kew Green will have no effect in easing the traffic situation in the village of Kew; nor will it facilitate traffic flow because of the railway bridge.
  When the inspectors examined the situation back in 1972, they found that the Mortlake Road was saturated with traffic, but since 1972 the traffic-light sequence has been changed at the junction and the problem of tailback occurs rarely.
  I have grave fears, as do the Kew residents, that the green itself will be badly damaged if the GLC is allowed to go ahead with its depredations.
  Since that time the GLC has been shown that the houses involved in the road widening are of greater importance than it suggested. It has been shown that the traffic problems were caused by a tailback from Brentford and restrictions on the 14-ft. railway bridge over the Mortlake Road. The council has also been shown that the scheme would not increase traffic flow and that the results of improvements on the other side of the new approach in Brentford
  422
  and Chiswick should be awaited. On those grounds the GLC postponed implementation until recently. In October 1975 the Secretary of State for the Environment published a commentary on the Greater London Development Plan which insisted that the traffic plan should be carried out in consultation with local councils and residents concerned and also that much greater protection should be given to areas of great beauty and historic interest.
  I wish to remind the Minister that if the GLC is now allowed to proceed with this widening scheme it will destroy a conservation area in Kew and it will cause eight properties to become unfit for domestic use. It will have taken the first step towards using Kew as the primary and orbital route for all types of traffic on a permanent basis on unsuitable roads and will cause blight to the people in Kew. It will also go against the declared policy of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, it will involve the use of a large sum of public money for a destructive and useless purpose.
  Am I alone in opposing this idea of the GLC? I am not. I am supported by virtually the entire population of Kew. The Kew Society has sent several protests to the Minister and myself. Most recently it was learned that the Secretary of State had accepted the Kew Society's recommendation that Kew Green be designated a conservation area of outstanding importance. If this had been the situation when the inquiry was held in 1972, I question whether the Minister would have found in favour of the GLC. The Society says that there can be no doubt that the GLC's widening proposal if implemented will have disastrous effects on the appearance of this corner of Kew Green. Therefore, there is widespread opposition by all the local people to this proposal.
  In addition, only recently Mr. Daly, the Chairman of the Transport Committee of the GLC, who has written many letters to me on this subject, admitted that his proposal to set up lorry routes throughout London would not work. A GLC news-sheet was issued on 23rd October this year to the effect that the problems of the juggernauts in narrow shopping streets and residential areas would continue to increase unless restraints were imposed. But the GLC is

  423
  releasing that restraint and is encouraging more juggernauts to use this route. Will the Minister tell the House the cost of the vandalism that will be perpetrated by this widening scheme?
  The second issue concerns the activities of helicopters in the area. I could talk for some time about the damage to the environment caused by aircraft operating from London Airport, but that matter does not fall within the responsibility of the Minister who is to reply. However, I wish particularly to mention the helicopter problem in the area. I understand that this is a responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority, but the Minister has, I think, an overall responsibility, and I know that he will share the deep concern which is felt by my constituents and by myself at the proposal for increased use of Battersea for more flights.
  On this matter, for once, the GLC and I are in agreement, and the views of Mr. Daly and the GLC on helicopter flights from Battersea are similar to those of my constituents. What steps is the Minister proposing to take to help protect the environment, especially at the Barnes end of the constituency which suffers particularly from the helicopter flights?
  I come now to the third issue, and I shall be brief because I know that the Minister will wish to give a full reply. I refer to Barnes High Street, which also is part of the Richmond constituency, nearer to London, and lying close to the river. It is full of charming old houses, many of them early eighteenth-century and some of them seventeenth-century.
  Sir Timothy Kitson: The Order Paper shows that the subject of my hon. Friend's debate is the environment in Richmond. I am sure that he knows that my constituency of Richmond is the mother of all the Richmonds, and I think it is a little confusing when he refers to Richmond when, in fact, he means Richmond, Surrey. Will he clarify that?
  Sir A. Royle: I am delighted to clarify it. My constituency used to be called Richmond, Surrey when I was first elected in 1959 but unfortunately, due to the decision of the House in the 1970 Parliament
  424
  the word "Surrey" was removed from its title, so that it is now known as Richmond.
  It could cause some confusion with my hon. Friend's constituency in Yorkshire, but I hasten to add that I bow at once to the seniority of my hon. Friend's constituency in that the original name of the area which is now called Richmond in what was Surrey, was Shene, and it was on his arrival there that King Henry VII decided that, as the view from Richmond Hill was similar to that from Richmond Hill in Yorkshire—whence he drew his title as Earl of Richmond—Shene should be renamed Richmond after the Richmond in Yorkshire. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend and his constituents that we are not trying to steal seniority from his ancient borough in Yorkshire.
  After that fascinating historical interlude I return to the problems of Barnes High Street, which closely concern many of my constituents. In an Adjournment debate on this subject I covered the points concerning Barnes fairly fully. The case I argue is that Barnes High Street is too narrow, as is the road through Kew, for juggernaut lorries. It is still a GLC road. There is some feeling locally in Barnes that life could be better for the people of the area if Barnes High Street could be made a local road under the control of the Richmond-upon-Thames Council and not the Greater London Council. I would welcome the Minister's views.
  The reason is clear, and I have given it in all the debates which I have raised in the House. In Richmond—which includes Kew, Barnes, Petersham, Ham, Sheen and Mortlake, that is, all the area from Hammersmith Bridge along the south of the river to Ham—we have lost confidence in the GLC. This view is widely held outside Richmond as well as within my constituency.
  That brings me back to where I started, to Kew Village and the proposed widening of the Mortlake Road by the GLC. I have expressed my discontent so many times in public speeches in my constituency that I feel that I must now express my concern about the GLC in the House of Commons.
  I hope that the Minister who is to reply will start by taking some action on the matters I have raised. It is the duty

  425
  of his Department to monitor the road activities of the GLC. It proposes to waste public money on an unwanted scheme in my constituency. In a document TP1643 sent round on 3rd November, it was stated:
  "We now face a period of severe restrictions on expenditure and staffing. This makes it essential to ensure that our staff effort is deployed on a priority programme of work which is compatible with the limited financial resources available."
  There follows a list of projects that have been cancelled, changed, withdrawn or which are going ahead. Despite the cost and all the difficulties, the Mortlake Road widening is going ahead.
  The Conservative Government of 1964 created the GLC. I think that its creation was a mistake, and many of my constituents agree with me that the time has come to consider abolishing the Council. The Minister will no doubt ask what is to replace it, but I am not suggesting that a replacement is necessary. There are only three major responsibilities remaining with the GLC. The fire service could be run by a small efficient—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Member cannot ask for legislation or measures which require legislation in an Adjournment debate.
  Sir A. Royle: I am not asking for legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am merely informing the Minister of the concern felt in my constituency about the attitude of the GLC and the view of many people that something should be done about it. I am not requesting the Minister to introduce legislation on this matter.
  There is a feeling that the GLC's responsibilities for housing and trunk roads, on a strategic basis, and for the fire service could be managed by other bodies. The fire service could be run by a board on the lines of the London Transport Board, housing could be taken over by the London boroughs and the Minister's unit in his Department could handle the roads. It already monitors the GLC road plans.
  In my constituency and many other parts of London, especially in the outer boroughs, it is felt that the GLC's attitude is not helpful. The total staff of the
  426
  council is over 33,000 and it will cost £123 million in 1975–76. The 0share that Richmond ratepayers carry is £4·8 million. If the GLC employees were placed shoulder to shoulder, they would reach for 10½ miles—almost the distance from Kew to County Hall and back. Walking at four miles per hour, with a yard between them, they would take four-and-three-quarter hours to pass through the main entrance of County Hall.
  Soon, the anger of those representing outer London ratepayers will take a practical course. Will the Minister warn the GLC that, if it continues to treat with disdain the outer London ratepayers, we may be joined by the inner London ratepayers and one of the major political parties may say, to paraphrase the words of Mr. Amery in 1940: "You have sat too long there for any good you have been doing. Depart, we say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."
  1.10 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) for his kind words on this my maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Mr. Carmichael), who is now Under-Secretary of State for Industry. My hon. Friend held my new post from 1967 to 1969 and from February 1974 until now. I learned that since February he has replied to 44 Adjournment debates. In addition he carried out a heavy programme of meetings and visits to all parts of Britain. That and a heavy load of correspondence meant for him a tremendous task. I have no doubt that in his new post he will find plenty to do since his first job will be on the Standing Committee dealing with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
  Coming from the industrial part of the North-West as I do, I have always felt that people in my area have in the past accepted too easily the environmental hazards that other areas do not suffer. I have frequently urged them to be less amenable. I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituents need no such urging, and he has reflected their anxieties and their annoyance in many ways and in

  427
  correspondence, personal representation and in Adjournment debates.
  Having listened to the intervention by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson), and knowing both Richmonds, I should find them both very pleasant places to live in. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey on securing another opportunity to raise in an Adjournment debate the important issue of environmental nuisance being suffered by his constituents.
  To understand something of the environment of Richmond one must appreciate its setting. It lies south of one of the many loops in the River Thames and is bounded on two sides by the open space areas of Kew Gardens, the Old Deer Park and Richmond Park. It is one of Greater London's most favoured residential areas, and the borough has more public open space than any of the 33 boroughs in Greater London.
  Because of the geographical nature of Richmond, its few major roads are channelled into narrow corridors between the open space areas and the Thames. Inevitably these roads are heavily trafficked, though no more so than many in other parts of London. I should make it clear that these major roads are the responsibility of the Greater London Council and that the Richmond-upon-Thames Council is responsible for the other roads. There are no trunk roads or motorways in that part of Greater London south of the Thames for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible. The Greater London Council is also the traffic authority for all roads in Greater London, except for trunk roads.
  The hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey complained about the proposed improvement of the Mortlake Road—Kew Road junction and that the area is suffering from the effects of juggernauts and helicopter noise. It may be helpful if I deal with each of the points in turn, as well as the additional point about Barnes High Street.
  Mortlake Road, the A.205, is a metropolitan principal road designated as part of the South Circular Road. The Greater London Council, as highway authority,
  428
  proposes to improve its junction with Kew Road because of the congestion which occurs there due to the narrowness of the immediate approaches and the large volume of traffic passing through the junction. Both roads carry a high proportion of large commercial vehicles. The overall carriageway width of Mortlake Road approaching the junction is only 21 ft. and the Greater London Council proposes to widen it to 38 ft., so providing two 11-ft. lanes for northbound traffic instead of the present single 10-ft. lane.
  A public local inquiry was held in February 1972. There was inevitably considerable opposition from residents who considered that such an important and heavily-used route was inappropriate in a residential area of considerable environmental and historic value. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that since then it has been designated a conservation area. The objectors felt that the improvement would perpetuate its use as part of the South Circular Road.
  However, in his report the inspector took the view that the scheme would be a justified and worthwhile improvement. He was of the opinion that the visual and environmental effects of the proposal would not be as harmful as many residents supposed and that the need for the scheme, together with possible alternatives, had been thoroughly investigated. The then Secretary of State accepted the inspector's recommendation and the compulsory purchase order was confirmed on 1st September 1972 and became operative six weeks later, not 1974, when the hon. Gentleman raised the matter in the House.
  Eight individual plots of land, all fronting on to Mortlake Road, amounting to a total of 409 sq. yds., are required for the scheme. As the garden walls of three houses which are included in the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest were to be demolished, a concurrent inquiry was held into this aspect. The inspector concluded that the gates, piers and walls associated with the curtilages of these buildings had no intrinsic architectural interest and were largely ignored when the street scene as a whole was contemplated. He therefore recommended that listed building consent be granted to demolish the walls, and the then Secretary of State accepted this recommendation also. The Greater

  429
  London Council served notices to treat under the compulsory purchase order on the landowners concerned on 12th September 1975, and I understand that work is due to start in 18 months' time subject to funds being available.
  This is a matter entirely for the Greater London Council. It is well aware of the objections raised by this proposal. As a council it is particularly concerned with environmental matters, but it is also responsible for traffic movement. It is for the GLC to weigh up the conflicting factors and decide how to proceed, and to take into consideration in its future decisions the fact that that part of Kew is now a conservation area.
  Sir Anthony Royle: Can the Minister quickly tell me what is the cost of this proposal?
  Mr. Marks: I have no figures available on the cost, but I shall try to let the hon. Gentleman have them.
  As for juggernauts, the Department is acutely aware of the problems caused by heavy goods vehicles on unsuitable roads. The responsibility for placing restrictions, if such are necessary, on lorry traffic in Greater London, other than on trunk roads, lies with the Greater London Council. That Council published in April a consultation document "Lorry Routes and Bans" and invited local authorities and other interested organisations to comment.
  The objections to the proposals related mainly to the physical conditions along
  430
  the routes and to the effects of heavy lorry traffic on those living alongside. Many objectors felt that routes were unsuitable by reason of narrowness, sharp bends, hills and other physical characteristics. Many expressed concern also at the potential danger of accidents and general hazards to pedestrians and other road users. People already living along the busier roads drew attention to the nuisance, particularly noise, to which they are subjected by heavy lorries.
  There was support for the principle of banning lorries from local areas and for a ban on lorries making through journeys within the area bounded by the North and South Circular Roads. At the same time there was opposition from people living on or near these routes on the ground that diverted traffic would worsen the existing conditions, especially on the South Circular Road.
  After having reviewed the response to this document, the Greater London Council has now decided to abandon for the present any attempt to introduce lorry routes in Greater London. Instead, it proposes to pursue a policy of identifying environmentally unsuitable areas from which heavy lorries can be banned—
  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 nineteen minutes past One o'clock.

  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  NORTH SEA OIL
  NORTH SEA OIL
  RENTED ACCOMMODATION (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  RENTED ACCOMMODATION (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  MOTOR INDUSTRY
  MOTOR INDUSTRY
  SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
  SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
  PRIME MINISTER OF ICELAND
  PRIME MINISTER OF ICELAND
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (HEADS OF GOVERNMENT)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (HEADS OF GOVERNMENT)
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY
  INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY
  TEXTILE TRADE UNIONS
  TEXTILE TRADE UNIONS
  UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION
  UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION
  FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
  FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
  PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO ROME)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO ROME)
  DEPARTMENTAL MAIL
  DEPARTMENTAL MAIL
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
EMPLOYMENT
  Pay Settlements
  Pay Settlements
  Newark-on-Trent (Riverside Facilities)
  Newark-on-Trent (Riverside Facilities)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Redundancy Pay
  Redundancy Pay
  Dock Workers' Employment Scheme
  Dock Workers' Employment Scheme
  Cost-of-Living Index
  Cost-of-Living Index
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
  Union Elections (Ballots)
  Union Elections (Ballots)
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
TRADE
  Import Controls
  Import Controls
  Policyholders Protection Board
  Policyholders Protection Board
  Free-Fall Parachute Clubs
  Free-Fall Parachute Clubs
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
  Exports and Imports
  Exports and Imports
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions (Increase) Act 1971
  Pensions (Increase) Act 1971
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Anti-Terrorist Strategy
  Anti-Terrorist Strategy
  Dangerous Driving
  Dangerous Driving
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
  Murder and Manslaughter
  Murder and Manslaughter
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Central and Local Government Expenditure
  Central and Local Government Expenditure
  State Ownership
  State Ownership
  Company Profits
  Company Profits
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Tax Revenue
  Tax Revenue
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
  Gross Trading Profits
  Gross Trading Profits
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Pensions (Inflation Proofing)
  Pensions (Inflation Proofing)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fruit Tree Imports (Quarantine)
  Fruit Tree Imports (Quarantine)
  Animal Diseases
  Animal Diseases
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Mastitis
  Mastitis
  Enzootic Bovine Leucosis
  Enzootic Bovine Leucosis
  Beer
  Beer
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
  SOCIAL ADMINISTRATION TRIBUNALS
  SOCIAL ADMINISTRATION TRIBUNALS
  INCITEMENT TO DISAFFECTION ACT
  INCITEMENT TO DISAFFECTION ACT
DEFENCE
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Overseas Forces (Broadcasting Service)
  Overseas Forces (Broadcasting Service)
  Government Industrial Establishments
  Government Industrial Establishments
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  HMS "Bulwark"
  HMS "Bulwark"
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Building Allocations
  Building Allocations
  Beer Primary School
  Beer Primary School
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
  School Inspectors
  School Inspectors
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
ENVIRONMENT
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Minibuses (EEC Regulations)
  Minibuses (EEC Regulations)
  Silvertown
  Silvertown
  Public Paths and Bridleways
  Public Paths and Bridleways
  Solent
  Solent
  Radioactive Waste (Locations)
  Radioactive Waste (Locations)
  Fire Insurers' Research and Testing Organisation
  Fire Insurers' Research and Testing Organisation
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Reclamation Schemes
  Reclamation Schemes
  Construction Workers
  Construction Workers
  Ports (Container Traffic Finance)
  Ports (Container Traffic Finance)
  Integrated Transport Policy (Coastal Shipping)
  Integrated Transport Policy (Coastal Shipping)
  Railways, London (Government Assistance)
  Railways, London (Government Assistance)
  Railway Closures
  Railway Closures
  Housing Expenditure (OECD Countries)
  Housing Expenditure (OECD Countries)
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Seat Belts (Driving Instructors)
  Seat Belts (Driving Instructors)
  Driving Instructors
  Driving Instructors
  Rates
  Rates
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Council Property, Liverpool
  Council Property, Liverpool
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
  Caravans
  Caravans
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Angola
  Angola
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Broadcasting and Monitoring Services
  Broadcasting and Monitoring Services
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Irish Nationals
  Irish Nationals
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Political Advisers
  Political Advisers
  Patent Law
  Patent Law
  Regional Resources
  Regional Resources
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Frauds and Abuses
  Frauds and Abuses
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Poverty Trap
  Poverty Trap
  Children and Young Persons
  Children and Young Persons
  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Cash Benefits
  Cash Benefits
  Self-Employed Persons
  Self-Employed Persons
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Battered Wives
  Battered Wives
  Agency Nurses
  Agency Nurses
  Pensioners (Fuel Costs)
  Pensioners (Fuel Costs)
  Citizens' Rights
  Citizens' Rights
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Republic of Ireland (Reciprocal Benefits)
  Republic of Ireland (Reciprocal Benefits)
  Mental Health Review Tribunals
  Mental Health Review Tribunals
  Hospital for Nervous Diseases, Bloomsbury (Nurse's Cats)
  Hospital for Nervous Diseases, Bloomsbury (Nurse's Cats)
  Dorset
  Dorset
  Disabled Persons (Medical Certificates)
  Disabled Persons (Medical Certificates)
  Benefit Recipients
  Benefit Recipients
  Kidney Research Centre, Cambridge
  Kidney Research Centre, Cambridge
  Equipment (Design, Installation and Maintenance)
  Equipment (Design, Installation and Maintenance)
  Council of Europe (Colloquy)
  Council of Europe (Colloquy)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Pensions
  Pensions
  National Health Service Staffs
  National Health Service Staffs
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Homoeopathy
  Homoeopathy
  Consultants
  Consultants
  National Health Service (Administration)
  National Health Service (Administration)
  National Hospital for Nervous Diseases
  National Hospital for Nervous Diseases
  Sterile Water
  Sterile Water
  Induced Births
  Induced Births
  Maternity Units, Birmingham
  Maternity Units, Birmingham
  Births in Ambulances
  Births in Ambulances
  Doctors (Extra Duty Allowances)
  Doctors (Extra Duty Allowances)
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
ENERGY
  Pensioners (Fuel Costs)
  Pensioners (Fuel Costs)
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
  Imports
  Imports
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Nuclear Power (Safety)
  Nuclear Power (Safety)
  Battery-Run Buses
  Battery-Run Buses
INDUSTRY
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Input-Output
  Input-Output
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
  Regional Development Incentives
  Regional Development Incentives
  WELSH ASSEMBLY
  WELSH ASSEMBLY
  SCOTTISH AND WELSH ASSEMBLIES
  SCOTTISH AND WELSH ASSEMBLIES
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Internees
  Internees
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
PRICES AND CONSUMER
  PROTECTION Rural Areas (Cost of Living)
  PROTECTION Rural Areas (Cost of Living)
  Float Glass
  Float Glass
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
WALES
  Factories
  Factories
  Snowdon Estate, Gwynedd
  Snowdon Estate, Gwynedd
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh National Water Development Authority
  Welsh National Water Development Authority
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Housing (Bedrooms)
  Housing (Bedrooms)
  Households
  Households
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
SCOTLAND
  Marriage Law Reform
  Marriage Law Reform
  Loch Ness (Wildlife)
  Loch Ness (Wildlife)
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Accounts Commission
  Accounts Commission

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

EUROPEAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS: MR. GOLDER
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make in respect of the findings of the European Court on Human Rights concerning the application by Mr. Golder.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has agreed to give effect to the ruling by abolishing the requirement for inmates of Prison Service establishments to petition for permission to engage in civil proceedings. Administrative arrangements have already been made in England and Wales and in Scotland, and will shortly be promulgated in Northern Ireland also, to allow any inmate to seek legal advice about taking civil legal proceedings. Subject to the availability of funds for that purpose, the inmate can then take such proceedings; provided that, where the proposed proceedings concern the administration of establishments, the complaint has first been ventilated through the normal internal channels to give management an opportunity to provide a remedy. In the case of England and Wales, amendments to the Prison Rules will be laid before Parliament. I understand that no amendment to the Rules in Scotland or Northern Ireland is necessary.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, which I must say is much more
812
helpful than I had expected. Can the noble Lord say whether the Government in general feel themselves bound by any decisions of the European Court on Human Rights which refer to them, or whether it is simply in this case that they have been specially concerned?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the appeal court, when it made its decision, held that countries are bound to Article No. 6 and, in certain respects, Article No. 8 and it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to abide by the decision.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, in order to avoid further proceedings against Her Majesty's Government, would the noble Lord pass on to Mr. Foot the request that he should make his unemployment regulations conform with the European Convention and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in so far as they are likely to apply to the Ferry bridge six?
Several Noble Lords: Answer! answer!
Lord BYERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal preventing the Minister from answering?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): Certainly, my Lords, because the noble and learned Lord must be well aware that the supplementary question hardly arose from the original Question on the Order Paper.

VAT AND AGRICULTURAL ACCOUNTS
2.39 p.m.
Lord ALLERTON: 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 there would be a saving in administrative expenses if items upon which VAT is returned were zero rated in agricultural accounts.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, if a supplier had to charge a zero rate on supplies to farmers and a positive rate

813
on supplies to other customers his accounts would be more complicated and more costly to maintain. Likewise the work of Customs and Excise would be more detailed and more costly. There is also the practical difficulty that the supplier would have no means of knowing whether or not supplies related to a zero rated activity.
Lord ALLERTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but may I ask whether he is aware that to the ordinary businessman it seems a curious practice to pay one lot of people to collect a tax and another lot of people to return it?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is at the heart of VAT because it is a tax at each stage. Nevertheless, all the Western countries have come to the conclusion that it is the best of the alternatives for indirect taxation on goods and services.

NATIONAL DEBT STATISTICS
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state, as at the latest date for which figures are available, the total amount of the United Kingdom National Debt and whether, as a positive contribution towards informed public discussion as to the merits or otherwise of Scottish and Welsh separatism, they will indicate the approximate share of the National Debt attributable to Scotland and Wales respectively and the annual cost, in each case, of servicing these shares.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the total outstanding United Kingdom National Debt on 31st March 1975 was £45,925 million. The Government firmly reject separatism for Scotland and Wales. The question of apportioning shares of the National Debt to Scotland and Wales does not therefore arise. The National Debt will continue to be serviced as a whole from United Kingdom resources as part of the management of the single United Kingdom economy.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that his Answer means that it is quite impracticable to divide the assets or liabilities of the nation as a whole according to some preconceived geographical basis?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it is quite impossible to allocate the National Debt between countries on the basis of the relevant benefit from the expenditure which gave rise to it.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what was the size of the Debt in the previous year, and in the year before that? What is the current cost of servicing that Debt?
Lord JACQUES: Yes, my Lords; we can tell the noble Lord that. Let us work in thousands of millions. As I have said in 1975 it was £45 thousand million, in 1974 it was £40 thousand million, and in 1973 it was £36 thousand million. If the noble Lord wishes I can go back to 1964.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us the other figure for which I asked that is, the cost of servicing this appalling weight of debt?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have no information available on the cost of servicing the debt, but if the noble Lord would care to put down a Question on that matter would hope to be able to answer it.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in the light of my noble friend's first reply, when he made reference to separation, may I ask him whether he is aware that, if devolution takes place as between this country and Scotland and Wales, it can lead only to separation? If such devolution takes place, is it not right that further consideration should be given to the order of devolution so as to provide for the removal of some payment from the capital debt that these nations have to bear?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there are two answers to that question. First, the Government completely reject the proposition that the devolution that is outlined in the White Paper will inevitably lead to separation. I am afraid I have forgotten what the second answer is. Having forgotten it, I will leave it.

