Sitting of 25 February 1975

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

  MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered upon Tuesday next.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    EEC Social Action Programme
    Mr. Jim Spicerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action she has taken to implement those parts of the EEC social action programme which fall within her Department's responsibility.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): The United Kingdom has secured approval for payments from the European Social Fund towards the cost of schemes to rehabilitate handicapped persons. Commission proposals concerning other parts of the programme affecting my Department are still being discussed within the Community or are awaited.
    Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he give an indication of the level of funds available at the moment for that and also what voluntary bodies in this country are working in co-operation with his Department to further these pilot schemes?
    Mr. O'Malley: The total level of expenditure from Community funds as they are envisaged for a two-year period is £1 million. Second, there is an advisory committee which was set up directly through the EEC by a number of individuals who are in other ways connected with voluntary organisations. My Department is in contact with that advisory committee.
    Mr. Moonman: Apart from one's attitude to the Common Market, would my right hon. Friend agree that this is a bold and imaginative programme which is being conducted by the EEC? How can he make these support grants better known in this country? How many people are involved, particularly among the physically handicapped?
    Mr. O'Malley: I should make it clear that the whole of this social action programme is in the very early stages. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a separate Question on his second point. I should want notice of it.

    Haemophiliacs (Drugs)
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will now consider making adequate supplies of Factor VIII (AHG) available to the National Health Service so that it is self-sufficient in this product for the benefit of those suffering from haemophilia.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Socal Security (Dr. David Owen): I have authorised the allocation of special finance of up to £500,000, about half of which would be recurring, to increase the existing production of Factor VIII, especially in the form of anti-haemophilic globulin concentrate (AHG), within the National Health Service. The first effects of this will, I hope, be felt by the end of the year.
    Mr. Watkinson: I welcome that reply. Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the major problems in relation to Factor VIII is that the purchase of this drug rests with the regional health authorities and that it has to compete with many other requirements within those authorities? Will he also accept that this is far and away the best treatment for haemophilia? Will he accept too that in those circumstances it might be possible for the National Health Service to purchase the drug centrally as it does with L-dopa? Will he seriously consider recommending that the drug should be available to people at home and not only in hospitals, as many people have to travel many miles either for treatment or to obtain the drug?
    Dr. Owen: I confirm that in most cases I think it is the most desirable form of treatment, but one cannot avoid the fact that this is one of the many costly treatments which are competing on priorities. The present system whereby a doctor can persuade his local area health authority that his patient needs this form of treatment most is the best way of proceeding, and not by central allocation. If we were to go to all-commercial purchase of this factor, it would cost an additional £1½ million to £2 million annually.
    Mr. Marten: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that under-treatment of children with this drug causes unnecessary
    264
    suffering and terrible disruption of family life if a young child is involved? Cannot he go a stage further and give slightly more of a lead to the regional health authorities really to do something about this?
    Dr. Owen: They are aware of our concern and have had ample demonstration of it by the fact that we are prepared to divert scarce resources to make the National Health Service self-sufficient, but I concede that it will take two or three years before we are at full production. During that time I am sure that they will weigh very carefully the individual cases and will be sympathetic to the sort of hardship which can arise.
    Mr. Arnold Shaw: While one welcomes the extra expenditure which my hon. Friend has announced, and of which I am aware in view of the recent case I brought to his attention, may I ask whether he does not agree that we still lag behind in this matter, particularly compared with small countries such as Israel, which is doing much more than we are in this respect?
    Dr. Owen: I know my hon. Friend's concern, but hon. Members must face the fact that with limited resources we have to choose, and these are very difficult choices and priorities. When confronted with an ill child, everyone wants to get the best that is available, but there are many other aspects of child care which also have priority and we are not always able to meet all the demands.

    Family Allowances (EEC Countries)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the level of family allowance payable to first or only children in the nine countries of the EEC.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): As the answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Mr. McCrindle: As the Government's family endowment scheme was, I think, seen by many as the entry price for this

    265
    country to the European league of paying a family allowance to the first child, and as that scheme now seems to have been indefinitely postponed, will the right hon. Lady consider, at the relatively meagre net cost of £11 million, extending the family allowance scheme to the first or only child of one-parent families? Would not that mean that the Government would then be accepting one of the principal recommendations of the Finer Report?
    Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both his premises. The child endowment scheme of the Labour Party was worked out when we were in opposition as part of our total social policy, completely unrelated to any question of membership of the Common Market. After all, in the Common Market France has no automatic payment of family allowance for the first child. Therefore, it is by no means completely universal there. Nor is the hon. Gentleman right in saying that our child benefit scheme has been indefinitely postponed. An announcement on all these matters can be expected before too long.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: To get a true comparison between the United Kingdom and the EEC countries when the record is available, may we be told all the ages of the children and the duration of each allowance? May we also know whether, in the various countries for which information is given, we may learn about the availability or otherwise of free milk, and, again, at what ages?
    Mrs. Castle: The hon. Lady is quite right that the payment of the family allowance or the level of the family allowance is not the complete index of family support. There are many other matters of great importance to the family—not least food and housing subsidies, whether there is free medical care, and the level of ante-natal and post-natal care. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about that. With regard to her request for this detailed information to be made available, I do not think that it is in the table we have prepared for publication in Hansard today, but I shall look into the
    266
    matter and see whether we can extend the information for her.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is not my right hon. Friend bewildered by Opposition Members who from time to time demand a levelling-up of social service and any other benefits to compare with those in Common Market countries but at the same time scream murder when our wage-earners, the miners who work at the coalface in particular, try to level up their wages to those paid in the Common Market?
    Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. But I am even more bewildered that any questions about the need to increase or extend family allowances should come from the Opposition, remembering that the Conservative Party fought the 1970 election on a promise to increase family allowances and promptly broke it.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If I may disregard the fact that in the reply the right hon. Lady overlooked our family income supplement, may I ask whether she is aware of the disappointment in many quarters of the House that she has ducked another opportunity of making her position clear about the family endowment scheme and Child Benefit Bill, which were part of the Government's proposals to bring in the family allowance for the first child? As the whole House knows from leaks, this plan has been put back beyond the intended date of April 1976. When will the right hon. Lady have the courage to come to the House and make a statement explaining why she has abandoned such an important part of the social contract and why she is ratting on a clear election commitment of the Labour Party?
    Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman has no ground whatsoever for that assumption. I would point out to him that again, unlike our predecessors, the present Government have fulfilled their promises to increase family allowance, within a year of taking office in February 1974. Therefore we have lost no time, and we shall certainly keep our promise about a child benefit scheme.
    Following is the information:
    On the latest information available, the rates of family allowances payable for first or only children are as follows:

    Monthly FAM

    Sterling equivalent of Monthly FAM

    Sterling equivalent of Weekly FAM

    £

    £

    Irish Republic

    …

    …

    …

    £2·30

    2·30(1)

    0·53(1)(2)

    Italy

    …

    …

    …

    …

    8,060 Lire

    5·28

    1·22

    Holland

    …

    …

    …

    …

    54·86 Florins

    9·57

    2·21

    Belgium

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,026·50 BFr (3)

    12·39

    2·86

    Denmark

    …

    …

    …

    …

    132·3 Kroner

    10·02

    2·31

    Germany

    …

    …

    …

    …

    50 DM

    9·05

    2·09

    Luxembourg

    …

    …

    …

    814 LFr

    9·82

    2·27

    France

    …

    …

    …

    …

    No general provision (4)

    United Kingdom

    …

    …

    …

    No general provision at present

    (1) Exchange rates as at 20th February 1975.

    (2) Weekly rate calculated on basis of 52 week year.

    (3) Plus an allowance for child aged 6 or over, according to age, of up to 548·25 BFr monthly (£6·62 monthly, £1·53 weekly)

    (4) In certain circumstances, and subject to a means test, an increase of up to 242·05 Fr monthly (£23·72 monthly, £5·47 weekly) may be added to the allowance paid to a family with only one wage earner.

    Comparisons of rates and coverage of family allowances are misleading unless they take account of the local cost of living (particularly that affecting the maintenance of children) and other factors which vary from country to country, such as the levels of wages and taxation, housing or food subsidies, and the extent of free education, medical care and ante and post-natal welfare and advice services.

    Children in Care
    Mrs. Haymanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children in care are members of one-parent families; and what proportion of all children in care they represent.
    Mrs. Castle: I regret that the information is not available.
    Mrs. Hayman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply but I am sorry that the information is not available. I find it a matter of concern that such information is not available, and I must ask her whether she agrees. Does she agree with me that the impression among those who work in the social services is that although one-parent families form only one-tenth of the community the proportion of children in care who are members of one-parent families is considerably higher than that? If my right hon. Friend agrees about that, will she accept that many of those children are in care unnecessarily and simply because our society does not provide the services and the money for their families to sustain them in the community? Will she give some hope to one-parent families, whether or not their children are in care, of greater help in the future, apart from the family endowment scheme? Although I welcome that scheme, it will not solve the problems of one-parent families.
    Mrs. Castle: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, information about children in care was collected by our predecessors and published in March 1973 in Command 5815. It was considered more important to place emphasis on identification of the circumstances in which children were placed in care than on the nature of the families from which they came. That is the information which is given in the White Paper and which is crucial for social policy. It is important to emphasise that.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's other point, I should be glad to send her a copy of the speech I made on Friday to the Conference on One-Parent Families which sets out in considerable detail not only what steps we have already taken to fulfil the recommendations of the Finer Report but the other considerations we have in mind.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Opposition would very much support a full debate on the whole question of one-parent families and the Finer Report? Is she aware that the matter of children in care is only one part of the problem we are facing, that there are over 1 million children whose future is affected and that it would be quite wrong if the House could not give a full day's debate to this very important question?
    Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman has the remedy in his own hands. We should be delighted if the Opposition were to devote one of their Supply Days to this subject.
    Mr. Crouch: The right hon. Lady has not been fair to the House—and I am sure she is not fair to herself—to suggest that the Government do not have time to debate the whole question of the Finer Report and then to ask my hon. Friend for a Supply Day to be used. Will the right hon. Lady say this afternoon when she will give time to help the one-parent families?
    Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that matters of the allocation of time for debate are not for me; they are for the Leader of the House. As far as I am concerned, however, I should welcome an opportunity of telling the House at length the steps we have already taken to fulfil the 230-odd recommendations of the Finer Report. I should also point out that my Department has a massive programme of legislation on social advance and social reform and that we need a great deal of parliamentary time to get it on to the statute book.

    Community Hospitals
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many community hospitals she has authorised for the year 1975–76.
    Dr. Owen: At present I am afraid that I cannot say which capital schemes will be authorised to start during 1975–76. Consultations have taken place with regional health authorities on tentative proposals for the 1975–76 programme. No final decisions will be taken until their priorities have been carefully considered. This should be very shortly.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister say whether a new community hospital in Newbury may be in his thoughts? Will he also say what level of service community hospitals will provide and how their services will compare with those already provided by district hospitals?
    Dr. Owen: No community hospital at Newbury is at present in the regional health authority programme. But the announcement of the Government's acceptance of the community hospital concept was made only last summer, and
    270
    many regional health authorities will take time before they develop their programmes. The size and scope of the community hospitals will vary considerably from area to area.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister able to assure the House that he is continuing to urge upon health authorities the desirability of retaining existing cottage hospitals where they have a future rôle as community hospitals now that there is a recognition of the place of community hospitals?
    Dr. Owen: The recognition that in some rural areas the community hospital had a part to play where patients had to travel over great distances was a strong part of our announcement last summer on community hospitals. I cannot say that there will not be closures of some community hospitals, but I can reinforce the message of the White Paper that there is scope for smaller hospitals in rural areas and, in my view, in urban areas. The whole question of the size of the large district hospital is one which we shall have to call into question increasingly over the next few years.

    Keighley
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary ot State for Social Services if she will pay an official visit to Keighley.
    Mrs. Castle: I have no plans to visit Keighley in the near future.
    Mr. Cryer: May I say how sorry I am to receive that answer? If my right hon. Friend were to visit my constituency she would receive representations from many of my pensioner constituents who are very much concerned at the injustices and anomalies regarding the allocation of free television licences. Will she assure the House that she will give urgent consideration to making free or reduced-price television licences more readily available? Finally, will my right hon. Friend prevail on her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to stop buying nuclear missiles so that the cost of my proposals can be met from defence savings?
    Mrs. Castle: It is obvious that my hon. Friend is anxious to keep me busy not only by visiting Keighley but by running

    271
    a couple of other Government Departments as well. My hon. Friend is aware that our policy on television licence fees is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office made clear last Friday during a discussion on this matter, we are concerned, as is everyone in the House, about the existence of anomalies which give rise to a great deal of irritation. I appreciate that point. The simple way of getting rid of the anomalies by making free television licences available to all pensioners would be extremely costly and would in a way, create its own anomalies. It would mean that families which happened to have a pensioner living with them would benefit, whatever their income, at the expense of a family living on a very low income. I repeat the assurance which my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave on Friday that the Home Department is considering providing cheap licences for black-and-white television for pensioners and getting rid of some of the anomalies.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the right non. Lady accept that if she made free television licences available to pensioners living on their own or with a spouse the anomaly to which she has referred would not arise? Is the right hon. Lady aware that there are many people who feel strongly that the problem of loneliness which old people now face could be reduced in this desirable way by spending a relatively small amount of money?
    Mrs. Castle: Of course, the Government have examined that possibility. The concentrating of help on specific cases is a very obvious course to take. I can assure the hon. Lady that the matter is not as simple as all that. Even that step would not remove the difficulties. As I have said, the Home Office has made it clear that it is considering the matter again.
    Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has not the right hon. Lady wandered a little far from Keighley and the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)? Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman was treating the right hon. Lady more as a Prime Minister than as
    272
    a Secretary of State by asking her to visit his constituency?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I would much prefer these points of order to be made at the end of Question Time. The right hon. Lady is responsible for her answer, I am not.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will publish a White Paper setting out in detail the effects of the latest cuts in public expenditure by her Department.
    Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. I am not aware of any cuts of the kind the hon. Gentleman seems to have in mind.
    Mr. Onslow: Does not the right hon. Lady think that it is about time she took the country into her confidence about the cuts which are being made piecemeal in such projecs as St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington and hospitals in Birmingham and Leeds? Does she not think that it is about time she joined the ranks of her colleagues who are trying to spell out to those who are responsible for much of our inflation that every fresh breach of the social contract means less money for the nation's health and welfare services?
    Mrs. Castle: I merely say to the hon. Gentleman that I think it ill becomes any Conservative Member to use the word "cuts" about the future prospects of my Department. That is the suggestion that is coming from supporters of the then Tory Government which instituted the cuts of December 1973 and reduced my public expenditure programme for health and personal social services by £138 million. Conservative Members have no right to try to give the impression that we are facing cuts in my Department. In the current year we have already restored £100 million worth of that reduced expenditure. Some of it has been restored in national health services. It is true that we have said—and we must continue to say—that the growth in the expenditure of my Deparment can only be modest over the years ahead if we are to get on top of our economic difficulties. None the less, it would be misleading to suggest that there was anything but growth.
    Mr. Skinner: Why should we have any cuts at all in public expenditure, whether in my right hon. Friend's Department or any other Department, while the Cabinet and the Government can seemingly find approximately £250,000 to satisfy the Queen?
    Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that that is not within the scope either of my Department or of the Question before the House. I must tell him that I am thinking in terms of expenditure in my Department of much more than £200,000.
    Sir John Hall: In real terms, has the expenditure for which the right hon. Lady's Department is responsible been maintained or reduced?
    Mrs. Castle: The expenditure for my Department, as the White Paper on Public Expenditure makes clear, reveals a situation of steady growth. [Interruption.] Oh yes, it is a position of real growth in real terms. This is an extremely important point. The figures I have given are based on real terms. Already this year the Government have added £600 million in Supplementary Estimates for my Department to cover the increases in pay and prices, and the inflation-proofing of the expenditure on the National Health Service which we have introduced, along with the marked improvement in the pay of the people working for the Service, has done a very great deal to restore the flagging morale of the NHS which I inherited.

    Birmingham and Midland Eye Hospital
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on the future of the Birmingham and Midland Eye Hospital.
    Dr. Owen: The region's capital programme for 1975–76 is not yet finalised, but it now seems certain that it cannot include replacement of the eye hospital. The regional health authority will consider the future of the hospital during its review of priorities for 1976–77 and subsequent years.
    Mr. Rooker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I was awaiting it with interest having listened to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the previous Question. Does my hon. Friend
    274
    accept that that answer will not be considered to be very satisfactory in the region, bearing in mind that the regional health authority has already spent £1½ million on laying out sewers and associated work and is now considering having to put it in an empty office block? Lastly, when can I expect a full answer to the Question which I asked on 4th February concerning this hospital?
    Dr. Owen: I have a reply outstanding to my hon. Friend and I shall give it as soon as the information is available. I regret the delay. On the question of the need for the hospital there is no difference between us. This, like many other hospitals, definitely needs to be built. It is a question of the work already undertaken. The replacement of the eye hospital has been planned as about 11 weeks for ophthalmology and planned for the Queen Elizabeth site costing perhaps £20 million. That cannot be fitted into the programme for 1975–76.
    Mr. Grieve: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will strike a chill throughout the West Midlands, where the decision by his Department to close this hospital, however temporarily, is regarded as callous?
    Dr. Owen: I hope that when the public expenditure Estimates are next discussed in the House the hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first to argue for greater public expenditure. It is about time that Conservative Members stopped talking with two mouths. They are always against increases in public expenditure in general but want them in their own constituencies and want them in particular. They will carry more weight and conviction in the House, in the National Health Service and outside when they support increases in public expenditure across the board.

    Charges for Services
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is her policy on increasing existing charges or introducing new charges in order to expand the social services to give greater help to those in greatest need.
    Mrs. Castle: I do not believe that income from charges should play a larger

    275
    part in financing these services than it does at present.
    Mr. Gow: Does the Secretary of State recall that the present basic prescription charge was fixed in April 1971 at 20p? Does she realise that in real terms that charge would have to be fixed at 30p today to match the 1971 figure? Does she realise that as we will be short of money for the health service every possible avenue for money for the social services needs to be examined?
    Mrs. Castle: I am in no position to contest the hon. Gentleman's figures. He is merely proving that we are standing by our policy to phase prescription charges out of the National Health Service. That is our policy. In the same way, we refused to increase dental charges even when dental rates rose, thus continuing the policy to which we are committed. I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman on policy.
    Mr. Boscawen: Will the right hon. Lady explain how she will replace the revenue which at present she gets from private hospital beds?
    Mrs. Castle: In exchange for the phasing out of private beds from the National Health Service I shall get more National Health Service beds.

    Hospital Waiting Lists (Staffordshire)
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients are on the waiting list of the North Staffordshire hospitals; what is the average delay in receiving treatment; what are the causes of delay; and whether she will make a statement.
    Dr. Owen: Four thousand, five hundred and fifty-five at 31st December 1974. Waiting times differ between specialities, and during 1974 they varied between about 11 weeks for ophthalmology and 20 weeks for ENT. These figures are broadly comparable with the latest available figures for the West Midlands Region. I know of no particular difficulties affecting the waiting lists in North Staffordshire hospitals.
    Mr. Golding: Do not these figures reveal the totally unnecessary discomfort and anxiety which is caused to a very large number of people in North Staffordshire? Will my hon. Friend ensure that
    276
    greater resources are allocated to North Staffordshire hospitals, which have long been neglected? In particular, will he make provision for the replacement and extension of geriatric facilities in my constituency?
    Dr. Owen: The replacement of geriatric beds and the expansion of facilities, particularly acute rehabilitation services for geriatrics, stand very high in our assessment of priorities. I readily agree with my hon. Friend in that. Priorities within the region are primarily for the West Midlands Regional Authority itself.
    Dr. Vaughan: One of the major causes of the long delays in admission to hospital is the large number of empty hospital beds. On any one day there are 75,000 beds empty. Further, there are more than 11,000 beds empty due to shortages of staff. If the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend were to pay a little more attention to staffing problems rather than attacking private practice and pay beds, we might reduce the waiting lists.
    Dr. Owen: The reasons for waiting lists are very complex, as the hon. Gentleman is probably the first in the House to know. Staffing is one of the factors. The most important factor of all was shortage of nursing staff. The pay of nurses was in a most disgraceful situation when we came into office. As a result of a very substantial award, following the Halsbury Report, of over £180 million, I think there are some signs that nursing recruitment is improving and that we will be able to staff more of our wards then we have done hitherto. This will make a contribution to reducing the waiting lists.

    Chester (Hospitals)
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make an official visit to the hospitals in the city of Chester.
    Dr. Owen: I have no plans for a visit to Chester at this time.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the Minister of State aware that we are very upset that he has no plans to come to Chester? That aside, will he tell us whether the proposed new district general hospital has been delayed or cancelled and, if the latter,

    277
    whether he is prepared to make available, so as to bring up to date the existing hospitals, money which is not being spent because of the proposal for the new hospital?
    Dr. Owen: In the current financial year works with a completed cost of over £¼ million have started or are planned to start for Chester hospitals. The works include a geriatric day hospital, an intensive therapy unit, and anaesthetic unit and the upgrading of a pharmacy. On the main question, the regional health authority reluctantly decided that design work on phase 2 of the West Cheshire hospital project should be suspended.
    Mr. Winterton: Is the Minister of State aware that if he were to go a little further east and come to Macclesfield he would find the people in that area appalled at the attitude of his Department and of the Merseyside Regional Health Authority in their total ignorance of the need for a new district general hospital in Macclesfield? This has been planned for some 10 or 15 years. I gather from information that has come to me—I hope that the Minister is aware of this—that the project has been shelved indefinitely. Will he comment?
    Dr. Owen: The project in Macclesfield and that in West Cheshire were both deeply affected by the capital expenditure cuts notified to the region in November 1973. No doubt both hon. Gentlemen voted against the cuts of 20 per cent. in capital expenditure imposed by the Tory Government at that time.

    Family Allowances (Increase)
    Mrs. Wiseasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will take steps to raise social security entitlements so that parents receiving supplementary allowances are enabled to benefit from the increase in family allowances which is due in April.
    Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. It is the aim of this Government to replace means-tested benefits by benefits as of right wherever possible, and that is one of the purposes we have in mind in increasing family allowance.
    Mrs. Wise: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that for those families which are receiving means-tested bene-
    278
    fits and which are actually on supplementary benefit her words will seem very pious indeed? Of course we would prefer the replacement of means-tested benefits. But the increase in family allowances will not improve the situation of the poorest families unless my right hon. Friend takes the steps suggested in my Question. On behalf of the poorest in our society, including the one-parent families, many of whom are on supplementary benefit, I ask her urgently to reconsider this matter if the increase in family allowances is to be more than a hollow joke for many poor families.
    Mrs. Castle: I cannot agree that my hon. Friend's approach is the right one. We shall never get rid of means-tested benefits if every time we increase the benefits as of right we then say that we are going to increase the means-tested benefits on top. The correct way to deal with the problems of the families to which she refers is through proper and regular upratings of supplementary benefits. This is what we did in July. Those benefits will be uprated again this April and again later in the year. I assure my hon. Friend that she is—I am sure with the best motives in the word—leading us up a dangerous blind alley by saying that every time the family allowance rises this must be disregarded for supplementary benefit.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: If the right hon. Lady really cares about family poverty, why does she refuse even to produce a Green Paper on family endowment? Is she aware that in the five-year forecasts of Government expenditure which have been referred to already this afternoon there is no provision for an increase in family allowances?
    Mrs. Castle: A Green Paper is not necessary. The Government's proposals will be announced very shortly.