CIVIL DEFENCE
2.44 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 civil defense measures are being maintained as an assurance of reasonable security in the event of possible aggression.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have pursued a policy whereby both central and local civil defense measures, backed by appropriate plans, facilities and communications, are maintained and kept up to date. The plans to put essential services on to a war-time footing would be implemented if it became necessary to do so.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer, but may I ask him whether he is aware that, in the absence of details, one is entitled to ask for more definite assurances of what planning has been undertaken in order to ensure that a reasonable measure of security can be effected? Is my noble friend aware of the tension that exists in almost every part of the world at the present time, and that we have to have regard to eventualities, possibilities, probabilities, in international affairs? Is he further aware that, although I do not expect the Government to indulge in excessive expenditure on civil defense at this time, at any rate we should like an assurance that plans are effective and are likely to prove adequate in time of need?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can quite honestly give my noble friend and your Lordships an assurance that the plans are considered by the Government to be effective. It would not be in the national interest to examine in greater detail the actual measures that are being taken, and I am sure the House would not want to press me on this, but the civil defense measures in the United Kingdom are commensurate with those of similar countries in the North Atlantic Alliance and we are working very closely with those countries. Your Lordships may
816
know that the Home Defense College near York, which is run by the Home Office, arranges a continuous series of well-attended studies in civil defense and related peace-time emergencies, which are for senior officials from central and local government and the nationalised industries. I do not think I can take it beyond that.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while I do not wish to press the noble Lord for further details, would he not agree that planning without training is not very effective, and could he not say something about the training other than that of senior Government officials and officials from the nationalised industries? What is the scope of the training put in hand, and roughly what numbers are involved? Otherwise, one is led to feel that this provision exists on paper but would not be very effective on the day of reckoning.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord is talking about widespread training, that is not the situation at the present moment in regard to ordinary people. The important thing, as the Government see it, is to have more than a nucleus—a substantial number of people—from local and central government, as I have mentioned, and from the nationalised industries, who themselves receive training and are kept up to date so that if an emergency arises the plans can be put into operation very quickly. This is the sort of thing that we have been very good at in the past.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some years ago the Chiefs of Staff advised that an attack by 13 nuclear weapons would make it impossible for this country to exist as a unified State; that we are within immediate range of no fewer than 600 Soviet medium-range missiles, and that in these circumstances civil defense arrangements have as much relevance as a fertility dance?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, what the noble Lord says may well be correct, but the fact is that, knowing the position as we do and have known it for a good number of years—and we are not unmindful of the strength of certain nations—we nevertheless have responsibility to do something to counteract the effects if such a situation should arise.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the noble Lord therefore see that the defense cuts are not carried out as they are threatened at the moment?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Baroness says.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, if civil defense really became a necessity it would amount to a major national catastrophy. In the circumstances, is it not true that to leave the concept of civil defense in the hands of the Home Office is itself an indication of the utter absurdity of what the Minister is outlining? Very clearly, in the case of a catastrophy the matter ought to be in the hands of the Armed Forces; they should be trained and they should in fact be doing the thinking to deal with such a problem.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are working on the assumption that the Armed Forces are not being trained also to help in this situation; but I will convey to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend take note that we must disregard the possibility of nuclear aggression but have regard to the possibility of conventional aggression? In those circumstances, as in the case of military defense itself against the possibility of aggression, is my noble friend aware that many of us—at any rate, I speak for myself in this matter and I am not afraid to speak for myself—are a little concerned about the absence of knowledge which would provide the assurances which would go a long way to statisfy us; and that, therefore, an assurance from the Government that things are all right is far from satisfactory?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will convey what my noble friend has said to my right honourable friend to see whether it is possible to give more information along the lines that he has suggested.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill, which extends only to Northern Ireland, is designed to improve the Statute Law in force in that part of the United Kingdom by repealing obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded enactments. Although most of the Bill's provisions could be effected by an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, the Bill follows a precedent set in 1973, when Statute Law revision matters in Northern Ireland were dealt with by Bill and not Order in Council under the Act then in force relating to direct rule. It was considered at that time, and it is a view which this Government endorse, that legislation relating solely to Statute Law revision should go through the normal Parliamentary procedure for Statute Law revision enactments and thus be dealt with by the Joint Committee on Consolidation and Statute Law Revision.
I am happy to say that the Joint Committee has kindly agreed to assume the considerable burden of scrutinising the large number of detailed repeals proposed in the Bill. The Government and, I am sure, your Lordships' House as well, are duly grateful to the Committee and especially its Chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for undertaking this task. The Committee and its Chairman perform an important function in these matters generally. This House, and indeed all users of the Statute Book, owe a great deal to them for the important part they play in the revision and consolidation of the Statute Law in England and Wales, Scotland and, for this Bill, Northern Ireland.
My Lords, the Bill repeals 41 whole Acts or their equivalent and effects repeals in 221 enactments. There is no point in my explaining the repeals in detail; your Lordships will observe that they cover a wide range of matters. In Part IX of the Schedule, for example, there are proposed for repeal certain provisions of the Grand Juries (Ireland) Act 1836 which fixed annual salaries for certain officials connected with the administration of justice. For example, a Class

819
I Prison Apothecary in County Donegal was to be paid a salary of £74 per annum, whereas a Class VI Crier at Sessions in the town of Drogheda was to be paid a mere £6. These and other important provisions are now deemed to be obsolete and will go. However, these and other provisions of the Bill will be considered by the Joint Committee in due course.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I should like to say that this is a very praiseworthy exercise and to join in the tribute which the noble and learned Lord has himself paid to the Chairman and Committee. I only wish that more Statutes were being repealed.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

FATAL ACCIDENTS AND SUDDEN DEATHS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Its purpose is to consolidate the legislation governing public inquiries into deaths in Scotland and to modernise the procedure followed at such inquiries. With one important exception, to which I will refer shortly, this Bill implements the recommendations made by the Grant Committee on the sheriff court in its Report published in July 1967. In particular, it provides that inquiries are to be held by the sheriff sitting alone, in place of the present cumbersome system whereby inquiries are held by the sheriff and a jury of seven people—a procedure which makes inquiries unnecessarily long and expensive. Apart from this, the Bill clarifies the powers of a sheriff in such inquiries and makes various procedural changes which will tend to facilitate the efficient conduct of inquiries.
There is, however, a more particular reason why legislation on this subject has now become urgent. There is considerable doubt as to whether it is competent
820
for the sheriff to hold fatal accident inquiries into deaths occurring in connection with oil operations on the part of the Continental Shelf to which Scots law applies. As a result of this doubt, the Lord Advocate had to order that no further inquiries should be held into such deaths. This is plainly unsatisfactory in view of the number of fatal accidents which have occurred in connection with oil operations and the resulting public concern regarding their safety.
This gap in the law has now been partially closed by the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Order 1975 which came into force on 20th November 1975. This gives the sheriff jurisdiction to hold fatal accident inquiries into deaths occurring in connection with mineral operations in the Scottish area of the Continental Shelf, but only where the cause of the accident is clearly the act or omission of some person. This restriction is necessary to keep within the terms of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 under which the order is made. But it still leaves the situation unsatisfactory, since there may well be many cases where it is impossible to tell, prior to holding an inquiry, whether the death resulted from the act or omission of some person or was purely accidental. The Government therefore consider it essential that the sheriff be given power to hold inquiries into all cases of accidental death occurring in connection with mineral operations on the Continental Shelf, and this the present Bill does.
Before looking at the provisions of the Bill in more detail, I should perhaps say something about when fatal accident inquiries are held in Scotland. Firstly, under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895 where an employee or an employer dies as a result of an accident occurring in the course of industrial employment, an inquiry must be held. Secondly, under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1906, the Lord Advocate has a discretion to order a public inquiry into a "sudden or suspicious" death occurring in any circumstances, where he thinks this is in the public interest. In both these cases the inquiry is before a sheriff and jury. In addition to these fatal accident inquiries the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 provides that an inquiry must be held into any death of a prisoner in a prison.

821
In this case the inquiry is normally held before the sheriff without a jury. Other Statutes, perhaps most notably the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 also make provision for inquiries but these inquiries are not before the sheriff.
After due deliberation, the Grant Committee in its Report recommended that the provision in the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895 that an inquiry must be held in every case of death resulting from an industrial accident should be repealed, and that instead an inquiry should be held into a fatal accident only where the Lord Advocate considered that it was desirable. Extensive consultations have been undertaken in connection with all the Grant Committee recommendations regarding fatal accidents, and in August 1973 a Consultative Paper was circulated among all bodies having an interest in this matter. The Scottish Trades Union Congress made very strong representations against the proposal that mandatory inquiries into industrial accidents should be abolished and, after very careful consideration of these representations and all other comments made regarding this point, the Government have decided that it would be unwise and possibly even harmful to abolish this requirement. I would mention that the Law Society of Scotland also made representations to this effect though these representations were subsequently withdrawn.
In this Bill in fact we propose to extend in two respects the circumstances in which inquiries must be held. In the first place, the Bill requires an inquiry to be held into any death which results from an accident in the course of any employment, whereas at present inquiries need only be held into deaths resulting from accidents in industrial employment. Thus, under the Bill inquiries will now be required to be held, for instance, into deaths of employees, employers and self-employed persons, resulting from accidents in offices, shops, schools and hospitals. To the Government it appears quite indefensible to draw a distinction in this respect between industrial and non-industrial employment. We should be equally concerned with the safety of the whole workforce, and developments such as the increased use of office machinery have plainly greatly increased the risks in non-industrial employment. I would therefore
822
hope this extension will receive your Lordships' support.
In the second place the Bill requires that there shall be an inquiry into deaths of all persons in custody. At present it is only the deaths of prisoners in prisons which must be investigated by a public inquiry. This extension will cover, for instance, people who have been arrested but have not yet appeared before the court. It is clearly highly desirable that the death of any person in these circumstances should automatically be subject to public inquiry and I would hope that this too will be generally supported.
Turning to the actual provisions of the Bill, Clause 1 sets out the circumstances in which an inquiry must be held—extended as I have indicated—and the circumstances in which the Lord Advocate has a discretion to order an inquiry. I would mention that under Clause 1(1)(b) this discretion of the Lord Advocate extends not merely to deaths occurring after the Bill comes into force but also to deaths occurring up to three years before the Bill comes into force. The purpose of this is to enable inquiries to be held, if it is thought necessary, into deaths in connection with oil operations on the Continental Shelf where fatal accident inquiries have not been held because of the possible gap in the law to which I have already referred. Such cases will be comparatively few, but it is clearly desirable that they be investigated. I would stress that this provision is retrospective only in the sense that it allows future inquiry into past deaths. It does not retrospectively alter the rights of any person.
Clause 2 gives the procurator fiscal in investigating a death for the purposes of an inquiry the right to obtain compulsory statements from witnesses. He had not this power before. It is in line with his powers in criminal cases and should make for more effective investigation. I would stress that it is only if a witness disobeys an order of the sheriff to give a statement that he is penalised under this clause, and the sheriff need only give such an order if he thinks it expedient. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 provide for the procedure at an inquiry. The only major departure from existing practice is that the sheriff will now preside alone, without a jury. Clause 4(4) gives the sheriff a new power

823
to impose restrictions on reporting where a person under 17 is involved. This is in line with practice in legal proceedings involving children under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
Clause 6 provides what findings may be made by the sheriff at the conclusion of the inquiry. The main departure from existing practice is that there is no necessity to make a finding of fault where appropriate. This is because the purpose of the inquiry is essentially to find out facts, not to make accusations based upon them. There is nothing, however, to prevent a sheriff identifying a person's act or omission as the cause of the accident where this is clearly the case. Another important provision of Clause 6 is that the sheriff's findings may be based on the evidence of one witness where appropriate. This is a relaxation of the strict Scottish rule that all evidence must be corroborated. The application of the strict rule seems inappropriate in a fatal accident inquiry, which is designed to elicit facts rather than to determine people's legal rights or obligations.
Clause 7 gives the Lord Advocate power to modify procedure by rules. There is no such power under the present legislation, and the provision of such power is desirable to enable flexibility in adjusting the procedure to changing circumstances. Clause 8 and the Schedule make changes to certain other enactments which provide, in particular fields, for public inquiries to ensure there is no duplication of inquiries under those acts and inquiries under this Bill. Clause 9 makes the important extension of the jurisdiction to hold inquiries into accidents and deaths occurring in connection with mineral operations on the Continental Shelf. I have already explained at the outset of my remarks the reasons for this.
In conclusion, I would say that this Bill represents a sensible and desirable measure of law reform which will make public inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths quicker, cheaper and more effective; it makes a highly desirable extension of the mandatory requirement to hold inquiries to cover fatal accidents to non-industrial workers, and to cover deaths of people in custody other than prisoners in prisons; and finally, and
824
most importantly, it enables public inquiries into all cases of fatal accidents connected with oil operations on the Continental Shelf. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he tell us where the Scottish area of the Continental Shelf is defined?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I will pick up that point later in the debate.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
3.10 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having explained so clearly the purpose of this Bill. It seeks to bring up to date the present legislation and to replace and repeal the three previous relevant Acts. I am sure that that purpose is not controversial and that the House will support the principle of the Bill. There is, perhaps, a point of substance which needs very careful consideration: that is, whether it is right to dispense with juries in every single case. That is something on which the Government have decided and it was a recommendation of the Grant Committee, but I shall give an example or two later to indicate that this is a matter of some importance on which the House will have to decide.
For those familiar with the system South of the Border, I think it might be helpful to explain that in Scotland there is no such thing as an inquest and there are no coroners. That is the chief reason why in certain circumstances there is a need for fatal accident inquiries. As the noble Lord the Minister has told us, the present system requires the Lord Advocate to call a fatal accident inquiry into being in certain circumstances, and these include accidents in industrial employment. In those cases a fatal accident inquiry is obligatory. At present, the Lord Advocate has discretion to decide whether or not to hold inquiries in other circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was explaining to us a few minutes ago the changes suggested in this Bill. First, it is suggested that in future a fatal accident inquiry should be mandatory for an accident occurring during

825
any employment and not restricted to industrial employment. I notice that the words "or occupation" are included in the Bill, so it seems that an accident in virtually any kind of employment will now fall within the scope of this Bill. Secondly, the Bill spells out that an inquiry must be held—it is not left to the discretion of the Lord Advocate—whenever there is an accident when a person is in legal custody and not simply in prison.
I think this, too, could be a controversial point because it extends the mandatory element in the present system, and I am sure this is something we shall all want to consider at Committee stage. I recognise that the object of the Government is to enable the procedure to work more quickly and effectively, but I am sure that this extension of the mandatory element needs to be considered very carefully.
I think we can agree that the Bill would improve the present procedure by enabling it to be carried out more quickly. From what the noble Lord said, it is clear that it would also reduce expenditure and, I suggest, would in addition save the time of jurors in Scotland. But there is the question of whether it is right to dispense with juries in all cases in order to achieve quicker results. The noble Lord the Minister knew that I was concerned about this and has been good enough to write to me. I am prepared to accept the recommendation of the Grant Committee and I believe we can agree to dispense with all juries in all cases. However, I should like to draw attention to the Ibrox incident. While we hope there will not be disasters of that magnitude in the future, the tragic accident at the Rangers and Celtic match at Ibrox at the beginning of 1971, causing 66 deaths, was justifiably the subject of a very full inquiry under the existing legislation. The question of crowd safety at such sporting events has been a matter of great public concern. The results of that inquiry, together with the subsequent recommendations of the Committee which was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, have led to proposals to avoid a repetition of that kind of accident. If there are disasters of that magnitude in future, it is proposed that there shall be no jury but that the
826
matter shall be decided by a sheriff, to be appointed by the Lord Advocate.
We come now to the question of witnesses, referred to in Clause 5. As I see it, there is a safeguard about the admissibility of evidence. I am not sure whether it has been repeated from the present legislation, and perhaps the noble Lord can tell us about that later; but it protects a witness from admissibility of evidence in any other judicial proceedings. I presume this protection is to enable a witness to speak up freely at an inquiry. The noble Lord, in his introduction of the Bill, touched on the question of recommendations by an inquiry. He pointed out that the Bill does not in future require a sheriff to find fault, but there seems to be very little said about recommendations in the Bill.
The present position, as I understand it, whether or not it is written into the Statutes, is that a sheriff holding a public inquiry under the fatal accidents legislation is free to make recommendations. Such recommendations have been very valuable in certain circumstances, their purpose, of course, being to enable any necessary preventive action to be taken immediately so as to avoid a repetition of that kind of accident. So I should be glad if the noble Lord could tell us a little more about the question of recommendations and whether, even though this is not written into the Bill, the chairman of an inquiry none the less in future will be able to make a recommendation arising from his findings at the inquiry.
It is appropriate that this Bill should extend the scope of the fatal accident procedure to the part of the continental shelf to which Scots law applies. In the bid to win North Sea oil soon, there have been, unfortunately, several fatal accidents involving divers. In future, presumably, it will be possible for all accidents based on oil and gas installations on the continental shelf covered by Scots law to be investigated through the procedure to be followed on land. I hope this will help to provide information quickly and lead to the prevention of similar accidents. This is possible because of international agreement on the treatment of the continental shelf. Here I come to a point which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde raised a moment ago. There is no allocation of sovereignty under the agreement

827
which, as I recollect it, was made in Geneva in the 1950s. Nor is it a question of allocating sovereignty of the sea or the seabed, beyond the territorial limit. This is a practical arrangement, allocating the right to countries of exploration and extraction of substances from the continental shelf. With it, there is the attendant right to legislate in certain matters including those concerning safety.
Under Clause 9 an arrangement is made for applying this Bill to what is called the Scottish area of the continental shelf. In the 1960s, for administrative convenience a line was drawn directly East from the Border to the median in the North Sea to divide jurisdiction on the continental shelf between the Scots law and English law; this is the point which my noble friend raised.
But it must be made clear that under the international rules for frontiers and medians, which have applied between separate sovereign countries in the allocation of the continental shelf in the North Sea, and which were arranged quite quickly in 1963 and 1964, the line would be drawn North-East from the Border into the North Sea. Scots law is, to some extent, now extended further than it would be if the principle of frontiers and medians, which was used in the North Sea, had been applied. Indeed, some oilfields would be in England's sector of the North Sea if that system were ever to be applied.
I should also point out that, if fragmentation of the United Kingdom into separate countries were ever to happen, the Shetland Islands would most probably opt for independence and, under the same international rules which have been applied to the North Sea by agreement of all concerned, the majority of the oil so far discovered would be in the Shetland sector. Once one begins dividing up in this kind of way it can lead to strange situations.
The second paragraph of Clause 9 goes some way in making clear that this is at present arranged as a matter of administrative convenience within the United Kingdom. As a result, as I have just said, Scots law extends somewhat further than it would if the North Sea were treated on a median and frontier principle within the United Kingdom. But I would ask
828
the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, whether he can tell us how the jurisdiction of the shelf is to be divided within Scotland. Will it be clear which procurator fiscal and which sheriff are involved in a particular case? Will a chart have to be studied to determine whether the position of a rig is in the area of one authority or another? This is the kind of query which we can pursue at the Committee stage and which I am sure other noble Lords will wish to raise, but the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, may be able to tell us something in general now. Doubtless we shall have points of this kind to raise when we reach the Committee stage, but I hope that the passage of this Bill, perhaps with some amendment, will improve the present procedure for fatal accident inquiries.
3.23 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has left me very little to say, but I should like to make one or two points on this sensible and very necessary Bill. It is true that in the North Sea at the present time we are—to use a hackneyed phrase—right at the frontiers of technology. Enormous sums are being paid in wages to young men who are willing to take risks, and I believe that approximately 19 young men have died in diving accidents. Certainly, a young man is entitled to risk his life for money, but a Government have a duty to see that the rules of safety are observed, and this Bill, with its sensible provision to force the Lord Advocate to order an inquiry in the case of death on the continental shelf, is very right and timely.
The provision to make a public inquiry mandatory in the case of death in custody of any sort is also sensible, and in line with the needs of a freedom loving democracy. But I maintain that it would be possible to safeguard individuals by making an inquiry mandatory in the case of death from industrial injury if some of the interested parties demand one. I am told that many inquiries are unnecessary, and I should have thought that the objections of the trade unions would have been met if a provision had been inserted stating simply that where an interested party demanded an inquiry it ought to be held.

829
I welcome the abolition of the jury. In all the inquiries with which I have had anything to do the sheriff has told the jury exactly what they should say. In some cases they have been stupid enough to reject the advice; but in most cases juries are unnecessary, and I should have thought that in technical cases the provision of a qualified assessor was infinitely more valuable than 15 uninstructed good men and true. So that the Bill is sensible. It is bringing up to date the law with regard to new technology, and we welcome it so far as it goes.
I should like to take a little further the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as regards the area covered by the Bill. I know nothing about international law; but I know something about politics in Scotland, and your Lordships can bet your boots that this Bill will be cited if ever we have a situation where the separatists gain power in Scotland—and some recent by-elections indicate a danger of that. The Bill says that an inquiry must be held when a person has died in Scotland while in legal custody, and goes on to say that the continental shelf should be treated as Scotland in this regard. This Bill may well be cited and I think that the Government who, in their White Paper on devolution, have made such a mess of good intentions as regard Scotland, need to be very careful about what they are doing.
I believe that Scotland should get more than her 10 per cent. share of the revenues, but I am not one of those who think that it is better to be a rich Scot than a poor Briton. However, I feel that the Government should be very careful about what they are doing here. It is true that if you draw a line East from Berwickon-Tweed you include the whole of the valuable oil areas; but if you follow the frontier line—I do not know whether or not this is international, but it is a practice set in the division of the North Sea—you almost exclude the Forties field, depending upon where you draw the line, and a great many other valuable fields.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I may have been in danger of over-simplifying the procedure. It is a very complicated, agreed international procedure, where you start by drawing a
830
tangent where the frontier meets the sea, but it is generally accepted.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, it was accepted in this case. But, anyhow, both the noble Lord and I agree that there is a great danger that this Bill may be quoted in a different context, and we want the Government to make quite clear exactly what they mean by saying that the writ of Scottish law now runs right out East to the Continental Shelf from North Berwick. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to be quite explicit about what he means by the "Scottish area of the continental shelf", and about what restrictions he places on the meaning.
3.29 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, there is little that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said with which I disagree, but I am bound to say that I feel fairly strongly about the area of disagreement between us. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, have described this Bill as a sensible measure, as indeed in most respects it is, and it takes a little courage, perhaps, to introduce a somewhat different note and to suggest that everything in the garden is not quite right so far as this Bill is concerned, and that the way in which such matters have been handled by the Government should be called into question before your Lordships give approval in principle to the Bill.
Before I deal shortly with the Bill I should, for the sake of prudence, declare an interest. The matters with which this Bill are concerned lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the sheriff court in Scotland and I hold the office of Sheriff Principal of Glasgow and Strathkelvin, in terms of population the largest of the six sheriffdoms into which Scotland is divided. Prior to assuming that office, for my sins—for I can think of no other reason—I discharged the duties of the Director of the Scottish Courts Administration. This was a body which was established to discharge on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland the duties, inter alia, in relation to the sheriff court which were imposed upon the Secretary of State for Scotland by the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971.

831
To turn to the Bill, there are a number of points on clauses which no doubt your Lordships will wish to consider in Committee. Beyond that, the Bill appears, at its best, to be a sensible and long overdue measure and, at its worst, a quite innocuous little measure. However, there is one provision in the Bill which your Lordships might regard as quite mistaken. Whether your Lordships will so regard it will perhaps depend on whether the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, can give satisfactory answers to a number of questions which have to be put from the point of view of those of us who will have responsibility for operating the provisions of this Act in the courts. The provision concerned is contained in Clause 1(1)(a)(i) which flies in the face of the recommendation of the Grant Committee on the sheriff court. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, conceded that point in opening the debate but I thought he glossed over it, so let us look at it a little further.
It will inevitably lead to a significant and unnecessary increase in the number of such inquiries. I say "inevitably" because inquiries become obligatory in a much wider range of case than that of the industrial fatal accident which is covered by the 1895 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, sought to justify that Act in terms of the protection which it gives to those in other than industrial employment. Those of us who have experience of conducting inquiries hope that something more effective will be provided to that end. I say "unnecessary" for reasons to which I shall turn in a moment, but the consequence will undoubtedly be to place an additional burden on courts which in the busy centres already function less efficiently than they should, in part because they have been starved of resources by central Government. I see from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that the Government, for reasons which I certainly cannot appreciate, do not intend to give Scotland any additional resources to deal with this additional work.
To bring the matter into focus, may I invite your Lordships again to look at the situation as it is now. There are two types of inquiry. First, there are the mandatory inquiries under the 1895 Act. These are restricted to fatal accidents involving
832
persons who are engaged in industrial employment, and "industrial employment" is defined restrictively. Secondly, there are the inquiries under the 1906 Act which gives discretion to the Lord Advocate to order an inquiry into any sudden or suspicious death if he thinks that this is expedient in the public interest.
In modern times certain features of these inquiries have given ground for criticism. The Grant Committee on the Sheriff Courts made certain recommendations upon them and I do not think that they can be dismissed quite so lightly as, with respect, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, appeared to dismiss them. The Committee was presided over by the then Lord Justice Clerk, the No. 2 in Scotland's judicial hierarchy. The Committee was eminently well qualified to pronounce on what was wrong in this as in other spheres of the sheriff courts' work and its conclusions and recommendations numbered 375.
Speaking from recollection, with the exception of this recommendation, the remainder have been accepted by successive Governments. The process of implementation was put in hand by a Labour Government and taken on by a Conservative Government. Its recommendations on this matter are to be found at you from paragraphs 317 to 322 of the Report and I make no apology to your Lordships for quoting them to Command 3248. They say:
" We take the view … that the compulsory fatal accident inquiry under the [1895] Act serves no very useful purpose and should be abolished.… Inquiries of this kind may have served a useful purpose in the industrial conditions that prevailed at the end of the last century, but the existence of an effective corps of factory inspectors and inspectors of mines, and the enforcement of the Factories Acts and similar legislation, … provide a more effective method of dealing with problems arising out of working conditions".
This is my point. They recommended that the obligatory inquiry should disappear because they thought that it served no useful purpose.
The Committee went on to recognise that there would be occasions when the cause and circumstances of a sudden death would give rise to public anxiety and when the holding of an independent judicial inquiry would be desirable in the public interest. Accordingly, they

833
recommended the retention of the Lord Advocate's discretion under the 1906 Act. It is generally accepted that its provisions were sufficiently wide to cover industrial as well as other fatal accidents. Accordingly, the Committee's recommendation was that all fatal accident inquiries should be regulated by its provisions. The discretion of the Lord Advocate is part of the Scottish legal tradition. The Lord Advocate looks at these matters in a quasi-judicial way and decides, on a quasi-judicial basis, whether or not an inquiry should be held.
Why have the Government not only rejected that recommendation but flown off in the opposite direction? There is no doubt that the Committee's view is shared by most people with experience in the field, but if after the necessary consultations the Government had decided to maintain the status quo—that is, to keep obligatory inquiries for industrial fatal accidents and discretionary ones for the others—no great harm would have been done and I do not suppose that we should have argued very much about it. But what they have done is objectionable on two grounds. First, they not merely reject the recommendation of the Committee but romp off in the opposite direction. The possibility of increasing the scope for mandatory inquiries was never mooted before the Grant Committee. If it was, they did not think it worth a mention, and they were right. In the absence of a mention, it is fair to assume that they thought that it did not merit consideration—as, indeed, I submit it does not. The second ground on which this provision is objectionable is that there was no proper consultation whatsoever with the sheriffs principal on this proposal.
At one stage the noble Lord said that there had been full consultation. A detailed consultative paper was circulated, as he said, in August 1973. But the omission to consult with the sheriffs principal on the terms of Clause 1(1)(a) (i) of this Bill was certainly a serious one. I do not want to overstate the matter and suggest that it was shocking, because that might sound as if I was worried because they had not come and asked us what we thought of it. I think it was a little shocking because the consultative paper which was the only communication
834
from the Government to the sheriffs stated quite unequivocally:
" It is proposed that new legislation should be introduced, giving effect to the two specific recommendations of the Grant Committee."
The importance of this is that the sheriffs principal are not just judges; they are not just the judicial heads of the court. Parliament has imposed on them more extensive duties than that. They are by Statute responsible for the speedy and efficient disposal of business within their courts, and this provision in this Bill, I can assure your Lordships, certainly does nothing to promote the efficient working of the court and it may—and the question should be considered—in certain busy areas, impede it. If the Government will not accept my view of this, I invite them to seek that of the other sheriffs principal and sheriffs, as I suggest they ought already to have done.
Against that background—and I hope I have not introduced an undesirable note of controversy in relation to this otherwise sensible little measure—Iwould invite the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to answer these questions. In spite of what he said about consultation, does he agree that the sheriffs principal were never consulted on Clause 1(1)(a)(i) and that in the course of such consultations as took place they were told that the Government's objective was, subject to Parliamentary approval, that mandatory inquiries would he abolished? Does the noble Lord agree that the sheriffs principal ought to have been consulted, particularly since they have been led to believe that the two recommendations of the Grant Committee would be implemented? Does he agree—and we should like to know for the future—that this was an elementary oversight for which someone should be asked to answer? Were the sheriffs, the Scottish Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland or the STUC consulted on the proposal that is contained in Clause 1(1)(a)(i) of this Bill? Was anyone outside the magic circle of the Crown Office in Edinburgh consulted about it?
Finally, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the circumstances by which this provision will make life easier for Crown Counsel and the staff of the Crown Office played any part in the

835
decision to put this provision into the Bill'? I hope the Minister will not be prompted to suggest that this is an unworthy suggestion to make, because to anyone who knows the Scottish legal background it is a very pertinent question and no one with whom I have discussed this matter can suggest any other reason for its introduction—and if that is the reason it is a thoroughly bad one. Your Lordships may feel that I have detained the House for too long over a piece of legislation that is perhaps of less than earth-shattering importance, but I venture to hope that I have satisfied your Lordships that there are questions which should be answered today, not only on the terms of the Bill but on the background to the preparation of this piece of legislation and the basis on which the Government conduct consultations with the people who are involved in carrying out in the field the legislation which is passed by Parliament.
3.45 p.m.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I am sorry to intrude. I really came in for the next piece of legislation but having listened to this debate I feel compelled to say a word or two in reply to what has been said. Indeed when the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, introduced this Bill this afternoon I thought he was in fact meeting the wishes of the people of Scotland. I never heard anything to the contrary and I am a little surprised at what has taken place. I will not say one word of criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has delivered more speeches in this House in two months than he did in five years in the place next door. I have been grateful for them, but it does not prove that he has been an expert on every one of them and I suggest that the criticisms he has made of this Bill this afternoon fell into that group. I also listened to a very old friend of mine, Lord Mackie of Benshie. He had no contribution to make, except to say that it was rather shocking. Anybody can get up and say that about any piece of legislation, but in your Lordships' House we expect an argument to back our opinions, and this was sadly lacking.
So I will turn my argument to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Lang side. I have known the noble Lord for a long time and am
836
a little surprised at the criticism he made of this Bill. What is he saying? He said "We were not consulted": Who are the "we" he is talking about? He is talking about the sheriffs of Scotland or else he is not talking about anyone in Scotland.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I also asked whether the Scottish TUC had been consulted.
Lord HOY: All right, my Lords. I do not mind the Scottish TUC being consulted but I might reply and ask why the Scottish CBI had not been consulted, because the two organisations are parallel, one representing the employees and the other the employers. All I am saying on this particular issue is that if we are going to legislate for law in Scotland we must find a reason for so doing, and when my noble friend Lord Kirkhill introduces this Bill this afternoon it should not be forgotten that he is doing so in response to desires expressed in Scotland. It may well be true that on one or two occasions the sheriffs have felt that they were not consulted.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, if the desire has been expressed by Scotland at this end, why was it not expressed to the Grant Committee? Who has expressed a desire for mandatory inquiries in Scotland—can my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, tell us that?
Lord HOY: No, my Lords, it is not my job to tell anybody in this House who has expressed anything. I might point out to the noble Lord that many people make requests to the Government who do not come and tell the Back Benchers what those requests are. That is a matter for the Government, because no matter what my personal opinions might be the decisions have to be made by the Front Bench and by no one else. All I am saying to the noble Lord is this. If in fact I am interested in legislation—and I have been over a long number of years—and if I have an opinion to make, then I take very good care (if I may put it very mildly) that the Government will know what my opinion is. I regret to think that the sheriffs have failed in this respect. I have a tremendous respect for the sheriffs in Scotland and when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, says that they

837
want to get on with the administration of justice I should like to tell the noble Lord that I agree with him.
I live in the City of Edinburgh and I look at the whole of Scotland generally. Apparently we have one great weakness in the administration of law: we take a long time to do it, and we do not altogether absolve the sheriff's Bench from this trouble. So I say to the noble Lord that what we want to do is to expedite the law, but to do so accurately and well so that it records justice and not mere exploitation. To do otherwise brings no justice to anyone. When we are doing this, we must ensure that the people who are informed receive justice from the courts whether it be in the higher court or the sheriff's court. I honestly beg my noble friend Lord Kirkhill to believe that no Minister will come to the Front Bench, irrespective of which Government sits on it, just because he has a little foible about it. He does so because it is thought to be in the interest of justice and for the better administration of justice, whether in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales. That is what my noble friend was doing this afternoon. I am a little sorry, if I may say so, that my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, should find all these criticisms. Having listened to him, I am certain that 90 per cent. of them could have been met by consultation, without a public presentation in your Lordships' House.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, sits down, and at the risk of flogging a dead horse, does he not appreciate that I was not suggesting that the Government are under obligation to consult about everything with everyone? That may make government impossible. I was suggesting that when they did consult, they were bound to trim any piece of legislation in accordance with the wishes of those whom they consulted, be they lawyers, judges, or anyone else. It is no good saying that we could have cleared this up informally. We were consulted and led to believe that something different would emerge. What I am saying is that what takes place should be in good faith.
Lord HOY: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Wilson of Langside, has
838
already said that he and his friends were consulted. All right—consultation took place. It is for Government to decide that they have to make a decision, whether they agree or disagree with the representations that have been made. All I would say to the noble Lord is that having done so, you cannot come and argue that you have not been consulted. That is all I am saying. At the end of the day, no matter which Government sits on the Front Bench, the responsibility for decision must fall on the Government. Indeed. I can remember when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, had to make decisions. I did not agree with very many of them, but I did not dispute his right to make them, because he was the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, in view of my previous intervention, I rise merely to thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for dealing with the matter so fully, from which I take it that Scotland has no measure of sovereignty over the continental shelf in the North Sea.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I wish to refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, regarding Clause 1(1)(a)(i). I think we should be very careful on this matter. The Committee under the chairmanship of the late noble Lord, Lord Grant, made specific recommendations. We must have an adequate reply as to why those recommendations have not been carried out in regard to this matter and, indeed, an explanation of why the drafters of this Bill have gone to the opposite extreme. It is rather extraordinary. I hope there will be ample scope to discuss these matters on this particular clause which are becoming rather complicated, and of clearing up the back history behind it. I hope there will be ample opportunity when the Bill reaches Committee stage.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, may I clarify—
Several Noble Lords: No!
3.56 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, in picking up some of the points made by your Lordships in the course of the last few moments. I should like your Lordships to bear in mind that this Bill consolidates, re-enacts in terms more appropriate to

839
modern conditions and amends the provisions for public inquiries into deaths contained in the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895, which relates to fatal industrial accidents; the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1906, which relates to sudden, suspicious or unexplained deaths in any circumstances, and Section 25 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 relating to deaths of prisoners in prisons. It is the view of the Government that the principal change in procedure effected by the Bill is that inquiries into deaths under the Bill will be conducted by the sheriff alone, whereas at present, inquiries under the Acts of 1895 and 1906 are conducted by the sheriff and a jury. It is with that background that I should like now to turn to one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
My Lords, first, in relation to the question posed by the noble Lord as to the fact that the jury system is to be dispensed with in this case, he highlighted the Ibrox disaster, an occurrence which took place during his own Secretary ship of State for Scotland. The noble Lord wondered whether under the Fatal Accidents Bill in all circumstances it was entirely proper for the jury system to be abolished. In this respect I can only quote to the noble Lord the Grant Committee. I do not think it would be proper for me to do anything else.
I therefore quote the recommendation in paragraph 319, which reads:
"The evidence available to us"—
that is, the Grant Committee—
"suggests that the jury usually do no more than give effect to a verdict dictated to them by the sheriff or sheriff-substitute, which merely records the cause of death. One or two witnesses suggested that on rare occasions, as where a person has died in police custody, the findings of a jury might be more effective in allaying public apprehension than the findings of a sheriff sitting alone. On balance, we"—
that is, the Grant Committee—
"take the view that what is important is the public inquiry and the hearing of evidence, and not the form of the verdict. We have also had in mind that the time of jurymen is at present needlessly occupied, and we note that during the last war fatal accident inquiries were conducted without juries, without any ill effects of which we are aware."
I make that point by way of explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
840
The noble Lord also asked me about provisions relating to non-admission of evidence and whether these were repeated from previous legislation. The answer is, Yes, they appear in Section 5(4) of the 1895 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, wanted to know the position of the sheriffs as it relates to their continuing or otherwise to make recommendations. Clause 6(1) repeats the provisions of Section 4(7) of the 1895 Act, setting out what the jury can deal with in its verdict, but excluding the provisions that appear in Section 4(7) empowering the jury to bring in a finding of fault.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, may I also take in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Your Lordships may remember there was the general question: where is the Scottish area of the continental shelf defined? The Scottish area of the continental shelf is defined in Orders in Council made under Section 3(2) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964. The Order is the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968, S.I. 1968/892. This has subsequently been amended by three amending Orders. I would stress that these define the area of the continental shelf to which Scots law applies for the purpose of regulating mineral operations—I think that is the key point, for the purpose of regulating mineral operations—including oil and gas operations only. The term, "the Scottish area of the continental shelf" is, I feel obliged to say, simply a shorthand term used for brevity in these matters; so I am advised.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. What he has said confirms what I was indicating to my noble friend; that is, that this is an administrative arrangement, conveniently dividing the jurisdiction of Scots and English law, and it does not do more than that. I think the use of the phrase, "the Scottish area of the continental shelf", is an unfortunate one, but it is defined simply for the purpose of this Bill as a division between the two jurisdictions in law.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, by giving way I was hopeful that the noble Lord might leave it at that point. I would, if I may, welcome, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, does, the general provision which this will now make as it relates to fatal accidents on

841
North Sea oil rigs. I think he might well agree with me that this is an improvement on the present position.
If I could turn briefly now to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the Government are appreciative of his general welcome to this Bill. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord. Mackie, was apprehensive about the extension of the mandatory procedure under Clause 1 of the Bill. The thinking behind this in Government terms stems from the definition, under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895, of industrial employment or occupation. The definition is:
"Industrial employment or occupation can be defined as the performance or superintendence of manual labour, or the working, management or superintendence of machinery, other appliances or animals used in work".
The Government's view is that this completely excludes the position of those who work in offices, shops, schools, et cetera, as I pointed out in my opening remarks. If it is of help to the noble Lord, I should explain that that is the Government thinking behind the mandatory extension in Clause 1.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, it appeared to me, as a layman taking advice from my noble friends—and I did prepare, coming from Perth to speak, as obviously the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, did not—that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who is a lawyer, agreed entirely with me that much time of the courts will be wasted if this is made a mandatory requirement in all cases. Perhaps the Government ought to look at this. I suggested that perhaps conditions could be laid down whereby any interested party could demand an inquiry and it would then be obligatory. In fact, the lawyers' case and the laymans' case seem to coincide.
Lord K1RKHILL: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be patient, I hope later to reveal further aspects of Government thinking, as I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, takes issue with the Government on what I consider to be an issue of first principle. Before I attempt to describe the Government view as to this first principle, I think I have to respond to comment which has been made as to whether or not consultation has taken place with various interested bodies. The information I have
842
is that in 1973 a Consultative Document outlining proposals for legislation to implement the Grant Committee's recommendations was sent to 14 bodies, of which the Sheriffs Association and the Association of Sheriffs Principal were but two. Subsequently, of course, to 1973, as your Lordships will be aware, there has been a change of Government. At this point I must revert to the issue of principle which exists between the position which the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, adopts and that which the Government see as being important in terms of this Bill. I want to emphasise to your Lordships that the Government considered very seriously the arguments in favour of abolishing the mandatory requirement, which was the Grant Committee recommendation, and also, of course, the terms of the Consultative Document. The Government considered also the very strong arguments against the recommendation which were put to the Government by the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
The Government decided that the arguments in favour of retaining the mandatory inquiry were more persuasive than those in favour of abolishing it. For example, despite the introduction of stringent safety requirements and effective inspectorates, there is concern that any breach of the safety requirements should be brought into the open by a public inquiry. The Government have also had representations to the effect that a public inquiry could help the deceased's relatives and their legal advisers to decide whether there was sufficient ground for a civil claim for damages. As your Lordships can see, from a conflicting position in the end it really comes down to a choice. The Government, having weighed these arguments in the balance, have taken the view that the representations made to them by the STUC were compelling, and, in the light of that, have decided that the mandatory inquiry should be retained, and, of course, that certain of the provisions contained within the mandatory concept should be extended.
I am unable to reply to two other points of detail made by Lord Wilson as to the exact point and time of consultation, but I intend to check on that and I will certainly communicate with him about it. In conclusion, I should like to thank my

843
noble friend Lord Hoy for his most helpful intervention, and to assure the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that the Government continue to take very seriously all representations made to them anent this Bill and continue to give serious consideration to each of its clauses.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This legislation stems from the Page Committee's Report on National Savings, which can be found in Command Paper 5273. The trustee savings banks, as part of the National Savings Movement, were subject to a searching study by the Committee, and the Committee's recommendations in relation to the trustee savings banks can be summed up as follows: first, the rationalisation of the 70 trustee savings banks of varying size into a smaller number of larger regional banks operating under a strong central authority; secondly, the expansion of the powers of the banks, accompanied by a liberation from detailed Government control; thirdly, the retention of trustee supervision and direction but with greater participation on the part of depositors.
In the main the recommendations were welcomed by the Government, by the trustee savings banks, and by the trade union representing the workers employed in the banks. As a prelude to this legislation an amalgamation scheme has been carried out and the banks have now been restructured, and there are 17 regional banks instead of the 70 banks of varying sizes. During the period of the amalgamation the public interest in the banks has not waned, as it often does when the local organisation joins up with some larger organisation. The number of accounts and the amount invested have continued to increase; at the present time the 17 banks have 1,500 branches; they have 12 million account holders, and the total of deposits handled by the banks is £4,000 million. This is a firm base from which to start a new era of life by the trustee savings banks.
844
The Government foresee that there will be three stages of a transitional period. The first would be from July 1974, when the recommendations of the Page Committee were accepted by the Government, and November 1976, which is the commencement of the next financial year of the banks. During that phase, or stage, the banks were to be restructured, and this has been, for all practical terms, completed. Secondly, entry was to be obtained to the London clearing arrangements, and this also has been done. A Bill was to be prepared by Parliament for Parliament; this had to be done, and we now have the Bill before us. But in addition, the banks themselves have a good deal to do in this transitional period. They have to prepare their staffs, their customers, and the equipment for the lending facilities which will come in the following stage and for which they have comparatively little experience.
The second stage of the transitional period is from November 1976 to November 1979, three years. During that period there will be a relaxation of detailed Government control, and the ordinary department accounts will then come to an end. In the third and last period, from November 1979 to November 1986. a period of seven years, there will be a repayment of the deposits of the banks in the Fund for Banks for Savings. This is spread over seven years so as to avoid market management and other problems. During the whole of this transitional period of 12 years the banks hope to build up their reserves so as to show, at the end of that transitional period, that they are able and fully capable of standing on their own feet. During the transitional period, the banks will be under the benevolent gaze of the Treasury for two reasons: first, the Government have a continuing commitment to look after the interests of depositors; and, secondly, the banks themselves have a continuous commitment to the maintenance of a ratio of investment in the public sector.
This Bill is very largely an enabling Bill. It amends and builds on the existing body of law. I now deal with the principal clauses. In Part I, Clause 1 deals with the establishment, the membership, the powers and duties of the Trustee Savings Banks Central Board. This is the central authority on which each of the regional banks will be represented.

845
The clause also transfers some of the powers of other Government agencies to the Central Board, particularly from the National Debt Commissioners and the Inspection Committee of the trustee savings banks. Clause 2 lays down the financial duties of the Board, and Clause 3 gives the Board a power to levy the banks to raise the necessary funds to cover its expenses.
In Part II, Clause 4 gives the banks a duty to comply with directions from the Central Board, upon which each of the banks is represented, and the clause also contains sanctions. Experience shows that sanctions, when provided, seldom have to be used; when not provided, they are usually very much needed. The Government believe that by providing sanctions, and having regard to their past experience with the banks, the sanctions will seldom, if ever, have to be used. Clause 5 provides for a scheme of depositor participation. In this connection I should mention the position of the Birmingham Municipal Bank. The West Midland Metropolitan Council decided that the Birmingham Municipal Bank should apply for trustee bank status. It will be a trustee bank for a short period independent of any other bank; during that period it will have trustees who are appointed by local government, and consequently it is necessary to provide for that in Clause 5. But very shortly after its conversion to a trustee savings bank it will be amalgamated with the West Midlands Regional Bank. Clause 6 provides for compulsory retirement age for trustees, and this will eventually come into line with the Companies Act. Clause 11 provides for the payment of fees to trustees.
Clause 9 is at the heart of the Bill in so far as it extends the powers. It removes any doubt on the ability of the banks to grant credit. The banks will continue their present cheque accounts, including the usual money transition facilities and standing order facilities, but from November 1976 they will be able to grant overdrafts and to make personal loans. The banks will of course be subject to the Consumer Credit Act, and furthermore the Treasury will approve the level and type of investment. I should say that it is not intended to permit the banks to give credit in the corporate sector.
846
Clauses 12 and 13, together with Schedule 3 and Clause 16, deal with the treatment of existing financial arrangements and can best be dealt with together. At present, except for "till" and overnight money, deposits in the ordinary department of the banks are invested in the Fund for Banks for Savings at the National Debt Office. In the second stage of the transition—that is, from November 1976 to November 1979—the banks will prepare their customers, staff and equipment for the new form of savings which will replace the ordinary department, but existing accounts will not be affected without notice. The Fund—that is, the Fund for Banks for Savings—is a fund which is guaranteed by Government and, due to a decline in the market value of Government securities, there is a deficiency on the Fund of £250 million.
To give the authorities time to reduce and eliminate this deficiency, repayment to the banks is to be phased over a period of seven years. It is intended that the banks shall be able to withdraw up to one-seventh of the capital plus the interest in each of those seven years of the final stage of transition. However, under Clause 13 and Schedule 3 the banks will maintain the level of investment in the public sector as it was at the beginning of the transition period, but since the level will be absolute, it means that as the banks continue to increase their business, the ratio of investment in the public sector will gradually fall. Treasury approval of the type and level of investment will be channelled through the Central Board, which may institute any further controls within the set limits.
come to the question of the tax arrangements. By a later Finance Bill, tax relief to depositors will continue only until the ordinary department accounts are closed, or shortly thereafter. There is also the question of corporation tax relief. Under the existing law, income from the Fund for Banks for Savings is tax free; a later Finance Bill will provide that income will continue to be exempt from corporation tax when received by the banks, but the expenses and interest relative to that income will not be available for set-off against other income. In this way, the trustee savings banks will progressively acquire the same

847
tax liability as their competitors. Clause 14 makes the conventional provision that after proper provisions has been made for reserves, the banks will, taking one year with another, endeavour at least to break even.
Clauses 17 and 18 deal with the need for keeping proper accounts and for the distribution of accounts. Clause 19 deals with the appointment of auditors. Clause 20 modernises the reporting system. It will no longer be necessary to make a weekly return to the National Debt Commissioners, but the banks will have to make a regular return to the Central Board, and they will supply information to the monetary authorities, but in exactly the same way as the other banks. Under Part III there are a number of clauses which make miscellaneous arrangements for rearranging functions within Government. These are mostly taking away functions from the National Debt Office and transferring them to the Registry of Friendly Societies.
Clauses 30 and 31 deal with employee superannuation. At present, the employees of the banks enjoy public sector terms, but in due course the banks will assume responsibility for devising their own superannuation schemes and for the investment of the funds. Proper provision has been made for the protection of employees; existing benefits and rights for those people in post at the beginning of the transition period are preserved, and we are informed by the trade union representing the workers that it is completely satisfied with the provisions of the Bill in relation to superannuation. Clause 32 provides for the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the Trustee Savings Banks Inspection Committee to the Central Board and this will include the employees' Superannuation Fund rights. I wish to pay tribute to the Inspection Committee and its staff who, over the years, have given very great service to the trustee savings banks and their depositors, and I hope that other noble Lords will join with me in paying this tribute. Clause 33 ends the relationship between the trustee savings banks and the National Savings Stock Register. Part IV of the Bill deals with general and supplemental matters including interpretation. Clause 38 enables the Treasury to bring in different parts of the Bill on different dates.
848
My Lords, this Bill heralds a new era for the trustee savings banks. It gives them an opportunity to become independent mutual organisations. It gives an opportunity for consultation, co-ordination and self-discipline to take the place of detailed Government control. It gives them possibilities of creating a national image without destroying their local roots, and for these reasons I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Lord Jacques.)
4.28 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, "this Bill heralds a new era "is what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, and with that I wholeheartedly agree. Your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord for having explained the Bill, which, though not very big, is most important. It will, I believe, alter quite fundamentally the role of the trustee savings banks. There always seems to be an aura of mystique about the trustee savings banks, especially to those who have not had the advantage of coming into contact with them, and even to those who have. The aura is created in the questions: what is the secret of their success? Obviously they have had one. How can they possibly cope in the modern competitive banking system? Yet they do. Are they not possibly an anachronism belonging more appropriately to a by-gone age, an age of less affluence, of less learning, and an era when it was desirable to encourage savings among those whose weekly income could be counted in shillings, or even less? Yet they are not an anachronism. If, to those who know little about them, there is this curious feeling of amazement and mystery about the role and requirements of the savings banks, then I am bound to say that it remains even to some who do know something about them, including myself.
I have had the privilege of being a trustee of the East Anglian Trustee Savings Bank for the last 18 years, and I have been a vice-chairman of it for the last four years. Although it is correct to declare such interests, I should perhaps point out that mine is not, of course, a financial interest, because the role of a trustee is, or at least has been up to the introduotion of this Bill, an entirely unpaid and honorary position. When