    Disabled Persons (Petrol Costs)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence she has of cases where disabled people are unable to continue in employment as they are unable to afford the petrol to get to and from work.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I have no details of any case

    279
    in which this has happened, although several people have written expressing concern about the possibility. If the hon. Member is aware of any such case, I hope that he will let me know.
    Mr. Farr: Is the Minister aware of the special difficulty that faces disabled people who go to work in an Invacar in that they cannot engage in car-sharing schemes or in the pooling of journeys which their more able-bodied workmates can do? Does not this place those people at a disadvantage compared with workmates, and will the hon. Gentleman look into this special point?
    Mr. Morris: Yes, I am very aware of the general concern about ways in which disabled people are affected by the recent increase in petrol prices. I shall bear the point very much in mind.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend give more serious thought to the suggestion which has been made to him and bear in mind that it is particularly hard for disabled people to meet the increased petrol cost? Will he also bear in mind that any increase in road tax will have an equally bad effect on disabled people who have to use larger cars than normal because they cannot drive smaller vehicles? Therefore, it will be a greater hardship for them to be able to go from A to B, to work or, indeed, to anywhere else.
    Mr. Morris: I know of my hon. Friend's very close personal interest in these problems. I shall bear in mind all he has said. I am sure he will be pleased as I certainly was, that we were at least able to restore, and indeed double, the petrol allowance which was cancelled in the February 1972 announcement.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister accept that the standard car for the disabled driver is wholly unsuitable for long-distance journeys to work or outings? Is he aware that one of my constituents has given me figures suggesting that it is more expensive for him and for the taxpayer if he uses that type of car than, say, a standard mini car?
    Mr. Morris: I am familiar with this type of criticism. If the hon. Gentleman likes to contact me about the particular case, I shall be glad to look into it again with him.

    National Insurance (Self-employed Blind Persons)
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will introduce legislation to give relief from national insurance contributions for self-employed blind persons.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): No, Sir. A self-employed person with low earnings is already able to obtain exception from contribution liability but it would be wrong to deprive self-employed blind persons generally of their benefit rights by relieving them of contribution liability,
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there is a grey area and that there are people who are in the same situation as one of my constituents about whom I have corresponded with him—a self-employed person making wire brushes who, out of a net income of £900 per annum, has to find £125 to pay his national insurance contributions? Is not that typical of the way in which legislation hits unfairly at the self-employed, particularly those facing hardship such as the constituent I have mentioned?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right in his general remarks, and we have corresponded on the particular case he mentioned. He should bear in mind that if we were to accept the apparent attraction of his proposal we should be denying to his constituents the right to retirement pension, sickness benefit, widows' benefit, maternity grant and death grant.
    Mr. Fowler: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) right in saying that this is a further example of the grave hardship caused by the Government's discrimination against the self-employed? Is he not aware of the intense public feeling on this issue? Will he, at this late stage, announce a Government response to this public feeling?
    Mr. Jones: May I say with great respect to the hon. Gentleman that he is showing his ignorance in this case. In the case to which the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) referred, the constituent will from next April pay no increase in contributions.

    Mid-Sussex (Hospital)
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will make a statement on the possibility of a new general hospital being built in the Mid-Sussex area.
    Dr. Owen: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the needs of the new Cuckfield and Crawley health district. He will be reassured to learn that a joint working party, consisting of representatives of the regional and area health authorities and the health district's management team, is now studying this district's immediate health needs and making long-term development plans.
    Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that discussions about the new general hospital have been continuing for 10 years and that no firm plans have been made? Is he further aware that Mid-Sussex lies in a major growth area and that, on the basis of projected population growth, 760 new hospital beds will be needed in the area by 1981? Where are those beds to come from?
    Dr. Owen: I am aware that there is an expansion in the population of the area concerned. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support for the increases in public expenditure for the hospital building programme that he seems to envisage.

    Community Health Councils
    Mr. Grocottasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she is satisfied that sufficient publicity is given to the membership and powers of the community health councils.
    Dr. Owen: Community health councils are responsible for their own publicity, and I am satisfied that those which have been in operation for any length of time are generally discharging this responsibility very actively.
    Mr. Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, bearing in mind the urgent need for proper democratic control in our National Health Service—an opportunity which was missed in the 1973 legislation—we need to take far more positive steps to publicise the activities of community health councils, which we are likely to
    282
    have to live with for a number of years, so that people are made aware of the fact that the NHS is their service and is, and should be, answerable to them?
    Dr. Owen: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. We intend to try to increase the democracy in the National Health Service. We believe that the community health councils have a very important part to play. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services appointed two advisers on the community health councils who have produced a valuable report. We are in process of establishing a national council to be the national voice of the community health councils, and it will be the independent voice of the patient in arguing no doubt for extra resources for the health service.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (BROADCAST)
  Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister whether the broadcast statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8th February about the economic situation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Leeds on Saturday 8th February on the economic situation represents Government policy.
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister whether the broadcast statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8th February, on the relationship between trade union action and mass unemployment, represents Government policy.
  Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Prime Minister whether the broadcast statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the social contract on 8th February represents Government policy.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Ashley: Although it is difficult for the Labour benches to make constructive suggestions about the social contract because they would be exploited by an Opposition who are obsessively anti-trade

  283
  unionist, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that there are only three ways of combating a runaway inflation which may destroy the country: statutory control, which is completely unworkable; mass unemployment, which is totally unforgiveable; or the social contract, which is absolutely indispensable? If my right hon. Friend agrees with that assessment of the situation, will he warn the country in general, and trade unionists and industrialists in particular, that if the social contract fails statutory control or mass unemployment is inevitable?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, who obviously agrees with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the House and the country have learned, confrontations on statutory wage control lead to national disaster. I understand that since the last election the official Opposition now reject any sort of statutory pay control, but all of us have emphasised that the alternative to the social contract is the danger of greater unemployment.
  Mr. Gardiner: This is one of a number of speeches from Ministers lately warning of the danger of further breaches of the social contract. Will the Prime Minister say whether, in his view, the country can afford the railwaymen, power workers and now the non-industrial civil servants to be given pay rises to match that given to the miners? If not, when will the Government do something to halt the situation?
  The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman asks has been made clear by my right hon. Friends and myself. There were, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said in his constituency, and as I said last week, special considerations in the case of the miners, including the question of recruitment. But if others were to regard that as an area also appropriate to them, there would be very serious consequences on the lines I have mentioned.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are trying to give the impression that in this inflationary situation wages are the only factor? Why does he not tell them that in pure economic theory terms this is nonsense?
  The Prime Minister: We have warned that this year, as opposed to last year,
  284
  the problem of industrial costs arising from wages is serious, or could be serious, in relation to further moves of inflation. But when we look over the past few years, we see that the main problem which the country faces—and here I agree with my hon. Friend—is the totally inadequate provision for industrial investment, particularly in the private sector and in relation to our exporting industries.
  Mr. Lawson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech said that wage increases—trade union-organised wage settlements at the present level—threatened Britain with mass unemployment. Can the Prime Minister underline his right hon. Friend's sombre but realistic warning by answering in his usual straightforward manner two simple questions? First, roughly what numerical level does "mass unemployment" mean? Secondly, is it not the case that the commitment to full employment can no longer be regarded by the Government as absolute under the terms of the social contract?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We have emphasised the importance of keeping the expected increase in unemployment, which we inherited—those were the figures we were given—to the minimum. At that time the forecasts and prognosis were for 1 million unemployed this winter. That has not happened, and we are fighting hard to prevent any further increase. I would certainly regard that figure as the kind of thing my right hon. Friend was warning against. But I have noticed from important Opposition statements recently that there appears to be a tendency to discount the importance of unemployment, because the figures are not very accurate. We reject the approach of the Conservative Front Bench on this matter.
  Mr. Peyton: What the Prime Minister has not said yet is how we are to avoid the disaster which his colleagues have foretold.
  The Prime Minister: First, by avoiding the disaster of 2 million unemployed, which the policies of the right hon. Gentleman's party brought last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] There were 2 million unemployed exactly a year ago today as a result of policies that the whole Tory Front Bench then supported. The right hon. Gentleman asked about

  285
  the future. He wants to forget the past—I understand that—as does his Front-Bench neighbour the Leader of the Opposition. My answer with regard to the future was set out in the statement of my right hon. Friend in the broadcast referred to and in all the policies of Her Majesty's Government within the social contract.
  Mr. Thorpe: I welcome the refreshing realism of the Chancellor's speech, but can the Prime Minister say, against the pattern of the social contract, whether he regards the miners' settlement as being the exception or the rule to be followed in the future?
  The Prime Minister: I answered that question last week, but I shall answer it again. I expressed my agreement with my right hon. Friend, and the answer is "the exception".
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: May we have it at the end of Questions? I have no power to direct the hon. Gentleman, but I would prefer to hear his point of order at the end of Questions.
  Mr. Skinner: You did not say that to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), Mr. Speaker.

  CABINET COMMITTEES
  Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister if he will now answer Questions concerning the membership of Cabinet committees.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Tebbit: As the Prime Minister has referred to a Cabinet committee in a public speech outside the House, and as he has told the world at large that the purpose is to control the Secretary of State for Industry, should he not say what are its powers and who are its members, so that the world can judge whether they will be able to control the Secretary of State?
  The Prime Minister: What I did in that speech was to follow precedent in a speech to a distinguished industrial audience in Liverpool representing both sides of industry. The hon. Gentleman must be responsible for his interpretation
  286
  of the speech, because I said no such thing as he has suggested. I indicated, as I have done before in the House, that I was chairman of a particular committee and that the Treasury was powerfully represented. That is a perfectly normal thing to say. I did not set out all the members, and it is not the practice to do so.
  Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that anything the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) wants to know, most of us do not want to know?

  INDUSTRIAL POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Friday 7th February in Liverpool on the National Enterprise Board.
  Mr. Stanleyasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in Liverpool on the Industry Bill to the Merseyside Productivity Board on 7th February.
  The Prime Minister: I did so on 10th February.
  Mr. Huckfield: But as Sir Don Ryder is to report to my right hon. Friend, does that mean that the National Enterprise Board will be in any way less interventionist? What did my right hon. Friend say to the Confederation of British Industry at that famous meeting of the board when the Director-General of the CBI came away saying that he felt happier?
  The Prime Minister: The matter is still before Parliament, in a Bill which has only just received its Second Reading. The board will be responsible to the industrial Department concerned. What I did in that speech was to repeat what I have said many times: that the Bill, and its operation when it becomes an Act, will follow exactly the White Paper which was published before the election and which was so manifestly acceptable to the British people, as shown in the way they voted last October.
  Mr. Stanley: As the Prime Minister said in that speech that the effect of

  287
  the Industry Bill would not be to concentrate power in the hands of the Secretary of State, will he explain why it is that under the Bill the Secretary of State has power to spend £700 million of public money to buy shares in industrial companies, without a reference to Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: Despite the fact that, as I said, I went to the great trouble of putting a copy of that speech in the Library on 10th February, I am sorry to note that the hon. Gentleman has not read it. I did not say any of the things that he attributed to me. I said then that the operation set out in the White Paper will be carried out, although all expenditure voted by the House is under the control of the Treasury, not to mention that rarely mentioned Minister the First Lord of the Treasury, who happens to be involved in these matters. That is what I said. It was nothing like what the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend send to the Merseyside Productivity Board, and then to the CBI, a copy of the third in his series of Edinburgh speeches in 1973, in which he called for the full disclosure to workers of the ownership and control of companies?
  The Prime Minister: The speech to which my hon. Friend refers, which I think was made at Blackpool, is well known to all my constituents on Merseyside. Many of them have read it in full.
  Mr. Heseltine: The Prime Minister said that the Bill will reflect the White Paper, and the White Paper says that companies can be taken over only by agreement and as a result of a full parliamentary process. What part of the Bill reflects either of those two safeguards?
  The Prime Minister: This is the concept of the Bill—
  Mr. Heseltine: It is not.
  Mr. Stanley: Read the Bill.
  The Prime Minister: Of course I have read the Bill. This is the concept of the Bill. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman is one of the matters which I discussed with the CBI and which I shall discuss again tomorrow. If there is any doubt from the drafting of the Bill
  288
  whether the things I said on Merseyside and what we said in the White Paper are in question, those matters can be considered in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But all along I have said that this is how the Bill will operate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to spend all his time trying to pretend that it is a different Bill from what it is, we are prepared to discuss it with him.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister whether he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 18th February.
  Mr. Latham: How much longer will the right hon. Lady be allowed to spend £550 million of taxpayers' money to advantage the average person with food subsidies of 22½p a week?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood the facts and how much bigger last year's rapid increase in food prices would have been but for the food subsidies. The hon. Gentleman, who presumably was elected last October, will realise that he fought the last election, as did his Front Bench, on the pledge to maintain food subsidies.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the food subsidy programme is excellent and useful for the poor, it will be of little avail if the increases in electricity and gas prices remove their capacity to spend enough on food? Like most hon. Members, I am anxious that that should not be the case and that the subsidy principles being applied to food should also be applied to provide help for the poor in paying the charges of the nationalised industry sector.
  The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which we all share. I heard my hon. Friend speak on the subject in a meeting upstairs last week. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget—this cannot be criticised by the Conservatives, because

  289
  they said that they would do it more than a year ago, and never did—that we believed it right to have realistic pricing in the publicly-owned industries. No one is pressing this point more than the trade unions in those industries, because they believe that it is demoralising to have in the pricing of the publicly-owned industries the kind of situation we have had in the past. Furthermore, as I am always having party conference decisions brought to my attention—as though I did not already know them by heart—there was a decision at our last party conference in October 1973, and that resolution, which was passed unanimously, called for just what we are doing in relation to the prices of nationalised industries.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner, on a point of order.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Hon Members: Get on with it.
  An Hon Member: Order.
  Mr. Skinner: It is your job to get order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that Question No. Q1 was identical to several other Questions on the Order Paper, including Question No. Q16 in my name. It is the custom and practice that the Prime Minister, or any other Minister, can link Questions together as he pleases, and this is a matter over which you have no control. It is the usual practice for Questions up to, say, No. Q10 to be linked in that manner, but you have said on occasions from the Chair, presumably when it has suited you—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—it obviously did not suit you today—that on these occasions if a preponderance of hon. Members on the Opposition benches asked similar Questions you would pay attention to the linking of identical Questions lower down on the Order Paper.
  It crosses my mind that as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was suffering somewhat from the attacks being made upon him by the Opposition the balance was not as well adjusted as it might have been in his defence from the Government side of the House—not that that might have happened. It is import-
  290
  ant when you make, not rulings but the kind of conventions that you have made from the Chair, that you should try to apply them fairly and evenly to both sides of the House irrespective of the individual hon. Member.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member has any allegations to make against the Chair he should do it in the appropriate manner by a motion. Otherwise, I will give his observations the attention which I think they deserve.

NORTH SEA OIL (PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX)
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Edmund Dell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about petroleum revenue tax.
On Second Reading of the Oil Taxation Bill I indicated that any relief for marginal fields would be decided in the light of the consultations with the oil companies launched on 19th November. Following these consultations the Government have decided that safeguards for the marginal fields will be of two kinds. First, there will be a discretionary provision in the Petroleum Bill to refund royalties in whole or in part. Any refund of royalties will be free of PRT and corporation tax.
Secondly, there will be a non-discretionary provision within the tax system. In considering what form the provision should take we have paid careful attention to the various suggestions put forward by the spokesmen of the companies themselves, and our proposals follow some of those suggestions, though I do not claim that they go as far.
The non-discretionary provision will contain two elements. First, under the present PRT provisions of the Bill an uplift of 50 per cent.on capital expenditure is allowed in lieu of interest; we propose an additional 25 per cent., making a total uplift of 75 per cent., all of which can be claimed in the first year of tax liability. This will give the industry a further element of front-end loading, that is revenue free of PRT, which will help it to recover capital early in the life of the field.
Secondly, we propose an oil allowance per field of 1 million tons of oil a year,

291
which will be free of PRT, subject to a cumulative total of 10 million tons per field. That is to say, in each chargeable period of six months, an allowance in money terms equivalent to half a million tons will be available to set against PRT liability.
These provisions will of course benefit all fields, not merely marginal fields, in exempting a substantial tranche of their revenue from PRT, and to that extent giving them a more secure prospect of return on their investment. But, since the tonnage allowance is the same for large fields and small, it will be of proportionately greater benefit to the latter, and we have had this in mind in adapting the suggestions received from the industry.
I believe that these provisions will help us to fix a rate of PRT with greater security that it will leave the companies an adequate rate of return. I am, of course, fully seized of the fact that a change in the price of oil relative to price levels generally could have a profound effect on profitability. I therefore made it clear on Second Reading, and I take this opportunity to reaffirm, that the Government will stand ready to review and adjust the incidence of PRT in the event of a sustained and significant change in the price of oil in real terms.
I have given careful thought to the representations made that there should be some more automatic protection against a fall in the oil price and a consequential reduction in revenues. We therefore propose that there should be a safeguard provision that to the extent that in any year the PRT charge reduces the return on a field before corporation tax to less than 30 per cent. of capital expenditure measured on the basis of historic cost, that charge will be cancelled. There will be a tapering provision above 30 per cent.
These non-discretionary provisions will be introduced at the Report stage of the Oil Taxation Bill.
I come now to the rate of tax. I had originally envisaged that the rate of PRT would be enacted in the spring Finance Bill. However, now that the timetable allows this, I propose that it be incorporated in the Oil Taxation Bill. In considering the rate, we have in mind two objectives. First, we must ensure that the Government, on behalf of the British
292
people, secure sufficient overall revenue and sufficient benefit to the balance of payments from this raw material asset. Secondly, we must ensure for the companies an adequate return on capital and an adequate incentive for further development and exploration so as to ensure that the oil continues to flow. In the light of these considerations we propose a rate of PRT of 45 per cent.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is evident that the Paymaster-General has listened with a good deal of care and understanding to the views of the industry. Is he aware that we are glad to see that he now accepts unequivocally the need both for an adequate return on capital investment and for adequate incentives for development and exploration? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposals in the statement, coupled with the other substantial amendments which have been made or promised, represents a considerable improvement in the Bill as it was introduced?
Is it not equally clear that the right hon. Gentleman's task in devising a variable tax on windfall profits has been made far more difficult than necessary by his clinging to the wholly inappropriate flat-rate prior charge field-by-field structure that is in the Bill?
As 1 million tons a year is equal to no more than 20,000 barrels a day, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is only the tiniest fields that are likely to be exempt from PRT under his relief? I accept that the Paymaster-General's purpose is to achieve both profitability and incentives for the industry, but is he aware that we entertain serious doubts whether his reliefs are adequate and whether they will be enough to restore confidence to an industry in which confidence has been badly shaken by the Oil Taxation Bill as originally introduced?
Mr. Dell: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not say anything that will reduce confidence in the future of this country's oil industry by attaching himself to any claim, however extravagant, made by the oil companies.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we had now accepted unequivocally the argument that the oil companies must have a reasonable rate of return. We have from the beginning accepted that

293
unequivocally. It was for that reason that on 19th November I called the oil companies into consultation, a consultation that has gone on since. The object of that was to ensure that we had the right facts on which to base our decisions.
The right hon. Member says that the task of making provision for marginal fields had been made far more difficult by the structure of the tax. That is not the case. I am sure that the provision we are making is adequate for the marginal fields. Many fields will be largely relieved of PRT, particularly the smaller fields, and in considering the problem of marginal fields one has to look to the future at least as much as to existing fields. As a result of this concession, exploration in future fields which may be smaller than some of those so far discovered will be encouraged.
Mr. Atkinson: The method used by my right hon. Friend in presenting his statement and the basis of the calculations he has presented to the House suggest that the price of oil will be left to free market considerations under commercial conditions. Does he accept that the Labour Party is committed to having regulated and controlled prices of oil in very strictly controlled conditions? Will he therefore now give confidence to the Labour movement rather than to the commercial oil market by saying that he is to carry out the provisions of our manifesto and insist, for as far as the future can tell, on complete regulation in oil prices?
Mr. Dell: I am sure that the manifesto is being carried out completely. Of course these decisions are based on the assumption of market prices and the safeguard provisions; and the marginal field provisions, are to take care of possible changes in real terms of market prices.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Paymaster-General accept that we on this bench have consistently held the view that there should be a direct relationship between the revenue-raising potential of the oil and the funding of the Scottish Development Agency? When will the Government bring forward proposals on that score?
Mr. Dell: As the hon. Member knows, the proposals for the SDA will be brought forward shortly.
Mr. Dalyell: Has not Burmah taught us that the cash flow position is absolutely critical in the rate of oil exploitation? Will my right hon. Friend say precisely what he means by the recovery of capital "early in the life of a field"? What does "early in the life of a field" mean in the case of marginal fields?
Mr. Dell: In the case of marginal fields, as in other fields, 175 per cent. of the capital expenditure will be offset against revenue before PRT makes any impact on the field. In addition there will then be the oil allowance. The companies are given front-end loading, that is to say they are relieved at a very early stage of their capital liabilities before they pay PRT, and this should be of great assistance to them and also a great encouragement to future development.
Mr. John Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to do so this afternoon, will he be kind enough to make available to the House subsequently a comparison of the net effect of tax and cost in respect of a million-barrel-a-day field sited in Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States?
Mr. Dell: I shall certainly look at the right hon. Gentleman's question and see what help I can give him.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: What benefits will the regions of high unemployment in England get from the oil revenue?
Mr. Dell: I trust that one of the effects of this tax and of the discovery of these raw material resources will be to give some impetus to the British economy, with beneficial effects on employment generally.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister accept that his statement about concessions to the international oil companies will be greeted with considerable horror and anger in Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Will he further indicate his estimate of the revenues to be expected at a production of 150 million tons at current prices on current rates of corporation tax and taking account of the rate of PRT which he has just announced?
Does he accept that the 30 per cent. guaranteed rate of return is far too high, particularly in present circumstances? The 50 per cent. uplift which was previously proposed would have led in certain fields to capital investment being repaid

295
over two or three years' production. Does he accept that the situation has been worsened by his proposal to increase this uplift in interest to 75 per cent.?
Mr. Dell: I cannot believe that the people of Scotland will greet this announcement with horror and anger. On the contrary, the people of Scotland are as aware as people anywhere else in Britain that it is necessary that the oil should flow before we get any tax revenue out of it, and the measures I have announced today will assist that to happen.
The hon. Member asked for an estimate of revenues on the basis of certain figures of oil production in—I take it—the 1980s. He will understand that in the early years the revenue from North Sea oil will be relatively small but growing fast. In the early 1980s, at a figure of 100 million tons, it should be £2,000 million or £3,000 million. Of course, the higher the production the greater the consequent revenues. However, all figures in this respect must be treated with some caution because they depend, first, on the price of oil and, secondly, on the cost of exploration and development. I therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we wait to see what we get before relying on it too much.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware that whatever the reactions in Scotland, many English Members will see this as giving in to the wealthy oil companies? Is he aware that his action is similar in pattern to giving in to the office property people—ending the freeze on office rents—and to the landowners on CTT? Does he agree that this is not in keeping with the concluding paragraph in our election manifesto which talked of a great and irreversible switch from rich to poor and of greater equality in our country? I understand the pressure to which my right hon. Friend has been subjected, but we seem to be giving in all down the line, and the Labour movement must resist that.
Mr. Dell: By this tax we are trying to achieve a great and irreversible switch of profits from the oil companies to the British Government. However, it is necessary to ensure that the oil flows and we have to accept that the oil companies must make a reasonable return
296
on their investment. That is all that we have done. We have established a reasonable sharing between the British people and the companies which are doing the work and on whose expertise we continue to rely.
Mr. Tugendhat: Is the Minister aware that the most important thing he has said has been his reference to the necessity to get the oil flowing, and one of the main factors in delaying things in the North Sea and in other areas such as Canada has been the sheer uncertainty surrounding so much of the operation. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that every effort will be made to expedite the further negotiations with the oil companies over participation? Does he not agree that the simplest way of getting things going and of enabling the companies to raise money would be to bring forward these proposals as quickly as possible even if he is unable to drop them entirely, which is what he should do?
Mr. Dell: Every effort will be made to expedite progress on participation. The hon. Member referred to uncertainty. One of the objectives of our handling of the Oil Taxation Bill, in conducting the talks concurrently with the legislative process, has been precisely to reduce the period of uncertainty. We should now be able to complete this measure in a period of four months which I think is a considerable contribution to reducing uncertainty in this area.
Mr. Hardy: Will my right hon. Friend proceed according to the earlier consultations with the oil companies and ensure that there is no further delay or dithering with regard to North Sea development? Will my right hon. Friend agree that the green light he has given is at least adequate, even though the Opposition think that the oil companies should be given even more?
Mr. Dell: We wish to see North Sea development going ahead fast. The evidence we have suggests that it is going ahead as fast as is practicable. There are many causes of delay, some of which are due to natural circumstances—such as the North Sea in which the development is going ahead. It is our objective that it should go ahead as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Alison: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember saying in Committee, during the discussions on the Oil Taxation Bill on 10th January, that marginality was not a question of petroleum revenue tax alone and that corporation tax represented a large proportion of the burden that companies would have to pay? Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement today rule out any possible change in the rules governing the disallowance of interest for corporation tax purposes, for example? Does he realise that the concessions he has announced today in an inflationary era are no substitute for the disallowance of interest, and that interest burdens increase progressively with inflation, while concessions on capital decrease progressively?
Mr. Dell: We are looking very carefully at the arguments advanced in Committee on the Oil Taxation Bill regarding interest and in respect of corporation tax. We have had further consultations with the companies on that point. We shall be coming to a decision on it in time for Report. Since marginality is not simply a matter of petroleum revenue tax, we have introduced into our scheme the possibility of a discretionary refunding of royalties free of PRT and corporation tax. I think that the discretionary power in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, in consultation with the Treasury, will suffice to help any marginal field that should be developed.
Mr. English: In the course of his negotiations on this subject, did my right hon. Friend make it plain to the oil companies that the Government would not go back on their commitment to 51 per cent. participation? Is he aware that Government supporters will take a much more lenient view on taxation if they know that control of the subsidies means that the revenue taxable cannot be shifted around?
Mr. Dell: There is a commitment to 51 per cent. participation, of which the oil companies are aware. The strategy we are following requires that the British people's share of the profits will be obtained by taxation. The participation negotiations are directed to securing greater control.
Mr. Skeet: Does the Minister accept the proposition which the Government have put forward that the oil companies' profit will be the same on 49 per cent. participation as though they had 100 per cent. control?
Mr. Dell: In so far as we think it right to take a share of the profits—and we do—that course will be achieved by taxation. The participation negotiations are related to the control of the oil and the operation.
Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement today will be regarded by the Labour movement with a great deal of concern? Some would go so far as to consider that this is little short of a sell-out in response to the blackmail which has gone on for a considerable time by the oil firms both within and outside this country. Will my right hon. Friend answer this more detailed question? When we consider that the 45 per cent. will be offset by the capital allowance of 175 per cent., and then by the £1 million allocation to assist the marginal fields, overall, what will the amount of tax be in relation to those offsets, taking them into account over the period of the first five years' operation? Will the figure be much nearer 30 per cent. than 45 per cent.?
Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend says that there will be a great deal of concern. However, he must remember that in addition to PRT there will be corporation tax at 52 per cent. and royalty at 12½ per cent. As a result of the rate of PRT which I have just announced, estimating the proportion of the revenues in a field which the Government will take, and accepting that that will vary from field to field because marginal fields have a lower take while other fields have a higher take, I estimate that the average over the next 10 years will probably be of the order of 70 per cent. I do not think that that figure should lead to concern.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the vindictive and spiteful attitude of the Scottish National Party to the oil companies does not represent the views of the people of Scotland, who will welcome the statement of the concessions

299
he has made? Has he evidence, which I believe exists, that if the burden of taxation is unreasonably high, the oil will not flow and jobs and prosperity will disappear?
Mr. Dell: It is necessary that the burden of taxation shall not be unreasonably high. We have had that in mind in fixing the rate of tax, which, at this level, we think is right. On the basis of our estimates, founded on figures provided by the companies, we think that this leaves the companies a reasonable rate of return which will enable them to continue their development and exploration work, which is essential if the oil is to continue to flow.

CONSPIRACY (AMENDMENT)
3. 57 p.m.
Mr. Stan Thorne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the maximum sentence which may be imposed on any person convicted of conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum sentence which could have been imposed if he had committed the crime which he was charged with conspiring to commit; and for connected purposes.
I ask the House to bear with me if I stick very closely to my notes so as to avoid unnecessary delay.
The object of the Bill is to seek the authority of the House to present a measure which would reform the law of conspiracy. This is necessary and urgent, and is required to reassert the authority of Parliament.
Conspiracy is not a crime defined in any Act of Parliament. It was invented in the time of King James I by the Court of Star Chamber. Generally speaking, the law of conspiracy is in need of reform in general. It makes into a crime, very often, acts which if committed by a single individual would not be criminal. This is a matter which requires to be dealt with urgently by legislation. However, the object of the Bill, for which leave is sought to introduce, is much more limited.
The Long Title refers to the maximum sentence which may be imposed in cases of conspiracy. It seems extraordinary that an attempt to commit a crime, or even an agreement to participate in it, irrespective of whether the crime was committed or not, should be more severely punished than the crime itself, if committed.
It is an insult to the authority of Parliament that any outside body, even the judges, should be able to pass heavier sentences for attempting to commit a crime if that crime was alleged to have been part of a conspiracy, when Parliament has fixed a maximum penalty for the crime itself.
The matter has been brought to a head by the sentences passed in the so-called Shrewsbury conspiracy trial. In that trial, as in an equally important case in

301
trade union history—that of the Tolpuddle Martyrs—the accused were sentenced for conspiracy. In the Shrewsbury case they were charged with conspring to intimidate.
Under Section 7 of the 1875 Act, intimidation is an offence for which a maximum penalty of imprisonment is laid down,
"… for a term not exceeding three months."
Once a defendant is charged under this section, not with intimidation but with conspiring to contravene the statute, he is placed entirely at the judge's mercy and could be sentenced to life imprisonment if the judge so decided. At the Shrewsbury Crown Court, one of those charged, Dennis Warren, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for conspiring to intimidate "lump" labourers, a punishment 12 times heavier than the maximum for direct intimidation provided by the statute. The object of this modest Bill is to limit the judge's power of sentencing to that which Parliament has laid down for the commission of the offence itself.
I suggest that it is illogical and absurd that if someone intimidates a worker contrary to the law, he or she, in accordance with the law laid down by this Parliament, is subject to a maximum penalty of only three months' imprisonment, whereas he or she can be sentenced to three years' imprisonment for attempting in concert with other people to carry out the same intimidation, quite irrespective of whether anyone was intimidated.
This absurdity has come prominently to light because it has affected industrial relations, but it could equally affect the most ordinary cases of trivial offences where two or more people agreed to commit them. There was such a case, Regina v. Blamires Transport Services, in which two people stopped, could not find a parking meter, and broke the Road Traffic Act by their action. They conspired together in that they agreed that they would pay the fine if a fine arose from their act. In those circumstances—this is not a hypothetical case—it was affirmed that a penalty of life imprisonment could have been imposed by the judge.
302
I am more concerned to examine how the Conspiracy Act has been applied and how conspiracy generally has been applied in regard to trade unions and social and political agitation generally. I remind the House that in 1872 the gas workers organised a strike and were convicted under this head because they persuaded other workers not to work. This gave rise, as we know, to the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, which abolished the crime of criminal conspiracy in all trade disputes except where the act committed was itself criminal—that is to say, a factory was burned down or damage to property occurred.
Since that time, however, the judges, determined not to be defeated, have decided that the Act abolished only criminal conspiracy and that there remained a civil liability for conspiracy to pay damages to the employer who was injured or otherwise molested. Under this ruling, for example, in 1895 trade unions which posted up blacklists of blackleg workers who did not join a strike were made liable for conspiracy to injure. However, it is typical of the bias shown by the courts in these matters that in 1892 and 1902 the circulation of lists of strikers and troublemakers by employers' associations was held not to be a civil wrong because the employers were defending their legitimate self-interest. In the same way, in 1892 traders who undercut competitors were held not liable, and in 1942 in the famous crofters' case a similar decision was taken.
The main case against the law on conspiracy, however, is that it is not used against major conspiracy. The recent Loyalist strike in Northern Ireland was denounced by the Prime Minister himself as an attempt at intimidation, and undoubtedly important political personalities could have been indicted for conspiracy for their part in organising the intimidation and the violence which accompanied the strike in question. No such action was taken. But conspiracy remains as a weapon of the employer against the employee and of the Government whose decisions may be the source of agitation by combinations of people with different value orientations.
It is against this background that I seek the leave of the House to introduce the short Bill which I have described.
4.5 p.m.
Mr. Carol Mather rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the motion?
Mr. Mather: I do, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) has attempted to blind us with legal points. He is not a lawyer, any more than I am. He was simply reading from a brief. However, I wish to put my opposing arguments in my own way.
The object of the Bill is to nullify the common law offence of conspiracy. As the hon. Gentleman said, it arises from the case of the Shrewsbury pickets and the imprisonment of Warren and Tomlinson for two and three years respectively.
What the hon. Gentleman does not realise fully is that, if the conspiracy charge had not been made and the two men had been tried on the 39 out of 42 other counts on which they were arraigned, far greater sentences could have been imposed, and probably would have been, on the grounds of intimidation and assault.
As I see it, what the hon. Gentleman is not doing is to claim the rights of pickets to go about their business peacefully. He seems to be claiming the right that they should be allowed to picket violently when the need arises, using whatever degree of force to obtain their ends. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
As the trial judge pointed out, there is the right to picket peacefully. But other freedoms and rights are also involved. There is the right for men to work if they wish to. There is the right for them to refuse to withdraw their labour if they wish to continue doing their work. There is the right to go about their work freely without fear of intimidation—
Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to raise a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not the practice to have points of order either way during the introduction of a Ten-Minute Bill.
Mr. Buchan: I accept that. Nevertheless, may I raise a point of order?
Mr. Speaker: The answer is, I prefer not until afterwards.
Mr. Buchan: I am sorry to do this. It is the first time that I have done it during the 10 years that I have been a Member of this House. But this is an important point of order.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed.
Mr. Buchan: As I understand it, the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) was given leave to oppose the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). However, the hon. Gentleman is speaking about another matter altogether. No longer is he linking his remarks to the Bill. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the House to listen to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Speaker: Certainly it is in order. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) is developing an argument against the Bill. The quality of that argument or its precise relevance are not matters for me, unless the hon. Gentleman is talking about some completely different topic which is utterly irrelevant. At the moment, I cannot rule the hon. Member for Esher out of order.
Mr. Mather: I confirm that what I was saying was absolutely on the topic of the discussion. The hon. Member for Preston, South referred specifically to the Shrewsbury pickets.
I deal with the Bill on three grounds—the ground of fact, the ground of law and the ground of motive. On the matter of fact, the offences of September 1972 are well known and hardly bear repeating. A brief repetition should be made on this occasion. This is what eye-witnesses saw:
"The men entered the sites in what was described as a mad swarm. They were shouting, 'Kill the bastards.' They also shouted, 'This is a revolution and not a strike'."
One man was threatened to have his legs broken if he resisted. Another man was pulled off his ladder, hit his head and was in hospital for eight days with severe concussion. Others were attacked with bricks, were stoned—[Interruption.]—and hit with iron bars. Buildings were smashed, huts demolished and windows broken. Equipment was broken up and overturned and—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Mather: —a compressor was launched downhill, narrowly missing a man.
Mr. Skinner: I hesitate to rise because there have been occasions when I have strayed from the point, whatever debate I have been taking part in. I must draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that for most of the time that the hon. Member has been speaking he has been completely out of order in that he has not been speaking about the Bill. It is important that you devote your mind to that.
Mr. John Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has developed a welcome tradition for points of order which are sought to be raised during Question Time to be taken at the end of that period. Would it not be appropriate for those who seek to raise points of order during the debate on a Ten-Minute Bill to reserve their points of order until the conclusion of the debate?
Mr. Speaker: I certainly thought that that was the convention of the House. I do not think that I have known more than one or two occasions in my 29 years here when points of order have been raised during Ten-Minute Bills. It is an undesirable practice. As the point has been raised I will try to deal with it. I have to decide on the degree of irrelevance which I think requires me to intervene. Whether the argument is strictly relevant and whether it arises out of the same matter as the Bill, is a matter for me to decide. The hon. Member has not yet gone so far that I can or will say he is out of order.
Mr. Mather: This matter needs to be put in absolutely clear and unmistakeable terms. We have the story put over by the opposite side of the House. It is time for the true facts to be given. Never in the history of picketing have such violent scenes taken place in this country.
On the matter of law, six men were tried on three counts of conspiracy to intimidate, unlawful assembly and affray. Tomlinson and Warren were found guilty of all three, although Tomlinson faced 30 other counts and Warren 39 other counts of assault and intimidation. On appeal the first two were upheld and the third
306
quashed on a point of law. The conspiracy element is commonly used in such cases to accentuate the degree of criminality of the crime.
Continuing on the matter of law, the hon. Gentleman may wish to pray in aid the Law Commission's Report No. 50. It will be noted that the report is critical of conspiracy for unlawful acts and civil wrongs such as fraud and indecency. But it is not critical of conspiracy when it is a question of committing a criminal offence. In any case this was issued only as a discussion paper. If the hon. Member has this in mind he is wilfully misunderstanding the report.
I come now to the question of motive. I have to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the hon. Gentleman is well known as an extreme Left winger. He has been prominent in opposing the defence cuts and he has got into trouble—not only with his Front Bench, but also with his constituents, particularly those working for BAC. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not on trial."] The hon. Member is also one of the leading opponents of the increases in the Civil List and is also a leading member of the "Troops Out" campaign and took—[Interruption.]—part in the IRA rally in London on 27th October, when 9 were arrested and 14 were subsequently charged with conspiracy.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will listen to the hon. Member quietly. When it is the other way round the noise is just as great on the other side; in either case, it is to be deprecated.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a deliberate assassination. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) is embarking on a deliberate campaign of character assassination. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a disgrace to the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not have it said in this House that it is character assassination to say of an hon. Member that he presses for defence cuts.
Mr. Mather: The hon. Member is well known for these activities, and this has to be said. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are you well known for?"] One of the hon. Member's right hon. Friends has alluded to these pickets as the "iron bar squad". These are the people the hon.

307
Member extols. On grounds of motive alone, this Bill should go no further. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's motives are strictly correct and proper. I know that the Bill willߞ
Mr. Speaker: I must call the hon. Member to order. I do not think he is entitled to impute an improper motive.
Mr. Cryer: Exactly my point.
Mr. Mather: If I inadvertently did so, I withdraw. This is a question which should be decided by the Government. It
is a matter of law and is not something for us to decide here. I do not propose to divide the House today—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends are pressing me to do so. In the circumstances it would be right for me to do so.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at the commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 166.
Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [11TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  ENERGY
  4.28 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move,
  That the salary of the Secretary of State for Energy should be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
  Hon. Members: Shocking.
  Mr. Jenkin: By the time I have finished, I think that hon. Members opposite will agree that we are right.
  It is almost exactly a year since the Secretary of State entered upon his high office and it is time that he was called to account. It has been a year which has seen the world price of oil forced inexorably upwards; a year in which the United Kingdom's oil deficit may have exceeded £3,500 million; a year in which most of the developed world has embarked on a major expansion of nuclear power; and a year in which in many parts of the world the prospects for oil and gas exploration have become brighter and activity has greatly intensified. Such places as Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, India, offshore Canada and the United States are attracting intensive activity. It has been a year in which the potential outlook for the United Kingdom's coal industry has been dramatically enhanced. I stress the word "potential" because the reality already looks a little shaky. It has been a year in which the world has had to begin to learn how to save energy, how to use it more rationally, how to use it more efficiently.
  It has by any standards been a challenging year. How has the Government's energy policy measured up to the challenge? How does the right hon. Gentleman's balance sheet stand? Although some of my remarks will be critical of the Government and their policy, I want to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, because what we need to do is to strike a balance.
  On the credit side—and I say this unhesitatingly and unstintingly—the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have
  312
  taken major steps to move towards a system of rational energy pricing throughout the economy, and we support that. Indeed, it was foreshadowed by my noble Friend Lord Barber, as he now is, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement in December 1973. All I ask in relation to that, addressing myself to the Government back benches, is what the Labour Party's reaction would have been if it had been a Conservative Government which had had to take these hard decisions. I should like Labour Members to examine their consciences on that.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Some hon. Members who were then on the Opposition benches opposed the previous subsidy policy introduced by the Conservative Government from the very beginning, and I was one of them.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I wonder what the reaction of most of his hon. Friends below the Gangway would have been if we had tried to take those hard decisions.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has taken a major step to bring justice to the sufferers of pneumoconiosis, hitherto neglected by Governments of all parties. The Bill is going through the House, and it has our support.
  Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman took a firm and clear decision on the choice of nuclear reactors. It was an extraordinarily complex and difficult decision, and it required courage. It was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said, an act of faith, and therefore I do not grudge the Secretary of State his due.
  But whatever credit the right hon. Gentleman may claim for the successes of his energy policy, they are massively outweighed by the failures that are plain for all to see. The crumbling North Sea oil programme, the stagnating nuclear programme, the astonishingly lethargic approach to energy saving and energy research, the speed with which price rises in the coal industry have gobbled up the headroom created by the rise in oil prices—these are the chilly results of the right hon. Gentleman's year in office; it is on these that he and his policies stand condemned.
  Before I catalogue the details of these charges there is one separate matter

  313
  with which I must deal, and that refers to the 20 per cent. holding in BP sold by the Burmah Oil Company to the Bank of England. There are two distinct aspects of this affair which merit examination.
  The first is whether Burmah shareholders are entitled to share in the profits which the Bank has made—profits which stand at more than £100 million. It is not for me to intervene between Burmah shareholders and the directors of the company—and I understand that there is a possibility of legal action—but it is very much the concern of the House and of the Opposition to see that public bodies behave honourably and fairly.
  All the indications are that the Bank of England was, and remains, prepared to enter into an arrangement to share the profit with the company, and all the indications are that it was the Government who killed the idea. That was confirmed in a Written Answer on Friday in answer to a Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter):
  "The Government considered that this arrangement was fair both to the shareholders and to the taxpayer".—[Official Report, 21st February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 561.]
  The right hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him that thousands of small shareholders in the company, pension funds and institutional investors take a very different view. There is a deep sense of outrage that although the Bank is ready to recognise the harsh effect of what has happened the Government should forbid it to do anything about the situation.
  It may be that the matter will be tested in the courts. Whatever the outcome—and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to be aware of this—the episode will have done lasting damage to the credibility and independence of the Bank of England as a lender of last resort.
  Dr. Colin Phipps: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what his attitude would have been had the stock market fallen during the subsequent period?
  Mr. Jenkin: That is a hypothetical question, because it did not. In fact, it rose substantially.
  314
  Even more serious is the confusion about what is to happen about the BP shares. The House will know that when the shares were bought the Bank, on behalf of the Government, gave a pledge to the Takeover Panel—and I quote from the Financial Times of 24th January—that
  "It is not Her Majesty's Government's intention that this transaction should change in any way the existing arrangements between the Government and BP and that, accordingly, while the stock in question remains in the Bank's hands, Her Majesty's Government will not exercise a greater proportionate voting power in relation to other shareholders than they could have exercised hitherto."
  The statement went on to say that the panel had ruled that in these circumstances there need be no bid for the outstanding shares.
  But what do we see? Perhaps the Sun had the best headline:
  "Benn backs bid for State to grab BP."
  The Home Affairs Committee of the Labour Party, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry is chairman, has openly challenged that ruling and has apparently sent representations to the Secretary of State for Energy and his right hon. Friends that the Bank of England should now hand over these shares to the Government. We have the bizarre spectacle of the Bank and Treasury, having given solemn undertakings to the Takeover Panel, being publicly challenged by another member of the Cabinet. This is outrageous. This can be met only by a clear and unequivocal statement by the right hon. Gentleman today that the Government stand by the undertaking which they gave to the Takeover Panel and, furthermore, that the Bank will aim to dispose of the BP shares on the market as soon as practicable.
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric G. Varley): Perhaps I may clear that matter up straight away. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry was not at the meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and that report is inaccurate.
  Mr. Jenkin: In that case, every newspaper got it wrong. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say—and I chose my words with great care—that he was not in the chair on that occasion. If the Secretary of State says that his right hon.

  315
  Friend was not at the meeting at all, of course I accept this.
  This matter of the disposal of the BP shares is of crucial importance. Over the years BP has succeeded in establishing credibility overseas as an independent commercial company, and that it is not a mere creature of Government. By this dangerous flirting with the idea of takeover the Government risk wrecking it all. BP has huge assets in Alaska and the United States of America, and there is already a growing volume of criticism there that their oil supplies are in the hands of a foreign Government. The stupid talk of takeover can only damage the national interest and make the company's position more vulnerable than it is now.
  I now turn to the main counts in the Government's energy policy failures. The first is energy saving. The Department has truly lived up to its sobriquet as "Department of Lethargy". We had to wait until 9th December to get anything, and then we had the 12-point programme which was little more than a public relations exercise. It has been estimated that it will not save more than £10 million to £15 million of oil in a year, which is equal to, say, one to one-and-a-half days' delay in bringing ashore North Sea oil.
  The advertising campaign is a dismal flop. Incidentally, who in the Department was responsible for the remarkable observation in one of the advertisements—
  "Did you realise steam costs even more per ton than oil?"
  I hope they did not realise that, because it is wrong by a factor of 10.
  The failure stems partly from a lack of any capacity in the right hon. Gentleman's Department to deal with conservation, and partly because he appears to lack any sense of urgency about the matter. This is emerging from the evidence to the Select Committee. Sir Ieuan Maddock gave evidence last month that
  "he was dismayed at the lack of feeling of crisis and high drama over the United Kingdom's energy situation."
  Again, the Secretary of State's chief scientific adviser, Dr. Walter Marshall
  "had some difficulty yesterday convincing the Commons Energy sub-committee that anything much was happening in his Department."
  316
  I know that we have been promised further statements, but what are the Government doing about the proposals put forward by NIFES—the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service, the largest and most experienced fuel efficiency firm in Europe? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that NIFES's proposals have been sitting on his desk for about six months? Does he realise that the directors of NIFES have become so desperate at their failure to get any answers from his Department that they have now gone to the Department of Industry to see whether they can interest that Minister in what they are doing? Truly did the The Times describe the right hon. Gentleman's policy as one of
  "delay and confusion in saving energy".
  It is time for the right hon. Gentleman to take a grip on this, to get things moving and to inject some sense of urgency.
  I will tell him what he should do. We need proper energy-saving targets for every sector of the economy. We need a crash programme to train fuel technologists. We need a proper system of energy audits in industry. We need proper incentives to invest in an energy-saving plant. The Secretary of State is fond of saying that more effective energy-saving measures could only result in misery. That simply is not true. It could result in greater efficiency and greater profitability. We need some imagination, some go, some enthusiasm. So far we have had absolutely none.
  The story is the same with the nuclear programme. A courageous decision was made in July to go for heavy water reactors. What has happened since then? Virtually nothing. There has been almost total silence. The National Nuclear Corporation was to be restructured, but nothing has happened, and with what results? As The Sunday Times of 16th February said,
  "Seven months after Energy Secretary Eric Varley took his dramatic decision to go firm on a series of British-designed power stations, the nuclear industry stands as demoralised and uncertain as ever it did."
  There has been no announcement of revised shareholdings in NNC, no announcement of who is in charge, no announcement of contracts signed or

  317
  designs approved. Last Wednesday we read in The Times,
  "Statement expected today on nuclear restructuring"
  but absolutely nothing happened. A few days ago we were told that an agreement on hand-over of AGR contracts was imminent, but on Thursday one read The Times headline,
  "CEGB reactor agreement is deferred again".
  It is an endless tale of delay and muddle. Why does not the Secretary of State knock their silly heads together, inject some urgency and get things moving? Not unnaturally, the people on the ground are getting restive. I have here a document from the Staff Side of the Joint Negotiating Panel of the TNPG. It reads:
  "Staff representatives are becoming increasingly concerned at the lack of positive direction that is now evident in the nuclear industry."
  They go on to blame GEC. I blame the Secretary of State. He is in charge.
  There is one other matter I must raise in relation to the nuclear programme. On all sides it is agreed that it is a tiny programme—only 4,000 megawatts as compared with programmes three or four times that size by France and Germany. The CBI has argued that we need a bigger programme. The TUC is urging the right hon. Gentleman to speed up the country's nuclear energy programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), whom I am glad to see in his place, asked the right hon. Gentleman a question which perhaps I may be allowed to quote,
  "Is the Secretary of State aware of the disappointment … at the Government's decision to proceed with a programme only one-third the size which the CEGB thought desirable? Will he confirm that the full programme suggested by the CEGB was unacceptable to the National Union of Mineworkers?"
  To this question the right hon. Gentleman gave a very snide reply:
  "I do not know what connection that supplementary question has with the matter under discussion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take me to one side and explain precisely what he meant."—[Official Report, 10th July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 1368.]
  But of course the right hon. Gentleman knows exactly what my hon. Friend meant because when he addressed the National Union of Mineworkers on 14th November 1974 he told them that the
  318
  decision—that is, on the nuclear programme—
  "was a decision of great importance to the coal industry. It puts faith in the British coal industry and British miners to deliver the coal needed for our power station programme … it can also be construed as an act of faith in the British coal industry and British miners to deliver the coal … needed."
  It is nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did not understand what my hon. Friend meant by his question.
  So, to the charge of lethargy we have to add the charge of not being wholly frank with the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I am quoting from a Department of Energy hand-out of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The answer to my hon. Friend followed the right hon. Gentleman's statement on 10th July.
  There is a disturbing rumour that work is not now to start for another two years, until the end of 1976. Is that true, and is it true that the Nuclear Inspectorate has raised a whole range of new difficulties on which it requires to be satisfied before it can give a site licence?
  On coal, the Government were elected, and the right hon. Gentlemen's appointment was welcomed, because of, it was said, his ability to deal with the miners. In fact, in his first year he has suffered two major defeats. First, the union threw out the productivity scheme on which the right hon. Gentleman had placed so much importance. Secondly, the Government have been forced to accept a settlement which in the words of a leader in The Guardian of 14th February,
  "only the broad-minded or the short-sighted could see … as being within the guildelines set out in the social contract."
  That leader ended:
  "The coalminers have not just made the prospects for unemployment this year more bleak. They may eventually find some of their own members have been priced out of work."
  Hard on the heels of that judgment comes the warning from Mr. Arthur Hawkins that the colossal price increases which the miners' pay deal means for the CEGB can only lead to a sharp downturn in the demand for electricity. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) yesterday drew attention to this and to the grim consequences for the power station programme and for employment in the electric equipment industry.