849
I first became a trustee of the East Anglian Trustee Savings Bank in 1957, the funds that had been deposited by individuals with the bank were £27 million. By 1971, the funds had risen to £100 million, and three years later they had increased by a further 50 per cent., to £150 million. I hasten to add that to me those quite amazing figures owe nothing to the fact that I have been associated with the bank. They are not even so much an indication of the success of the bank as they are an indication of the need for such a banking system and its use when it is provided. Of course, right from the days when the first bank appeared, way back in 1810, this requirement has been shown to encourage small savings from small earnings. By 1860 the numbers of individual trustee savings banks had risen to 638. This year, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques has said, in anticipation of the Bill, the number of savings banks has been cut from 70 to 17, yet they have funds of over £4,000 million.
One may ask—and I do, I believe with reasonable justification—where on earth all that money comes from. Quite simply, the answer is, from small savers. Incredible though it may seem in a period of roaring inflation, when everyone is complaining that they have not enough money to live on, the Economist points out that, in the first half of 1975, personal savings were running at £9,500 million a year, which is nearly 14 percent. of personal disposable income. I consider that to be a quite astounding figure. If one asks where in all this the trustee savings banks fit in, the answer is that, of the sum total of all national savings—which amount to £11,000 million—34 per cent. is found by way of the trustee savings banks. So they are shown to be required by depositors and to be used by depositors. The Government certainly require them because they used to use the depositors' money for funding their own functions, and these banks are a national requirement because they stimulate an old fashioned virtue which I, for one, thought had long since gone out of the window, though the figures show that that is not the case—that is, the virtue of thrift.
As the nature both of deposits and of depositors has changed and as society changes, so also do the trustee savings
850
banks need to change to meet the requirements of the future. We see that the banks have already amalgamated themselves to reduce their numbers from 70 to 17. No one likes amalgamation in so far as it means surrendering something which he feels to be part of him or with which he has been associated, but it is inevitable. The challenge of the next 20 or 30 years cannot be met with a proliferation of small banks. Equally, however, I am glad that the Government have decided to reject the temptation of a once-for-all sweep into a single bank. Had that been done, it is true that the resulting trustee savings bank would have been on a par in terms of finance with a bank the size of Lloyds Bank, but it would have put at severe risk the deeply personal relationship which the depositor has with his own bank. That is the very foundation stone and almost the raison d'etre for the existence of the trustee savings banks.
Under the new system, the old Trustee Savings Banks Association, which had no powers but was merely the mouthpiece of a number of totally separate entities, will go and will be replaced by a new Central Board with powers, obligations and duties both mandatory and permissive and the controlling hand of the Treasury, under the National Debt Office, will, to a large extent, go. I welcome this, but I should like to pay tribute to the National Debt Office and to the Treasury which, for something like one and a half centuries, have protected the depositors' interests. Those whose duty it was to run the trustee savings banks frequently found that protection to be a source of vigorous irritation, but of course the Treasury has never been anyone's friend. It had a job to do and, if results are any measure of success, it has not been unsuccessful. I believe that we should be grateful for the Treasury's efforts.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will not mind my adding just a puff of a nuance of a political observation on a totally non-Party Bill when I say that I could not restrain a slight smile when I saw a Government who have earned a reputation for considering that, on the whole, things work out much better when they are run by the State, divesting the State of its power over the trustee savings bank and telling the trustee savings banks to go off and run

851
their own show. The roulette wheel of politics shows up some odd quirks, especially on non-Party matters. That is all I have to say about that, except to emphasise that whatever Party had been in power the same or a similar Bill would have been introduced and that we are very grateful to see it being introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques.
Equally, I am sure that the noble Lord will be glad to know that I welcome the demise or, strictly, the alteration of the nature of the trustees. Having—and in some cases in large quantities—the names of what, in common or rather unkind parlance, may be called "local worthies" on the board of a bank, even though they were unpaid and had virtually no power, had its place in the past in order to show less well informed potential depositors that this was no fly-by-night organisation but was one in which the locality had confidence and one in which they could with confidence repose their savings. While that image still requires to remain, I believe that the role of the trustees should and will alter very greatly. It is right that there should be fewer of them and that their role should become immensely more important and effective. They are the people who will guide and, indeed, ultimately be responsible for this organisation. In my view, they should not consist only of professionals, but their cutting edge should be required to be immeasurably sharper than in the past. If the best people are to be obtainable for this job and are to be asked to give of their time and to play an active part, it is essential that they should have some form of remuneration, and that the Bill allows. Failure to give this would simply mean that the trustee savings banks would be debarred from getting the best people. This is no reflection on the people who have been trustees in the past and who have given of their time and their effort. The past has its own requirements; the future has its requirements, which are different.
I should like also to pay tribute here to those people and especially chairmen of banks who have given literally days of their time—sometimes several days a week—to the reorganisation of these banks in anticipation of the Bill, mostly during the last 12 months. They have done so wholly voluntarily, not because
852
they wished to do the job but because they found themselves in an Office which virtually required them to do it, though they probably had no knowledge that such would be the case when they accepted Office. They have put a lot of work into this and I believe that the trustee savings banks should be very grateful for what has been done.
I should like the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to say a little more about pensions. As I understand it, the staff of the trustee savings banks have at the moment superannuation benefits which are analogous to those applicable in the Civil Service. Those employed in trustee savings banks at present have, like civil servants, the advantage of index-linked pensions. When the Bill is passed, the onus will be upon the trustee savings banks themselves to continue those same commitments out of their own funds. I do not wish to enter into an argument about the rights or wrongs of index-linked pensions, nor in any way to suggest that pension schemes for those employed in the trustee savings banks should be anything other than as good as those which they have enjoyed prior to this new regime. I merely venture to suggest that in my humble opinion—which, because it is mine, has at least a 90 per cent. chance of being 100 per cent. wrong—this commitment could, if inflation continues at any reasonable rate, throw severe strains on the Bank for funding it in the future. I do not quite see where the money is to come from. If the noble Lord can throw some light on this point it would be a great help.
My Lords, the Bill will oven up a whole new era for trustee savings banks, in which they will be permitted to provide to the public an even greater service than they have done before, in changed conditions which require changing facilities. They will be involved, in some measure, in direct competition with joint stock banks. They will be able to provide cheque book facilities, demand saving accounts, investment accounts, fixed-term bonds, overdraft facilities and personal loans; always, though, the accent will be on the person, the individual. That is their requirement, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, re-emphasised it. That they will be able to do this is in large measure due to the fact that they have a mutual status. They are not companies trading for profit, but

853
are more in the nature of a self-supporting social service which operates in the interest of its members. It is the two-way relationship between the branch and the depositor which is the kernal of the whole organisation, and which I am glad to see this Bill seeks to protect.
It is this curious and unique organisation which prompted the comment that,
"the financial basis of the Trustee Savings Banks is so sound, and they are so firmly established and have in the course of their long history come to inspire such great confidence and, indeed, affection in the minds of many depositors, that we think it desirable that their activities should be more widely extended, their facilities better advertised and their popularity made even greater than at present."
That was not said by me or by anyone else today, but in a report on the trustee savings banks by a Commission of which the noble Lord, Lord Bradbury, was Chairman in 1928—almost 50 years ago. I believe that those words are just as true today. I congratulate the Government in seeking in this Bill not only to preserve the fundamental concept of the trustee savings banks, but actually to promote it as well.
4.43 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I should first declare an interest, because, as I have told your Lordships previously, I am a director of a firm of insurance brokers specialising in life assurance and pensions. Therefore, I may be said to have an interest in an alternative medium for small savings. I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his very clear exposition of the provisions of the Bill. I must confess that when I picked up the Bill to look at it for the first time I was rather disturbed to find that the first thing it does is to set up a Board. It seems to me that we spend much of our time setting up boards of one kind or another. The British National Oil Corporation, the Policyholders' Protection Board, the National Enterprise Board, and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies are five such boards, which we have recently established, which come immediately to mind. One wonders how many statutory boards are at present in existence.
However, the Board to be set up under this Bill does not extend the power of the Government. It is in effect an instrument
854
for the diminution of the Government's power because it gives to the trustee savings banks a measure of self-government. Powers previously exercised by the National Debt Office and the Inspection Committee, for example, are transferred to the Central Board on which each of the trustee savings banks will be represented. The Explanatory Memorandum, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, make it clear that the setting up of the Board, and the other provisions of the Bill, are intended to enable the recommendations of the Page Committee with regard to trustee savings banks to be implemented. The Page Committee had to determine what the future role of the trustee savings banks should be, and how that role should differ from that of the National Savings Bank, for example, as the Post Office bank is now called.
The Page Committee found that there were 73 trustee savings banks, varying from the London and South Eastern which had £257 million in deposits, to the Newburgh, in Northern Ireland, which had less than quarter of a million pounds in deposits. These institutions of varying size were providing an outlet for small savings, an outlet supported by a Government guarantee, subject to tight Government control, affording a limited amount of tax relief, offering limited banking facilities (£50 deposit being required before one could have a current account) and with no personal credit facilities in the way of overdraft or personal loans. They were governed by self-perpetuating boards of trustees. Yet there were over 10 million depositors, the majority of whom were in the lower income groups, and they had increased very considerably indeed in the period since the War.
They were in fact on the fringe of commercial banking, and the Page Committee had to reconsider whether there should be no change at all in the nature and the circumstances of these banks, or whether, at the other extreme, they should be turned over to private ownership and become fully commercial. The Committee decided on neither of these alternatives; it decided that they should become mutual banks, freed from much of the present Government restriction, and offering full banking facilities for personal accounts only. I am glad that the Government have accepted that this

855
mutual principle has a place in the banking field, as it has had for so long, for example, in the life assurance field. The Page Committee said—and I quote:
"A set of mutual Banks, similar in organisational form to building societies, seems to us an excellent way of promoting a competitive service for the financial needs of the small saver and depositor."
I believe that it is good to have this competition with the clearing banks in the personal sphere; after all, the clearing banks are moving into other people's spheres—insurance broking is one example of that. The trustee savingsbanks are not likely to encroach on the existing customers of the clearing banks, but they will vie with them for the business of a whole new range of customers, because about half of the population still do not have a banking account.
In addition to the relaxation of Government control, the transfer of much responsibility to the Central Board, and the opportunity to provide full banking services, there is this requirement for larger units; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, the 73 have now become 17. Again this is following the recommendations of the Page Committee. The work of amalgamation has gone on among the trustee savings banks in the past two years. This Bill sets the seal of approval on that by laying down minimum levels of deposit which a bank must have before it can become a member of the new Central Board. Inevitably there will be regret at the replacement of the small local bank by the regional bank.
I share the view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that it was very satisfactory that the Government decided to have regional banks rather than one national bank. I think the regional bank, as opposed to the local bank, is made necessary by modern requirements and by the need to provide the up-to-date service of a full-scale banking nature which is now envisaged. I have one complaint; that is, that every time a regional structure is set up for a particular service it almost inevitably differs from all other regional structures; and, as one who hopes to see the development of regional government in England, I regret this failure to plan
856
regional structures for different services on a co-ordinated basis.
Finally, there are the provisions with regard to trustees of individual banks, and I am glad that each bank is now to be required to submit a scheme for the appointment and removal of trustees by the depositors. I think that this brings them into line with the building societies and mutual life offices, and introduces the proper degree of democratic participation. With regard to the age limit, all age limits are bound to be arbitrary because people age at such differing rates, and they are bound to be unfair in the way in which they work. But it is difficult to see what else could be done if individual banks are not to be landed with boards of trustees who are very elderly and not able to cope with the requirements of the modern world. May I say, in conclusion, that I believe the Bill offers the trustee savings banks the opportunity to play a developing role in the financial life of the country. It is up to the trustee savings banks now to respond to that opportunity, and, personally, I am confident that they will.
4.52 p.m.
Lord COLERIDGE: My Lords, as has been said, in the past the trustees of the savings banks have received no remuneration, but the Bill now before your Lordships' House envisages such a possibility. Therefore, as a trustee and chairman of one of the new regional banks, the South-West, and as a potential member of the new Central Board, I must, I think, declare an interest.
Noble Lords who have already spoken have said so much of what I would wish to say myself—and they have said it with much more authority and much more fluency than I could command—that it allows me to be very brief. This Bill, as we all know, results from the findings of the committee presided over by Sir Harry Page—a committee set up by the last Government, the findings of which were accepted not only by the present Government but also by the trustee savings banks as a package deal. There is, therefore, I hope, no area of political controversy in the Bill, and that is a source of great satisfaction to those of us in the movement who will have to make it work.
My Lords, this is not a Bill designed to rescue a faltering industry; nor does it

857
entail any additional expenditure by taxpayers. On the contrary, it allows what is a very successful operation, and one which has been in being for 160 years, to offer additional banking facilities to the modest saver, for whom the trustee savings bank movement has always traditionally catered. I do not believe that the Bill would, should or indeed will put us, the trustee savings banks, into direct conflict or competition with the joint stock banks, the clearers or, indeed, the National Savings Bank. We are not in the banking business to make money; we have no shareholders; we are, as has been said and as our American friends would describe us, a mutual bank. But we have some 11 million depositors to whom we would continue to offer that rather personal, friendly service—a service which will be greatly improved by our ability in the future to make, for example, personal loans and bridging loans, and to allow modest overdrafts. The Bill now before your Lordships will greatly help the trustee savings banks adequately to serve their respective communities, and I hope that your Lordships will feel able to support it.
4.55 p.m.
The Earl of IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I, too, should like to declare my interest. I am an unpaid custodian trustee of the South-West Trustee Savings Bank, and, in addition, I hold small balances in its ordinary and supplementary investment departments, so I suppose I can be said to have a small financial interest. I consider it would be impertinent of me to try to prolong this debate unduly when there is already such a high level of acceptance of this Bill from all sides of the House. I should merely like to stress that this Bill has the wholehearted support of the Trustee Savings Bank Association. The individual banks have been perhaps slightly disappointed that it was not introduced earlier, but the reasons, I think, are understood; and we in the South-West certainly are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for introducing it this afternoon and for his very full explanation.
The powers that this Bill gives us are, by and large, the ones we required. In essence, it gives us the means to serve our customers; and, as your Lordships can imagine, the requirements of our customers have altered considerably in
858
the 165 years of our existence. The new powers will allow the trustee savings banks to get on with the business of banking—a role they have fulfilled to everybody's satisfaction, I think, during their existence. I am happy to speak from this end of the House on behalf of the Trustee Savings Bank Association, who welcome this Bill and all it contains, and to wish it a speedy passage on its way to becoming law.
4.57 p.m.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill for many reasons, and I make no apologies for my connection with the trustee savings banks. I have been associated with them all my life—and I mean that in every sense of the word, for all the time I have lived I have had a bank account with the trustee savings bank. Indeed, I sometimes get a little disturbed when, for instance, I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, speaking from the Liberal Benches and saying that this is a great opportunity for the trustees of the savings banks. I may remind your Lordships that we have been banking for 160 years. Indeed, at the end of the last year, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said, we had deposits of over £4,000 million. Let me tell the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that, even in these days of inflation, in a Scotsman's opinion that is still a lot of cash; and I think it reflects the job that we have done over the years.
My Lords, I remember introducing in your Lordships' House at the end of last year a Bill to protect the trustee savings banks because of some little alteration in the law that would have placed us in a difficult position vis-à-vis the joint stock banks. Your Lordships agreed unanimously to the recommendations that were then made, and as a consequence passed the Bill. I am grateful to the Government, if I may record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for taking up the Bill in another place, putting it in order and placing the trustee savings banks in the same position—there was no betterment; we did not want any privileges—as joint stock banks. What we did not want was to be in an inferior position. and that the Government ensured.
The only thing that worries me a little (and I am somewhat surprised, because we are very friendly) is to hear the noble

859
Earl, Lord Ferrers, say that there is a kind of mystique about savings banks and that people do not quite understand them. It may well be true of your Lordships' House, because your Lordships—and this is not critical of noble Lords—are, I think, very much better informed about, say, Lloyds, Barclays and the Westminster, which are the banks with which you have dealt; but I have always dealt with the trustee savings bank and I am more intimate with them. What we are saying today is that there will be a change in the organisation of savings banks. This Bill makes a very considerable change. When I heard it said that there will be a change with regard to trustees I thought that I should remind your Lordships that throughout the 160 years of trustee savings banks no trustee or member of a management committee has ever been allowed to receive a penny in payment for services he has rendered. I think that this institution, representing 160 years of unpaid service, is unique in the world today. And even today's change will mean only that any trustee attending a meeting will recoup his expenses. I cannot think of any other business of this kind which manages itself on the basis of rewards which are—I was about to say "mean" but that is not the right word—so small as those on which this bank is managed.
My Lords, when we are talking about this bank we had better appreciate just what service it has rendered to the country. Not only have we rendered a tremendous service to the savers of the country but, as I have said here and as I have said in another place also, we have produced savings—and ours are cash and not book entries! The money we record as savings is money coming from our depositors. I think it is not a bad thing to remind ourselves this evening that one out of every five people in Great Britain today have an account with the trustee savings bank. It is absolutely extraordinary to realise that throughout the whole length of England, Wales and Scotland, every fifth person has an account with the trustee savings bank. I do not think that this record can be challenged.
It is the greatest thing in the world today, and not only to the saver; for we have been able to use the deposits in the
860
interests of the savers, and central and local government have been the beneficiaries under this scheme. These banks have rendered a tremendous service to the country as a whole. I was a little surprised to hear a noble Lord say—I regret it was the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who said it—that the State has come to the conclusion that they could do it better than others. It is true that the savings banks are not in the Slater Walker class. We do not lose money. We are not allowed to. We are allowed to safeguard the savings of the people of this country.
In the reorganisation that is taking place we are saying that by force of circumstances we cannot go on forever with these small sectional banks. In other words, we must form larger groups to become even more comprehensive and more economical. But at the end of the day the job will not have changed, not at all! What we shall be doing is rendering a service to our depositors—no more than that—and to the State.
I want to say only this in conclusion. Along the road of these 160 years, it has not always been easy for the trustee savings bank. We have met our opponents, some of them, if I may say so, in the City. But recently we have encountered them in a more modern way. We ran a programme on television about how it would pay people to put their savings in the trustee savings bank. We had a very well-known contributor to television to do it for us; but the powers that be decided that this was a contravention of advertising standards. It was all right for a great sportsman to come on to the screen, half-naked, to sell some kind of scent to the public and say how good it was for them; but if a man appeared on behalf of the savings banks and told the people of Britain that it was good to have their deposits in the trustee savings bank, then the commercial authority decided that this was not quite right. Despite this we had 15 months of it. That advertising is about to go. Apparently, we have contravened the standards of commercial television. We do not complain about that. We have had to meet complaints all along.
My Lords, we ought to be proud of the part that the savings bank movement has played in the history of our country. When the Rev. Andrew Duncan began it all 160 years ago in Dumfries, he could

861
never have believed it would reach the stage it has reached today. I warmly commend this Bill to your Lordships.
5.6 p.m.
The Earl of ELGIN and KINCARDINE: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, because he is the epitome of all that has been spoken of today. I have heard from him on so many occasions of the strength of his convictions regarding not only his own contribution but also the whole contribution of the trustee savings bank to the nation. It is a pleasure to follow him, but I shall speak from another angle. I speak perhaps due more to the way in which I have seen the trustee savings bank over the past four years through the eyes of the National Savings Committee in Scotland. For us, one of the great things since reorganisation has been mooted has been the way in which the trustee savings banks have gone about their jobs. They have encouraged the whole aspect of savings. They were not despondent at all about the Page Committee Report. We, in national savings, were perhaps a little worried. But we have taken courage from the way in which the trustee savings banks have gone about their work, not in just being able to reduce themselves from 73 to 17, but at the way in which they did it, having the courage of their convictions. In the case of many other acts of regiorialisation and so forth, there have been bitter arguments when perhaps one wished to contract a service. These did not occur in the trustee savings banks. It was very much the reverse. Therefore I feel that, although they may have contracted and that many great names known all over the country will no longer exist, the force and strength of the trustee savings banks have been enhanced in the last few years.
I hope that in this reorganisation they will not accentuate too much their banking services. Although they have been encouraged to be, perhaps, a third force in banking, I hope that they will never forget that they are a very great force in savings. For it is—I think it was my noble friend Lord Ferrers who pointed it out straightaway—strength of small people together in good company that makes for the very important impact of the trustee savings bank and the National Savings Movement as a whole. It is in this way that the trustee savings banks can
862
encourage not merely the depositing of money; but, particularly in the schools, an understanding of the use of money. I hope that in the way in which they will look at the future they will not in any way be discouraged from working with the National Savings Movement in the education of young people towards understanding and the handling of their banking of money. This is the only way in which in the schools themselves, young persons will get the opportunity of understanding the use of money, of what it will do, of where the interest comes from and of the manner in which a useful bank service can be built up.
My Lords, many of us have spoken of the origin of this great movement and various dates have been given. But I can remember only last year standing outside the door of a small cottage in Dumfries. It had been 200 years since the door of that cottage had opened and the good Reverend Duncan had started his first savings bank. In your Lordships' own House about 170 years ago, when we first were passing the measure to establish the savings banks, they were commented upon by the editor of the Edinburgh Review. When one considers this was at the moment of the great Battle of Waterloo, one should pay some attention to what he then said:
"After the great glory of the recent military victory has passed away, arid after the impact of the new commercial strength of the country may perhaps have receded, it will yet appear that the Savings Banks will bring more happiness to the people of Britain".
What was said 170 years ago is an essential ingredient of what we are trying to achieve here this afternoon; for more people to understand and use the trustee savings banks and generate a greater friendship, happiness and understanding of the bank in its new sense. This will bring more people to use these facilities for their benefit and happiness, for this is the greatest achievement the trustee savings banks and their predecessors have brought to this country in the past 200 years. I should like to give every support to this Bill and also hone that it will pass swiftly to fruition.
5.12 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, may I for one or two minutes join in the warm welcome which has been given to this Bill. I agree with every word of the eloquent observations of my noble friend

863
Lord Elgin. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that one of the best parts of this Bill is the words in the Explanatory Memorandum:
" The Bill provides for the progressive removal or transfer to the Central Board of controls now exercised by Government agencies."
What a healthy change that is from the provisions we get so accustomed to now, when more and more functions are handed over to the control of the Minister of the Crown concerned! I entirely agree with the well-earned tributes paid to these banks by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. If I had known where he had put his money all these years, I would have put mine there, too. I am sure it would have been in good company there.
The history of the trustee savings banks has been a success story. They are immensely successful today. We ought to be extremely grateful to all who have served those banks over the years, staff, trustees, and everyone concerned. My experience when I was a trustee—and I am sure that today it is truer than ever—was that they were invariably persons of the highest standards and integrity. I have only one note of melancholy to introduce this afternoon. For many years I have had the honour—and still have it at this minute—of being patron of the Trustee Savings Bank. My noble friend Lord Coleridge is the distinguished Chairman and my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh is a trustee. I fear, not for the first time in my life, that my horse is now to be shot under me. In spite of this high price, I should like to extend an extremely warm welcome to this Bill. It is excellent that these banks are now to be launched on a new period of further and expanded service to the country.
5.15 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I thank all sides of the House for the reception which has been given to this Bill. I do not think I can ever remember anything that I have brought forward up to now which has had so much support from all sides. I enjoyed the "crack" at the Government of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He said the Government nationalised everything in sight, but nevertheless freed the trustee savings banks from Government control. Of
864
course the noble Earl is under a misunderstanding. We do not seek to nationalise everything in sight; it is not nationalisation that we adhere to. We adhere to certain principles: first of all, public ownership; secondly, democratic control; thirdly, service rather than profit. Those are the principles we are pursuing, and those principles are embodied in the trustee savings banks and will be even more embodied in them when this Bill becomes law. Consequently, the Bill has our full support, and I was not in any way surprised that a Labour Government have brought this forward.
On pensions, the purpose of the Government is to provide the structure which would facilitate the banks and the trade unions getting together to negotiate what they are going to do in the future. It is for the banks voluntarily to decide what they are going to do in those negotiations. The first stage of the negotiations has been completed in regard to existing staff. I believe that the principle of indexing has been accepted so far as they are concerned. There is an important second stage which will be concerned with new employees. But that is not a matter for the Government; it is for the banks and the trade unions. It is for the Government to fulfil their obligations of guaranteeing the deposits at some substantial cost, and to provide the facilities for the banks' future progress. But, after that, it is the responsibility of the banks. Once again, may I thank your Lordships for your support. I hope that the Bill will thus get an easy passage through the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [H.L.]
5.17 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of the Lord Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That the House takes note of the Special Report on the Bill from the Select Committee (on Recommitment) [H.L. 1974–75 No. 347.]—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, this is a surprise to me. I expected at least that