  319
  I hope that in his reply the Secretary of State will give his Department's forecast for the building programme. Tens of thousands of jobs will depend upon it.
  Indeed, I would ask him to go further. The tripartite examination of the coal industry was based on the assumption of a 30 per cent. headroom between coal and oil prices. Two great pay hikes in a year have eroded that headroom to the point of disappearance. The Secretary of State should now reconvene the tripartite study and re-examine the assumptions on which the Plan for Coal was based.
  Finally, oil. This is the saddest, most disastrous tale of the lot, for to the charges of lethargy and lack of frankness must be added the charge of sheer, doctrinaire folly. A year ago when this Government came into office the offshore oil industry was all go. Finance was readily available, confidence was high, programmes were expanding and orders for equipment were booming. Today what do we see? We see confidence badly shaken, project finance—off-balance sheet finance—out of the question, unobtainable. United Kingdom oil is no longer a bankable proposition.
  Almost every day over the last two months we have read in the Press of programmes slowing down, of rigs diverted and of investment postponed. The right hon. Gentleman should know that there have been redundancies in pipe coating mills in Leith because there has been no work. There has been labour unrest in platform yards due to lack of orders coming in for platforms. On every side there has been doubt, confusion, down-right dismay. The loss of confidence is mainly due to the Government's inept fiscal policy and doctrinaire nationalisation policy.
  Today's announcement on PRT may go some way to repair the damage that has been done, but I doubt whether it will restore the incentive to explore for the small fields. The test will come over the next two years, to show how many exploration rigs there are—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but at the moment between a half and a third of the number of oil rigs are wildcatting in the North Sea compared with those anticipated a year ago. I have read the speech that the hon. Gentleman
  320
  made in Edinburgh and no doubt he will deal with that in his reply.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also confirm, as I said in Edinburgh—it is the truth—that the 28 rigs operating in the North Sea at present represent the highest proportion which has ever operated in the British sector.
  Mr. Jenkin: But not as many as the industry had anticipated, and the great majority are now engaged in appraisal and delineation, and not in wild-catting for new discoveries. That is where future discoveries must come from.
  Dr. Phipps: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman from personal knowledge that one of the reasons that there is such a delay is that rigs ordered from American yards, which should have arrived two years ago, are only just arriving in the North Sea. There has been an enormous slow down in rig production in the States. A rig with which my company is involved has just arrived, one year and eleven months late.
  Mr. Jenkin: I accept that there have been delays all along, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will equally accept that, whereas a year ago it was impossible to get a rig for love or money less than two years ahead, one can now go straight into the market and get rigs, because companies do not want to take up their options.
  Then there is participation. Here I must confess to being totally bewildered about what the Government are trying to do. At first it was the money that they were after. This was clearly spelled out by the Secretary of State in an article in the Glasgow Herald during the election;
  "They"
  —the Government—
  "will acquire a direct stake in the most profitable investment going in this country … The return on the public half-share participation will be sufficient to pay back the whole initial investment in about a year or so."
  Only a month or two ago, the Under-Secretary of State made the same point at a conference when he said that participation was needed by the Government
  "to guarantee its revenue not simply by taxation but also by a share of profits earned on

  321
  its investment … I find it difficult to understand why what is a good investment for the oil companies and others is not equally good for the nation."
  Mr. John Smith: Quite right.
  Mr. Jenkin: But the Under-Secretary must learn that that is not now the Government's policy. The Under-Secretary may not have realised it, but it was changed by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy in Washington, according to The Times on 3rd February:
  "The key point that had to be appreciated, he said, was that the British Government had no intention of adding to its take from the North Sea through participation plans designed to give the Government majority control over the oil resources … it believed the only way it should obtain revenues from the North Sea oil was by means of the new oil tax and through corporation taxes."
  That may come as news to the Under-Secretary, but it has been Government policy for at least a month and was repeated in the House by the Chancellor of the Duchy only last Wednesday. I must make it clear that in one sense we welcome this. It has always been our view that the Government should look for their share of the revenues to the tax system. I am glad that they now accept the view that we have always put forward.
  If it is not money, what are they looking for? The answer is control over the oil itself. But they have a good deal of control already. The oil has to come ashore in the United Kingdom unless the Government give consent otherwise. Power exists over exports and imports. They propose to take new powers to control such things as depletion and pipelines. Control will stem from legislation and not from ownership. We shall see the legislation when it comes forward.
  So last Wednesday we had a new phrase from the Government to justify State participation. In answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the Chancellor of the Duchy said:
  "What we are now seeking is to give the British people the title to a share of the oil itself ".
  He went on to say that the Government would scrupulously honour all their contractual and commercial obligations.
  How on earth will that be done? The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear
  322
  that the expected rate of profit would be "unchanged" by "acceptance of 51 per cent. participation"—I am quoting from the Chancellor of the Duchy on 10th January—the so-called "no gain, no loss" solution. I am at a loss to know what that means. It could be no more than an empty facade to cover embarrassing political commitments, but it is causing immense doubt, confusion and loss of confidence.
  Still worse, there has now crept into all this an element of compulsion. When the policy was first announced it was going to be voluntary. Yet last Wednesday, in the same exchange, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I told them that the Cabinet might feel obliged, if it were unable to satisfy its objectives, which seem to us fair and reasonable and not incompatible with the interests of the oil companies, by voluntary agreement with them, to nationalise—".
  My hon. Friend interposed:
  "Blackmail."
  The Chancellor went on:
  "to nationalise that proportion of the licences that it thought right to nationalise."—[Official Report, 19th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1338, 1341.]
  That sounds to me very much like coercion. I would remind the Secretary of State of what he said. It was considered so noteworthy that the Observer put it into its "Sayings of the Week" column on 14th July:
  "We in Britain do not go in for coercion like some other oil producing countries."
  Like hell they don't.
  So where do we now stand? We are talking of Britain's most valuable natural asset, capable in five years of making us self-sufficient in oil and relieving us of a balance of payments burden of £3½ billion a year. The Government want 51 per cent. of the oil but want to leave the companies no worse off. They are going to honour their contractual obligations but will take half of the licences away. They will negotiate voluntarily but under threat of expropriation if the companies do not volunteer.
  That is why I describe their policy as one of utter shambles, and I know why it is a shambles. They are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. They are trying to reconcile the commitments that they made to the Left before the election with

  323
  the national need to get the industry investing. They cannot possibly pay for the 51 per cent. that they want because that would cost £3 billion or £4 billion and they do not have that kind of money. Yet they are hooked on an election pledge. I know of no more apt case for the application of that memorable epitaph on Socialist governments which was apparently stated by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, according to the Crossman diaries:
  "Is it really impossible for a Labour Government ever to drop an idea because it is found to be impractical?"
  So, weighing up the credits and debits of the right hon. Gentleman's energy balance sheet after his first year in office, I am bound to declare him bankrupt. His coal objectives are threatened by massive pay settlements way outside the social contract which now offer a severe threat to the industry's future. His nuclear plans, after a brave start, are bogged down in delay and indecision and the prospect of a new nuclear programme is further off than ever. His energy savings policy is no more than tinkering and has no sense of urgency about it. His energy research and development policy, on the evidence of his own chief scientist, has not even started yet. And his oil policy is a total and utter shambles.
  In this motion we seek to cut his salary. The truth is, he should resign.
  4.58 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric G. Varley): For the last 30 minutes or so the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) has been huffing and puffing away in an attempt to convince the House that he was genuinely moving a motion of censure on the Government for their energy policies. However, the right hon. Gentleman does not have his heart in this. I am always reluctant to criticise him, especially when it comes to conservation. It is very tempting to do so, but I will let it go on this occasion, because everybody knows what a marvellous record he has on conservation since those heady days of a year ago when he was Minister of Energy.
  I prefer to look upon this debate not as an occasion for the synthetic outbursts to which we have just listened but rather as a sentimental journey. I am sorry
  324
  that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition is not present. I make no complaint about that. But I well remember when she was the Conservative Party's spokesman, or spokesperson, on energy in the late 1960's. I find it extremely touching that her first Supply Day as Leader of the Opposition should be devoted to a return to the scene of her former triumphs. I am far too much of a gentleman to suggest that she is returning to the scene of her crime. But re-reading those speeches of hers in the late 1960's—as I have over the weekend, because I thought that there might be something very interesting in what she said when spokesman on energy—I noted in particular a very forthright statement she made about the future of the coal industry. When talking about the coal industry on 5th December 1967, the right hon. Lady said:
  "As far as I can see, morale will be raised … only when the industry has finished its contraction and is once again competitive on its own unsubsidised merits."—[Official Report, 5th December 1967; Vol. 755, c. 1273.]
  That is our policy exactly. We are ending the contraction. We are introducing realistic pricing policies, and morale in the industry is higher than it has been for years. So this censure certainly cannot be about our coal policy, especially in view of the right hon. Lady's advocacy seven years ago—and especially, also, since the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford himself insisted in a speech last June that the Conservative Government were committed to the tripartite examination into the coal industry that we ourselves carried through. I cannot pretend that I noticed it at the time, but it is nice to know now. This confirms that the Tory Party cannot be opposed to our coal policy since this is entirely based on the tripartite examination which we carried through and which the Opposition say they would have carried through.
  Mr. John Hannam: Is not the key word invoked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in that earlier speech, and in comments made by the Secretary of State himself, the word "competitive"? Does not the future of the coal industry depend on it remaining competitive? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that

  325
  his policies will result in the industry remaining competitive? It is not apparent to the House and the country that the recent pay awards, which have received no comment from the right hon. Gentleman, will enable the coal industry to remain competitive.
  Mr. Varley: It is the Government's intention to ensure as far as possible that the coal industry and all fuel industries keep competitive. We have said again and again that we want to phase out subsidies. I am surprised if the hon. Gentleman is returning to the question of wages and the mining industry, because only last week when we debated this matter the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), in opening his speech, said
  "The Secretary of State need have no fears about my indulging in any attacks upon the wage award made to the mining industry."—[Official Report, 19th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1357.]
  I have just been asked about policies. I hope that the Opposition will not change policies within a few days.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that a year ago there was a 30 per cent. leeway between the price of coal and the price of oil, and that as a result of a year of Labour administration that has now disappeared?
  Mr. Varley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would suggest what we should have done. I have another marvellous quotation, if he will bear with me. His right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), on radio two weeks ago, when asked what he would have done had he been the Secretary of State for Employment responsible for whatever social contract a Conservative Government would have had, said:
  "I do not think that we could have done anything other than what has happened."
  The only thing I have said is that when the wages go up in the mining industry, it is the Government's intention that the subsidies should be phased out, and phased out as quickly as possible. That is our policy, and I cannot understand what the Opposition are complaining about.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Varley: I could argue this matter over days. Perhaps I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but not now. I know that he is very anxious to speak and that he is knowledgeable about energy matters. I may say something later which may provoke him again.
  As I have said I cannot understand what the Conservative Party is complaining about on coal policy. What about nuclear policy? Our nuclear policy is based upon the choice of the steam generating heavy water reactor to power the next generation of nuclear power stations. The Tory Party manifesto declares that, if the Tories had been returned to power, they would
  "carry through the recently announced pilot programme of nuclear power stations based on the British designed 'heavy water' system."
  And let us be perfectly fair: the passage continued:
  "We believe that a larger nuclear programme must be initiated at an early date. In all nuclear matters, safety and reliability must be our paramount considerations."
  No more—that is the whole passage on nuclear power. So I cannot understand what the right hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford is complaining about in opposing this—especially since at the right hand of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition sits the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave)—Airey the queen maker. He is the most passionate advocate of all of the SGHWR. So it cannot be to our nuclear policy that they object. What can it be? Can it be our oil policy? Our oil policy is, of course, based upon majority State participation. With his customary frankness the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford has confessed that "The last Conservative Government …"—[Interruption] I do not know what the Opposition Chief Whip is complaining about. What is he muttering about? He keeps muttering on the Front Bench. If he wants to intervene I suggest that he rises to speak.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Varley: Is the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Whip?
  Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip was making the very pertinent comment that the Minister was not attempting to answer any of the

  327
  accusations which I made against him in my speech.
  Mr. Varley: I have been speaking for only five minutes. It may be that I shall have something to say which will suit the Opposition Chief Whip. I hope that he will be patient, but if he feels that he must intervene I should much prefer it if he would move to the Dispatch Box and intervene in the debate properly.
  But what about oil policy? About a year ago the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford was saying that the last Conservative Government had by no means ruled out participation. He will remember those words well, because he delivered them in a speech in Oslo last April.
  This attack on our policy is a very "phoney" attack. For nearly four years the Conservatives staggered along from crisis to crisis without any energy policy at all, except that from time to time they had it in mind to stir up unnecessary confrontations. When we came into office, almost exactly a year ago, we found no coal policy, and no trace of any preparation for a tripartite examination. We found no nuclear policy, and no sign of a decision on nuclear reactors. We found no oil policy—which was somewhat of a relief, when one recalls the previous Tory Government's weak-kneed attitude towards the division of the North Sea in 1963. There had been plenty of promises but no action.
  Our task since 5th March 1974 has been to work out a viable, comprehensive and co-ordinated energy policy for Britain based on exploitation and control of our indigenous fuels, and we have made a pretty good start. In the coal industry new confidence has returned following the ending of the dispute that the Conservatives provoked. Manpower is increasing again, for the first time for 10 years—4,600 up on a year ago—and recruitment is exceeding the NCB's target rate. I saw the other day that in one region there is a waiting list for vacancies at the pits. Coal stocks are encouragingly high. Partly, of course, this is because of the wonderfully mild winter that we have had, but that is, I think, a better reason than the deliberate stockpiling which occurred under the previous Government 18 months ago. Absenteeism during the past 11 months has been
  328
  below the level of absenteeism during the comparable previous 11 months of the previous Tory Government.
  We are going full speed ahead with the increased investment programme. Already 24 major projects have been approved which will provide some 8 million tons of output a year. Assuming that planning permission is granted, the proposed new mine at Selby should produce 10 million tons a year. Thus, within 18 months of our taking office, projects should be in hand to produce half our extra coal in the National Coal Board's plan. What is more, the industry is pressing on with an extensive exploration programme. It is not surprising that the men in the pits are providing solid evidence of their determination to produce the coal that Britain needs.
  Since the return to work after the summer holidays the overall face productivity record has been beaten on three occasions. The story is the same all over Britain. Rawdon in the South Midlands set up a national face driveage record of 143 yards in 10 shifts. Dawdon in the North East produced 4,000 saleable tons from a single face in 24 hours. Solsgirth in Scotland only last month produced 25,260 tons from one face in five days. That beat the previous British record held by Kellingly in North Yorkshire and may well be a world record. That is the high morale that the right hon. Lady asked for, and it is producing the coal the nation needs.
  And morale is high as well in our nuclear industry and among our nuclear technologists, who endured years of Tory Government without any sign of a decision. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford has always tried to have this one all ways. On the one hand, especially with his hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon breathing over his shoulder, he has concurred in the decision that we took. But at the same time he has niggled about it. In his heart I do not think that he likes our decision. I believe that he would rather have PWR, but he has never had the courage to say so from the Dispatch Box. At least it is a programme based on a decision made after only four months in office compared with the 44 months without a nuclear programme when the Conservative Party was in Government. In only four months we took a decision.

  329
  The right hon. Gentleman says that our programme is only a tiny one compared with what our main competitors are doing. Anyone who read Sunday's Observer, with its sombre account of the setbacks, cutbacks and reappraisals of our main competitors and the experience that they are undergoing, has to acknowledge that both our choice of reactor and pace of development are absolutely right.
  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the statement that I made on 10th July about nuclear reactor choice. I thought that he quoted rather effectively the remarks of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on that day. The hon. Gentleman asked me on that occasion:
  "Is the Secretary of State aware of the disappointment among those who work in heavy electrical engineering at Trafford Park in the Greater Manchester area …"—[Official Report, 10th July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 1368.]
  I do not know whether he wants to stick by that or to withdraw it.
  The very next day the workers of Trafford Park sent me a telegram congratulating the Government on the decision that we had taken and on our choice of the SGHWR as giving the nuclear industry, which had been without orders since 1970, a firm base after years of uncertainty on which to plan its future. The implementation of the nuclear strategy that was announced in July 1974 is now well in hand. As is generally the case with major technological developments—
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the views being expressed by the staff side of the joint negotiating committee of the TNPG? They do not begin to match his description. They are complaining of a lack of purpose in the industry.
  Mr. Varley: I have met the representatives of the TNPG and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and all those within industry. They are at one in saying that it was a good decision. They are anxious about getting the programme under way. I recognise that. I want to get it under way as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The National Nuclear Corporation was set up by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in the middle of 1973. He did not get the Nuclear Power Company set up because
  330
  of the difficulties associated with it. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of putting forward all the problems faced by the coal and nuclear industries, would bear some of the matters in mind that I have put forward if he wants to be absolutely fair.
  The decision has been welcomed and some progress has been made, although I realise that not enough progress has as yet been made. I am not satisfied with what has been done. I want to see much more progress, but I shall outline to the House what has been done so far. Consents under the Electric Lighting Act 1909 have already been granted for the Sizewell and Torness sites, thus enabling the electricity boards to go ahead with preliminary non-nuclear site work. Authority for the National Nuclear Corporation to proceed with the design and development of the Sizewell "B" station has been announced by the CEGB. Negotiations are well advanced for collaboration with the Canadians, notably for the purchase of our initial heavy water requirements and for a technical information collaboration agreement. Time spent now in careful planning and execution will more than offset the delays that could occur later.
  The SGHWR programme means jobs for British workers. Not only is the technology of United Kingdom origin, but the engineering components are based on development programmes carried out by the Atomic Energy Authority and our major firms. Benefits should flow directly from the development of SGHWR power stations into many engineering firms and to the construction sector.
  The work generated through our programme will reach many areas of British industry—for example, fabrication work for the reactor system, mechanical plant of all kinds, electrical equipment, cranes and civil engineering. The civil engineering work will require manpower resources, mostly locally recruited, running at its peak into thousands. So will the mechanical work, which will reach many sectors of the engineering trades, including Trafford Park.
  The right hon. Gentleman certainly cannot justify any allegations of slippage in our nuclear programme, and certainly not in his Government's non-existent nuclear programme. So he tried all the harder to prove that there had been

  331
  some slippage in our programme of getting oil from the North Sea. Of course there has been some slippage. That took place during the Conservative Party's period of office, which I described to the House in my very first speech in this job.
  When we took office a year ago it was clear that the last Tory Government's estimate of production of 25 million tons of oil from the North Sea this year was totally unrealistic. They had failed to appreciate the immense technical and other difficulties which had to be overcome before the oil could be brought ashore. Slippage as a result of delays during their period of office led to a drastic reduction in the quantities of oil expected to be brought ashore this year.
  Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has always had slippage in the forefront of his mind—namely, slippage caused by the headlong rush away from the North Sea. That is what he has said in the past and he said it again this afternoon. He suggested a headlong rush away from the North Sea by the oil companies as a result of the Labour Government's predatory policies.
  I have had cause before to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's inferiority complex when it comes to British relationships with the international oil companies. I have drawn attention before to the much more drastic oil policies of other oil-producing countries, and of the acceptance by the multinational companies of those policies. The right hon. Gentleman shrinks delicately away from the policy advocated a couple of years ago by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. Two years ago that Committee, which had a majority of Tory members, reported that there should be some public participation.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The committee made only two recommendations and I have quoted them to the House on previous occasions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at the recommendations made by the committee. First, is recommended that there should be a plugging of the tax loopholes. Secondly, it recommended that the Government should consider increasing their take. There were no recommendations about participation.
  332
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct himself.
  Mr. Varley: I have not a great deal of experience of Select Committees. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling me that eight of his colleagues—the majority of the Committee—would allow these words to appear in a report to the House:
  "We are also concerned that there were no provisions for variation or renegotiation of the financial terms, however much the find, or for obtaining a degree of Government participation."
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, who were in a majority on that Committee, said.
  Since our last debate there have been other developments. It is always interesting and wise to look at what is happening throughout the world in major oil-producing countries. Saudi Arabia is continuing its negotiations with Aramco to acquire 100 per cent. participation and Aramco has accepted the concept in principle.
  Mr. Skeet: That is a developing State.
  Mr. Varley: Other Gulf States may follow what is happening in Saudi Arabia.
  Mr. Churchill: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate the difference between the situation in a country such as Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States where they already have millions of tons of oil per day on stream and the situation we have in this island where we are seeking desperately to attract more people and more capital to help us to exploit our own natural resources?
  Mr. Varley: I am coming to that point in a few moments. If Saudi Arabia does not suit the hon. Gentleman, what about Norway? Is Norway more akin? It is a pretty well developed country. I think it even has a Labour Government. Norway proposes to step up her stake through taxation and participation and it has a national oil company, too.
  Yet the right hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford believes that the oil companies will flee in panic from the policies outlined in such sober and sensible language in the House last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In last February's election campaign the right

  333
  hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford painted the most terrifying picture of what would ensue if the unthinkable happened and a Labour Government were returned to carry out our participation policies. This is the warning the right hon. Gentleman gave in a Press hand-out from Central Office on 13th February, and this is if Labour won the election:
  "The immediate effect would be to halt all operations. Oil rigs would immediately be transferred to other countries' offshore areas. Valuable teams would be dispersed and the whole of our offshore oil effort would come to a grinding halt."
  That was the right hon. Gentleman's warning.
  After a year of office during which we have made no secret of our policies and are indeed actively pursuing them, what is the position? The right hon. Gentleman prophesied that all operations would be halted. In fact, activity on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf at present is at a much higher level than a year ago. The right hon. Gentleman had lurid visions of oil rigs being towed off to distant oceans.
  Mr. Skeet: The Secretary of State was dealing with Norway. He will recognise one great difference. Norway has no major international oil company such as British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell. It has only one small company, namely, Norsk Hydro. Norway has adopted the very strict policy that it would not break existing concessions. The British Government are breaking existing concessions and are threatening nationalisation if the voluntary arrangements break up.
  Mr. Varley: There is a political commitment that we have to fulfil. The hon. Gentleman should know this. It was a policy set out clearly without any apologies in the February and October manifestos. That political commitment must be honoured.
  Far from the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the efforts would come to a grinding halt being correct, at present there are 29 exploration rigs operating in the British sector compared with 21 at this time last year. Yet the right hon. Gentleman said on 13th February of last year that
  "the whole of our offshore oil effort would come to a erinding halt."
  334
  Far from coming to a halt, that effort is going ahead well and providing jobs for Britain as well. During 1974, 100 exploration and appraisal wells were begun or drilled compared with only 61 during 1973.
  Contrary to all the scare stories which the right hon. Gentleman has been putting about, present indications are that this high level of activity is likely to continue this year. The Forties and Auk production platforms are now being installed and development drilling is expected to commence shortly. Of 18 platforms under construction or on order for the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea, 11 are being built in the United Kingdom. In the second half of 1972 only two modules were being built in the United Kingdom. By 1974 this had increased to 152.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should be so upset by good news, for I am well aware that he thrives on bad news. In fact, good news for Britain is had news for the Tory Party. It is only a matter of three months ago that the right hon. Gentleman, addressing an appreciative audience of Conservative women in Somerset on 22nd November, declared:
  "The Government maintain their bland confidence that we can get through the winter without power cuts, but this assumes a mild winter, no industrial action, no interruption in oil supplies, no power station breakdowns. A scarcely credible combination."
  I am a cautious man and the winter is not over yet, but so far at any rate we have had that "scarcely credible combination". We have had a mild winter. Industrial action—there has not been any. Oil supplies—they are flowing freely. Power station breakdowns—touch wood, there has been none so far.
  The only "scarcely credible combination" is the combination of right hon. Ladies and Gentlemen who so deservedly occupy the Opposition Front Bench. They cannot believe in government without power cuts, since during every single winter when they held office there were power cuts and black-outs brought about by their deliberate policies of industrial confrontation. This is the first winter since 1969 which we have so far managed to get through while avoiding dimmed lights, sudden cuts or fuel restrictions.
  The right hon. Gentleman sneered at our energy conservation policies as

  335
  inadequate. I have never said that our proposals on energy conservation are the last word. I am not proud. If there are those who can make politically realistic and credible energy conservation proposals, we shall consider them sincerely and carefully. We have a long way to go on energy conservation, but at least our energy conservation policies are voluntary policies. Those of the Tories were forced on them in an unnecessary crisis brought about by the massive failure of their industrial and energy policies.
  It is the Tory Party which has the brass neck to move a vote of censure on the Government who are at last taking action that makes sense on coal, gas, nuclear policy, and oil. The House will reject the Tories' words and their motion.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The Secretary of State for Energy made some interesting comments when he spoke of oil prices and the recent settlement. He did not concede what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) has indicated, namely, that the difference between the price of oil and the price of coal has now eroded. I hope he will concede the point that a coal price of 6p per therm and a fuel oil price of 8·75p, with another wage deal on top, will lead to the final erosion. The bulk of the tripartite arrangements is aimed at developing coal potential in the United Kingdom at 150 million tons. Therefore, if prices continue to erode there will be little opportunity for manoeuvre open to the right hon. Gentleman.
  In regard to the nuclear programme, it is interesting to note that one of the observations made by the Government's Nuclear Power Advisory Board was as follows. We appreciate that what the Government wanted to do to placate the miners was to build fewer nuclear power stations. This is a very good philosophy, if that is the Government's case. However, it may be a very expensive price for the United Kingdom to pay. The Nuclear Power Advisory Board, as reported in The Times on 14th September 1974, said:
  "The amount of additional fossil fuel required today is very large, with a manual cost up to £500 million in 1985–86 and increasing in the years thereafter possibly to £1,000 mil-
  336
  lion in 1990–91. Therefore, the cost to the consumer would be reduced to some extent, say to 20 per cent., by the effect of the lower capital cost of the fossil fuel plant."
  Is the Secretary of State prepared to concede that the price of fuel will continue to rise? If he had adopted a realistic nuclear policy there would be a saving to the taxpayer because these plants are operating at a lower operating cost. One has only to look at the pittance the right hon. Gentleman resorted to: three nuclear power stations of 4,000 MW over a period of four years. That is all he intended to undertake.
  Let us compare that situation with that in other European countries—and they cannot all be wrong. In France the figure is six stations of 1,000 to 1,300 MW per annum for 1976–77. In Western Germany they are aiming at 30 stations of over 1,000 MW by 1985. Sweden is going ahead with an expensive nuclear programme—and that country, incidentally, has a Socialist Government. In the EEC the figure in 1970 was 20 million tons of coal for nuclear power equivalent to 1·4 per cent. of the EEC energy balance. By 1985, 372 million tons of coal equivalent is to be allocated, representing a figure of 17 per cent. The extraordinary fact is that the Secretary of State seeks to diminish the responsibility of the electricity industry while the EEC is going in an entirely different direction.
  If France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden and other European countries are to go for nuclear power as the only way out of the fuel crisis, why must we have this diminished programme? Should we not attribute to the Government a lack of appreciation of the nature of the crisis with which we are involved? Does the Minister not recognise that a 1,000 MW station would replace an annual consumption of 2·25 million tons of coal per year? I am prepared to concede that if the idea is to ensure that coal goes into the power stations it may be an extremely good programme, but it may mean for the public higher prices for electricity and other fuels. Let the Secretary of State tell the nation now about the situation.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in regard to the Magnox power station, of which we decided to build about six,

  337
  many people thought that there would be far too many to obtain the normal level required for the next series of power stations? Therefore, in terms of the three which are to be built, that is a greater step forward than anything done by the Conservative Government during their period of office.
  Mr. Skeet: If the Magnox stations had not been built and we had relied on coal-fired stations this would have cost £156 million for coal as opposed to a figure of about £23 million for uranium fuels. Therefore, it was wise to go ahead with the Magnox arrangement.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: The hon. Member has missed the point.
  Mr. Skeet: We are going ahead with the SGHWR and I am prepared to put forward my personal opinion that we should have gone in for the light water reactors. They could have been ordered off the shelf and within a couple of years there would have been the possibility of that amount of extra electric power—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not off the shelf."] It is curious that in France, West Germany and elsewhere they have these stations operating already and are experiencing no difficulty at all. Furthermore, one is to be built close to the United Kingdom—namely, in Dunkirk.
  Let me come to the question of the utter shemozzle of the Government in their dealings with the National Nuclear Corporation. Why have they been experiencing such difficulties in this regard in the past seven months? There have been uncertainties about the management structure. Perhaps the GEC does not want the investment of 50 per cent. What have the figures been scaled down to? Is the figure to be 50 per cent. or 20 per cent.? Why has the Secretary of State not told us? We are still awaiting a statement some seven to eight months later. Perhaps it involves the question of who is to bear the responsibility for the phased completion of the AGRs. I thought that there would be a draft agreement made between the NNC and the CEGB. This matter was mentioned in The Times on 22nd February 1975, but my right hon. Friend believes that this has been deferred still further.
  338
  Obviously, if responsibility for the AGRs cannot be handed to the NNC, it is impossible for the corporation to go ahead realistically with the programme for SHGWR reactors. For one thing, there is the difficulty of resources. Many of the skilled workers of the nuclear programme have dispersed and have gone to other industries. Certainly many of the design teams have broken up. No nuclear station has been ordered since 1970 and there is only one in the offing for 1976. In regard to the other stations we find that the chairman of the CEGB is going back on Killingholme and an oil-fired station which would have been built at Plymouth. Therefore, if we are to have no effective nuclear industry in the United Kingdom, how are we to build the SGHWR here?
  Mr. Thomas Swain: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many nuclear power stations were ordered and put into operation in the years when the Tories had the reins of office? One has only to look at what a hell of mess they made to realise what sort of a situation we should now be facing if they were still in office.
  Mr. Skeet: I have mentioned the nuclear programme, the Magnox and the AGR programmes. The first lot are complete but the second lot are incomplete, and that is most regrettable. The hon. Gentleman is trying to divert me from my main aim of incriminating the Government, which I intend to do. I have mentioned the two programmes which I support.
  There is a management direction problem with the National Nuclear Corporation. Who is to be in charge? Is it to be the GEC or the National Power Group? I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us. [Interruption.] There might be less laughter if he faced the serious situation in which he finds himself. He was going to make a statement last week, but unfortunately—according to The Times and all the reputable national Press—we have not yet had that statement. He is apparently not in a position to make it. He does not know whether he will reduce the GEC holding from 50 per cent. He does not know whether the control is to pass from the

  339
  GEC to TNPG. Perhaps he will condescend to make a statement later today and tell us precisely where we stand.
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also say something about the Nuclear Inspectorate, what it thinks about the matter, and whether it is concerned about the safety side of the steam generated heavy water reactors.
  Will he also say something about the CEGB and the modifications it requires for the 100-megawatt prototype at Winfrith Heath? It is possible that it cannot be scaled up as easily as he contemplates. It may be that we shall not see many of these stations materialising in the next two or three years.
  I put to the Secretary of State yesterday a Question about the spirit of co-operation with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. It was mentioned that there are already negotiations. Mr. Gordon Leaist, the nuclear power marketing manager for AECY, said last September, as reported in The Times:
  "We are supposed to exchange design information, and there is not an organisation in existence in Britain at present. We know who will operate the British reactors, but we do not know who will design and build them."
  The report continues:
  "Mr. Eric Varley, Secretary of State for Energy, told the Commons when he announced the British Government's decision in July 'United Kingdom's nuclear organisations and the electricity boards will start discussing co-operation with their Canadian counterparts immediately'."
  The Secretary of State is embarrassed by this. He knows that he does not have the organisation fit to conduct the negotiations about co-operation over Candu with the Canadians, and he has to stave the matter off by saying that informal discussions are being held. On this score the Government's nuclear programme has broken down completely.
  In the last sentence of his speech the Secretary of State referred to natural gas, but he said nothing about it. The United Kingdom has various sources of supply—
  Mr. Swain: We are getting some now.
  Mr. Skeet: You contribute a lot in your time, but you have not yet had the opportunity today.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I do not want the opportunity.
  Mr. Skeet: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In the United Kingdom we have been deriving a small quantity of liquid natural gas through Canvey Island. The south North Sea Basin has been producing 4,000 million cubic feet per day. From Frigg, which is likely to come into operation 1977, not 1976, there will come a further 1,500 million cubic feet a day, and from Brent a further 600 million cubic feet a day by 1979. What is apparent, and what the Government have overlooked, is that there has been a tight supply of gas for many years. Yet the Government have been under-pricing this commodity to such an extent that fairly recently they had to break one of the sections of the Gas Act 1972 to cut down the British Gas Corporation's obligations to industry. The corporation was entitled to do that because it received a direction from the Minister.
  In contrast, there has been a rapid speed-up in the development of natural gas in Europe, where gas has been considered in the whole European context. The United Kingdom has adopted a purely insular policy. Europe has been securing gas from Algeria, the Soviet Union and North Holland. The United Kingdom has taken it only from what is available in the south North Sea.
  The Government now want it from the north North Sea, from the Brent and Forties fields. What about the important potential that has been run down? The corporation has not been able to build up supplies. Another major mistake the Government made was to assume that they would get an enormous supply of gas from the Locton field, which was supposed to run for a contract period of 15 years. The field, discovered by Home Oil of Canada, started to feed the grid in May 1971. The contract was to run for 15 years, but the well was shut down on 1st September 1974, after three years. The Secretary of State may know that if the reservoir structure is sound he may have further difficulties in the southern North sea. He may have discovered that some of the optimistic estimates made several years ago have already been revised.

  341
  The Secretary of State has underpaid the producers. I will give a few figures to illustrate what has been happening. In the Viking field he paid the producers 36 US cents for 1,000 cubic feet—1·5p per therm. Norway gets 52 US cents for Ekofisk gas as a starting price. The Dutch border price in 1974 was 70 US cents. Iran now sells to the Russians at 62 US cents. We pay the producers the basic price. The result is that there is no further exploration in the south North Sea. The Secretary of State is not encouraging further development or exploration.
  How does the consumer fare? The domestic consumer in England and Wales pays 10·81p per therm. In Scotland he pays 13·78p per therm. In the Netherlands he pays a lower price. Now I take the Secretary of State's figures, which appeared in Hansard on 18th December 1974. The range of gas prices in pence per therm was as follows: United Kingdom, 10·5; Belgium, 16·2; the Federal Republic of Germany, 17·8; and France, 21·2.
  Has the Secretary of State not learned that the Federal Power Commission of the United States made the big mistake of under-pricing natural gas? The result was that demand outran supply, which led to great problems. The Secretary of State is in exactly the same situation. He is not raising the price of natural gas along with the prices of other forms of energy. People are coming out of electricity, oil, coal and going into gas. He will run short of supplies again. When will he adopt a policy which is reasonable and in the national interest? I hope that he will take into account what I have said on that score.
  The whole of the Government's oil policy has been based on three enactments. First, the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill is to provide more sites for production platforms which are not now required.
  Secondly, there is the Oil Taxation Bill, which is to provide for the taxation of the North Sea. The approach is wholly wrong. It has had the effect of driving people out of the North Sea so that we shall not get the maximum supply of oil. Thirdly, there is the Petroleum
  342
  Bill, which provides for a 51 per cent. participation. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to maximise extraction from the North Sea he should provide an economic climate in which the companies can operate. I am not against taxing them heavily—far from it: it is most desirable—but if at the end of the road the oil does not come and if we fall further and further behind on our schedules we can blame only the Secretary of State and his colleagues. Before that happens I hope that there will be a change of policy.
  On the oil front the Secretary of State has been unsuccessful. On the nuclear front he has taken the wrong route. On the gas front he has chosen the wrong price for natural gas and we shall run short of supplies. On the coal front he is prepared to pay the miners any price they demand. He is paying danegeld to prevent strikes, with the result that he will produce coal but may not have a market for it. Before it is too late, will the Secretary of State look again at his national programme to see whether it is right? All the Europeans cannot be wrong.
  5.51 p.m.
  Dr. John A. Cunningham: My right hon. Friend need hardly fear for his salary. A glance at the Opposition benches shows that the Opposition will barely have sufficient speakers to keep the debate going let alone win a Division in the Lobby.
  In the two speeches we have heard from the Opposition my right hon. Friend has been blamed for everything except for a failure to build windmills. Opposition Members tilted at a few windmills, because what has been criticised is the messy energy policy which the Labour administration and my right hon. Friend inherited in February last year. We inherited a situation in which conservation was brought about by confrontation, and that was particularly true in the energy industries. We had confrontation in the electricity generating industry, and in coal mining we had confrontation so often and of so prolonged a nature that eventually the British people became heartily sick of it and rejected that policy and the administration which had been responsible for it.

  343
  In the barely 12 months we have had since then we can argue with some justification that serious attempts have been made to get a co-ordinated energy policy. Far from making decisions on nuclear energy of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), the Opposition made not a single decision in this area of policy in the four years they were in office. Far from complaining about the decisions which have been made, the Opposition should look to then own record. On nuclear energy we inherited a policy vacuum. We cannot accept, and nor will the British people, the churlish criticisms we have heard from the Opposition today.
  We should not be rigid about the various rôles which individual fuels play in our total energy policy. Coal undoubtedly will be a long-term component of any energy policy, but there are hon. Members in the Chamber who are better qualified than I am to discuss that aspect. Oil and gas will be much the least lengthy participants in any energy policy in the long term. They will play a transient rôle in future energy patterns, but it is none the less important that as a Government and as a country we should control the part they play in our energy provisions, and I welcome the decisions which my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have made. Nuclear power generation will almost inevitably play a long-term rôle in power generation in the United Kingdom. In that sense I agree with the hon. Member for Bedford that the present programme is disappointing.
  In a recent energy debate my right hon. Friend said:
  "That programme has been described as a modest programme of 4,000 megawatts which will perhaps come on stream in the early 1980s.… when one looks at the British nuclear programme in relation to Europe, there is nothing at all to complain about."—[Official Report, 11th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 237.]
  I would rather we looked at our programme not necessarily solely in the context of European programmes but in the context of our own previous performance and, additionally, in terms of the research and development effort that the United Kindom has put into, and is still putting into, nuclear energy. The Department of Energy's research and development budget is inadequate, as the Chief
  344
  Scientist admitted recently to the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
  Unfortunately, we still have no clearly defined research and development strategy for energy. While I recognise that it is perhaps too soon to complain too strongly on that account, I believe that we should be moving quickly towards a well-defined research and development strategy for energy policy. My right hon. Friend may be correct in his comparison of our efforts with those of other countries, but looked at in terms of our previous position the present programme is too small. The current research and development budget of about £110 million does not keep pace with inflation. Of that amount more than 50 per cent. is spent on nuclear research and development. It seems a little odd that our major research and development effort in energy produces so small a return in terms of the size of the programme we are embarked upon. That is not satisfactory and the position should be examined.
  We cannot, however, contemplate a massive expansion along the lines advocated by the hon. Member for Bedford. It is not realistic in terms either of personnel or of capital investment to embark on the kind of nuclear programme which has appeared in recent European energy documents. We should make sure not only that the industry is in the right shape but that our processing, supportive industries are capable of providing the fuels we need and of dealing with the nuclear wastes which will inevitably increase with an enlarged policy. We should be able to capitalise on our investment in enrichment capacity and fuel technology in terms of world-wide expansion in nuclear power.
  We are still awaiting the reorganisation and the reconstruction of the National Nuclear Corporation. Only yesterday my right hon. Friend said that he regarded this as a matter of some urgency, but we are entitled to ask him to be, in his own defence, a little more forthcoming about why there is such a long delay. Is it that those who were opposed to the decisions on the steam-generating heavy water reactors are procrastinating? Is it because some financial argument is going on behind the scenes about responsibility over the

  345
  AGRs? We cannot get moving on these matters until this is sorted out. The Secretary of State is in danger of being embarrassed by a delay for which he may not be responsible. It is about time he got a grip on the people responsible in order to produce a decision.
  There are problems, particularly in my constituency, associated with any expansion of nuclear power generation—such as the disposal of waste and the safety and health of personnel in plants and in the communities surrounding them. Wind-scale, which is probably the most complex nuclear installation in the United Kingdom, is in my constituency. It is a name which is bandied about a great deal these days in the media and even in the House by many people who have only a limited knowledge of its location, let alone what is going on there.
  I certainly deplore in the strongest possible way the scaremongering which is damaging not only to the interests of the industry but to the interests of the people involved in it and to the interests of our energy policy generally. I deplore particularly the kind of cheap sensationalism that some newspapers have brought to the subject recently. There are no doubt problems about the disposal of plutonium waste and about the size of the facilities we need to cope with this material. There are problems about the recovery of wastes which cannot be disposed of and there are problems about how to deal with the security of such materials.
  I am most concerned about a number of recent incidents where safety has broken down and where there has been a systems failure, perhaps because of human error or perhaps because of a technological error. There have been incidents which have given rise to concern and it seems to me that a general attitude of slackness has crept in. This should be very seriously looked at. It could bring the industry into disrepute more than anything else.
  I am a supporter of an enlargement of our nuclear programme, but I want in no small way to make clear that the health risks which appear to exist for the people who work in the industry must be treated seriously both by the Government and by the management of the industry. I am not suggesting that they
  346
  are not treated seriously or that people are not doing their statutory duty or meeting their legal obligations. There is a tendency on the part of some, however, to dismiss as without foundation the idea that health risks exist. The evidence we already have contradicts that attitude, and this is a problem which must be closely watched. The protection of workers and their families has to be the paramount consideration in this industry.
  In considering the expansion of the nuclear power generation programme, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should ensure that there is an appropriate amount of investment in plants such as Windscale or that the extra capacity is available to deal with reprocessing and waste handling. He must ensure that expansion does not lead to undue risk for the people who work in the industry. It is crucial that we should ensure that all those who work in the industry and the public are sanguine about their position.
  I turn to the question of conservation policy. The Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I am a member, has been looking at this matter for some weeks. We are astonished at the plethora of bodies and committees which in one way or another advise the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend's initial interim statement was welcome. I believe, however, that we are getting into a situation in which a further statement should at least be in a state of preparation to tell us how the Government intend to follow up the first attempt at energy conservation. The psychological approach and policies of exhortation will have only a limited effect on people's attitudes and the time is opportune now for a further strengthening of the Government's demand that industry, commerce and the general public should conserve energy.
  Are there any accurate energy use projections in the Department? Certainly some of the witnesses we on the Select Committee have interviewed seem to doubt this. We have been told that many companies, even major companies, do not know in any detail the facts of their energy use. They know only that they have a massive bill for energy, but they have no breakdown on the use of the energy and it is almost impossible for

  347
  them to respond to demands for conservation. They cannot tell where waste is taking place or where economies could be made. Since the major savings will obviously be made in industry, this matter must be given urgent attention.
  We have been told in the Committee that undue interference by the Government would be intolerable. That is interesting because we were also told that in some circumstances perhaps the Government should come forward with incentives in the form of cash grants to encourage people to become conservation conscious. That is a kind of interference—and I have been led to believe that the last thing British industry wanted was a subsidy from the Government. One way or another, however, the Government must be able to get to grips with industries which are major users of energy.
  We must be able to get to grips with the thousands of small companies which individually are not major consumers but which collectively offer substantial possibilities for energy saving. Here again, the important aspect is how the matter is approached. The Government should be considering codes of practice for various industries so that firm recommendations can be made to industrialists and targets set. I know that so far my right hon. Friend has set his face against targets, but the system has been used in other countries, notably France, with some success. I recognise that the targets will not always be met, but that is no reason for refusing to set a target.
  The Government have taken a different approach on the question of petrol consumption where they have tried not only exhortation but extortion through price increases. The kind of energy saving produced by reductions in petrol consumption are almost negligible compared with the possible savings in industry and commerce. I see no sense in introducing a two-tier pricing system for petrol. That would militate against the very people whom it is sought to help by proposing it. That is especially true in the case of the rural areas. Allowances would have to be large enough to make it positively attractive for people to use petrol at the cheaper rate. However such a policy would be self-defeating.
  348
  The answer to the problem is to encourage people in rural areas to stop using cars and to use public transport. I should like to know what consultations the Department of Energy is holding with the Department of the Environment to co-ordinate the Government's attitude to energy policies and to public transport. I recognise that my right hon. Friend and his Department have made progress on nuclear energy and conservation in the past 12 months. I have attempted to push my right hon. Friend a little further on both those fronts, since a few more decisions are required from him and his colleagues. I hope that those decisions will be made in the near future.
  6.11 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rost: I am grateful for being called after the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) because I agree with much of what he said towards the end of his speech, especially with regard to energy conservation or, as I prefer to call it, a more rational use of energy.
  Our standard of living is declining because we are living beyond our means. Our balance of payments is draining away and we are running up a vast burden of foreign debt, the interest on which will cripple us for generations. Yet that need not be so. We could be taking more vigorous action at least to reduce the energy element of the balance of payments deficit. We should take firmer and more purposeful action to save on oil imports.
  The problem results from our past mistakes and from the lack of political will to help ourselves. It is related not only to this Government's inaction but to that of the 1950s and the 1960s, and it is the legacy of our reliance on cheap oil from abroad, which resulted in a rundown of our indigenous coal industry and brought about a lack of incentive to use energy more efficiently. That led to the allocation of far too small a proportion of capital investment in the more efficient production and consumption of energy.
  The rundown of the coal industry, the lack of incentive for efficiency and the lack of capital investment have brought about the problems with which we are afflicted today. On top of that, cheap oil imports resulted in the neglect of modern transport systems and brought