865
my task would be to move an Amendment to something which would be moved in very much longer terms than the remarks of my noble friend. I certainly am surprised to find myself speaking at this stage, and I thought that the Chairman of Committees, who is usually so-courteous and so attentive to his duties in this House, would have been in his place to move the Motion standing in his name.
I must admit I am shocked to find a Minister of the Government moving this Motion because I regard this as being very much a non-Party matter, something in which no Party becomes involved. I think the Government should have stood clear from it. Despite the fact that the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, has entered the Chamber, the House may feel that I cannot very well now sit down and allow him to take up something which has already been moved by my noble friend. But if the noble Earl would like to come in at this stage, I am prepared to sit down and permit him to do so. This is purely a matter for him and for the House.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I must explain to my noble friend Lord Champion that, in the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Committees, I moved this Motion on his behalf in a purely neutral way—not as a member of the Government—so that the business of the House could proceed.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I am entirely in the hands of the House. I apologise deeply for having arrived too late to move my Motion. If the House prefers the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to move his Amendment first, I would be delighted to accept that decision.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, for the good sense of the debate I would think it reasonable for the Chairman of Committees to speak now and to make the speech he would have made had he been in his place originally. As I have said, I know that the noble Earl is never discourteous to the House. It was purely accidental that he was not here, and so far as I am concerned—and obviously your Lordships would agree—I should like to invite him to come to the Dispatch Box.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his usual courtesy in excusing my delinquency on this occasion when I was not here at the right moment, as I should have been. I think I should start by apologising to your Lordships in advance for a rather lengthy speech which I personally feel is distinctly out of character since the average length of the speeches I make in your Lordship's House is, I suppose, something like one fairly short sentence. However, as I regard the decision which the House is being asked to take on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, as the most important in connection with Private Bill legislation since I became responsible for Private Bills ten years ago, I am sure that your Lordships would expect me to deal with it as thoroughly as I can and also, of course, with the Report.
I should like to say at the outset of the debate how glad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has put down his Amendment to my Motion, because it serves to focus attention on the main issue arising from the Report, and will enable the House to take a decision, having heardall the arguments on both sides. I think it would be for the convenience of the House, so that I do not have to inflict two speeches on your Lordships, if I expressed my opinion on the Amendment at this stage of the debate. I am afraid I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment, and I will offer my reasons for this advice later in my speech.
Before passing on to what I have to say about the Committee's Report and the Amendment, it might be useful for the House if I say something about private legislation in general, and the effect of the Local Government Act 1972, as a consequence of which this Bill was promoted. It is impossible to distinguish Private from general legislation objectively except to say that Private Bills are founded on a Petition from outside Parliament, whereas Public Bills, whether Government Bills or Private Members' Bills, are introduced by a Member of one of the two Houses. As to content, one can say, but only as a general rule, that Private legislation confers powers or benefits on individuals whether they are

867
individual persons, local authorities, companies, or private corporations.
Parliament, therefore, has no control over the number of Private Bills that are deposited or, of course, over the number of clauses they contain. The County of South Glamorgan Bill is a general powers Bill; that is, one dealing with the miscellaneous functions of the promoting authorities.
Until recently, the number and size of Private Acts passed each Session greatly exceeded those of the Public General Acts passed in a Session. We mention in our Report that until the 19th century Private Acts were the only way in which growing towns—and I think perhaps an historical perspective is useful in this connection—requiring, for example, street lighting or main drainage, could emerge from the antique system of parochial and magisterial government. Such General Acts as the Public Health Act 1848 and the Clauses Act of the 1840s were, to a considerable extent, based on the Private Acts which preceded them. General legislation on local government topics has, however, become ever more frequent in recent years; nevertheless, the volume of general legislation has not been sufficient hitherto to avoid the necessity of the promotion of a great number of Private Bills. To give your Lordships an idea of the figures involved, in the 21 years between 1953 and 1973 nearly 1,000 Private Bills were enacted. By no means all of these were general powers Bills, such as we are now considering: there were other Bills as well.
The total number of Private Acts is simply not known. There is no means of discovering the number of Private Acts in existence. In the middle of the last century they were being passed sometimes at the rate of 300 or more a Session; and between 1801 and 1884 (in the railway age) nearly 18,500 Private Acts received the Royal Assent. This was almost twice the number of Public Acts which became law during the same period. To say that about 10,000 Private Acts are still in force to some extent would not be an over-statement. In the field of public legislation there has been a continuing process of revision by repeal and consolidation which has kept the public
868
Statute Book in order, but no parallel procedure has been carried out in respect of Private Acts. The result is that the general state of local legislation is chaotic. There is much that needs repeal because it has been overtaken by the general law, has become spent, or is no longer applicable to modern circumstances. The legislation is also repetitive: the same powers are provided in differently-worded clauses. To come to the present day, in the last Session 29 Private Acts totalled some 730 clauses, excluding the Glamorgan Bill. The purpose of these figures is to give your Lordships some idea of the size, rate of growth, the obsolescence and complexity of the Private Act Statute Book.
I must now say something about the provisions and effect of the Local Government Act 1972, which led to the promotion of this Bill. The main object of the1972 Act, as your Lordships will remember, was to reorganise local government in England and Wales; and for this purpose it created a number of new local authorities. The old local authorities and their predecessors were subject to a large and indeterminate number of Private Acts for general powers. To rationalise this state of affairs, the 1972 Act provided, in Section 262, that all such legislation for general powers should cease to have effect in 1984 in non-metropolitan counties, such as the County of South Glamorgan and, in 1979, in the metropolitan counties. In the interval before repeal the old Acts are continued but, broadly speaking, only in the areas and as applying to persons to which they applied before the Act came into force. It was thus open to the new authorities to promote legislation to save from prospective repeal and, if desirable, to extend to the whole of their area what would otherwise be repealed by Section 262 of the 1972 Act. The House will appreciate that the Local Government Act offers a unique opportunity for a thorough review and rationalisation of the accumulated mass of local law to which I have referred—in fact, the first ever carried out on a national scale.
Guidance to the new authorities as to how this review should be carried out was offered by the Departments in a Circular issued by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office on 28th

869
January 1974. I should like to quote to your Lordships one sentence from this Circular:
"For the exercise to be worthwhile, however, the process of pruning and redrafting must be drastic, and from earlier experience it was thought that most local authorities will not need to re-enact more than a very small percentage of the legislation which they are inheriting from their predecessors".
The upshot is that if none of the new local authorities took steps to re-enact any of the local general powers enactments that affected their predecessors, there would, after 1984, broadly speaking, be no Private Acts for general powers in force. This would clearly be unacceptable to the new authorities and to the public, and therefore they may be expected to promote Bills to re-enact the powers they wish to preserve. The County of South Glamorgan Bill is the first Bill of this kind, and therefore a test case from which the other authorities will take their cue.
The Circular I have mentioned also urged the new authorities to begin their review of local legislation operating in their areas for the purposes of re-enactment at an early date. This the Promoters of this Bill have certainly done. But it seemed to me, when the Bill was deposited in this House, that such Bills should be scrutinised by Parliament with special care to ensure that the general law should not be changed unless there was a compelling need for that change, and also that whatever was enacted should be of the standard of draftsmanship required in a Public Bill. I took the view that to reenact a multiplicity of parallel but by no means identical legislative proposals, put forward by some or all of the new authorities before 1984, would only serve to recreate a quantity of local legislation suffering from the same defects, though doubtless to a lesser extent, as those that the wholesale repeals to be effected by the Local Government Act would otherwise sweep away.
To enable the House to carry out this duty, I moved a procedural Motion to which the House agreed last May, to recommit the Bill to a Select Committee whose Special Report I am asking the House to take note of this afternoon. The Committee, which consisted of the noble Viscount, Lord Hood and the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, and myself, had to decide whether the
870
usual criteria applied by the Committee which deals with unopposed Private Bills were adequate in the special circumstances of this Bill. These criteria are set out in paragraph 12 of the Report, and I need not quote them. The essential point is that the Promoter has to prove to the Committee his need for what he asks for, and that what he asks for is reasonable.
The Committee felt that they had a special responsibility over and above consideration of the needs of the Promoters, if advantage was to be taken of the opportunity to review and revise private legislation as a whole offered by the 1972 Act. The Committee considered that the proper remedy for a general mischief is general, rather than local legislation, and therefore decided to apply more strictly than in the past the principle which the Report sets out in paragraph 14(i); namely, that clauses should be disallowed if proposed to meet a need that is common to all or a great number of authorities. In other words, the powers asked for should be conferred by public general Act rather than by a Private Act. This is by no means a new conception—it is important that that should be emphasised. Promoters have often been asked to explain why a need which they wish to remedy is tolerated by a great many other local authorities. Of course, on this occasion we applied this principle much more widely.
The reasoning which led the Committee to apply this principle with some strictness is contained in the Report, but the central proposition is that to change the law, area by area, in a multiplicity of parallel, and not necessarily similar Private Act clauses is manifestly inefficient as compared with a universal change contained in the general Act provision. The House will appreciate that it is inherent in this principle that what is disallowed in a Private Bill on this ground should, if genuinely needed, be conferred by general legislation, and this brings me to the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Champion.
But before I deal with the Amendment, I should like to answer the criticism that the application of the criterion contained in paragraph 14(i) of the Report runs counter to a constitutional principle that a local authority has a right to petition Parliament for powers for its

871
area where a local need can be proved. I must point out that the right of local authorities to petition Parliament derives from Section 239 of the Local Government Act 1972 and prior to that from Section 253 of the Local Government Act 1933, so the right is statutory rather than constitutional; furthermore this statutory right to promote Private Bills has in no way been infringed by the Committee's decisions. The Committee recognises that in South Glamorgan it has paid more attention than formerly to the doctrine that the proper remedy for a general mischief is general, not local legislation. But there can, of course, be no right to require Parliament to agree to a provision in a Private Bill or not to disregard precedent when it is in the interests of sound legislation to do so.
May I now turn to the noble Lord's Amendment? I am glad to note that the Amendment does not seem to criticise the principle applied by the Committee, but says rather that it should apply only in cases where the Government can give a firm undertaking to introduce general legislation to meet a need. If clauses are disallowed on this principle it is certainly desirable in the Committee's view, as stated in our Report, that a complementary exercise should be carried out, and the necessary legislation introduced by the Government, so that in this way we can improve and maintain an efficient system of local government law throughout the land.
The difficulty is, of course, that the Government cannot give a firm undertaking to include specific legislation in their legislative programme for a future Session. But the Committee recommend that the Government introduce the proposed general powers Bill as soon as may be, and I understand that the Government have drafted and hope to introduce a Bill, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will no doubt inform the House in the course of this debate. I hope that the introduction by the Government of general legislation to meet common needs will be a continuing process.
The noble Lord's Amendment proposes that certain provisions of the South Glamorgan Bill should be subject to Recommitment, and I must point out to the House what that would involve.
872
According to his proposal, the South Glamorgan Bill would be recommitted in respect not only of the 31 clauses disallowed on the express ground of common need, which appeared at the end of our Report, but of the 61 clauses that were withdrawn by the Promoters because they anticipated that they would be disallowed on that ground. All these clauses would have to be reconsidered on Recommitment on their merits. The Committee would also have to be satisfied that the Bill contained the correct repeals and amendments of Acts consequent on such clauses as might be allowed. That would be the effect on this Bill. But, my Lords, the Amendment would have a much more formidable effect. It would open the door to a whole range of Private Bill clauses designed to deal with needs that are common to all or many local authorities.
No doubt many of the Bills containing these clauses would continue existing powers beyond 1984. Thus to a large extent the mass of private legislation that will be cleared away by the Local Government Act 1972 will be replaced. Parliament has a responsibility not only to legislate, but also to maintain a high standard of legislation, and would in my view be failing to carry out its responsibilities if this was allowed to happen.
There are, I believe, 40 county councils which were set up by the Local Government Act 1972. If, as I anticipate, the common need principle—as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, desires—cannot be applied and all these authorities were, between now and 1984, to promote Bills comparable in size to the County of South Glamorgan Bill, this would mean something like five major Private Bills each Session. This leaves out of account Bills which might be promoted by district councils. This programme would be more than the House could tackle with its present resources.
My Lords, I am not saying that the limitations of the Parliamentary machine are an excuse for denying Petitioners rights that should be granted; what I am saying is that the staff of my Office would have to be greatly expanded to carry the load. This would also mean an increase in public expenditure, to say nothing of the burden that would be cast on the civil servants who would be involved with these Bills. The public and the legal profession would be inconvenienced by the

873
creation of even more Statute Law. As much of this private legislation would, I should hope, subsequently be repealed by Government legislation, it would also, in the long term, result in an enormous wastage of time and effort, on the part of both Parliament and the local authorities.
There is one procedural point to which I should draw your Lordships' attention in connection with this Amendment. The House has very rarely sought to interfere with the discretion of Committees on Private Bills, probably on the ground that the House does not have the opportunity enjoyed by a Committee of hearing the parties and their advocates and witnesses. When the House has done this, it has been by way of an Instruction to the Committee in respect of a particular Bill; for example, to have regard to certain circumstances or considerations before arriving at a decision. The effect of this Amendment, however, is to prohibit a Committee, should the Bill be recommitted. from applying a certain principle unless there is a firm undertaking on the part of the Government to introduce general legislation to meet a common need.
Your Lordships will appreciate that, although the Amendment which we are considering this afternoon is intended to apply to this Bill, it will also have the effect, as I pointed out, of applying to many other private Bills in the future which will have to be considered by Private Bill Committees of your Lordships' House. This is, I think, quite without precedent. If the discretion of Private Bill Committees is to be limited in this way, it should be done by a new Private Bill Standing Order.
I was saying that I should hope that much of this legislation would subsequently be repealed by Government legislation. I should like to remind your Lordships that the Promoters are asking the House to alter the law by passing an Act of Parliament not of the considerable size of the Bill as amended in Committee, which already has over 270 clauses, but which will probably at least double the number of clauses that it now contains. As I have pointed out, the inevitable result of doing this will be that other local authorities will promote similar legislation. My experience is that each local authority will draft its clauses without following precisely the South
874
Glamorgan precedents. In this manner we shall again have a quantity of Acts of Parliament dealing with the same problems but in different ways, or in the same way but in different words. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this would be thoroughly bad legislation.
Before I conclude, I should like to acknowledge the enormous debt that the committee owes to my counsel, Mr. Talbot. Single-handed he went through the 287 clauses of the South Glamorgan Bill and advised us about the form as well as the content of each clause. When I say that after this intensive study of the Bill the committee sat for 26 days, the House will have some idea of the sheer volume of work that he undertook. I should like to thank him very warmly indeed on behalf of the committee.
Your Lordships have been good enough to entrust me with responsibility for private legislation for the last 10 years, and I am not aware of any occasion on which I have misled the House when your Lordships have been good enough to follow my advice. I regret to say that on this occasion my advice is that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, although I am quite sure it is not intended to prevent the reform and rationalisation of local government law as envisaged by the 1972 Local Government Act, would, if agreed to by your Lordships, have that inevitable effect. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House takes note of the Special Report on the Bill from the Select Committee (on Recommitment) [H.L. 1974–75 No. 347.]—(The Earl of Listowel.)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Derwent): My Lords, I am entirely in the hands of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has moved the Motion and I have put the Question. I merely raise the question whether or not the House would be in order if the noble Lord, Lord Champion, spoke to his Amendment now.
5.43 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION Lord CHAMPION rose to move, as an Amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("but considers—

(a) that the principle adopted by the Committee, to disallow any proposal in the Bill on the ground that it was

875
to meet a need common to all or a great number of local authorities, should only apply in cases where the Government give a firm undertaking to introduce general legislation to meet that need; and

(b) that those provisions of the Bill disallowed or withdrawn on that ground should be re-committed.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if with the permission of the House I may speak again, having already said a few words on this matter, I will now address it on the subject of my Amendment. When I spoke before, I indulged in a little mild leg-pulling with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. It was no more than that and I am sure he will appreciate that I have nothing but praise for his readiness to jump in and move formally the Motion standing in the name of the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees.
I have listened to the speech of the noble Earl with very great care and I agree with him about the importance of the debate, of the matter contained in the Report of the Select Committee and of the Amendment that I am now moving. The noble Earl has drawn attention to Section 262 of the 1972 Act. When the 1972 Act was going through this House as a Bill, I found no fault with Section 262. It seemed to me to make good sense, as it was designed to cause local authorities to review all the local legislation affecting their areas and to bring about the re-enactment of only those provisions that they regarded as necessary for the good government of their areas. As a spur to their efforts, that section gave the metropolitan counties five years and the other counties 10 years in which to complete the task before the repeal provision would take effect.
There is no doubt—and the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, has stressed this—that much of the local legislation had outlived its usefulness and that a considerable tidying up operation was both necessary and desirable. Just how much of the local law had become unnecessary for the future of the new areas is illustrated by the fact that the South Glamorgan Bill, as presented to Parliament, embodied only 3 per cent. of the local legislation that had operated in the areas that were merged to form the new county.
In readiness for the coming into operation of the new councils, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office issued a circular that was intended to give guidance as to how the authorities should proceed with the review of the local Acts affecting their areas. Also it gave guidance on the preparation and presentation of Bills which would, in the words of the circular, leave
"local authorities and the public with a manageable, modernised and accessible corpus of local law."
That circular wisely pointed out that it would be advisable for the authorities to begin their review early.
"so that any resulting Bill can be fitted into the 'queue' at a time best suited to the capacities of Parliamentary Agents, Government Departments and of course Parliament."
South Glamorgan, in association with the Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council, on consideration of that Circular and, they assert,
"urged and encouraged by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office"
decided to press forward rapidly with a review of their inherited local legislation.
I am bound to say that I think it was quite wrong of the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office to press the new local authorities to begin their review and especially to present their Bills to Parliament before a special General Powers Bill had been framed and introduced into Parliament. This is important. These Departments undoubtedly knew that a General Powers Bill was absolutely necessary if much of the local legislation, which could be described as general in character, was to be kept out of the Private Bills of the new local authorities. The Departments were, of course, very well aware of the difficulties of securing a place in the legislation programme for Bills of that character, for they said in their circular:
"If a special General Powers Bill is required to achieve this objective, the earliest practicable time at which such a measure might be introduced into Parliament would be the 1974–75 Session."
As we know, it was not introduced in the 1974–75 Session. Until quite recently the discussions about such a Bill had not even been completed and there is no guarantee that it will find its way on to the Statute Book in the 1975–76 Session. I have an idea that discussions are taking

877
place about this, but we know what happens with legislation—that discussions go on and that is difficulty over securing a "slot" in the legislation programme. Having myself sat on a legislation committee when I was a Minister, I know something about the difficulties and about the pressures that are brought to bear by Ministers to secure that their Bills come first.
If the ratepayers of Glamorgan have any justifiable complaint, it is, it seems to me, to be that their councils were urged to embark on a costly process which could have been much less costly if the Government had introduced the necessary General Purpose Bills and the Departments had said to Glamorgan, "Wait". In the circumstances, this would have been the sensible thing to do. It would have been fair both to South Glamorgan and to anybody else who was in the process of preparing Bills for presentation to Parliament. I must add that it is not only a Department of the Environment Bill that is required if a great deal of local legislation is to be forestalled. As it was, the councils of the South Glamorgan area, acting upon the Department's urging and circular, went ahead and presented their Bill which this House, on the wise suggestion of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, recognised as being a Bill of very exceptional character and requiring exceptional treatment. I agree with the Lord Chairman that it was desirable that the Bill should be treated as a test case, and, as that, subjected to something more than the normal Private Bill procedure.
The careful and prolonged examination to which the Bill has been subjected was part of that process of test. I am sure that this House is indebted to the Select Committee whose Report we are considering today, for the time and the care they devoted to the task which this House put upon them. But the test is not yet over, for I believe that the examination by this House as a whole of what the Committee did is another part of that test and something that we are engaging in today in this House. I mean—and I am sure that those Members of the House who might care to support the Amendment I am moving mean—nothing derogatory to our noble colleagues in asking the House to review their findings and to carry the examination of the Bill just one
878
stage further, for the outcome could be vital to local legislation in the future.
The Amendment is not intended to be so much a criticism of the work of the Committee as an attempt to bring about a re-examination of some of the recommendations from a different angle. The general background of the work of the Committee is set out in paragraph 1 of the Report, where it says:
"The general state of local legislation is chaotic and there is a great deal on the local Statute book which should have been repealed because it has been overtaken by the general law, because the powers are spent, because it is no longer applicable to modern circumstances, or because it is undesirable for other reasons."
No one who has ever sat on a Private Bill Committee or who has been a member of a local authority could do other than support that general statement.
The trouble that I find with the findings of the Committee lies in their decisions resulting from the words, "because it has been overtaken by the general law". For in that context they went far beyond the words, "has been overtaken". They stretch that out, to use the words of the concluding paragraph of the Report:
"The following clauses were disallowed by the Committee with a recommendation that the powers asked for should be included either in the Public General Powers Act referred to in the Report of the Department of the Environment or in future general public legislation."
Perhaps it was justifiable to disallow clauses that were to be rendered unnecessary by reason of the Public General Powers Bill, of which the Committee had some foreknowledge, but surely not in the case of clauses which should—and "should" is the word used by the Committee—be included in future general public legislation, of which there was no promise at all, either of an early drafting of such legislation nor of its finding its way into the legislative programme of the Government.
We all know that Governments like "eye-catching" legislation, and the kind of Bills that we are discussing here are certainly not by any means in this category. So Bills of this character will inevitably find a very lowly place in the queue for Parliamentary time. As I understand it, there are some 16 clauses and the whole of Part XI of the South

879
Glamorgan Bill which fall into the category of "should be conferred by Public General Act" to use the words of paragraph 14(i) of the Report. It is to these clauses in particular that the Amendment applies, but it might also be necessary to examine the clauses withdrawn by the Promoters—because they saw how the mind of the Committee was working—to see whether any of them fall into the category of, "should be conferred by Public General Act".
I am sure this House would not expect me to argue the merits of particular clauses turned down by the Committee, for I am arguing the general case that local legislation ought not to be based on a proposition that at some time in the future a Government might introduce general powers legislation on matters that are
"common to all or a great number of local authorities",
to quote again paragraph 14(i) of the Report.
Perhaps I ought to add at this point that the last thing Parliament should do would be to discourage local authorities from looking at local needs and framing clauses in their Bills to meet those needs. I say that because there are so many instances of worthwhile general laws that started their lives in ideas in council chambers and in offices of local authorities. It has happened so many times and one could give so many instances, but if I attempted to do so my speech would be unduly long.
If the Amendment is carried, I say that it will be for the House to decide whether to refer the clauses coming within the terms of (a) of the Amendment back to the same or to another Committee, for the Amendment leaves that open. Which clauses to be referred back could surely be agreed between the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Promoters. That is something which could definitely be agreed as to the amount that would in fact be referred back. Such a Committee, having this matter referred back to them, could then explore the possibilities of securing a firm undertaking by the Government to meet the needs of the referred clauses, and if no such undertaking was forthcoming,
880
to reinstate the disallowed clauses, perhaps even in an amended form, to make provision for their immediate repeal in the event of public legislation being passed in the future.
The Promoters of the Bill and the ratepayers of South Glamorgan in my opinion certainly deserve that amount of consideration by this House, and I am appealing to the House to give them that. I am not sure that they ought not to be reimbursed for much of their expenditure on the preparation and presentation of their Bill, for if out of their inside and special knowledge the Departments concerned had said, "Wait a bit", there is little doubt that South Glamorgan councils would have held their hands. But that is another story and not for me today.
I understand that the Amendment is supported by the three local authority associations, who are understandably anxious about the future of local legislation and concerned about what appears to them to be a departure by Parliament from the tests to be applied—tests which have been developed over the years, tests which have stood the examination of time. Those tests are that it is necessary to show that a need exists in the area of the promoting authority and that the legislative provision sought would provide a satisfactory remedy.
It is a fact that those standard tests were acknowledged by the Government Departments in their reports to the Select Committee when they presented those reports during the process of the consideration of the Bill by the Select Committee. I am convinced that in the case of many of the disallowed clauses, South Glamorgan showed that a need existed for them and that the legislative provision sought would provide a satisfactory remedy. Parliament ought not to deny the Promoters such legislative provision on the ground that at some future and unspecified date, Parliament or the Government will make a general provision. This is in no sense a Party matter. It is a matter for the House I believe, on what is called a free vote. In the interests of good local government, I hope the House will support the Amendment, because I genuinely believe that for the future of local government this would be a wise thing for the Government to do. I beg to move.
Moved, as an Amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("but considers—

(a) that the principle adopted by the Committee, to disallow any proposal in the Bill on the ground that it was to meet a need common to all or a great number of local authorities, should only apply in cases where the Government give a firm undertaking to introduce general legislation to meet that need; and

(b) that those provisions of the Bill disallowed or withdrawn on that ground should be re-committed.")[Lord Champion.]