  349
  about disincentives rather than incentives for research into and development of conservation projects.
  We were also afflicted with political policies for which the present Opposition must take their share of the blame. On top of the cheap oil, the policy of subsidising energy aggravated our problems and distorted our energy consumption patterns during the previous years. That policy encouraged waste and caused the misapplication of research and development expenditure. Those legacies result in our being far less independent and secure and far more vulnerable than we need be.
  The problems of the previous decades are no justification for saying that something could not have been done during the past 12 to 15 months, since the sudden quadrupling of the foreign oil price should have awakened us to the realities of the need to adopt an energy strategy.
  This is my main charge against the Secretary of State. After more than a year there is still no integrated, co-ordinated, credible energy policy. The Secretary of State said on several occasions that the Conservative Opposition simply criticised the policies that had been adopted instead of offering constructive proposals. One reason we have not offered constructive proposals is that there has been no energy debate since December, when the Secretary of State offered his first package of conservation measures.
  It is unjust to suggest that there have not been plenty of suggestions available to the Government in recent months. The Government have been inundated with sound technical advice from a vast variety of sources. In the light of that advice we must ask why so little has been done to implement it. The Central Policy Review Study on Energy Conservation was published in July and contained an excellent series of recommendations. The NEDO Report on energy conservation, which contained valuable proposals on which we could have acted, was published in December. We have received the OECD document on energy prospects to 1985, which was the result of extensive research work by a team of experts, and the EEC Commission issued a series of
  350
  working papers on the more rational use of energy.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The lion. Gentleman is in danger of misleading the House. All the documents to which he referred, and the central policy review document of last summer, point the way mostly to long-term savings. The conservation measures proposed in all those documents offer little savings by way of short-term measures. Therefore my right hon. Friend is correct to take a long view.
  Mr. Rost: Although those documents propose longer-term solutions, they include a large number of small, but not insignificant, immediate short-term as well as long-term measures. I do not quarrel about that, since my argument relates both to short-term and longer-term policies.
  In addition to the detailed technical recommendations, a plethora of committees and advisory bodies and expert bodies offer practical recommendations. The problem is that the effort has been diffused and the research work has not been integrated. Therefore I am not surprised that, rather than being able to arrive at a clear policy as a result of all the advice, the Secretary of State has become confused.
  What should our national energy strategy be now? I suggest that there should be three fundamental objectives. First there should be an understanding and acceptance of the fact that there is no energy shortage. There is simply a problem that we waste too much of our energy.
  The second fundamental point is that we should plan more vigorously to develop our indigenous and alternative resources.
  The third is probably the most important of all, because without it the other two become irrelevant. It is that the Government must display political determination to devote a greater priority, a greater sense of effort and purpose and greater urgency to a co-ordinated effort to overcome these problems.
  The real criticism which we should be making of the Government is that they have not shown the political will to get on with the short, medium or long-term

  351
  solutions. Therefore, I offer a few suggestions on the first of these fundamental objectives, which is the reduction of waste or a more rational utilisation of our energy resources.
  It is disgraceful that the United Kingdom is the biggest consumer of energy in the Western world, in relation to gross domestic product. We are the biggest waster. Considering that we are also one of the poorest nations and have the biggest balance of payments deficit, it is all the more important that we should be top of the league in terms of energy consumption in relation to gross domestic product, rather than at the bottom of the league. The Secretary of State said yesterday that energy conservation was a hard slog. I agree. But we should be asking him when he proposes to put on his track suit.
  There are no short-term magic-wand solutions, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, but there are many measures, each of which would produce a relatively small contribution to conservation but which cumulatively would make some contribution towards the EEC target of a 15 per cent. reduction in waste by 1985 and a 25 per cent. reduction by the turn of the century. Yet the measures announced so far as not expected to produce more than a 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. reduction in our energy consumption over the next year or so, and not even the most optimistic expert would suggest that the measures so far announced by the Government will produce anything approaching more than a 10 per cent. improvement in the situation by 1985.
  That is not good enough. There are several areas for action, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider them. I list 10 of my own pet priorities.
  The first is the recycling of heat. It is not good enough that we still generate power and that the CEGB is still putting up new power stations the most modern of which have a thermal efficiency of no more than 35 per cent. I know the problems of combining heat with electricity production. But other countries are overcoming them because they have the political will and determination to make some contribution to the economy in doing it. In Sweden, France, Germany, Russia and elsewhere electricity generation is now being combined with district heating or with the recycling of heat for
  352
  useful purposes. It will not do to continue this prolific waste. Therefore, one of my first points is that the Minister should be directing his efforts towards getting a more efficient conversion of our energy through our electricity generation.
  Secondly, we should be doing more to encourage refuse incineration. It has been estimated that this would save between 6 million and 10 million tons of coal equivalent a year and produce favourable environmental side effects.
  Thirdly, some contribution could be made by combining sewage with methane production. This is happening elsewhere, and there is no reason why we should not move towards it.
  I turn to the development of alternative resources. None of these could make a major or immediate impact on our energy consumption, but over the years they could make an important cumulative contribution. I refer to solar heating, which it is easy to decry because of our climate. Nevertheless, research which is going on indicates that it can make a valuable contribution, and we should be getting on with it. We have wind power, tidal power, wave power, and looking at the longer-term, geo-thermal power. We should be devoting more research and development expenditure in these directions.
  Fifthly, we should be doing more in transport by encouraging research into more efficient internal combustion engines and into the diesel engine. In addition, there are many other suggestions which would make a marginal medium-to long-term contribution.
  Then we have the appalling situation with thermal insulation. Our record is the worst in Western Europe. Why have the Government still not made a determined effort to provide incentives for thermal insulation of our buildings. I give one example. Those householders who spend money on improved insulation are penalised subsequently by being re-rated for improved central heating, double glazing, storm porches or whatever else they spend money on. This is not an incentive; it is a disincentive. Why is not there more encouragement for rented accommodation and council accommodation to provide improved insulation? More thought should be devoted to this area.

  353
  Next I come to energy auditing and calculating consumption. This applies mainly to industry. Here we can achieve short-term benefits. One example is that of Marks and Spencers, which has achieved a 15 per cent. reduction in energy consumption simply through good housekeeping.
  Auditing energy, calculating consumption and advertising consumption could make a major contribution in giving the consumer advice on whether he was getting value for money. A motor manufacturer advertises the petrol consumption of his car, and this is a sales point. Why does not the builder of a house advertise its thermal efficiency and point out how advantageous it is to spend a few hundred pounds more buying that house because it will produce economies in heating bills? The same applies to domestic appliances. The energy consumption should be advertised so that the consumer can see whether he is getting value for money by comparing one product with another. In our industrial processes as well energy consumptions can be advertised so that we know where we are.
  Then there is the question of reversing the electricity tariffs. This is a difficult problem, but something could be done here to discourage waste by the larger consumer and to encourage greater efficiency.
  We should also be doing more by providing incentives to industries. I shall not elaborate this point because I know the Secretary of State has it well in mind, but one aspect of it is to give greater importance to energy consultants and their work. There is a shortage of them. Here I declare an interest, as a director of a company which involves itself in advising on electricity consumption. The application of energy consultants can make a tremendous contribution. The one example given in the NEDO Report is most significant.
  A survey was done of 453 Government Department buildings. It was shown that in 306 of them, for an expenditure of just under £500,000 the fuel saving could be £250,000 a year—and that is at 1973 prices. That is an example of what can be done.
  What holds us back? What stops us getting on with this programme? I believe that it is a fear by the Govern-
  354
  ment that in the public mind conservation might mean restrictions, hardship and cuts. Of course, the opposite is true. A more rational use of our energy will allow us to maintain our standard of living, improve our environment and provide major economic advantages. We should be advertising this more extensively.
  In addition to the pathological fear of the Government that the people may think they are carrying on a "switch something off" campaign, what holds back the Government is a lack of political determination. The proper sense of priority has not yet been struck by the Government. We need a complete rethink and restructuring of the relationship between the Department of Energy and the nationalised boards.
  The creation of a national energy board, which would help the Secretary of State, should be considered. We are all loth to recommend new bodies. This needs careful thought. At the moment we have an unco-ordinated series of monopoly nationalised energy industries—coal, gas, electricity and nuclear power. There is no co-ordinated planning or any capital investment programme directed from a central body.
  To succeed with a national energy strategy we must have a more purposeful direction of research and development. We have to get away from the tubby holes of the nationalised industries, all squabbling with one another without reaching a co-ordinated programme in the national interest.
  A national energy board could allocate Government expenditure on energy-saving investment. To give an example of what I mean by greater priority of capital investment, we are spending about £700 million a year on food subsidies, which do not produce an economic return. If we were to re-allocate that sum, in a Budget, to produce energy conservation, the economic return would be substantial. If Labour Members do not like the idea of cutting food subsidies they might consider cutting the budget of the Secretary of State for Industry. If the thousands of millions of pounds that are being spent on nationalisation were re-allocated towards a programme of energy conservation and the development of a national programme for an integrated energy

  355
  policy I believe it would produce a positive return to the economy and a substantial saving on the balance of payments.
  An energy board would assist the Secretary of State by giving directions on energy saving and on the development of our indigenous resources. It would give directions, for example, on the conversion of electricity in a more economic way, and on research and development. It could provide more funds for technology in the coal industry, so that there might be more automatic coal mining and so that, perhaps, we could increase our coal production to about 250 million tons a year. That figure is not by any means up in the clouds.
  In my view the Minister stands condemned because the measures he has announced so far are only tinkering with the problem. We have no co-ordinated energy strategy. There is a lack of overall direction. What is needed is a political decision to get to grips with the problem, more rational use and more efficient production of our energy resources, a national energy board with the backing of the Government to integrate and co-ordinate policy, a determination to move away from the antiquated structure of the 1950s to a modernised structure to fit the new situation, and, above all, a greater priority for public expenditure on research and development in the energy industries. This would produce a return to the economy and help the balance of payments.
  Britain has the resources, the technology and the expertise. All we need is the political will to achieve sensible objectives. All that is lacking is a Minister with determination to face the problems instead of muddling through, praying for mild winters and docile unions. If the Secretary of State does not have that will, or cannot persuade his Cabinet colleagues, it is time that he resigned.

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

  1. Education Act 1975

  356

  2. Arbitration Act 1975

  3. Biological Standards Act 1975

  4. General Rate Act 1975

  5. Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975.

  ENERGY
  Question again proposed,
  That the salary of the Secretary of State for Energy should be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
  Mr. Speaker: I seem to detect from the length of speeches so far that the impression is that not many Members wish to speak. There are, in fact, quite a lot who want to catch my eye.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: I shall adhere to your advice, Mr. Speaker, and keep my eye on the clock. I understand that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is suggesting the creation of another National Enterprise Board. The new Leader of the Opposition would be turning cartwheels if she thought that one of her back benchers was an advocate of yet another NEB.
  Much of what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East said is right. It reminds me of the old question: where do all the flies go in winter? Equally we may ask: where do the Tory backbenchers who spend the whole of their lives in Opposition rejecting the pressures and ideas to which the hon. Member has just referred go during periods of Tory Government? Of course the hon. Member is right, and he ought to stand up and be counted and tell his Front Bench what he thinks of it. It has had a miserable record over the years. Many hon. Members have consistently argued for thermal efficiency and other such factors in the development of an energy strategy.
  This debate is about an effective energy strategy and how we can induce industries to take on more muscle and to convert more horse-power into raising living standards. That is what energy is about. We have an appalling record. Our economic debates and the miserable investment performance of the Treasury over the years have dominated investment policy. We are now paying the price.

  357
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East is right when he says that our performance is far below that of our European competitors. It all comes down to an investment programme. Unless we get our energy strategy right we cannot expect growth in the economy.
  We are not only talking about electricity generation. We are talking about steel, plastics and chemicals, and all derivatives. To get that right we must get our priorities in power generation right. At the moment our industry is starved of horsepower and muscle which we desperately need.
  In view of the shortness of time I shall make one or two brief comments about the three lines along which the debate has progressed. I am astounded to discover that the Coal Board is now searching for a way to devise a contractual arrangement next year so that we can import 5 million tons of coal. This nation is built on coal. We have the most magnificent coal. There are thousands of miners willing to dig it out. Yet we have to import 5 million tons. That is one issue over which the TUC ought to play hell. Its protest should be directed against the imposition of such an import. Likewise, the National Union of Mineworkers should concern itself about the import of such a large amount of coal next year. I hope that it will take issue on that matter.
  If we are to create the confidence in the industry that I believe is necessary, perhaps it comes better than from myself as a non-miner—somebody outside the coal industry—to tell the Government that they should now be giving assurance to the mining industry by guaranteeing it a contract over, say, 20 years. I suggest that the two Front Benches should get together and agree that whichever party is in government will jointly guarantee the British mining industry a contract of 20 or more years at an output per year which will safeguard living standards. We should be generous to the limit with the miners, because so much depends upon them. We have not been generous so far. Despite the criticisms about the recent wage settlement in the industry, there is nothing generous about it. We should give this confidence to the industry by giving it not a social contract but a coal contract covering many years. The
  358
  miners will then be able to enjoy higher living standards for contracting to produce for industry the energy resources that we need from under the ground. Coal is our chief source of energy and we should recognise it and commit ourselves to a contract of that kind.
  If the right hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) had any stature, he would welcome the opportunity of getting together with the Government and other parties in the House and formulating an arrangement to guarantee the miners a future in which they can have the fullest confidence.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman will read the speech that I made in the debate on European energy policy, he will see that I put forward such a proposal. The Kissinger initiative for some kind of floor price or guaranteed return for high-cost energy sources seems to offer considerable hope for the coal industry, and it was welcomed by the Government.
  Mr. Atkinson: Indeed, but it was open to misunderstanding in the context in which those remarks were made. The right hon. Gentleman ought to clarify the aspects which apply to British miners. I suggest that he should tell the Minister that the Opposition have sought and obtained the co-operation of all other parties, including the Nationalists, to agree that, whichever party is in government the miners can be assured of the kind of future to which I now recall the right hon. Gentleman referred in his remarks about which he has reminded me.
  I pass now to the oil situation. Here again we have a rather curious position. We find that many large contracts for central heating installation are still going ahead based on oil. Municipalities throughout the country, Government Departments, and some large sections of industry are still installing oil-fired central heating. That seems quite idiotic in the present situation. It is shortsighted, to say the least. Whatever our potential may be beyond 1980, we should be reorganising that part of our industry which is responsible for the installation of oil-fired central heating. To be going ahead with the wasteful use of oil in that way is most revealing.

  359
  Turning to the Government's policy on oil-fired generating stations, I should like to quote from a letter which I have received from the Minister. It states:
  "In addition to the three stations already under construction totalling 6,300 MW installed capacity (Isle of Grain, Ince B and Littlebrook D) the Board have received Section 2 consent and deemed planning permission for two more oil-fired steam stations totalling 5,320 MW installed capacity (Killingholme, Lincs, and Inswork Point near Plymouth), but capital investment approval has not yet been granted. The Board have also sought consent for oil-fired stations at four other sites totalling 6,900 MW installed capacity, and these applications are being considered."
  The final paragraph, which is very important, states that:
  "Whether any or all of these stations go ahead depends on a number of factors, including forecasts of electricity demand and fuel policy considerations, as well as planning issues where consents have not already been granted."
  Within the qualifications in that final paragraph there is a great deal of worry about an energy strategy based on an oil programme of that kind in electricity generation. There is there an enormous installed capacity of 18,520 MW over a not very long period, but that seems contradictory in itself and the Cabinet must seriously review the question of where we are going with such a programme.
  Again, with the qualification in that letter, even if only half of that installed capacity gets the go-ahead, it is still a defeat for the advocates of nuclear power in getting anything like a balanced strategy. Therefore, serious questions arise on the use and the future of oil in both electricity generation and the provision of heat throughout industry and in some of our commercial developments.
  Finally, I turn to the question of nuclear power on which, tragically, if we look at the matter arithmetically, we are going backwards. It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that Minister after Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and thrilled the House with talk of grandiose schemes and the great ambitions which were to be achieved within our lifetime. We were to have maginficent schemes beyond 1984. Nuclear power would take over, and give us the millenium. Our living standards were to reach towards the clouds as a result of the great investment programme which
  360
  was to bring the great miracle of nuclear power to the people of Britain.
  Despite all the promises of not so long ago, of 20,000 MW by 1975, we just tottered on to something less than 5,000 MW with the Magnox programme, which was of a limited kind. We all recognise why that was so. We are still living with the AGR 5,000 MW, which is another area in which we had great ambitions for broadly-based developments of one kind and another. But here we are with Hinckley B and the problems about which we have often talked. I am informed that we are likely to get the first fuel charge at Hinckley B before very long. I am assured by physicists that from the first fuel charge we should get sufficient monitored information coming back within five or six months to take a fundamental decision on the AGR programme, so there is no need to go on to the projected two-year monitoring period that seems to be suggested by many people before coming to a decision on it.
  If that is the case, we shall again get this dreadful vacuum between the decision being taken about the heavy water design and the AGR programme coming forward. We shall again get one of the suspended non-decision periods. We ought to be pressurising the Department to start telling the engineers that they should come up with advice about the AGR programme within the period of the first charge, which is less than six months.
  What has happened to our heavy water programme? We are now cut to 4,000 MW, and this is a mere chicken, or even less than a chicken, of what was originally envisaged. What was envisaged has nearly disappeared off the paper. We had great hopes, and we must ask ourselves who is responsible for all this. Who is sabotaging Britain's nuclear programme?
  It does not take a great deal of vision to see that not far removed from the decision making are two old buddies who are enemies not only of the heavy water programme but of many more ideas that have been discussed in connection with the energy strategy. I refer to Arthur Hawkins, the Chairman of the CEGB, and Lord Aldington, who, as many older

  361
  Members will recollect, was known as Toby Low.
  Mr. Evelyn King: It is not my intention to defend Arthur Hawkins, but what he asked for by way of nuclear stations was divided by three by the Government.
  Mr. Atkinson: Yes, but we have to start now and probe a little deeper into the question of who is responsible. This is the age-old difficulty of the relationship between the chairman of a board and the Government, and particularly the Minister. What is that relationship? Who is responsible for taking decisions? What degree of intervention is expected from the Government, whether it be in the actions of Monty Finniston in steel or of somebody in the National Coal Board? What is the situation with regard to other public boards? What is our relationship with the CEGB? Who is taking the decisions? Why is there all this delay?
  Conservative Members point to the Government and say that the responsibility lies with them. If that is their view, we should not place too much credence on some of the things that are said about policy decisions remaining with the board. If the Government are to be responsible, there must be a different type of board structure from what we have at present. The criticism made by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford has a hollow ring when one realises that he has accused the Government of neglecting some of the areas and pre-empting decisions previously taken by the board. We know that there is the difficult issue of who is responsible for the programme, but we know, too, that it has almost come to a stop.
  The Government have taken a decision on the heavy water programme. Lord Aldington, who is Chairman of the National Nuclear Corporation, and Arthur Hawkins, the Chairman of the CEGB, were opposed to that decision, and the board has shown no enthusiasm for it. Nothing has been taken to the drawing board. No initiatives have been taken, other than two formal applications for planning purposes, not for design purposes. That is the only action that has been taken, and one reason for the lack of enthusiasm is that the two people
  362
  whom I have mentioned are hoping that the whole business will be delayed for so long that they will be back in business with their light water reactor programme. That is my conclusion. Who is responsible for that state of affairs?
  If the Chairman of the CEGB and the Chairman of the NNC are deliberately dragging their feet in order to change the nuclear strategy, they ought to be sacked. Therefore, we are in order in saying to Arthur Hawkins, particularly, "Come clean. Tell us exactly where you, as chairman of the board, stand. What is your intention in all this? What initiatives are you taking? What are you prepared to do to implement the programme which you announced in December 1973?".
  On 20th December, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) quoted the evidence given by Arthur Hawkins, who said:
  "we are saying at the moment that we would like to order in 1974 two stations, and that we would like to order in 1975 one station, another in 1976, another in 1977, two in 1978 and two in 1979—nine new stations—and nine more from 1980 to 1983, which is looking a long way ahead."—[Official Report, 20th December 1973; Vol. 883, c. 2017.]
  It may be looking a long way ahead, but what has happened to the ideas that were being nurtured in the board at that time? This is a massive part of our energy strategy, but because the Minister took the decision that he did about heavy water reactors and utilising British design capacity these two people have become peeved and do not want to know.
  Mr. Hannam: Is it not a fact that once the decision was taken by the Government the Chairman of the CEGB involved himself totally in accepting that decision and set up an investigation into the safety and design of the SGHWR, which so far has operated as a small prototype? Before he can go ahead with a major programme a great deal of research has to be carried out, and it would be unfair to attribute the delay to some reticence on the part of Sir Arthur Hawkins to accept the decision which has been taken.
  Mr. Atkinson: There is sufficient knowledge among our eminent physicists and engineers to be assured that they have the ability to extend the development of

  363
  heavy water reactors. The prototype is comparatively small, but this is the case with many engineering designs. By comparing a model of that size with the ultimate development it is possible to be assured that we are doing the right thing in the design construction. This is not an unknown phenomenon in this sort of situation, and there is sufficient assurance to enable us to feel that we should get on with the heavy water design and produce something far in excess of 4,000 MW. If it is safe to go for 4,000 MW, it is safe to go for 12,000 MW, because 4,000 MW going wrong can do a lot of damage. Would the hon. Member not accept the logic that it is the size of programme relative to safety that is important. The fundamental decision taken was to go ahead whatever the size of the original model—because the safety project is the same whatever the size in this sense.
  Our criticism is, therefore, that we should have seen something more coming out of that decision. But we find that the blockage is not with the Minister. From all I have heard, he is exonerated. It is he who has been trying to pressurise the industry into thinking far bigger than 4,000 MW. It is the Minister who is trying to push the thing on but cannot get it on the drawing board. That is the great criticism, and that is the situation as it now stands.
  I am sorry to have rambled on, Mr. Speaker, but I shall finish on a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) in talking of the disposal of radioactive waste. I believe that that subject is creating fears and anxieties about our nuclear development that are unnecessary when they get out of proportion. It may be that some members of the Liberal Party are responsible for presenting that deliberately, as some kind of conservationist lobby. They are concerned, as we are all deeply concerned, about the protection of people, but they are using this one issue of the disposal of radioactive waste. Here, again, engineers have agreed that no technological difficulties are involved. The physicists have said that there is nothing unknown about the methods to be used, including the liquefaction of waste. But there may be a fear about taking short cuts and trying to
  364
  save money. As long as the Treasury keeps its nose out and allows the engineers to deal with the problem the nation can be assured that no problems are likely to arise.
  The message from this debate to the Minister should be that we should concentrate all our efforts on making sure that we utilise to the full our engineering resources, and to tell the heavy electrical engineering industry that it can have all the credits it requires. Let us get some of these stations under way now, because the generation plant, the turbines and the rest, make up the kind of equipment about which we know a great deal. Let us get on with the manufacture of that equipment and place big orders with the heavy electrical engineering industry.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Does my hon. Friend think that that is really possible, having regard to the fact that the Chairman of the CEGB made it very clear before the Select Committee that he had no intention of embarking on this kind of programme? Until we get rid of him we are not likely to do much.
  Mr. Atkinson: I have already referred to the performance of Mr. Arthur Hawkins and Lord Aldington. Let it be known very clearly in this House from now on that many of us will work together to bring about the dismissal of this man if he is standing between ourselves and the creation of a nuclear policy. So, to the Minister the message should be, "Yes, we are in favour of allocating a far greater part of our national resources to the development of our nuclear ideas, and let us hope that from now on we can get on with it".
  6.23 p.m.
  Mr. Evelyn King: May I say at once how very much I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson)? I had the impression that he was delivering two speeches. During the part of the first I was out of the Chamber but I believe I heard him advocate an increased use of coal on a substantial scale, on which I cannot go along with him. On the second part of his speech, on the nuclear programme, I believe he was first rate.
  May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his first efforts? In so

  365
  far as I am critical, most of my criticism falls not upon him but upon the last five, 10 or even 15 years although it might be said that during the last year he could have speeded things up more than he has.
  Before moving to the major issues confronting the House I would say a word on energy conservation in one particular context, that of rural transport. I am glad that some civil servants are among those listening to me because in two spheres I shall mention I am desperate about the ability of this country to govern itself, about the sheer incompetence in government. I do not mean purely the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or the Civil Service, but the lot put together. On sheer incompetence there is a good deal to be said this afternoon.
  I turn first to transport. It must be some four years since I first wrote about and raised in this House the possibility of villages having their own bus services and of arranging, as has been long arranged in India, for postal buses and transport to amalgamate into mini-bus passenger transport in the villages, with four or five other similar suggestions. Feeling that four years was a reasonable period to have elapsed, I wrote again to the present Minister and got a letter which was almost a rubber stamp of that which I had had four years before, saying that these ideas were very good, had been investigated and were being examined, and that, no doubt, in time action might be taken.
  I have no very high opinion of myself, but I honestly believe that if I were put into a room to examine these things I could in eight days produce a result. Why cannot Government do so? Do we seriously maintain, does anyone maintain, that it takes four years to say whether we can or cannot do these things? Meanwhile villages suffer.
  The price of petrol has become exorbitant. It will soon interfere gravely with the work of persons living distant from their employment. After four years the Government might have done something about it, but nothing has been done. Admittedly, within the major context of energy conservation this may seem a small point, but if we are to debate energy and its conservation I hope that that is
  366
  not typical of the approach of Government. That is my lesser point.
  I turn now to my bigger one. To simplify what I have to say and to shorten my remarks—as I know will appeal to you, Mr. Speaker—I will deal only with three major methods of producing electricity. I often wish his godfathers and godmothers had not given the Minister the name which he has in office. At the weekend one of my constituents asked me whether I would speak in the House this week and I said I would if I could. I was asked on what subject I would speak and I said on energy. A glaze came over the eyes of my constituent who had not the least idea of what it was. I then said "I am going to talk about the cost of electricity and your cooking." The glaze fell from her eyes. I went on to say—and I believe it to be true—"If your electricity bills are rising, as they are, and are to rise still more over the next two years, it is due to incompetence and nothing else."
  We produce electricity by three major means—coal, oil and nuclear power. At this moment they are the only three that matter. One would suppose that someone would sit down, look at all three and decide objectively which is the most efficient. Were anyone to do so, he would come up with these results. At the moment 25 per cent. of our electricity consumption derives from oil. The cost per unit of oil-produced electricity is 55p. It has gone up by 38 per cent. in a year and is certainly going up still more; and it is a most dangerous method of production upon which to depend.
  Passing on to coal, he would note that it provides 63 per cent. of our current production and costs 53p per unit, a cost which is rising rapidly and is likely soon to overtake that of oil. He would surely note that coal production is hideously at risk every year of ceasing altogether. The Minister was proud that this had not happened this year and I am delighted, too, but he would know that the risk is ever present. He would note that in a humane context there is no argument at all for increased coal production. I was brought up in the atmosphere of the 1926 General Strike and was taught that the job of coal mining was harsh and uncomfortable, that scientific advance in a civilised society meant that there was every chance of

  367
  coal production ceasing in our lifetime, and that that would be the best thing in the world.
  Mr. Rost: Would my hon. Friend take into account the technology of the coal industry, which, if it evolved as it could, would mean that there would be no reason why we should not automate mining with robot machines? It is not beyond our technology, if we only allocated a little more capital development to research into it.
  Mr. King: I gave way before I had finished this point. I accept that that is true to some extent, but I was talking of the humane context rather than the economic. In that context the argument for any other means of power than coal wins the day every time. Forgetting the humane context and turning to the economic, it is true that some coal production is necessary for coking and other purposes, but the fact remains that the cost of coal-generated electricity is 53p per unit. The cost of nuclear power is 52p per unit. It produces 10 per cent. of our electricity, less than any other method.
  This relatively intelligent body of men whom I envisage trying to take an objective decision would note that we are putting most of our money into the most expensive, most uncomfortable and least reliable method. To the nuclear method, which is dependable, has practically no labour troubles and has civilised methods of work, offering opportunity to skill and inventive genius, we offer practically nothing.
  If anyone doubts that, I would ask him to compare what happens in the United States with what happens here. In seven years, if we are lucky, we shall build three nuclear stations which will produce a little under 4,000 megawatts. In the United States, where the problems are much greater than ours, they intend to build 200 stations. Does not that fact alone imply that we are making the most ghastly misjudgment?
  Mr. Skeet: I wish they would listen.
  Mr. King: I am not placing the blame on the Minister. Some of his decisions in the last few months and those he likely to take in the next few may not be valid, but the major responsibility
  368
  rests on his predecessors—and not just his political predecessors. But that does not absolve him from putting more energy behind the nuclear drive than I see any sign of his doing.
  Although I have no financial interest in this subject, Winfrith is in my constituency. I am proud of the fact that the reactor which the Secretary of State has chosen as the right one was developed there. Many of my constituents are scientists and engineers who take great pride in what they have created and in the contribution that they can make to the major problems of our time. They also think that they are being neglected.
  My last word is perhaps the least pleasant, but it should be said. I hope that these decisions are being taken upon their merits. If it were to be thought that the £1,400 million to be invested in coal and the attendant lack of interest in nuclear power had been decided not objectively but because of political pressure by the National Union of Mineworkers, this would be deeply resented, not only here but throughout the country. I have long had a great admiration for coal miners—greater than for some of their leaders. I beg the right hon. Gentleman in all his decisions to bear in mind what I have thought it right to say.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I want to avoid as much as possible repeating comments which have already been made. That will be my major contribution to brevity.
  When we debate energy we spend far too much time making short, sharp, irrelevant political points. This is not what the country wants. Those who are concerned about this subject want the House of Commons to reflect the magnitude of the problem. They want to be able to feel that the House is determined not simply on an interesting debate but on some action to meet the serious crisis which is practically upon us.
  Unless we have a positive policy and attitude and a clear frame of mind in the next five years at least, the magnitude of this problem, which will be crystal clear by the 1990s, will mean that many solutions available to us will be taken out of our hands, with consequent dire problems for the whole economy. The first step towards that aim, producing,

  369
  perhaps imperceptibly, a mark of public concern, has already been taken in the appointment of the Secretary of State. It would be too much in the short time that he has been in office to expect the kind of results that I have described, but I hope that all parties will co-operate in achieving that clear direction to which I have referred.
  First, therefore, we must have a national energy policy. Once we have said that, we must describe in general terms what we mean by it.
  The first objective is to get rid of the competition between the sources of fuel—coal, gas, oil and electricity. This has been a factor which has brought about part of the present crisis. We must get rid of the duplication of services. If we do not, we shall be wasting energy, anyway. And must decide the best possible uses for the fuels available to us. Our national energy policy can, therefore, start with that prime objective—how best to clear the decks in order that our fuel can be put to proper uses.
  Second, it is important that the Secretary of State adds to the valuable work that he has already done by examining very closely the waste of time and energy in the inter-departmental committees, of which there are far too many. Men of considerable ability sit on committee after committee. When we ask for their conclusions or to see what they have achieved, the answer is often very vague, leaving us to assume that there must be no conclusions or that nothing has been achieved. There must be a look at the abundance of various other committees which advise industry, local authorities and the Government. There are so many of them that it would take a whole speech to list them, let alone to find out exactly what they are doing.
  I would hope that such a national energy policy would carry with it some form of streamlined process of advice, to see what should be the advice and to determine what investment programmes are needed, so that we could see at once whether the course of action, such an energy policy is bent upon, is meeting the changing tides of the times.
  I should like to give some indication of some of the precise things which can be done. There is a need for a massive programme to be undertaken in relation
  370
  to electricity aimed at the utilisation of low-grade waste heat from power stations. There is no dissent on either side of the House about that kind of objective. Certainly we need to introduce techniques and processes which will facilitate the efficient use of power plants' waste heat when those plants are remote from areas of high consumption. That could not he doubted. It should be something on which to start working now.
  In electricity, among the many things which can be done—I am picking merely a few—because of the high transmission losses and the cost of electricity distribution through the grid, alternative methods and schemes for transporting energy are possible, in particular in pipelines. That kind of possibility should be investigated and reported upon.
  On the question of space heating and domestic uses, it is quite clear that at present we have a situation in which there should be a policy of financial incentives, investigatory and investment programmes set afoot in order to deal with inefficient systems which have to be replaced. We need to produce building construction systems which incorporate features aimed at maximising the use of solar energy for internal temperature control. District heating is a must, and it must be enlarged upon—there have been considerable successes in this respect—in particular in order to deal with the waste heat where district heating programmes do not exist.
  Nothing has been said about agriculture in the debate. It seems clear that modern agricultural methods are demanding—it is logical that they should demand—considerable use of energy for machines, fertilisers and chemicals. In the most advanced operations, increases in energy use can be disproportionate to crop production increases. There is an analogy of a cash flow problem. When someone in business presumes that he has a large order book he works very hard, but if he does not understand his cash flow problem he may nevertheless well be on the way to bankruptcy. A use of energy disproportionate to the return on the crop production is a consideration which must be borne in mind.
  I want to draw abruptly to a close. On the subject of transport and communica-

  371
  tion, we should examine the use of electronic communication techniques and develop efficient and reliable urban public transport systems in order that we can deal with the problems of private motoring in our city centres. Certainly we should consider the use of railway, waterway and pipeline transportation for long-distance goods movements. These objectives should be encouraged. Diesel engines, too, should be encouraged. There is a place for them, particularly in commercial vehicles.
  I have not touched on the industrial uses of energy because the House is quite clear on that matter. We have repeated time and again today that in industry there is considerable scope for the conservation of energy. Energy savings of up to 20 per cent. can be achieved if notice is taken of the recommendations which have been made available by the Government and other sources.
  In this debate on energy it has not been possible to give particular clear-cut guidelines of action, but the direction and shape of things must come from this debate. I hope that from the concluding moments of this debate the country will be able to feel tomorrow that at least there is some unanimity in the House about what is needed for the country's economic prosperity.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: No doubt the Minister will be rather pleased to know that in terms of a nuclear energy policy I shall be a great deal less critical than has every other speaker so far. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King), who was a former Member for my parliamentary constituency—although I am sorry that I do not recollect it, because I was about one year old when you gained the seat and about six when you lost it—
  Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman should refer to "the hon. Member."
  Mr. Speaker: I had nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  The request made by the hon. Member for Dorset, South was that we should look at this matter with cool logic.
  372
  Certainly that is to be desired. From listening to the Opposition Front Bench at the start of the debate, I was afraid that once again we had an undercurrent of a sort of hysteria of hate that I have heard expressed on Conservative platforms against the coal miners. It seemed to me that this sort of historical, politically-biased opinion was affecting the Opposition's view.
  We had a debate a fortnight ago when the basic point before us from the EEC was the suggestion that in the year 1985. Europe will manufacture 46 per cent. of its electricity by means of nuclear power. I said then that I believed that there was no need for Europe to panic itself into producing its electricity by nuclear power. I stand by that position. Although I think that the British Government must continue its research and, indeed, set up some power stations to ascertain the basic difficulties which do or do not exist, the day has not yet arrived when a massive programme to commit ourselves to the production of 46 per cent. of our electricity by nuclear power by 1985 is in the least realistic. Frankly, I doubt whether Europe will manage it. Having some regard for the technical problems, I do not believe that even with the determination expressed European countries will get anywhere near that figure by that year.
  The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that the Liberals had been guilty of stirring the conservation and safety issue. I hope that we are not accused of doing so for ulterior motives. It seems that the risks are real. I have had some technical experience and I have read about some suggested methods of disposal. Liquefaction was mentioned. I have heard that we should store nuclear waste at the bottom of the sea. I have also heard it suggested that we should put it in rockets and launch the rockets towards the sun. In fact, that is the only way in which we can definitely destroy the waste, given our present level of technology. I am not opposing that suggestion, but there is a real possibility that such a launch might in some way be a disaster and that the rocket might never get to its destination. That is a real problem, which some hon. Members have decided to ignore.
  The documents that I have read that have been published in the United States

  373
  suggest that the problem will be a great deal in the public's mind in the next 10 or 15 years. It is without doubt that somewhere in the world there will be an accident involving nuclear power. I ask the Government to make progress slowly—I believe that they are adopting that approach—and to ensure that the accident does not occur in this country. There is no doubt that by the turn of the century a great deal of our electricity will be produced by nuclear power. There is a danger of going ahead too quickly before we have carried out the necessary experiments to determine the risk.
  Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman carries a tremendous responsibility in creating anxieties of this sort. Does he not realise that the tendency nowadays is to bring nuclear power stations much nearer to the centres of population? What he should now be doing is placing his confidence in the industry and giving some reassurance to the people who are living near nuclear installations so that they do not have the sort of fears that he has expressed.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Unfortunately, dangers do not disappear by not talking about them. I totally accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the movement of nuclear power stations towards our centres of population will take place. If we are to have district heating schemes, that movement must be encouraged. I do not make this point for party political reasons, but I wonder whether our technology of safety has reached a level at which it can be said that no dangers exist.
  The fact is that in the world today there are hydrocarbon fuels readily available for producing electricity in plenty. We have coal and North Sea oil. We also have gas, some nuclear power capacity and some hydro-electric capacity. Those resources add up to a potential abundance of energy for producing electricity.
  We have mentioned North Sea oil at some length. I am not an expert on the financial implications of North Sea oil. Basically we all want the oil as quickly as possible. I have no wish to enter into the argument about the way in which it should be taxed. I once heard a Labour Member say that he was prepared to have the coming on shore of North Sea oil
  374
  put off for a year or 18 months, provided that the public participation was right. I am glad that that is not the Government's policy. If that were the position I would oppose it with some enthusiasm. We can always get a larger stake at any stage in the production of North Sea oil if we choose to do so. We could nationalise it at a later date if we thought that was the right course to take. At present, the desperate need is to get the oil on shore as quickly as possible.
  I draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared in yesterday's copy of The Times. It pointed out that a large amount of oil had been found off the Brazilian coast. It read:
  "A field able to produce 200,000 barrels a day is being developed … about 200 miles north of Rio de Janeiro. Seismologists say that there are 13 areas which are of comparable richness adjacent to this strike. They expect that the whole complex will produce 2ô6 million barrels a day. This makes it perhaps the greatest offshore group of fields in the world."
  The article says that it is believed that similar complexes could exist down the entire south coast of Brazil.
  I am left in doubt when I hear some hon. Members saying that the great millenium is here merely because we are about to bring in the oil from the North Sea. I do not want to delay North Sea oil development. Indeed, I have specifically encouraged it. I merely point out that similar work is going on around the world and that coastal waters off Brazil are a great deal more pleasant to drill in and to explore in than our North Sea waters. The same comparison applies to the waters off the South-West. A risk exists so it is necessary to get the oil ashore and to use it as quickly as possible to overcome our present economic difficulties. Let us not be too worried at this moment about taxation and what will or will not be paid in six years' time, for example, on what may prove to be no great profit at all.
  Another matter that must be considered during an energy debate is transport. Some weeks ago I asked which constituencies in Britain, according to the 1971 census, have populations in which less than 10 per cent. of the work force goes to work by public transport. It seems that there are 41 such constituencies. Some weeks before that I asked which constituencies in Britain have populations in which more than 45 per cent. of the

  375
  work force use cars to go to work. The lists of constituencies were almost the same in both answers.
  In my constituency of Truro, according to the 1971 census, 7·7 per cent. of the population travel to work by public transport and 48 per cent. travel by car. That figure is not arrived at because of the great wealth of the people in my locality. If we consider the disposable income of the people of Cornwall we may well find that the figure, per capita, is the lowest of any of the counties in England. The reason that they travel by car and not by public transport is that very often public transport does not exist.
  Some weeks ago I entered into correspondence with the chairman of my local county council. I suggested that some of the money now spent on the road-building programme in my county—this argument can be applied to virtually any rural part of the country—should be transferred and used to help the Western National Bus Company to revitalise some of its services or to make it unnecessary for the company to close any more of its services. The chairman of the council replied:
  "The recent Government Circular on Rates Expenditure has put the County Council and the bus operators in the County in a very difficult situation. … The position whereby the Government will neither assist the bus companies themselves nor allow Local Authorities to do so, nor allow fare increases sufficient to recover all the additional costs (because of the Price Code) is very invidious from the bus companies' points of view."
  The Government issued their circular because they thought that some of the money being spent on providing cheap fares was not justified in the present economic climate. From their point of view that might be totally right, but the battle going on in my county is to maintain the services that now exist. I ask the Minister to look into that particular circle of nonsense and to try to point out to whoever is responsible for Circular 177 that in many rural areas it strikes the people who are trying to do something for public transport as total nonsense.
  I have letters in my file on this matter—one, in particular, from a constituent who wishes not to be named. He goes into some detail about his financial problems. He outlines what he earns and
  376
  what it costs him to live. Without doubt he would be better off today by at least £1 a week if he decided to stop working and go on the dole. Transport costs and the price of petrol are such that in some rural areas a man in a low-paid job is better off on the dole than he is working. I was horrified to read in the Press about the suggested two-tier petrol price scheme. The basic premise seemed to be that for the whole country there would be so many gallons at a lower price and that extra gallons would be priced at any level that the Government happened to choose. Any such scheme must be biased towards areas where there is no public transport. For some time I have favoured a scheme by which tax allowances would be granted for costs involved in getting to work when no public transport was available.
  If a variable road fund licence system is to be introduced—I see no basic objection to it—it should be based on brake horsepower and not on cubic capacity. A chart of the two will show that they are not by any means so connected as they are thought to be.
  I have rather plagued the Minister with questions. I sought to discover what percentage of imported oil is used by the private motorist. It is difficult to get a straight answer to this question. One interpretation of the figures suggests that the private motorist who cannot claim back his VAT uses less than 7 per cent. of the oil we import. If he could be persuaded to reduce his mileage by 10 per cent., it would amount to a saving of 0·7 per cent. of imported oil.
  The Minister says with great pride that this winter there has been no shut-down and no switching off of lights. The switching off in my area is being carried out by people who are affected by rising transport costs. Much misery has been caused. What is so magical about not turning off lights if we are talking of an energy saving by the private motorist of 0…7 per cent.? Why not turn some lights off?
  There is no motorway within about 200 miles of my home, so in that sense I declare an inverse interest. On motorways we burn enough electricity to keep a town of about 15,000 people going. I do not suggest that all the motorway lights should be switched off for all the time, but what would be the harm, from a psychological

  377
  point of view, in turning them off for some hours of the day?
  The Government's approach to district heating has been little short of pathetic.
  I also asked the Minister to plot on a graph, and publish in the Official Report, the electricity demanded during a typical November day. Apparently the plotting of a graph is beyond the technicality of a Government. I asked to be told the number of hours a day when the amount of electricity demanded exceeded the capacity that could be generated by all fuels other than oil. The Minister said that they do not plot graphs and that he would get somebody to write a letter telling me.
  Mr. Atkinson: They plot other things.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Eventually I received a graph by the back door. I learned that there are only six hours a day during which the amount of electricity demanded exceeds that which can be generated by fuels other than oil. I spent some time on the graph trying to work out, as a percentage of the total power generated in the day, that which was generated during those six hours and what percentage was generated at a level above that which could be generated by fuels other than oil. The answer is certainly less than 10 per cent.
  I also asked what the Minister had done to pressurise the National Coal Board into quarrying more coal. The jackpot reply I received was that it was not the Minister's responsibility. I learn from figures in Energy Trends that for at least five years we have been hovering at a figure of between 9·1 million and 10 million tons a year. There is room for great expansion.
  In view of the tremendous recession which is taking place in the building industry a great deal of equipment is available which could be used for the opencast quarrying of coal, and some would say that that equipment was going cheap.
  The evidence that I have succeeded in acquiring does not add up to a policy. For all that, I am glad that we have not gone in for the mad policy of building nuclear power stations like mushrooms.
  The most obvious aspect of the Government's energy policy is the "Save It"
  378
  campaign. The great question must be why this campaign was not started months ago, when the public were in the right mood for saving energy. It was, perhaps, for political reasons, namely, that the Government did not want to be seen to be going in for the nonsense that we went in for just about a year ago.
  If the "Save It" campaign will save money on imports, the question is: how much money have we wasted over the last nine months by not operating such a scheme? There is nothing very exotic about any of the methods of saving proposed. Better thermal insulation is mentioned. That is a longer-term project. I read in my local paper this week that my local council has decided that anybody who wants to foam-fill the walls of his bungalow must make an individual application for change of structure. Cannot we have an admission that the foam-filling of cavities is a satisfactory method and thereby allow it, or that the method is unsatisfactory and ban it? Surely local authorities need not consider every application for the foam-filling of cavity walls.
  Better ventilation has been mentioned. When people talk about better ventilation they think about more ventilation. What is required is the control of air flow. One does not use the ventilation to control the temperature, which is what has been known to happen in this building. It appears that when it gets too hot here the required correction to the temperature—by edict of the Minister—is carried out not by turning down the heating but by opening windows slightly wider. What is required is far better control over the ventilation of buildings. Great saving could thus be effected.
  The advertisements for the "Save It" campaign say that there should be better burners, and that they should be serviced. Why were not the public told that some months ago? The public are also told that cars will go further to the gallon if the ignition and carburation are checked regularly. Why could not the public have been told that some months ago? Will the Minister examine the possibility of including such a check in the annual MOT test? It is not difficult to carry out a carbon monoxide analysis of the exhaust to see whether a car is running correctly.

  379
  The Minister must seek to encourage a gradual transfer to diesel engines. He might be able to do so by having a differential rate for the road fund licence. There is much to be said for diesel engines. They are rather noisier, but that does not detract from their efficiency in transporting people by road.
  Mention has been made of the recycling of waste. We must carry out this exercise more efficiently in regard to paper, minerals or any side product of the system. There are great savings to be made by making cars that last longer and by better recovery of waste material. It is not often realised how large a contribution such methods can make. It is a tragedy to see the present collapse of the waste paper market after all the efforts which, have been made by so many people. I shall listen with interest to the Government reply on this and other matters.
  If the matter comes to a vote, on the long-term consideration I shall support the Government, but on the short-term problem as it affects the policies for rural areas I shall vote with the Opposition.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. John Evans: It is interesting to note that once again hon. Members on the Liberal bench want the best of both worlds. In other words, they will support the motion if certain things happen. I believe that history will record that the present Secretary of State for Energy is a courageous man who has taken decisions which will have a profound effect on our country's future.
  It is essential at the outset of my remarks that I declare a major constituency interest in this debate. In the Newton division I have two collieries and a large National Coal Board area office, and in total the NCB employs about 5,000 people. Also in my constituency at Risley is the headquarters of the Atomic Energy Authority Reactor Division; the headquarters of British Nuclear Fuels Limited; and the headquarters of the Nuclear Power Group which at present is designing the British SGHWR. In all about 5,000 of my constituents work in this important establishment. Therefore, it will be appreciated that many of my constituents have a great desire to see this country adopt an energy
  380
  strategy which is meaningful for the future and which safeguards the interests of the British people.
  However, on this occasion I do not want to talk about energy policies in relaion to coal. I believe that at long last the prosperity of the coal industry is assured. I believe that for the first time miners and their families can look ahead to a prosperous future, provided that fatal accidents in the industry do not cut down the family breadwinner.
  I want to turn the attention of the House to the nuclear power aspects of our energy policy. I wish to make it clear that all is not well within our nuclear power industry. Only last week on Thursday I received a delegation of three branch officers of the Nuclear Power Branch of the IPCS who presented a petition to the Secretary of State for Energy calling on him not to give the management contract of the new company to GEC. We made it clear to the Secretary of State that we saw no reason for a management contract having to be awarded to anybody. That petition was signed by 756 staff members of the Nuclear Power Group, over 80 per cent. of the total staff.
  I received the impression that the Secretary of State had decided to award that contract to the GEC. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to issue a paper justifying to the House why the Government consider it essential to have a third party, complete with a management contract, interposed somewhere between two new organisations, the National Nuclear Corporation and the Nuclear Power Company which is supposed to have the job of running Britain's nuclear power station design and building industry, presumably for the next decade.
  Are we not in danger of getting into a who-is-supposed-to-be-doing-what situation, and is there not a great danger that while the various organisations spend months arguing about who is supposed to be doing what the production of Britain's SGHWRs will fall behind schedule? We shall have the same old story of late deliveries, we shall be told what a hopeless nuclear industry Britain has and that we should buy American because their products are more efficient, and all the rest of it.