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I thought it might be helpful if I were to intervene at this point in the debate to make the Government's position clear on the issues which are before us today. I am sure that your Lordships would wish me to express the thanks of the whole House to the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, and to his colleagues on the Select Committee, for their very thorough and patient consideration of this Bill. I thought that the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, through modesty, was himself unable to pay sufficient tribute either to himself or to his colleagues for what I think was both an extremely interesting piece of work, and a really important step forward in local government procedure. In my opinion, the paragraph read out by my noble friend Lord Champion about the present general state of local legislation, cannot be bettered for a succinct, completely relevant and up-to-date statement of the situation.
My Lords, first I should like to emphasise that this is not a conflict between central and local government or, indeed, between your Lordships' Select Committee and the local authorities. We have to accept, as did the Select Committee, that government gets more and more complex and sophisticated, and the quantity of legislation gets heavier and heavier. I might say that this applies whichever Government are in power. Surely, the issue is how to rationalise and yet keep the unique character of local authorities in this area.
My Lords, we are discussing the relationship between local legislation and
882
public general legislation. We are trying to find a balance, and to discover how to give local authorities an up-to-date body of legislative powers, in a way that is equitable, economical for them and their ratepayers—who are also taxpayers—and which makes legislative sense in public as well as local terms. I think this means consistency, so far as is possible, between different areas where the same problems apply. We also must bear in mind a most important factor; that is, the expense of promoting Private Bills.
In principle, it is absolutely right that local law should concentrate on those matters peculiar to one authority or a number of authorities, while public general legislation provides the powers needed by all, or the great bulk of local authorities. This is the road to clarity and to sensible economy. However, there is one exception I would make to this general principle. Although today there is not the same scope—and this is a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Champion—as in the last century for making innovations of a general nature in local Acts, happily there is still a place for pioneering provisions in local Acts where, for instance, there is general agreement on the problem to be tackled, but some doubt on how best to tackle it. I remember that on the Second Reading of this Bill, I pointed out that a great deal of public legislation has evolved from pieces of private legislation in the past. In cases like this, an experiment by one local authority under a local Act could be of great benefit. A good example of this is a clause allowed by the Committee on the South Glamorgan Bill, and concerned with the closure of insanitary food premises.
My Lords, these general aims are clearly agreed by the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, my noble friend Lord Champion, and myself. The point at issue is how to relate local and public legislation, bearing in mind problems not only of local and public need, but also problems of that very scarce commodity, time. The previous Conservative Administration set out the policy to which I have referred in their Circular 14/74—and I think I should point out to my noble friend that this Circular was sent out under the previous Administration following the 1972 Local Government Act.

883
There is no Party political point in this. The timing was not this Government's, and the timing was one of the points with which my noble friend disagreed. The Circular said:
"The Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office aim to assist in reducing the bulk of the individual Private Bills which may need to be promoted by local authorities by seeking to extend by means of appropriate Public General Acts a number of useful, well-precedented provisions from local Acts."
It is quite right and easy, as part of an interesting exercise in social history, to look back with nostalgia at the evolution of private legislation into public legislation, and to realise that we have had the benefit of a great deal of thought; we have built it into what is practicable and right for today.
We agree with this policy, and have been pressing on with the preparation of a miscellaneous provisions Bill of the kind foreshadowed by the previous Administration. I cannot agree with my noble friend that this was doing it the wrong way round. If it had been done in the reverse way, one could have just as easily argued as to why one should go ahead with a general Bill without giving local authorities an opportunity themselves to "have a go" at presenting what they feel to be the clauses they would like to see in a Private Bill. Frankly, the argument this way is a stronger argument because, as I shall show in a moment, a number of clauses put forward by South Glamorgan and discussed with local authorities and local authority associations have eventually found their way into the miscellaneous provisions Bill.
My right honourable friend has made substantial progress towards the introduction of such a Bill. Following consultations with the local authority associations, a list of possible provisions was sent to them in June. Since then, there has been further close consultation about individual clauses, and additional clauses suggested by local authorities have been sifted and discussed. A Bill has now been drafted, one which has been greatly helped by the comments of the local authority associations, and also by local authorities like South Glamorgan who have presented a Bill, and those who have Bills in preparation. Incidentally, I should make it clear, in case there is any
884
misunderstanding, that this Bill extends to the whole scope of local authority activities, including those for which the Home Office is responsible, which play such a part in local legislation, and not simply those in the sphere of my Department.
Therefore, we are now in a position to introduce a substantial Bill covering 30-odd subjects. All these are useful, well-precedented, and supported by the associations of local authorities. We believe all of them are entirely non-controversial. Indeed, we have left one or two provisions out of the Bill on this account in order to expedite its passage. I had hoped to have introduced this Bill in your Lordships' House by now, but as usual, there have been difficulties of pressure on Parliamentary time, particularly in this case on time on the Floor of the House in another place. My right honourable friends are currently urgently exploring the possibility of handling the Bill through Second Reading Committee when it reaches the other House, which might seem to many of your Lordships and Members of another place to make rather good sense. I very much hope that the arguments used by your Lordships this afternoon, together with the Amendment moved by my noble friend, will encourage those who are dealing with these procedural aspects to reach an agreed solution.
I will now deal with how all this applies to South Glamorgan. The House has been told of the drastic shortening of this first of the local authority Bills, and may have gained the impression that your Lordships' Special Committee—and there may be some comments made about this following mine, so I think I should get this clear—struck out many clauses on the grounds that they were more proper to public general legislation. This is not so. Most of the clauses lost were deleted because the Committee, having weighed the evidence presented to them—and they considered and heard a great deal of evidence—were not convinced of the merits of the clauses. The final page of the Committee's Report gives the list of provisions struck out as more appropriate to general legislation. There were 10 provisions where the Committee were fully satisfied of the need, and a further 11 starred provisions where the Committee were in some doubt whether the

885
law needed amendment but considered that if it did the amendment should be by Public General Act.
Of the 10 provisions on which the Committee were satisfied, 6 are already in the Government's miscellaneous provisions Bill. These deal with entry on land for certain purposes, recovery of deposits in certain cases, compulsory acquisition of easements in certain cases, golf courses, information as to ownership of certain land, and by-laws for prevention of fire at fairs and circuses. The seventh—on the supply of water, gas and electricity—is being drafted as an addition to the Bill; and an eighth, dealing with maintenance of burial grounds, is to be covered by an order under existing powers. This leaves two related subjects—touting and hawking, and regulation of street trading in Cardiff—which are still being considered for general legislation. I would stress that these are now under consideration. So that is the position on the 10 proposals which the Committee thought certainly suitable for general law, 8 already being provided for and the remaining 2 being under consideration.
Of the further 11 subjects on which the Committee expressed doubt the Government are satisfied on 2, and these are both in the general Bill. They are suspension of certain restriction covenants subject to compensation, and licensing of boatmen and pleasure boats. In addition, a third provision—protection of property broken into—is covered by the miscellaneous provisions Bill to the extent that we feel it to be consistent with individual rights. A small point in a fourth provision, affecting third party insurance of certain vehicles, is more appropriate for road traffic legislation and we have noted it down for that.
Te remaining 7 doubtful items have all been carefully considered. One—on the use of direct labour—is to be covered by general legislation from my Department to be introduced as soon as possible. A second, providing for additional expenses for members of the local authorities in the county, is considered wrong in principle, and I imagine a great many of your Lordships will agree with that. A third, on data processing equipment, is considered objectionable in principle, and the remainder are largely covered by existing legislation.
886
I have spelt this out in some detail and taken a little time over it because it is a matter that needs close and detailed consideration and is an easy victim of confusion. I should like to emphasise that where we have so far rejected proposals for the miscellaneous provisions Bill it is still open to the local authority associations to produce fresh evidence of need. And, of course, the Bill when introduced will be capable of amendment; it is still open for more clauses to be added to it. Thus we have a Bill ready for introduction and covering the bulk of the items identified by your Committee.
Other items will no doubt arise on future Bills of this kind, miscellaneous provisions or something of that sort. I cannot give a firm promise of legislation on them, but, as your Lordships will appreciate from what I have said this afternoon, it is the Government's intention to ensure, by one means or another, that local authorities get the ancillary powers they need before the expiry of their predecessors' powers in 1979 or 1984. I think we should keep these dates in mind, because quite unwittingly the impression may have been given that unless this Amendment is passed and all these clauses recommitted the powers would expire almost immediately. That is not true at all; there is a long period of time in which redress can be made and other action taken if the necessary public legislation does not come before Parliament. I am sure it will do so.
My noble friend's Amendment stresses the need for a firm undertaking by the Government. I am sure he and other noble Lords, and particularly those who have been in Government, as he has, will appreciate that in the nature of things there is a limit to how far any Government can go in such a situation. The fact that we have the Bill drafted—I am sure noble Lords know the difficulty of the time taken up in waiting in the queue for drafting—is so important that it certainly gives it an enormous edge. My noble friend would have us recommit all the clauses which had not been rejected by the Committee on merit and for which there was not a firm undertaking of public general legislation. I must tell the House that this would mean not only a possible but a very probable recommitment of 92 clauses. To give a

887
firm undertaking of the type asked, of public general legislation, is something that no Government could give, even where, as is the case, the Government have a Bill drafted and ready for introduction.
My noble friend talks about this being a test case, and I would suggest that in considering future Bills the Committee adopts the test adopted from time to time by previous Committees, that is, that the Government have an intention to introduce general legislation. This is what your Lordships' Committee have recommended. It is not a new test, as has been claimed, but a consistent formulation of the practice that has been adopted sporadically by Committees in the past. I would say here to my noble friend that if he wants to make a test out of this, then surely the right thing is to raise the points and the queries which come naturally to many people's minds, as he has so ably done, to express the doubts voiced by the local government associations as well as the Promoters of the Bill, and also take into consideration the number of other Private Bills that will come before the Committee. The more pressure there is for various clauses which should be included in public legislation the more pressure there will be on the Government to get on with it and include them in public legislation. I do not think it is a fair test to get to this stage and to chop the Committee off in the midst of its work, instead of letting it go forward and seeing how the procedure works out. We should bear in mind that as regards many of the clauses in the Bill, South Glamorgan have the powers now and those powers will extend to 1984.
In considering this issue I would ask noble Lords to appreciate that what we decide today will affect not only this Bill but, as the Lord Chairman pointed out, the way in which Committees of your Lordships' House deal with future business. Are we to have an orderly division between local matters in local legislation and general matters in general legislation, or a hotchpotch according to the precise timing of any particular Bill? My noble friend may think that I am putting too much weight on the effect of his Amendment. On the face of it, the Amendment asks for the recommitment of 92 clauses in one particular Bill. But if this Amendment is pressed to a Division and passed
888
I believe that it will be a rebuttal of the procedure of this Select Committee. That I think has enormous ramifications and effects not only for the Committee but on what so many of us are hoping to see, both on the Committee and off the Committee in, I would say, in all the political Parties, on what can be done about a sensible rationalised approach to local legislation.
The Amendment's practical effect would go far wider, and would have the effect sought in the Promoters' statement. Incidentally, from my reading of their statement it is quite clear that by the use of the words "unprecedented and novel" they go rather beyond the question of whether private legislation should be included in public legislation, but question the whole basis on which the Committee is working and the criteria that the Committee has set. They would bind Committees on future Bills to accept any clause whose merits were demonstrated, even though the problem is of national extent with somewhat different national provision in prospect. I believe that if this happened it would be the road back to the present chaos and not towards better future planning.
For South Glamorgan itself the authorities are not left without a considerable range of useful powers. As well as their existing powers lasting to 1984, they have been extended to the whole county, where the Promoters wished. I must disagree with my noble friend when he said that South Glamorgan were urged to put forward this Bill by my Department and the Welsh Office. They were not. When the Circular went out and they suggested that they would like to get in first with their Bill, they were certainly not discouraged from doing so; but they were warned of the difficulty there might be over many of the clauses. There was certainly no question of anybody leaning on South Glamorgan and suggesting that they should get on with the Bill; it was their decision.
I hope I have shown that my noble friend's Amendment goes further than he himself possibly intended, and that the effects would go much wider and could be seriously damaging to the Private Bill system and also to the future of local government. That would help no one. It would not help this House, it would not

889
help those in another place who consider the legislation, or indeed the local authorities themselves. Most of all, it would not help the private citizen, who is always at the receiving end of this process and yet is the most important partner in it. I hope that my noble friend, following this indication and also what the Lord Chairman has said, will take it to heart and head and not press his Amendment.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down could I press her to be a little less shy about the prospective timetable of the miscellaneous provisions Bill which we were all awaiting with bated breath? I am sure it would satisfy most people who, like myself, are dubious about how they should vote, if it came to a vote here, if the noble Baroness could give us an assurance that, so far as she knows, the Bill will be introduced this Session.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I cannot; it would be quite dishonest for me to give an absolutely firm assurance. All I can say is that the Bill has been drafted and is ready to be introduced. I was hoping I might have introduced it in this House by now. Everything depends on an arrangement as to what happens to the Bill when it goes to another place, whether it goes to Second Reading Committee. My noble friend will know very well that the question whether a Bill goes on to the Floor of the House or to Second Reading Committee, must make a great difference to its progress because of the pressure of legislation. This is the problem. This is what is under discussion now. Unfortunately, there is nothing more I can say about it.
6.26 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to follow what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Champion; that is, that this is certainly not a Party matter, and I am in no sense speaking for those of us who sit on these Benches but giving only my personal point of view. I find myself entirely in a frame of schizophrenia over this matter. On the one side I am convinced by the case made by our own Select Committee that the present opportunity to rationalise local legislation should not be missed. I should like to follow those others of your Lordships who paid a tribute to the Lord
890
Chairman of Committees, and those who sat with him and their counsel, for having undertaken a mammoth task. After all, in so doing, we are only following up the intentions that were accepted by Parliament in the Local Government Act 1972 in Section 262. The whole idea of this section was to compel local authorities to consider carefully what powers they really need. Certainly South Glamorgan have done that with commendable speed. I have no interest to declare in South Glamorgan, since I come from Mid-Glamorgan.
It would be totally wrong to allow this situation of private legislation to repeat itself. I believe that the Select Committee were quite right to subject this first Bill to rigorous scrutiny. They were right to take the view, which I quote from paragraph 15 of their Report:
"To begin anew a process of passing a multitude of parallel statutory provisions dealing with the same topic but in different localities would be an inefficient and wasteful procedure."
Indeed, they went further and said that, if there were to be more Bills of the size and scope of the South Glamorgan Bill, they feared that existing Parliamentary procedures might not be able to cope. It was this that led them to adopt the two principles in paragraph 14 which really are at the nub of the discussion we are having this evening and at the centre of Lord Champion's Amendment. It was as a result of those two criteria that 109 clauses out of the original 287 were disallowed and a further 61 withdrawn by the Promoters.
Having said that, and sympathising with the Committee, as I do, in taking the view they did, I find on the other side of my split personality a deep sympathy with the case of the Promoters. They have, after all, done exactly what Parliament required of them. Their Bill would, I understand, preserve less than 3 per cent. of existing local legislation in the various areas where they are now in existence. Most of the clauses which have been disallowed were only reenactments of existing powers, and powers which, in any case, they will certainly need in the future after 1984.
Until today—at any rate, until the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, revealed something about the miscellaneous provisions Bill—we have all been very much in the dark

891
as to what the Government were proposing in the sense of general legislation. We had no clue as to whether this miscellaneous provisions Bill would cover some of the disallowed clauses that are listed at the end of the Special Report. The noble Baroness was kind enough to give us a quick guide through them and tell us which of those particular clauses were covered. It is certainly satisfactory to know that, but I doubt whether South Glamorgan have had a chance of looking at the clauses as drafted and seeing whether they meet their needs. I think that I see the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, nodding in assent, and I understand, therefore, that they have; I can only say that that is very satisfactory. There are, however, certain other clauses which were disallowed but which have not been included in this Bill in so far as it is already drafted.
It is also very satisfactory to know that the Bill will cover matters outside the scope of the Department of the Environment and that various Home Office matters which are vital to the conduct of good local government will be included in the Bill. I understand the noble Baroness to say that the regulations for street trading, for example, would be included in the miscellaneous provisions Bill.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not think that that is quite right. I said that street trading was one of the matters under consideration by the Home Office at the moment. I said that it was one of the matters being considered for public legislation, but not in this Bill.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, that highlights the case I am making; that is, that the local authorities have absolutely no assurance whatever that general legislation will be introduced on the regulation of street trading, nor, for that matter, on matters such as hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, something which has been under consideration by Parliament for at least 20 years, but nothing has come forward. It seems grossly unfair to expect local authorities not to have included in their own Private Bill matters that are essential to the running of their own local authority on the ground that this is a matter that should be legislated for in
892
general legislation when the Government are unable to come forward with firm proposals for legislation.
I entirely agree with what the Select Committee said in paragraph 28 of its Report; this is where I would say that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, certainly is not a rebuttal of the Report because the Select Committee says that it is, in its opinion, essential that general legislation should be introduced to replace clauses disallowed on the two new principles introduced in paragraph 14. The Select Committee says that it is essential that this legislation should be introduced and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, says that there should be a complete distinction between local law and general law. But how do we cope with those powers which the local authority needs and which are disallowed because they should form part of general law, although there is at present no proposal for such a general law? I have given two instances in respect of street trading and hackney cabs and private hire vehicles.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, perhaps in giving a straight answer I misled the noble Lord. I said that to bring it together in public legislation is under consideration. This is still existing in private legislation and will exist until 1984 so far as South Glamorgan is concerned. It is not as though it is not there or is going away.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am perfectly well aware of that. Legislation about hackney carriages and private hire vehicles has been under consideration for 20 years and nothing has happened. The noble Baroness knows how difficult it is—she told us how difficult it is—to get general legislation on to the Statute Book. It is, therefore, essential that local authorities have the powers until such time as there is general legislation or until they can be shown, as in the case of this Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, that here are powers which the Government will seek to take.
In all this schizophrenia of mine I find the noble Lord. Lord Champion, an admirable psychiatrist. He solves my problem with his Amendment because he seeks to meet the difficulty. It is not a quarrel with the Select Committee's

893
principles in general. It is certainly not a rebuttal of its recommendations. It is simply an endeavour to ensure that clauses shall be disallowed only within the principles of paragraph 14 of the Report, where the Government give a firm undertaking to introduce general legislation to meet that need. In the case of this miscellaneous provisions Bill, that is exactly what they can do; if they produce the clauses in that Bill, then that satisfies the need and those clauses can be disallowed. However, this puts the onus on the Government to legislate for needs that are common to all or a great number of local authorities before a clause is disallowed; this seems to be fair to all the parties.
I appreciate, of course, the difficulties involved in recommitting these clauses, but it seems to be an injustice to local authorities if this is not done, and we may indeed, as the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, said, have to revise our procedures, especially in the present exceptional circumstances. But I believe that we shall have to go further than what is contained in the Special Report in assuring local authorities that their necessary powers will not be in danger of disappearing, be it in 1979 or 1984.
6.36 p.m.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Aberdare echoed the wish of probably every noble Lord in the House when he said that we should somehow try to bring some order into local Private legislation. Unfortunately, I found myself at variance with the conclusion he drew, but, like him, I am also immensely interested in Wales. This is not because I have a personal interest in South Glamorgan or, indeed, in Mid-Glamorgan, but because this was my first experience as a Member of the Select Committee on a Bill of this character, which was of a very large nature—287 clauses and 8 Schedules—and what struck me, for example, was the enthusiasm with which people travelled from South Wales and gave their evidence and the way the case was presented, with great care and skill. I learned a great deal and it was a privilege to serve on this Committee.
894
I am going to do something I have never done before and I hope I shall never do again. It is to ask the House if it will allow me to leave very soon after I have made my speech. It is for a reason which to me is special; this year happens to be the centenary of the birth of my father-in-law, John Buchan the author, and my husband, his brothers and his sisters are all giving a reception which ends at 8 o'clock. I hope that the House will not mind if I go because, as the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees kindly said to me, if I do not go tonight I shall have to wait another 100 years.
Having been a Minister at the Scottish Office at a time when we were discussing the reform of local government, I had a great many meetings with local authorities and I was very well aware of the difficulty of trying to secure the right balance between what is local legislation produced through this House by Private Bills and trying to reserve for Parliament matters of great public policy. I feel that in the debate so far we are agreed on the main matter of the need to bring order into private legislation, and I should have thought, too, although it has not been said in quite this way, that where a proven need is common to a number of local authorities the House might agree that Public legislation is the most efficient way to meet that need. I therefore submit to the House that the real issue before us today is how best to bring pressure not only on this Government but on their successors to promote legislation in various fields in every Parliament. Otherwise we shall without doubt return to the situation we have today.
I can understand the view represented by the Amendment moved so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, which asks that, where there is no firm undertaking to introduce Public legislation, certain clauses should be allowed. I thought that the Chairman of Committees gave very clear reasons to the House as to why we did not adopt this course and I shall only add that, this being such a very difficult problem and the South Glamorgan Bill being a test case, we all gave it a great deal of thought and were unanimous in our decision. If the Amendment, and in

895
particular paragraph (a), were accepted it would lay an obligation on those to whom the defined clauses were recommitted to allow all those which commended themselves on merit to stand part of the Bill and these would include not only existing legislation but new proposals as well.
If noble Lords will look at the last page of our Report they will see that there are three provisions which are of a new character. They are Clauses 29, 251 and 260. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, told us, it is possible for a local authority, if it has a good idea which it wishes to promote, to get it accepted. Whether or not one thinks it a good idea, Clause 260 is apparently to be the subject of special legislation. On the calculation which I made as to the number of clauses which would have to be recommitted in the terms of the noble Lord's Amendment, there would of course be the 61 clauses withdrawn and not yet considered. I do not believe that there would be as many as the total of 31 referred to in the last page of our Report mentioned by the Minister, for these reasons. There are, as she said, eight which will be part of the Miscellaneous General Powers Provision;there is one which will be the subject of an order, one which will be the subject of special legislation and one which is being drafted as additional provisions. There are three others which are considered unnecessary as they are already covered.
Therefore, we are left with 12 clauses which are considered controversial and are the subject of consideration for legislation but on which no firm undertaking is given. There is one which is the subject of a Working Party and there are two which the Government consider objectionable. Then there are two clauses which are partly covered but the rest of the clause is considered by the Government to be objectionable. Therefore, if my arithmetic is correct, we should have to recommit to a Select Committee the 61 clauses withdrawn by the Promoters and not yet considered and at least 15 for which there is no firm undertaking, making, if one takes into account those which are partly covered, roughly 80 clauses altogether.
It is not the size of the task in particular which I am suggesting is so difficult.
896
Of course any Select Committee of this House is only too glad to undertake any work which your Lordships think fit, but I submit that, if all these clauses were recommitted with an instruction from the House in the terms of the Amendment—notably those in paragraph (b)—the result would be very far reaching. There would be the promotion on a large scale of similar Private legislation with all the consequences of differing—and therefore confusing—provisions in various areas of England and Wales. There would be considerable expense for the ratepayers and there would be the inability of Parliament, as at present constructed, to consider Private Bills within the scope of one Session. Above all, I submit that to adopt the procedure recommended in the Amendment would result in the Government of the day feeling under no obligation whatsoever to proceed with legislation as a regular duty in every Parliament to ensure that domestic law reflects modern needs.
As the Minister told us, the new General Powers Bill will cover many Government Departments which were the subject of the South Glamorgan Bill and, as the noble Baroness has described it, the Bill reflects the Government's view that only certain provisions favoured by local authorities are justified. This will not satisfy either South Glamorgan or any future local authority submitting a Private Bill of the same character. I suggest that it is also wise to remember that local authority associations do not by any means always accept the ideas put forward by individual authorities. In fact this was a matter of complaint by the Promoters of the present Bill. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Parliament can ever entirely satisfy local authorities as to what they really believe is in their interests and is practical to do. As the Chairman of Committees said, local authorities have a statutory right to petition Parliament but they have no statutory right to have every demand satisfied.
I make the following suggestion for consideration. It may be that a certain reticence in not promoting every cause should commend itself to those who, like myself, believe that Parliament should legislate far less. We all know that Government Departments, if given instructions by Ministers to prepare legislation are only too happy to do so. I certainly

897
found that to be so at the Scottish Office which as the House knows, has been responsible for many years for a wide range of domestic and other legislation. If the battle is won within Government to promote a Bill, there is the pride of that Department in being able to lay claim to "our Bill"—a Bill of its own. The bar to such delights is of course the Government's decision on priorities, which is taken for reasons of necessity but also sometimes for reasons of politics.
I believe that practically every speaker has referred to the famous Section 262 of the 1972 Act, which provides for the repeal of existing legislation in 1979 in the Metropolitan counties and in 1984 in the other areas of England and Wales. I suggest that, by these provisions, the Government have a spur to action if they will use it. They can urge all Depart merits not only to promote the present Bill but to consider the main needs which will be common to most or all local authorities in the future. This is entirely my personal opinion and I have not asked the Chairman of Committees what he thinks, but I suggest that it may be wise to extend the time for the metropolitan counties from 1979 to 1984 because we should then have eight years for all local authorities in which the Government and the local authorities together can enact the necessary legislation. I should not favour extension beyond 1984 because, if that happened, the Government could sit back with the feeling that everything was all right because the local authorities had all their existing legislation for another five to 10 years.
I hope it will be possible for the Government to address themselves to the problem of the action they should commend to local authorities in the promotion of Private Bills, particularly at this time of financial stringency and having regard to the need to ease the enormous increase in local rates. When the noble Baroness replies, if she does, perhaps she will give consideration to the question of whether any practical steps are being taken to ensure that public legislation can be promoted as occasion requires to meet the general needs of local authorities. My Lords, if we, as a House, can urge the Government to face up to bringing order into the chaos of Private legislation—and all the consequential work
898
which this will entail for the Government of the day—I believe that that will be the best means whereby Parliament and the local authorities can work together, producing together a clear and consistent corpus of local Acts which truly reflect local need, and Public Acts which reflect wider issues of policy, which, I submit, are without doubt the responsibility of Parliament as a whole.
6.50 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, before my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie leaves the Chamber, may I say that I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would think it impertinent on my part if I were to say that we envy her very much going to the party she mentioned. We wish that we were going, too. We think that she should leave immediately, but we find it impossible to believe that a Scottish ceremony or celebration of such importance could possibly terminate at the ridiculously early hour of 8 p.m.!
This is probably the first time I have every screwed up the nerve to rush to the aid of the Welsh. My experience in this House is that generally they can defend themselves very effectively indeed, and that they almost invariably prevail. Perhaps that is the feeling which brought me to rush to their aid, because my instinct has always been the same as that of a rather famous French statesman who said that, whenever he could, he rushed to the aid of the victors.
We all listened to the very interesting speech by our Lord Chairman, the Earl of Listowel. We are absolutely unanimous in believing that there is no more courteous, fair-minded and experienced Member of this House than the noble Earl; and we also feel the same about the three Members of the Committee to whom this problem was remitted. We all appreciate, too, the very considerable time that the Select Committee spent deliberating on this question. How right the Committee was to give special examination to this case as being, I think, the first of its kind to be put forward since the Act dealing with local government reform came into force. The aim of the Committee to save Parliamentary time is also admirable. But the criteria suggested by the Committee in this case has, as the noble Lord, Lord

899
Champion, said, left all three local Government associations very unhappy indeed. When one remembers that membership of these three associations covers a great field of practical experience and responsibility, I am sure that we all wish to make every effort to remove that unhappiness, if we can.
Those three associations would all agree that when there are problems that are common to all, or most, local authorities, then the best way to deal with these is by general Parliamentary legislation, when such a course of action is likely to be available. When considering a miscellaneous provisions Bill, the expectation has traditionally been, I believe—although I am not sure about this—that matters covered by such Bills should be non-controversial. How much of a limiting factor that is in practice, I do not know. Some of us have memories which go back some time, and the experience to date has been that opportunities in this connection are, in practice, few and far between, because of the pressure of Parliamentary time.
I am certain that the object of the Select Committee is not simply to impose uniformity on local authorities; if I thought that, I should be very worried indeed, because uniformity is often the deadly enemy of real local government and cannot be reconciled with it. But not for a moment do I believe that that has been the aim of the Select Committee. Local authorities believe that there are many problems that, for one reason or another, are best dealt with by local laws. Some of those problems may best dealt with, in the first instance, by local laws, and then perhaps at a later stage incorporated in a general powers Bill. I expect that the Select Committee would not disagree with those views.
But local authorities fear that if the new criteria, as worded in the Select Committee's Report, were to be adopted, they would sometimes find themselves in the air, or falling between two stools. For instance, it might not be easy for local authorities to discover in a particular case how many other local authorities would need the same provisions, or how soon the general powers of a Parliamentary Bill would be likely to be brought forward. They would understand the Select Committee's fear of over-swamping, and
900
certainly would not want that to happen. But could not the risk of that overswamping—due to an excessive number of provisions in local Bills being brought forward separately—be reduced by, for instance, expedients such as model clauses or provisions borrowed from other local Bills? But by all means let Parliamentary Bills with general powers be used whenever they are practicable.
We were interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, told us about the imminence of a miscellaneous provisions Bill; the sooner that can be brought forward the better. But I believe that a single Bill will not deal with this question between now and 1984. If we are to rely more on general powers Bills, then there must he some assurance that it would become a standard practice to introduce these Bills at frequent intervals, so that local authorities' proposals are not left in the air for very long. We all realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, found it very difficult to give specific assurances about that. But I know that the Select Committee wish this to happen. However, the hope which the Select Committee expressed does not go very far towards satisfying many of us who remember the past record of these miscellaneous provisions Bills.
I welcome what the noble Baroness said; that is, that it is up to the local government associations to bring forward further proposals which they feel would be desirable now, as well as the draft provisions that have already been put forward. But I repeat that I do not believe that a single miscellaneous provisions Bill will get to the heart of this; nor will it satisfy the unhappiness that exists.
I hope that the Select Committee, by one means or another, will consider the cogent argument put forward by the noble Lord. Lord Champion. All of us in this House who know the noble Lord, know that he has no tendency to exaggerate problems or to put forward unreasonable cases. I hope, too, that a way will be found to ease what we regard as the too restrictive criteria which the Select Committee has, as the moment, put forward. I think that there are ways of doing this. I acknowledge the difficulties about time, but I should have thought that there were ways in which the Committee, if it was good enough to give further thought to this question, could put

901
forward some proposals which would go some way, at any rate, to satisfy the very real anxieties of local authorities all over the country.
7 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, listening to this debate so far, it seems to me that Parliament is laying up trouble for the future by failing to impose upon itself the kind of discipline which it has demanded of the local authorities. If Parliament, through the voice of the Special Committee of the noble Earl the Lord Chairman, is going to lay down what I will call a new doctrine, a new doctrine which pays regard to a conception so vague as "future public general legislation"—and I quote those last four words from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Champion—then surely it behoves Parliament first to introduce the general legislation.
My Lords, I call this a new doctrine. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, does not regard this as a new doctrine. If that is the noble Baroness's view, may I quote very shortly what I believe to be the view of the Parliamentary Agents. I have been supplied with a memorandum by Parliamentary Agents in which they say this:
"These principles"—
that is to say, the new doctrine that I am describing—
" are a far cry from those which hitherto have operated in the consideration of a Private Bill. Clauses have not been normally disallowed on the ground that duplicate general legislation is pending unless that legislation is before Parliament in a Public Bill which has passed the Committee stage in the second House. This has been the invariable practice where that consideration arises".
My Lords, we are told by the noble Baroness that the general legislation is in the pipeline. That is fine. Let us have it out of the pipeline. Let Parliament suspend for the moment the deadlines of 1979 and 1984 imposed upon the local authorities. Let Parliament, for a change, impose a deadline upon itself, by which time the necessary and relevant general legislation shall have been put on the Statute Book. Then, and only then, shall Parliament, having cast the mote out of its own eye, see clearly to impose a fair deadline upon the local authorities, by which time they shall have brought forward Private Bills to enact the purely local requirements, which I think
902
we are all agreed are what the Private Bills of local authorities ought only to have to contain.
My Lords, without this self-discipline from Parliament, I simply do not believe that this general legislation is going to be forthcoming. The reasons other noble Lords have already touched upon, and I need not waste the time of the House by repeating them. We know that there is always something more urgent demanding any Government's time, and nothing so dull as legislation regarding local authorities' powers. We know also that this topic is not of any great interest or excitement to the electors—and we know, of course, that Governments of all complexions have to keep one eye upon the electors. But, my Lords, suppose we do not have this self-discipline, that the deadlines imposed upon the local authorities remain and that the general legislation is not in large measure forthcoming. What is going to happen? As the deadline approaches, the local authorities, in increasing numbers, are going to press forward with their Private Bills. This will cast great strain upon all concerned, not least upon the Department of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees.
Furthermore, in the absence of general legislation, Parliament at some stage will have to give way on some of the points, and when future local authorities come forward with clauses the like of which have been denied to South Glamorgan and other local authorities earlier in the queue, then Parliament is going to feel constrained to grant those similar clauses to the later applicants in the queue because of the absence of the general legislation. Then, South Glamorgan and the early corners are going to have a real grievance—and that way, my Lords, lies chaos. So I hope that something on the lines of what is being demanded by noble Lords in this debate will he forthcoming, and I think that the best way to ensure that it is forthcoming is to support the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Champion.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, if I may, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on the excellent way in which he introduced his Amendment, and say that I have no connection with Wales but I come into this matter really because I was interested

903
in another Bill, which I regret I lost in this House, which dealt with part of what is in the Bill before us. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for the way he introduced this Bill, which he did in the same excellent way as when he replied to the debate on my Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Champion, would convey to the officials of his authority and to the many people who came up to give evidence how very grateful the Committee must have been, because I have read the transcript and I thought they did exceptionally well.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I should like to suggest one thing. She keeps on stating that there is no time for anything; but, my Lords, surely there are plenty of other Bills that we could very well do without and in whose stead we could put these very important ones. I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, said in regard to the metropolitan counties. There are only two Sessions left, and at the moment we have to get the Bills through by 1979. I hope we will give them the opportunity to go on until 1984, because it they do not get this extension of time. the Bills will be very much rushed. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, kept on talking about her Department. Surely her Department is not the only Department connected with legislation, and it seemed to me, just going through the things she mentioned, that Clause 202 might be dealt with by the Home Office. When she comes to wind up, or when the noble Earl winds up, perhaps we can be told what other Departments have been consulted and what will be in the Bill which comes under their province. It seems to me that we should have had somebody from the Home Office here to give us their views, because so much local government comes under their jurisdiction. The noble Baroness said that the local authorities could give their views, but I think she will agree that this present method of giving their views is not really satisfactory.
I gather that the noble Baroness will have received (the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, mentioned this matter) representations from the Associations of County Councils, district councils and metropolitan authorities. They, of course, are not at all happy. As I understood the 1972
904
Act (most of which I dislike intensely), I thought it gave local authorities the opportunity to settle more of their own problems. If they are going to produce Bills which will be applicable to their particular locality and they are going to be turned down, this is not what I should have thought was envisaged by the 1972 Act. Naturally, the three associations mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, are opposed in principle, because as I understand it they are losing rights which they have had for about 100 years. So, too, are the corporate bodies, which obtained their rights previously, through Parliament, for the special needs in their areas.
I had hoped that under the 1972 Act the local authorities would become more independent, but it will not be so if they have got to be covered by a general powers Act and by general legislation in the future. Although it may be desirable in theory to put all their public powers under one umbrella, it would not appear that the scope of a general powers Bill, which has been mentioned before, will be convenient because it is going to be, I gather, very limited if the clauses have to be non-controversial and take the minimum of Parliamentary time. The Association of County Councils suggested that there should be a triennial miscellaneous provisions Bill not confined to controversial clauses. They also suggested (and this was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory) that a list of model clauses should be considered and accepted by Government for inclusion in local Acts. Naturally, the suggestions will have to be discussed in detail and the associations would want to be consulted at an early stage. I mention this—and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will be able to confirm them—since I gather they have not been consulted in regard to the present policy.
I agree that one does not want to go through all the clauses of the Bill, but I should like to mention a couple. This points out the need for some local action. I should like to mention Clause 154, the seizure of cattle; and Clause 135, warrants for entry into brothels; and Clause 155, the seizure of dogs. From the evidence that I have read I think that Clause 154 would affect very few authorities. In view of local government reorganisation

905
new powers are needed in Glamorgan. It would appear that in the Select Committee Report some clauses were omitted because it was considered that they were not unique to the locality. I should like to stress that it is also stated that these clauses have been disallowed for other reasons than solely because they were problems common to other authorities. It seems to me slightly contradictory.
I have read much of the transcript and particularly the evidence in regard to dogs given by Councillor Mrs. Matthew-son. She said that half the council's time was devoted to this problem. There were 200 straying horses and a great many dogs. She remarked to the Committee that she was not speaking of Medicine Bowl but of Cardiff City. She said that mares had foaled in school playgrounds. She also said in regard to dogs that there were a great many sick dogs in the town and there were a lot of open plan playgrounds and dogs had attacked some handicapped children. The figures the police gave in 1974 were that there were 1,228 dogs in police stations and 446 street accidents were caused by dogs. There were 140 lost sheep in 48 hours and 19in one night. The police support this particular clause. It was mentioned that Rochdale town police had acted under Section 112 of the Local Government Act 1972; but the police doubted whether it would work in Glamorgan. I mentioned taxi cabs in a previous debate. The same thing comes into this Bill again, so I will not repeat it. It seems to me unfortunate that this city has also to suffer the same disability as Plymouth.
I should like therefore to suggest one or two points. First:
"That the subject matter for general provisions is proposed for general legislation."
I read that from the transcript. I should like to know how this is going to be done and whether a general powers Bill will ever be successful. Then:
"That the subject matter has been or is the subject of consideration by a Departmental Working Party."
I should like to know what it is about and when it is going to report.
"That the Promoters cannot show special urgent local needs."
I hope that one of the subjects I have mentioned perhaps shows a local need.
It might be of interest to mention one other: Clause 135, warrants for entry into
906
brothels. This proposed clause was to enable a justice to issue a warrant to a police officer to enter a suspected brothel and arrest any person managing the house. Evidence was given under the Act of 1956. Both the districts in this area have seaports frequented by foreign seamen and according to the evidence brothels are the cause of disturbances and fights. Under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 it is necessary to name someone before a warrant can be obtained. According to the evidence, the Home Office stated that they had no objection to the clause and the evidence showed its particular value in ports in the county such as Cardiff and Barry. This seems to be another type of clause that we should look into to see whether it is special for local needs. I should like to mention the fourth clause: that in certain cases the local needs are common to a large number of authorities; in which case the matter is one dealt with by general law.
I hope that we will all support the the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in the Lobby if he presses this Amendment to a Division, because I think it is a principle that we must see carried out in this House. Finally, I should like to express my fears in regard to what was said by Lord Brecon in a debate on the Public Health Bill in the House of Lords on 24th November 1960. He said:
"In this aspect, therefore, the Bill follows earlier Public Health Acts; those, for instance, of 1890, 1907 and 1925, all of which were substantially based on clauses which had previously been included in local legislation.
"In doing so the Bill is meeting the recommendations of various Parliamentary Committees."—[Official Report; col. 871.]
That is what is stated; but nothing has happened since 1960, except for the Highways Bill 1971, and I would suggest that if we are not careful we may be in the same situation again.
7.17 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, it is with a certain amount of trepidation that I address the House on the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. If I had known that I would hear such a studied defense of the situation as the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees gave, I should have been very nervous of delivering a speech in this House; for what I want to develop in my speech is no criticism whatsoever

907
of the Select Committee and no criticism of the procedures of this House, which I most greatly respect. My object in speaking is to hope (as was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Champion) that the House will consider this as a completely non-Party issue; rather an issue which interests us all and on which we shall take a decision in due course.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, gave as his reasons for disliking what was in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, the fact that there would be numerous Bills coming to your Lordships' House in the future and that the general state of legislation was chaotic; but I do not think an argument of that calibre is necessarily an argument for disallowing the arrival of Private Bills in this House. I should have thought that the fact that local authorities have the power to bring private legislation is not only of value to them but must of necessity be of great value to Parliament. If that did not continue in the future, and if local authorities were discouraged from adopting the procedure of Private Bills, I think that Parliament would be the loser.
My Lords, I support the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. With regard to the Chairman of Committees and the Select Committee, under paragraphs 14(i) and (ii) of their Report they enunciated the principle that clauses in this Bill should be disallowed unless they met a need common to all or a great number of authorities. This, in my submission, cuts squarely across the right of local authorities, for the legislation they require, to bring their own particular problems to Parliament. I completely fail to see how a problem which applies to a particular area or a particular local authority can be the same for all local authorities. This is part of what I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said will come in the miscellaneous provisions Bill the intention in that Bill is to cover problems which apply universally throughout the country. I suggest that this would be difficult to achieve.
If the principle arrived at by the Committee were carried to a logical conclusion, it would seem to me that there were problems affecting local authorities that they would have to wait for the eventual legislation which has been promised by
908
central Government in this general purposes Act. If local authorities and the Promotors of Private Bills have to wait for the necessary legislation, this will discourage the Promotors of Private Bills, on the ground of expense and time, from ever bringing such Bills to Parliament. As I have said, if this situation existed and was encouraged, it would detract from the right which has existed for many years for local authorities to follow these provisions.
There is, in my opinion, another important point: if this right were lost, then a provision of great value to the central Government and Parliament could well be lost, for a Private Bill tried out and working in a local authority area can afford valuable information to Government when, as in a matter of national application or policy, Government desire to bring before Parliament their own legislation to meet a particular case. Let me give an example. If one refers to the Second Reading of the Clean Air Bill in your Lordships' House (Hansard of 24th April, 1956, columns 1157 to 1159), one finds that the Minister Without Portfolio, Lord Munster, in speaking to the provisions of the Bill, praised the contribution made by local authorities which, under the provisions of their local Acts, had played a notable part in dealing with the problem of air pollution. The noble Earl said:
"The problem of air pollution has been the subject of various Acts of Parliament far well over a hundred years, but it has not yet been solved.… We owe a debt of gratitude to all those local authorities who have in days gone by obtained powers under local Acts to deal with this subject.…"—(Official Roport, 24/12/1956; cols. 1156–7.)
It is interesting to note in this connection that Section 34 of the Manchester Corporation Act 1946, dealing with pollution, was incorporated in the Act of 1956, as was the whole of Section 35. I could give other examples of the value of local Acts, but I will mentiononly one other: the City of London (Various Powers) Act of 1954. For the reasons I have stated, I support the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, not in any Party sense, not without respect for the Chairman of Committees and the Select Committee, but in the interests of local Government and, if I may say so, of the undoubted value to the central Government of Private Bills.
7.25 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, my first purpose in addressing your Lordships tonight is to underline the unity of the Committee whose Report is before you. We sat for an unusually long period of time—nearly 30 days—and on every one of those days we had to take decisions on the clauses which had been put before us. We never had to have recourse to a vote in order to settle any difference between us. In every case we, after discussion—sometimes fairly rapid, sometimes more lengthy—found that we were of a common mind, and all decisions were taken unanimously. The same is true of our Report; those recommendations are unanimous and all three of us believe sincerely in them.
If anything could shake me in my belief, it is to find myself at variance with the noble Lord, Lord Champion. We have sat on a great many Committees together over the past few years, and I have the highest regard for his wisdom and judgment. Normally I expect to be spared from having to speak, because I can always agree with what he has said or proposed. On this occasion we differ, but I am happy to believe that we differ on the application of a principle rather than on the principle itself. The basic proposition put by the Lord Chairman of Committees, that the proper remedy for a general mischief is general rather than local legislation, was not contested by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I have listened carefully to the speeches, and no noble Lord who has so far spoken has dissented from that general proposition. If this remains true when the last word is said tonight, I think that will have been an important outcome from this debate and one that will be of assistance to future Committees which sit to consider similar Bills.
The discussion this evening has centred essentially on the application of that principle. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, would have the principle applied in a particular way: that the Government must give a firm undertaking to introduce general legislation on any particular proposal. I see difficulties. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to the problem of committing themselves or any Government to a legislative programme very far in
910
advance. I see a further difficulty in what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, proposes. Reference has already been made to the list of clauses which are contained at the end of our Report. In a number of those cases the Committee were not convinced on the evidence brought before them that there was a need. They felt that the general law was probably adequate to enable the local authorities to do what they wanted to do. But we went on to say that if there was a deficiency in the general law, this must affect a number of other local authorities, and if there was a loophole that should be tilled nationally and not locally.
But in order to establish whether there is a need, time is required to look into this matter further, to observe whether a deficiency in fact exists, whether this comes up in the law courts and a ruling is given. Time is required to consult with local authorities to see whether this clause is brought forward in other Bills. It is not possible for the Government to give a firm undertaking now to say they will bring in legislation in all those cases.
Then it seems to me that there are controversial subjects. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned, for example, the question of street trading. Government Departments have been working away for a considerable period of time, trying to produce national legislation on these subjects. They would hesitate to give, either today or tomorrow, a firm undertaking that there will be legislation; but surely we want them to continue to try to produce that general legislation.
It has been suggested from both sides of the House that the problem is to find the right balance between local legislation and public legislation. If I may refer for a moment to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, it has never been in our thoughts to exclude altogether local Acts. In fact, as your Lordships will be aware, the County of South Glamorgan Bill is by no means a thin document. Although it is thinner than it was, it still contains 75 Clauses.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, if I may just interrupt the noble Viscount, I should like to make it clear that I did not think it was the policy to exclude altogether

911
Private Acts, but I think it is a discouragement for Promoters to bring Private Bills if every time they have to consider that they cannot really get anything through unless it is of general application throughout the country. The Private Bills would dry up.
Viscount HOOD: My Lords, that is not at all the line we were taking. If the noble Lord looks at the Bill he will find that a great many of the clauses are of purely local application. That will always be so, but it is where they are of more general application that we think they ought to be in general law and not local law. The problem is to arrive at the correct balance and, in fact, it has to be dealt with partly in local and partly in general law. It is a question of where the line is to be drawn, and I believe that if we were to follow the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that line would be drawn in the wrong place. Subjects which ought to fall on the general side of the line will, because the Government ought to take a decision and give an undertaking now—and they will be unable to do so—fall therefore on the local side of the line. And once the line is drawn in the wrong place there will be all the consequences of recommitment and of Committees reaching their decisions in those circumstances.
We should have to face all the consequences which have been described by the Lord Chairman and by other colleagues, including the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Bclhelvie. Therefore, I need not repeat them. There will be uncertainty as to whether a clause is suitable for inclusion in a local Act or whether it should be reserved for a Public Act. Some of your Lordships have this in mind. For instance, the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Airedale, have mentioned it, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. They asked: Is it not possible to allow local authorities, given this uncertainty, to have what they have asked for, on the understanding that if a general Act is introduced the local Act will be replaced by the general law? Such a procedure would be perfectly feasible, but it would be wrong because it would involve an abuse of Parliamentary time and resources. It would mean that much legislation, which would be
912
repealed before 1984, would be put on the Statute Book, and, the pressure on Parliamentary time being what it is, I think that would be wrong.
Secondly, there was the point which was touched on by a number of your Lordships; that is, that once a matter is dealt with in Private Acts a great deal of the incentive for dealing with it in a general Act is taken away. In that way the pressure is being taken off civil servants to produce general legislation, which is something that we all want to do. The Committee have said —as clearly as noble Lords have said it tonight—that we believe it is essential that general legislation should be introduced if the principle is applied which we should like to see. It is certainly welcome news that there is a general purposes Bill in draft on the stocks. It is greatly to be hoped that this will be introduced during this Session.
It is also good news—this answers a point which was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers—that this not only covers Department of the Environment subjects but, as I understood the noble Baroness, it also covers Home Office subjects and other Governmental subjects. However, that is only a start. I agree wholeheartedly with, I believe, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who said that one Bill is quite inadequate to deal with this situation. I think we should certainly think in terms of miscellaneous provisions Bills at frequent intervals between now and 1980. I also think that Bills on particular subjects might well be required; for instance, a Bill on street trading, if this can be hammered out. The miscellaneous provisions Bill may well have to be reserved for the less controversial subjects, but there may well be controversial subjects which will require a Bill to themselves. I think it is very important that some machinery should be devised, if it does not already exist in Whitehall, to keep this matter under constant review. Certainly there ought to be consultation, not only between Departments but also with the local authorities, and particularly the local authorities' associations. In that way, the general legislation will be brought forward over a period of time, and I have no doubt that it will be necessary to keep up the pressure at all levels. It seems to me that there

913
will be frequent opportunities for your Lordships to do this as and when other local Bills of this kind come up for your consideration.
Before I close, I should like to touch on an aspect of this matter on which I think the Committee were even more totally unanimous than on any other. I think it is one in which your Lordships will join me; that is, to express the appreciation of the Committee for the care, the skill and the courtesy with which the case of the Promoters was developed by their Parliamentary Agents and by the witnesses.
Appearing before your Lordships is always a daunting experience—certainly I find speaking before your Lordships always a daunting experience—and, on this occasion, even those who were adept were, not unnaturally, disconcerted by the rather novel approach adopted by the Committee. They all acquitted themselves very well. I should also like to say a word of thanks and warm appreciation for the help, support and encouragement which we received from representatives of Government Departments, and of course from the staff of your Lordships' House. Like the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, I cannot resist saying one word about Mr. Talbot. His topographical expertise in the jungle of Private law and in the mountains of Public law was a constant source of wonderment, and his wit and humour were a constant source of enjoyment.
I think I have said enough to show that I found sitting on this Committee an interesting and fascinating experience. I have always found sitting on Select Committees of your Lordships' House fascinating and interesting, and this was perhaps more so simply because of the magnitude of the task. It certainly was a marathon, and I believe that if any one of your Lordships had been sitting in my place you would have felt as I did, that 40 repeat performances on the same scale within the next eight years is just not "on". For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, may be persuaded to withdraw his Amendment and that we can rest content with the Motion of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount this question? If
914
it is unfair to expect the Government to be tied down by a rigid timetable, is it fair to impose a rigid timetable upon local authorities whose action is so interdependent with Government action?
Viscount HOOD: My Lords, I personally did not impose a timetable, but I should have thought that some timetable was essential if one were ever to get results from this field.
7.42 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few moments. This has been a very long and fascinating debate and I am sure we all look forward to reaching a conclusion, which I hope will be a correct one. I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I am sure that it was not necessary for the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, to say that he was speaking to show the unanimity of the Committee, as I have no doubt that everyone felt there was total unanimity on the Committee. But I think it is correct to say that it is only the Committee, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who have spoken in favour of the Special Report. I do not say that in any unkind sense; I think that has been the tone of this debate.
I do not at all criticise the Select Committee's work. I have the greatest respect for the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, for my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir and, indeed, for the noble Viscount, Lord Hood. They are, indeed, the three wise Members of the House who continuously work incredibly hard and who, I am sure, are the buttress of the Committee work of the House. In this case, their scrutiny was as thorough as ever. As we have heard, over a period of 26 days they considered not only 278 clauses but the procedure for future Bills. My only comment on those 26 days is that they were spent in London and involved a great many people coming up to the House from Wales. I should have thought that in future the Committee might consider going to the area from which evidence will be frequently obtained.
My concern in speaking is for the South Glamorgan authority, for their councillors, for their Parliamentary Counsel and, primarily, for their ratepayers. They

915
promoted a Bill in good faith—encouraged by the Department of the Environment after consultation—designed to streamline existing powers; in fact, the powers were reduced to 3 per cent. of what they previously had. They also threw in a few more powers which they sought; I think there were 10 clauses. When the Bill left Wales it had 278 clauses, and is now a shadow of its former self at a cost of £100,000, which is a very material factor. I do not think that this is an encouragement to other local authorities to promote Bills, when this has been so manifestly rejected and when, as I repeat, the authority already had these powers. They were seeking a very small percentage of new powers.
I said at the start of my speech that I support the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I should have wished to go a little further, because I do not support the new criteria. I accept that the Select Committee were quite right to protect the working of Parliament. They were quite right to see that new legislation which is to go through is in a form which Parliament can digest. They were also quite right to improve the drafting of legislation. But I feel they were wrong to change the rules without checking, first, that all the players would accept the new rules; and, secondly, that the rules could be interpreted in crystal clear fashion. I say that having taken advice that, as my noble friend Lord Amory said, the new rules leave some doubt as to how Parliamentary Counsel will advise local authorities in future. This is a matter which must be cleared up. For example, Clauses 8, 11, 12, 13, 23, 39 to 41, and 46 to 53 could all be interpreted as powers for general purposes. I say to the noble Viscount. Lord Hood, only that I am told that that is how counsel view the matter. I believe that that is one weakness of the Report.
However, its main weakness is what we are trying to correct; that is, that the Government should bring in this general powers legislation, and they should have done so a long time ago. The weakness of the Committee—and I support the noble Lord, Lord Champion—is that they threw out 10 clauses which they said were suitable for general powers. We have already heard from the noble
916
Baroness, Lady Birk, that only six of those clauses were accepted by the Government for general powers, while four were not. Therefore, I would ask the noble Viscount, Lord Hood: what happens to the other four? They are required by the local authority. The Committee said that they are not to be accepted because they should go into general legislation, yet the Government say that they will not go into general legislation because, in their view, they are not general. I do not think this point has been answered, but if it has then I apologise.
What is the Government's role in this matter? They were very right to encourage local authorities under the 1972 Act to prepare their Bills, to have consultation and to bring them forward in an orderly fashion. I accept that the Government are in a difficulty as there are approximately seven Departments, all of which have to be consulted and involved in general legislation. But, quite clearly—and I believe that this is the fundamental argument of the noble Lord, Lord Champion—the Government must give a lead with their general powers before local authorities bring forward legislation, so that they know what is already included.
I should like to finish with three thoughts. First, if the Bill is to go through in its present state I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that there is a case for the ratepayers of Glamorgan to be sympathetically considered for reimbursement by the Government as their Bill has been treated as a test case at a cost of £100,000. Secondly, if it is impossible, as I accept, in this overworked Parliament to produce within this Session a Bill giving general powers, why cannot the Government publish a circular setting out the model clauses which all local authorities could adopt in their Bills? That is a strong argument, and the reason why I think so is that if these model clauses were incorporated in a Bill its size would not matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Hood, will remember that in 1969 there was a West Midlands Bill. In fact, there were five Bills, 300 clauses in each, and how long did the Special Committee take? It took one day per Bill. The reason was that all of the clauses were acceptable. They were basically model clauses. I do not think it matters whether the Bill is large or

917
small; it is the model clauses which count. Finally, my Lords, if the Government are not prepared to issue a circular, which they could so well do, they ought not to encourage local authorities to produce further Bills, thus repeating the unhappy performance we are seeing tonight, until their general legislation comes forward.
7.51 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, may I be allowed to contribute a couple of sentences to this debate. I apologise to your Lordships that I was not present during the earlier part of the debate. I was engaged upstairs on your Lordships' business for another purpose.
I do not wish to go into this matter in any detail, but two principles are involved, both of which I reject. Unless I misunderstood the purpose of local government reorganisation, it was intended to strengthen the position of local authorities. What is now proposed does not strengthen local authorities; it weakens their position. To me the other principle is equally important. The Bill now before us seems to suggest that progress comes from the centre. I reject utterly that proposition. I believe that progress in this country has come from the periphery rather than from the centre. Therefore, to leave to local authorities the initiative which they have enjoyed for a very long period of time is essential and in the best interests of the country.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, I intervene at this stage because I feel unhappy that the Government have been unable to give us any real indication of when the general powers Bill will be presented to us. We have no firm commitment from the Government. I accept that the Government have good intentions and we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the Bill has been drafted. However, we have no idea of the clauses which it contains and this makes it very difficult for local authorities, who are still looking at their legislation, to assess whether they are wasting their time, energy and possibly their money. I should have felt happier this evening if on behalf of the
918
Government the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, had been able to give us a firmer assurance.
Having listened to noble Lords this afternoon, one would think that this Bill is designed to cover all local government legislation in one fell swoop, that it would become completely static and that we should never need another set of model rules. We have to accept that local government will continue to make progress and will still want to bring about changes. Therefore, I should have liked the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to tell us that there is to be a biennial, triennial or quinquennial review so that local authorities can consider problems among themselves and say, "We can get together and in three years' time bring forward a concerted point of view."
The problem is much more urgent in the case of the metropolitan counties than it is in the case of Glamorgan, but I shall be supporting Glamorgan and will be speaking to that end. The local powers of metropolitan counties will cease completely by the end of 1979. This is a very short space of time, bearing in mind that we shall probably have a General Election during that period which will delay Government legislation for a period of three to four months.
The other misapprehension that certain noble Lords have is that all local authorities act as though they were members of a local badminton or table tennis club. Local authorities are political bodies who see things very differently from one another; they have different points of view because they are Party politically orientated. I am wondering whether the sale of council houses will become a model rule. That will be very difficult. There will then be the problem of establishing in local authorities direct labour building departments. Is that to become one of the model rules? Is it no longer to be part of a local Act? The matter is not quite so simple as noble Lords have said. It is very nice to have clean air and regularly swept roads, but very contentious items are contained in local legislation and they will be retained only if local authorities are allowed in future to bring forward that kind of legislation.
I am as appreciative as any of the noble Lords who have already spoken about the difficulties which the Committee faced. It is argued that Parliament will be unable to cope with the heavy

919
programme of private legislation that will come from the local authorities. But it was not the local authorities which asked to be reorganised; it was central Government which decided to reorganise local government. If they now say, "We have built a hornets' nest and we are unable to solve all these problems, so hold back", that is not the fault of the local authorities. I am not suggesting to my noble friends on this side of the House that it was their folly; but the folly is there, and it was brought about by a previous Government which no doubt had advice from their civil servants regarding the problems which would arise. Therefore the Government that brought forward the reorganisation of local government recognised that local government needed to bring about some rationalisation of the accumulated mass of local law. Having accepted that fact, the Government brought forward, perhaps not very logically, the idea that local authorities should have a timetable, look at the legislation which existed in their counties and make changes.
The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees said how wasteful it would be of Government money and time if all local authorities brought forward their own Private Bills; but as many noble Lords have said, the Government themselves should have brought forward legislation, and then no other local authority, including South Glamorgan, would have begun to consider their legislation until they had looked at the Government legislation and said, "That is all right", gone down their own lists and found themselves with purely local legislation which they could bring forward in local Bills.
There is a saying—I do not know whether it applies in this House—about putting the cart before the horse. I think that the Government are doing so in this case. Other noble Lords have said this afternoon that local legislation has been used for many years as a testing ground for new ideas. Special provisions that are not contained in the general law have been promoted by local authorities in their own Bills. In many cases, when they have proved successful, they have been adopted by other local authorities, and very often they have then been incorporated in general legislation. The
920
Public Health Act 1961 proves conclusively that many of the provisions contained in that Act were taken from a number of the local Acts of various authorities.
I am very concerned with the principle, not that the South Glamorgan Bill is a test case only in certain instances but that it is a test case against people who serve on local authorities. I should have said that the principles enunciated by the Committee in their Report could lead to an extinction of local government private powers. This is an important point, and it has been said that this is not the intention. But if one looks at the conclusions drawn by the Committee—and I listened carefully to the speech made by the Lord Chairman of Committees—one sees that they are disallowing provisions which they say are related to matters, "common to all, or a great number of authorities", and therefore consider them to be matters for general legislation, whether or not they were likely to be included in a general powers Act by the central Government. Because they were general in their application they were automatically thrown out.
In the past, local authorities have had to prove quite conclusively to Parliament that a local need arises, and in order to get their provisions they have had to run the gauntlet and to prove that a local provision is necessary. What this Bill has shown is that they feel that the Acts they have in the new area are Acts which they fought for in those conditions. They proved conclusively to past Parliaments that those provisions were necessary. Why should this Parliament suddenly say that they do not think they are necessary? I should have said that once Parliament had agreed, there would have to be some very good reasons why Parliament should disagree when it is only re-enacting the same Acts. Under the Local Government Act 1972, it is quite clear that local authorities can promote Private Bills if they are satisfied that such action is expedient. I should have thought that the South Glamorgan authority felt that these powers were expedient and needed to be repeated.
Perhaps some noble Lords may think that I am a little more brash than others in this House, but in my view the Committee have accepted the principle that

921
"Whitehall knows best"—or Marsham Street in one particular case. I do not accept that view, and I speak with 20 years' experience as a member of the Birmingham City Council. I say to noble Lords who are listening tonight that Birmingham City Council is no mean authority. It is a very large local authority; before local government reorganisation it was the largest all-purpose local authority in the country. Therefore tonight I can say quite clearly, and without any fear of contradiction, that in the past Birmingham has been in the forefront in promoting private legislation which many authorities have subsequently taken up. Because Birmingham is a large local authority, it has often seen multiple problems which are thrown up in large cities, and many other authorities have seen this and followed our example.
I can remember sitting on the Birmingham City Council as the chairman of the Housing Committee when we brought forward our own Act of Parliament—the Multiple Occupation Bill. At that time, we had to prove the need conclusively to the Government. I can remember how difficult it was to convince Ministers and civil servants that this would be a serious problem in Birmingham because of the influx of people from all over the world who came to live in the city, and that if we did not govern the city properly by seeing that houses were not multiple occupied, ghettoes and slum conditions would be created. Eventually, we convinced the Minister that we were right, and when local authorities have complained about multiple occupation, I am surprised that they were not able to take the same kind of powers as Birmingham took, which they now rigorously enforce by taking people to the courts.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Champion, but I think it is necessary to put forward points of view and to explain how a local government has perhaps been particular in the first place and become general afterwards, or when local government Acts have been particular in the first place and many years afterwards the Government have decided that that was the right course to adopt. Perhaps I may point out that the Birmingham Corporation Bill, which was passed in 1919, had a famous clause in it known as the "Birmingham Clause". This gave to the Birmingham Corporation a general power to acquire land by agreement,
922
"for the benefit, improvement or development of the city, and in advance of requirements".
This was a far-reaching clause and it was under that clause that the Birmingham City Council was able to go forward with a very ambitious programme of slum clearance and the rebuilding of the city centre of Birmingham. In fact, if the approach to the South Glamorgan Bill had been the approach in 1919 other local authorities—and Birmingham in particular—would have waited until 1963, when the Government brought forward their Local Authorities Land Act. But by that time, of course, people and local authorities would have been in great difficulties. Now that is general in approach. In 1919 every local authority could have brought forward that clause, wanting to acquire land and develop it at some time. The general approach might quite easily have been turned down under the South Glamorgan proposals.
I think every noble Lord in the House tonight will be pleased that a national exhibition centre, which will be the pride of Great Britain, is being built at Stone-bridge under the Birmingham Corporation Act. It would not have been built if Birmingham Corporation had not got the Act placed on the Statute Book in 1959 so that it should have power
"to provide, erect, maintain and conduct an exhibition hall".
There was no thought in 1959 of building a huge exhibition centre. It was thought that a new exhibition hall was needed because the atrocity which was called "Bingley Hall" in the city was badly bombed during the war; it was a hopeless place in which to hold exhibitions anyway, and it was felt that in the rebuilding of the city centre at some stage we would build a nice new exhibition hall. But because that provision was on the Statute Book we were able, with Government aid, to build a large exhibition centre. If the principles included in the South Glamorgan Bill had been operative in 1959 nobody would now be able to say: "We have this marvellous new exhibition centre which we hope will do such a lot for the prosperity of this country".
I do not want to give any more details of things that Birmingham have done because I know all local authorities can enumerate such instances. But if your

923
Lordships accept the view expressed by the Committee I think all initiative by the local authority will be stifled and if we accept these proposals it will remove "government" from local government and we shall be asking local authorities to become nothing more than agencies for the central Government, and that at a time when the Government are asking for greater participation at all levels. It is a contradiction in terms to be saying: "Do not participate too much and do not endeavour to change too much because it creates all kinds of difficulties for us".
I want to say, quite quickly, that in my view people who are elected to serve on local authorities are responsible persons. They are removed if they are not, and the persons who advise local councillors have been proved to be trustworthy. Those who have been elected to the position of local councillors, and the officers who serve them, are nearer to local problems and difficulties; in other words, they are much nearer to grass-roots problems. They are not desk-bound civil servants in Whitehall. They have a fundamental right to place before Parliament measures which they feel are beneficial to the people whom they represent in their local authorities.
My Lords, I feel very strongly that this Bill needs to be considered very seriously. The principle that a local authority has a right to petition Parliament for powers in its area, and where it has to prove a local need, is an important privilege for local authorities. That privilege should be continued, and should be tested only as to the appropriateness of the question of the legislation that they bring forward. It is my considered view that the local authorities concerned, and not Government Departments, are the best judges of what local legislation is necessary for their areas. I support the noble Lord, Lord Champion, because I feel quite conclusively that there is a principle other than that which is being debated here this afternoon; that principle being that local government should still retain the word, "government", and not be merely a local authority.
8.11 p.m.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, the Lord
924
Chairman, for his courtesy in not objecting to my speaking, despite the fact that I had not put down my name. I will be as brief as I can. I support the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who is today living up to his name, because he is sticking out for the principle which stands out above any other; that is, the principle that local authorities, as envisaged in the 1972 Act, should be able to control more of their own affairs, as was so ably put a minute or two ago by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill.
If anybody is in any doubt as to whether local authorities in different parts of the country need to have autonomy and to be able to promote Bills, all that person needs to do is to watch the programme on television on Monday nights, the play which is based on the book by Mary Gaskell. In that play, one can see how various localities throughout the country have suffered in the past, and have had great difficulty in catching up with the present. In the old days, I opposed very bitterly Manchester Corporation—in fact, until comparatively recently—because the 1972 Act chipped where I live out of Yorkshire and made me into what is known as a Greater Mancunian. I have objected to it all along. I thought that Bill was a bad Bill. When we were discussing the Community Land Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in her reply agreed that the Bill was a bad Bill. Yet here we are, perpetuating that bad Bill and pursuing some of its worst elements.
My Lords, what happened under the 1972 Act was not wholly bad. At any rate it brought together authorities like the district councils of Oldham, Bury, Rochdale and Tameside. Very often, they had a common cause, common desires, and a common objective in what they were proposing when they came with their Private Bills. They are now being gathered up. The Select Committee has done a lot of work, and we see the outcome of their Report. I would say without any fear of contradiction that if we undermine the ability of local authorities to come here to promote their Bills, we shall be taking a backward step.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, mentioned a Clean Air Act 1946 of the Manchester City Council. In my

925
district for years we could not grow cupressus. The owners of cottage gardens wherein grew rhododendrons used to go round with a rag, some soap and water, and rub off nearly one-eighth of an inch of grime. Then what happened? In 1946 a Bill was brought in in another place. I remember it very well, and there are Members in this House who will remember that Bill being brought in in another place; there was quite a bit of controversy about it at the time. But that was in 1946, and it was not until a decade had passed before central Government was able, or was at least mindful, to introduce a Clean Air Act. We had a 10 years' start simply because Manchester Corporation had the wit to introduce this Act.
Let us come on to 1950, to home repairs and protection of dangerous places, which sounds very prosaic. That was a legacy from the past, too. That was mining tips and subsidence. It had to be dealt with by the people on the spot who knew the problems. Government did not get round to doing anything about it for years. In fact, similar powers were vouchsafed to local authorities only two years ago, but Manchester introduced it in 1950.
So we go on. Whether it was a question of movable dwellings or being able to invest staff pension funds in equities, Manchester led the way. They led the way, too, on something that general legislation cannot cover. It cannot cover the question of hackney carriages. What pertains in one big area does not pertain in another. Manchester got through their legislation many years ago. In fact, Working Parties have been working on this question of hackney carriages ever since 1954, and nothing has been done about it in a general way since Manchester acted on it many years ago. My Lords, I believe that if local authorities cannot come to this House to promote Private Bills for the needs of their own localities, we shall be the poorer for it. I support the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in his splendid bid to do something about it.
8.20 p.m.
Lord CAWLEY: My Lords, I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, in that I was born in the City of Salford and my home was within three
926
miles of the Manchester town hall. But I want to raise with the House another point, a curious anomaly in our procedure which has arisen on this Bill. I refer to Part VIII, now Part V, "Assistance to Industry and Commerce, etc." This was petitioned against by two authorities in South Wales, Merthyr Tydfil and one other, and as usual it was submitted to a Select Committee, of which Committee I took the chair and four extremely distinguished Members of your Lordships' House were appointed as members. We sat for five days and they were five full days; that is equivalent to ten half days, as compared with 26 half days the Committee of three sat. Though we had full power to reject the whole of Part VIII, there was no serious suggestion that we should do it. The Committee took the view that it was a quasi-judicial proceeding and that we had to study the Petitioners' case and decide whether we should make Amendments or, if necessary, reject the whole Part. We did in fact make a number of Amendments and we cut out one complete clause. No representations were made as to general policy. I do not think if they had been made by anyone the Committee would have taken them into consideration. We were working entirely on the evidence and, of course, the submissions of the Government Departments.
The Department of Trade suggested that this Part should expire in 1984, that curious Orwellian date which has been fixed for the expiry of all local government Acts. We questioned the representative as to why the Department wanted this Part to expire in 1984, and his reply was:
"The Government's view is that it is undesirable and untidy that this situation should continue".
Later he said:
"My Secretary of State takes the view that in the present untidy situation it is desirable that the continuation of powers we propose you should allow for South Glamorgan should, as with other authorities, lapse in 1984".
He was further questioned and he answered that if a miscellaneous provisions Act were enacted in the meantime a clause or Schedule could be put in by which the provisions could be repealed.
So we now got into the position that the 1984 Amendment was put to the Committee and they unanimously rejected it. The extraordinary part of this is that this

927
Part of the Bill was not submitted to the Committee of three. I think that is most likely in accordance with our procedure. If it had been, it appears it would certainly have received the butcher's knife, and most likely all the provisions the Petitioners wished to have removed would have been removed by the Committee of three. It does seem a most extraordinary legislative process that, because somebody has opposed, therefore the surgical knife is not applied to this Part of the Bill. I do think that in future it might be made possible that the Chairman of Committees should have his bite, so to speak, at the legislation, before the Petitioners come in; it might then well be that the Petition would be answered by means of the Chairman of Committees, or the Lord Chairman Commission, and the Petition, which is of course extremely expensive, would be avoided. My Lords, I do not think there is anything else I want to say. I am still in a state of schizophrenia about the main point we have been discussing today, and I await the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the Chairman of Committees.
8.24 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, I understand that the Chairman of Committees is not to reply to this debate at this point, and I can well understand that because he made an excellent speech at the outset; I cannot imagine that he has much left to say at this point. I shall be very brief. The debate has, in my opinion, been conducted in a way wholly commendable and in accordance with the best traditions of this House. I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not refer to the many excellent speeches we have heard in the course of the debate. I am so much caught up in the traditions of this House that anything taking place after 7 p.m. in this Chamber can readily be termed "this late hour". This is certainly a late hour and I want to proceed as soon as possible to a Division.
There are some remarks I ought to make. Perhaps I should say in courtesy to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, who apologized for her absence during much of the debate, that she gave us the reason. It is quite right that she should go to a reception or something of that
928
sort which celebrates this great man, John Buchan. I must admit that, as I listened to her speech, I wished she had taken the 39 Steps before she made her speech, because it was a very powerful contribution. Anyway, we are glad to see her back with us again.
An important point made against the Amendment is that it rests on a promise of a general powers Bill. My noble friend Lady Birk made much of this and told us of the attempts being made to fit the Bill, which, I understand, is now prepared, into the programme. But, my Lords, it is not only one Bill that is required to meet the difficulties consequent upon disallowing so many of the South Glamorgan clauses. This is a point which was rightly stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and itemised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Much has been said, too, and particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, about the difficulty of persuading Governments to commit themselves to legislation. What we would say about this is that, if Governments will not commit themselves, then local authorities ought to be given the clauses they ask for, if they can justify them. And I think, in regard to many of the clauses that are in dispute here, the authorities concerned have justified their inclusion in their Bills, and they were taken out only because there was the possibility that at some later time Bills may be introduced dealing with the matters.
If we refer these things back to a Committee, they will look at them, and if they feel there is nothing sufficiently definite to make them disallow them, they ought to include them in the Bill and let them remain there. Another point, and an important point, was made; that is, that a large number of clauses will be referred back to a Committee. The Amendment that I am moving would limit the number of such clauses to be treated in that way, and any clauses already met by a Bill introduced during the period when the reference back has taken place could be dealt with without difficulty, and certainly without delay. This would cause neither difficulty to a Committee nor time to be lost. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory—I must refer to him—was right when he said that a Committee ought to be able to find a way of easing the situation, and this

929
is what we are after. There should be a way of easing the situation which is now being imposed on the local authorities. He said this from his vast experience as a Member of both Houses and his experience as a very high ranking Minister.
I could refer to others, and I ought to, but I have been under pressure to end this debate as quickly as possible and proceed to a Division. My Lords, I thank
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.40 p.m.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in reply to the debate on my Motion. I shall certainly look at the procedural point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cawley. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and other noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have said some kind words about me and the members of my Select Committee. In view of the decision that the House has taken on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I shall in due course move a procedural Motion to recommit the appropriate clauses of the South Glamorgan Bill. In the meantime, I shall consult the noble Lord and the Promoters about which clauses should be recommitted, and I will consider the question of a suitable Select Committee for Recommitment.
all who have supported this Amendment, and ask them to do something more than support it by words and to support it with their feet into the Division Lobby.
8.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Digby, L.

Mottistone, L.

Airedale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Elton, L.

Popplewell, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falmouth, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Amory, V.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rhodes, L. [Teller.]

Arwyn, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bacon, B.

Gridley, L.

St. Just, L.

Balerno, L.

Hale, L.

Sandys, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hill of Luton, L.

Somers, L.

Castle, L.

Hinton of Bankside, L.

Suffield, L.

Cathcart, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cawley, L.

Kinnoull, E. [Teller.]

Tenby, V.

Champion, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Vickers, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Long, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Clwyd, L.

Lyell, L.

White, B.

Collison, L.

Maelor, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Denham, L.

Monck, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B

Hood, V. [Teller.]

Melchett, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Jacques, L.

Platt, L.

On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICES: REBUILDING
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES: REBUILDING
  PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION: CORRESPONDENCE
  PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION: CORRESPONDENCE
  ELM: INDUSTRIAL CONSUMPTION
  ELM: INDUSTRIAL CONSUMPTION
  LIVER FLUKE INFESTATION
  LIVER FLUKE INFESTATION