  381
  Will the Secretary of State publish the management contract once the details have been agreed between the parties? In that way the House, the industry, its workers and the nation can see exactly what the terms are and how much it is costing the people of this country.
  I wish to make it clear that the stall and workers in the industry were delighted when the Secretary of State gave the go-ahead for the building of two SGHWRs, but they are still very concerned about the situation. I share the concern at the lack of progress in forming the new Nuclear Power Company. It is nearly two years since the original decision to form the new structure was announced, and no matter how hard the trade unions representing the various groups of workers have tried to obtain information about what is to happen, they meeet a brick wall of silence and evasion.
  As the Secretary of State is aware, highly qualified staff of the Nuclear Power Group and the BNDC continue to leave their companies. I remind the House that one cannot build anything, let alone highly complex nuclear power stations, witthout highly skilled designers. Therefore, I wish to impress upon my right hon. Friend the urgent necessity of settling the composition of the boards and managers of the NNC as quickly as possible to prevent further loss of staff who are irreplaceable. It is also essential that a decision be taken quickly about the siting of the Nuclear Power Company. May I suggest that my right hon. Friend handles this matter delicately or he will arouse a hornets' nest.
  May I suggest that he should announce now that the headquarters of the Nuclear Power Company is to be situated in the North-West of England in the Risley area? It makes sound sense in terms of regional economic policy. I hope that the transfer of other staff will take place over an extended period in order to allow these men and women to adjust their lives more evenly to what, after all, is a major upheaval in their life-style and that of their families.
  I wish to refer to the constant reports in the Press that a clearance certificate is imminent from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate for the American PWR and consequent fears among many of my con-
  382
  stituents that powerful men, with vested interests, will attempt to reinstall the PWR as part of the British programme of nuclear power stations. Will my right hon. Friend say how much work has been done by the NII on the study of the generic safety issues involved in the PWR? In July my right hon. Friend made clear that studies were being conducted by the NII into the PWR.
  Mr. Varley: I think I can help my hon. Friend by saying that very little work has been done on the generic study of the LWR. The main work of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is being undertaken on the AGR working through to the SGHWR.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that intervention. I assure my right hon. Friend that that news will be warmly welcomed by thousands of people in my constituency who work in the nuclear industry.
  Successive Governments have desired and sought a unified and successful nuclear industry but have been very slow to find out and then implement their policies, with consequent demoralisation of the personnel who work in the industry. Those personnel are the lifeblood of the industry and we neglect them at our peril. It is worth remembering that many of these men have the finest brains in the world in this field.
  If Britain is to have a successful nuclear power capacity, the programme as laid down by the Secretary of State must be implemented with urgency and support from everybody—but especially from those people at the very top. I know that the programme has the overwhelming support of the vast majority of the staff at Risley. However, I do not believe that Lord Aldington, Sir Arnold Weinstock and Mr. Hawkins are the right people to be in charge of Britain's nuclear power industry, given their known and publicly stated attitudes. It may be that I shall be taken to task for this, but I believe that they have a vested interest in proving that the Secretary of State has made the wrong decision.
  It is essential that the NNC and the NPC be set up with all possible speed and preferably be Government-controlled. It is essential that the construction policies of the NNC be defined as a matter of the utmost urgency. I ask for urgent

  383
  consideration to be given to the siting of further stations. We have the go-ahead for two stations, but it is essential that we start considering now what further parts of the country are to have further SGHWRs. Urgent discussions should be started with those sections of British industry that would provide the components for the SGHWR programme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has said quite clearly, this is of tremendous importance to British industry. It could have a profound effect on the regional strategies and policies of the Labour Government.
  It is essential that industry should know what is required of it, because we can hardly expect it to produce components now, hoping that someone will order them from the shelf. Decisions must be taken, and industry must be brought into the discussions.
  Most important of all, a supremo who believes in the SGHWR and British technology should be appointed to run the corporation, someone who is not burdened by past views on nuclear reactors. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to appointing such a man.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I like to think that this Government, and indeed all Governments, are capable of learning from their own experience and mistakes, and from the mistakes of other countries in formulating energy policy. We should see some signs of this. Today we have seen just a little sign that the Government are becoming aware of the facts of life, with the announcement of the rate of petroleum revenue tax. After the banshee howling from the Government benches for months, there is now a considerable touch of realism, as Ministers in the Department of Energy and the Treasury appreciate that the companies operating in the North Sea must receive a fair and reasonable return on their investment and the money they are putting at risk there.
  The Government are beginning to understand the need to provide incentives to operators in the exploration for, and production of, North Sea oil, and to realise that a fair return on capital must be a prime incentive to the companies
  384
  operating there. I hope that the Government are moving away from the idea that they are doing the oil industry a favour by allowing it to invest its resources in the North Sea, especially when the North Sea is compared to those other parts of the world where all the oil companies are perfectly free to place their investment and to indulge in the exploration for, and production of, oil.
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) mentioned some of the places where development and exploration opportunities are available to the oil companies. These include Brazil, the outer continental shelf of the United States, which is a vast area, China, Mexico and many countries in the Pacific and elsewhere.
  I hope that Ministers are learning, when they look at what is happening in countries overseas, about the change in attitudes that has taken place in other Governments. Norway is an outstanding example. In the oil debate in this country Labour Members and Members of the Scottish National Party have constantly pointed to Norway as the example of how to extract the maximum amount of taxation from oil companies and to minimise production levels. At one time Norway was talking about a 90 per cent. rate of taxation, but this has come down considerably during the past few months. The amount of production that Norway has decided to exploit in the North Sea has risen substantially, by almost 50 per cent., from approximately 50 million tons to over 70 million tons a year. This is a touch of realism which I welcome. I hope that the Government will continue to show a more realistic attitude to the companies, and to the levels of production and taxation that are necessary for the North Sea.
  I hope that this realism will extend to some practical points. Other hon. Members have been talking at some length about the nuclear programme and other aspects of energy policy, but I would like to question the extent of the co-ordination between the Department of Energy and other Government Departments, especially in relation to onshore developments in Scotland. For example, has the Secretary of State for Energy interested himself in the need to improve facilities at Dyce airport? Has he approached the Department of Trade or the Civil Aviation

  385
  Authority to express the urgent need of upgrading the airport to meet the demands of industry? The Secretary of State could reply that that is entirely the responsibility of other Departments, but if we have anything approaching a comprehensive Government policy on oil, I hope that the Department of Energy will take a serious interest in problems of this kind. If there were some evidence that the Department of Energy was looking at practical problems of this kind, we should be able to take more seriously the Minister's claims that Britain will achieve self-sufficiency by 1980.
  Another practical problem is the question of the supply ships in the North Sea and the flags that they carry. An article in the Sunday Times on 2nd February pointed out:
  "Most North Sea contractors are American and they deal with the people they know. Out of the 100 or so boats U.S. companies have chartered for the 1975 season, only 10 will probably be British."
  I know that the matter is not a specific responsibility of the Department of Energy, but it is part of our energy problem. I would like the Department to consider the discrimination that American shipping law applies in the United States, and to see to what extent we may give some protection and priority to supply boats in the North Sea flying the British flag.
  These are some of the areas where the Secretary of State could show a more energetic approach to some of the important day-to-day problems facing industry on shore, even though they are not part of his normal departmental duties.
  Mr. John Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that the Government should introduce legislation to prohibit the use of supply vessels which do not fly the British flag?
  Mr. Fletcher: No. What I am trying to say is that where there is a discrimination, as in the United States, we should adopt a similar attitude. If that means what the Minister has just said, I agree with him that we would be applying the same attitude towards American flag-carriers in the North Sea as the Americans would apply to British flag-carriers on the other side of the Atlantic.
  Mr. John Smith: Would that discrimination apply simply to American vessels or to all other foreign vessels in the North Sea? Is the hon. Gentleman speaking as an individual, or does he carry some authority for the proposition?
  Mr. Fletcher: I am speaking entirely as an individual with all the authority I can muster as an individual. I am using the American example as the most obvious one that applies in the North Sea. If any other country operates a similar type of discrimination, the Department of Energy and its brother Departments should examine the question. If the Minister is interested, as I am sure he is, I refer him to the article in the Sunday Times of 2nd February.
  Sticking to these practical points and the problems that have to be overcome if we are to meet our target of self-sufficiency by 1980, I wonder whether the Department of Energy is satisfied with the housing programme in the North-East of Scotland, and whether it feels that the Scottish Office is pulling its full weight in providing houses for key workers and others involved in the oil industry and in trying to help the country to meet its targets. I hope that the Secretary of State will not shrug these important practical points aside simply as the responsibility of other Departments. By looking at some of these onshore problems and producing a broader strategy the Government might build up confidence in their ability to encourage industry to bring about self-sufficiency in oil by 1980.
  I will say a word or two about conservation. Oil consumption has fallen considerably during the past year or so. It dropped by 10 per cent. last year and, according to current estimates, is likely to fall more during 1975. Perhaps consumption could be as low as between 80 million tons and 82 million tons during 1975. That is conservation, but it is conservation by price and by the downturn in the economic activity of the United Kingdom. I will confine my remarks about conservation to that aspect.
  Whatever detailed conservation programmes and policies are in the pipeline or are likely to be introduced, I hope that they will not be over-bureaucratic and that they will not become a straitjacket for industrial and domestic consumers. I like to think that we can look forward

  387
  in the not-too-distant future to an upturn in the economy. If we saddle people with bureaucratic controls based on existing levels of consumption, it might not be so easy to cast these off when demand increases, as it may.
  For a long time Ministers have been obsessed with the problems of extracting from the North Sea revenue in the form of taxation rather than oil, and they have been completely bogged down on their proposals for participation, which have yet to see the light of day in the House. As an Opposition, the main criticism we make is that the Government have failed to give top priority to the job of getting the oil ashore and flowing. That is why I have drawn to the attention of the House one or two practical matters attention to which would pay immediate dividends to the country in the form of balance of payments benefits.
  A little less Socialist dogma and a lot more attention to British national interests would earn the Secretary of State not a deduction in his salary but a considerable increase, if he could prove to the House that his Department is working on a broad basis with a broad strategy, putting aside the dogma to which I have referred and working in the interests of the people of this country.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) suggested that chickens were coming home to roost. Given that the Government have not yet been in office for one year, it should be borne in mind that if chickens are coming home to roost now, the Government is not responsible for laying the eggs from which they come. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the ships in the North Sea which bore American and other flags. The charters for those vessels were probably signed when the previous Conservative Government were in office. The hon. Gentleman said that Norway had lowered its "take" from offshore revenue. Even at the lower level, the Norwegians will be taking a much higher level of benefit for their country than that which would have been found acceptable by the Conservative administration.
  The debate has been a surprising one. I expected more heat to be generated
  388
  in a censure debate on this most important subject. Perhaps if we had been suffering from a few weeks of snowy weather that would have been so. The lack of enthusiasm for this censure debate on an important subject is astonishing.
  In many ways it is an improvement to have a thoughtful rather than a heated debate. There has been a transformation. A year or so ago we should have had a swashbuckling speech from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) advocating the denationalisation of the pits. Instead, we had a thoughtful contribution on insulation. What the hon. Gentleman said about encouraging insulation is important, but it would be foolish for the Government to seek to change rating arrangements while the Layfield Committee is sitting, particularly as the hon. Gentleman supports the careful examination of a system that at least needs adjustment. I welcome that thoughtfulness.
  There has been a temptation for hon. Members to engage in the sort of superficial consideration which was evidenced by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), who suggested that there was a lot of fossil fuel in the world which we should use massively to avoid the risk of a nuclear holocaust. That is a remarkably shortsighted view. If the world were to embark on massive use of fossil fuels without undertaking adequate research and development for nuclear power stations, we should be doing future generations a terrible disservice. We have to build up adequate technology to ensure that the future shall not be an era of barren waste and lack of opportunity.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of a need for massive increases in opencast mining. That, too, could be a dangerous proposition. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) have suffered severely from opencast mining. It is right that the current safeguards of planning permission and proper consultation should continue. It would be extremely disadvantageous for areas such as ours if opencast mining were to be encouraged on too large a scale.
  The hon. Gentleman also suggested that street lighting should be curtailed. Experience in 1973 suggests that the

  389
  serious risk of increased road casualties has to be considered, and the Government are right to be cautious.
  There is a great deal of merit in the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) for the expansion of nuclear capacity. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is creating the climate and establishing foundations which will allow sensible nuclear capacity to be developed. If it is to be developed on a proper scale we need to go steadily forward on the steam generating heavy water reactor course. It would be highly dangerous and lead to the risk of duplicating previous errors if we allowed that development to proceed on too large a scale. Nevertheless, I hope that we shall place orders for at least two more steam generating heavy water reactors within a short time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham also spoke of guarantees for the mining industry. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) reminded him that he had suggested in the recent energy debate that there should be a price floor to underpin the coal industry in the long term. That would provide the necessary guarantee. As my right hon. Friend suggested, that would be welcome.
  Two or three years ago I suggested that at least the central coalfield areas of Britain should be able to offer miners employment guarantees in order to restore confidence. That would be useful but would have only a marginal effect. The real benefit lies in the sort of policies which my right hon. Friend has pursued since the General Election. We are not giving miners bits of paper to say that there will be jobs for them in 20 years' time. We are offering, by the capital investment which is being put into the long-life pits such as Thurcroft, Dinnington, Kiveton Park and Maltby, the guarantee that they will continue to be producing the coal that Britain needs.
  We shall get that coal only if we are prepared to pay the miners. Their pay has to be looked at in the long term against the background of growing confidence in the industry. Once the miners realise that the Government intend to continue the splendid work they have done in re-establishing confidence and
  390
  promoting once again the sensible and moderate relationships which existed in the pits before the last Conservative administration exercised its disturbing and disruptive effect, they will realise that there is a future for them.
  The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) suggested that we should not embark on an expansion of coal production but that we should turn away from coal and massively increase our development of nuclear generation. I said in the debate a fortnight ago that if Europe is serious in demanding that we have £85 billion of nuclear development at 1973 prices, we must question now the implications of such a policy for public expenditure. I believe that we must increase our nuclear capacity, but I do not know whether the country can afford to increase it on the scale the hon. Member for Dorset, South was suggesting. Nuclear power stations are very expensive to provide and they must be provided, but it is questionable whether we could provide them on the scale that the hon. Member wants.
  It seems therefore that we have to maintain a strong coal industry. The hon. Member seems to think that the coal industry is as it was when he was a young man, in the days when my father was a collier. He spoke about the need to encourage technological inventiveness. But there have been massive amounts of that in the coal industry since it was nationalised. The pits in my constituency are very different from the pits they were 20 or 30 years ago and the National Coal Board is to be congratulated not merely on producing coal but on leading the technological field in many ways. The hon. Member for Dorset, South is right to encourage an increased use of nuclear power, but it would be foolish to do that by turning away completely from coal.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): My hon. Friend is advancing an interesting argument. He is correct in saying that the coal industry enjoys modern technology. I have traversed the coal fields from Wales to Kent, Nottingham, Yorkshire and Durham and I have met the miners. I can assure my hon. Friend that they have confidence in their industry and that it is a modern technologicial industry.
  Mr. Hardy: It certainly is, and I hope that that point will be appreciated in my constituency. I may not be popular for saying this, because old attitudes die hard, but attitudes must change. When I was a young man my father would have been horrified if I had expressed any desire to go into the pits. My experience of teaching in South Yorkshire was that parents often preferred their sons to take dead-end jobs rather than to go down the pits, such was their historical detestation of the industry.
  Today, however, the Coal Board in South Yorkshire can offer young men an attractive career with every possible prospect for the development of their education and skills. It could be that this ever-developing technology in the mining industry will provide the career structure which will eventually lead parents to change their minds and which will justify careers masters in South Yorkshire in persuading parents to allow their sons to go to the pits, a decision which would not have been tolerated 20 or 30 years ago. If we are to maintain coal production in Britain such shifts of attitude will have to be made.
  Nuclear power will have to be developed, and if it is, I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and Newton (Mr. Evans). My hon. Friend the Member for Newton made some very strong comments, but, given past history, I think that they were entirely justified. I hope that when the Under-Secretary winds up the debate he will not merely comment on the passionate advocacy of the constituency case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton but will also deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for White-haven, who has a considerable expertise in these matters.
  I have not yet had an answer to a point which I have raised in the past about the EEC proposition that nuclear power station policy should be based increasingly on standardisation. If the EEC embarks upon that policy, it seems inevitable that standardisation will be based upon American nuclear technology. That would be doing Britain and Europe a disservice. I hope that the Department
  392
  of Energy and any other Government Department involved will present a case for the maintenance of an adequate level of British nuclear technology and an adequate presence for that technology in Europe.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham raised the question of the policy of future oil-fired power stations. Is this based on the fact that North Sea oil is of a very high grade and should not be used for base purposes so that lower grade oil will be imported for power station generation? Some hon. Members have advanced the argument that we should export a good deal of our own high quality oil and import, at loss cost and to the nation's profit, the lower grade oil required for power stations. If we are proposing to build power stations to consume high-grade North Sea oil, future generations might look back on our action as being unwise.
  Finally, I believe that the tripartite discussions which my right hon. Friend embarked upon with the National Coal Board and the trade unions served an extremely useful purpose. It might be a good idea if once a quarter that tripartite gathering were reconvened in order that there could be an examination of progress made in the previous quarter. Such a meeting repeated at regular intervals, could exercise the same beneficial effects within the mining communities as it has exercised since the Government took office.
  If the Conservatives wish to complain about energy development they should look a little further back than the period which has elapsed since 4th March. The mistakes which were made between June 1970 and the end of 1973 were some of the most severe in British history. It is taking a great deal of time and perhaps a great deal of ingenuity but the Government is re-establishing common sense in energy matters.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Davies: I followed with great interest the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). I was interested in the three questions he put to the Minister, and I join the hon. Gentleman in hoping for replies to them later.
  When the hon. Gentleman alluded to the responsibility of the Conservative

  393
  administration for the deficiencies to which he referred, I thought that he strayed from reality.
  I associate myself with the Opposition motion, though I do so in a formal sense. I have a feeling of solidarity with the Secretary of State, knowing that at any moment in time it is virtually impossible to evolve an adequate and all-embracing energy policy covering all our domestic needs which will hold water for more than six months. As soon as we try to set out in a cohesive way a total energy policy, it is almost automatically upset by an external and unpremeditated event. Therefore, my association with the motion is formal, for reasons which I hope to develop.
  The single greatest jolt that the world economy has experienced during this century occurred during the last months of 1973, with regard to energy. The world economy has had to put up with a good deal, but it has never before experienced in one fatal major movement such an impact on oil prices. It threw suddenly into a state of upheaval a situation to which people had become accustomed, whereby energy was always available and always cheap. People suddenly found that energy was neither always available nor always cheap. That vitally changed not only the energy economy but the economy of the world. It is difficult to see any advantages which may have arisen from that troublesome period, but there may be some.
  As a result of the situation, there have been some major reappraisals of the totality of economic and energy policies in practically every country of the world, each of which has had to reassess its position and consider how best to face the future. That is as true of those which became suddenly rich as those which became suddenly poor. In so far as it affects countries such as ours, that new thinking has opened up new areas of thought. We think anew about future sources of energy. We think anew about the true importance of the hydrocarbon sources. We see the problem in a new light because it suddenly adopts a new value. We see anew the balance of world resources as it affects the developing countries, because we suddenly witness a state of affairs in the underdeveloped countries, in a different degree, as serious as that from which we suffer. We see
  394
  anew our future requirements for primary resources other than energy. We find ourselves considering very seriously the rate of exhaustion of primary resources, world-wide, and we think of new methods of dealing with them.
  The events at the end of 1973 fundamentally changed our attitude of mind and gave rise to a burst of thought and new ideas. That was their great advantage. These were the necessary consequences of what happened. The underlying factor which has emerged is that economies in the use of energy are a world-wide consideration. It is no longer a national consideration; it is an international consideration. That was always true of the oil industry.
  Until recently we had become accustomed to the thought that the coal industry was an industry with which we were concerned from a domestic point of view. We even considered the nuclear energy industry as a domestic enclave with which we were dealing in our own way and according to our own abilities. We did not consider that it was essentially framed within an international context. Suddenly, all those matters changed their appearance. As a result, because the world is inventive and because people have innovative thoughts, we see a burst of new ideas and suggestions. We see procedures devised for safeguarding against the disruption of oil supplies, for instance, with international measures taken to try to overcome the dangers inherent in such disruption. We see the question of economising on energy, which had hardly entered our minds in the past 50 or 100 years, suddenly becoming a world-wide consideration, with an international requirement to approach a problem in an international way.
  We see allied problems—for instance, the upturn of the economic functions concerned with oil supply. Those also require international consideration. We see a vast accumulation of monetary resources flowing into the oil-producing areas of the world. We see a need to deal with that situation. We have new ideas and see international initiatives taken to try to change the pattern of that movement.
  The stimulation of alternative sources of energy creates a new flavour in our

  395
  minds, and it brings in its train the inevitable consideration of how the pricing system affecting energy can support the development of such new sources. We see the international energy agency taking steps in this direction, especially those concerning safeguards against market disruption and the propagation of more effective international economies of energy use. There is a tendency to imagine that because this is a prestigious organisation, embracing many of the major countries concerned with the problems, it is the only institution necessary to deal with the international characteristic of energy problems. However, that is incorrect. There is a real need for an active energy policy within the framework of the EEC.
  We had the opportunity of debating this matter the other day, and it is not my intention now to rehearse the issues concerned in that debate. But I stress that the need to develop an effective energy policy within the framework of the Community does not duplicate or neutralise the activities of the international energy agency. On the contrary, the need is for the Community's policy not to conflict. It must fit in. But there is already an advantage, in that to the extent that nine countries—or eight plus one at the present time—can speak as one within the framework of the international energy agency, they will be more likely to secure the common purposes which they see as being necessary to meet their peculiar problems.
  For the United Kingdom, I consider the biggest single problem to be trying to find means of developing our own resources. The hon. Member for Rother Valley spoke of the enormous cost of installations for the generation of electricity from nuclear power. The very development of the systems and the methods in themselves are so costly that it is impossible to imagine that we can at the same time handle the vast expenditure involved in developing oil resources in the North Sea and perhaps other coastal waters, that we can do an equivalent task in gas production, that we can make an effort in added coal production and that we can at the same time develop and put in place not just one system of nuclear generation but stay in the hunt with a multitude of systems
  396
  —not just the steam-generated heavy-water systems but also to keep our hands in on high-temperature reactors and the fast breeder as it comes along. Together, they place such a weight on resource demand that we cannot reasonably expect to do it alone.
  Here, the force of the Community plays an immense part. Anyone who imagines that that kind of task can be undertaken by such a widespread organisation as the international energy agency is suffering from a certain delusion. That organisation can control; it can contribute to order; perhaps it can promote economy. But it cannot constitute a plan for the reformulation of a whole continent's energy needs and put in place the required developments and installations to ensure that they are met. That is the kind of operation that a Community energy policy can do.
  The degree to which I consent to the motion put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends resides in my resentment of the Government's failure actively to pursue a Community energy policy. I sense that the Government are being lackadaisical about this, which is totally at variance with the requirements of the problem.
  I associate myself in some measure with criticism of the Secretary of State's action because I believe that he has proved less than dynamic in pushing forward an essential programme on our future energy needs within the framework of a Community energy policy.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I listened intently to the right lion. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). He spoke about the difficulty of planning the energy needs of this country and was taking it for granted that there would be rigid planning. I hope that that will never happen because time and again Governments have tried to estimate the energy requirements of the nation, taking into account the various views and they have always made a grave mistake because requirements change. The right hon. Gentleman referred to what happened in November 1973. The mining group in the Labour Party has continually warned Government after Government of the dangers of relying too heavily on oil.

  397
  I agree that we did not expect a rapid upsurge in the price. We thought that some other method would be adopted. The outcome has been the same. The impact of changes in the supply of oil on the Western world has been great. We are still suffering from inflation to which we cannot see an end. Worst hit are the developing nations which have no oil. They have suffered far more than ourselves. Not only is there malnutrition in those countries but people are dying from it. There is a great deal of wealth in the world and it is tragic that we should allow this sort of thing to happen.
  A Government are foolish unless they plan their energy needs taking into account all the resources that can be utilised. There are 2,000 million tons of coal in this country which will last us for two centuries or more. It has been wasted away. We have ignored it completely. Coal has to be mined and here manpower is important. It is difficult to compete with oil. If we do not cut down our energy needs, we shall not be fair and just to those who follow us. Coal ought to have greater expectations.
  I hope that the Government will continue their present policy, with one important exception. The coal-mining industry will always have to compete with other energy sources which are not extractive in nature. The coal industry must be helped and planned. We must make certain that there is sufficient manpower in the mining industry. At present the inflow of manpower consists of men who left the industry and who have decided to return because wages have been improved. There is always the great danger that they will move out again if we do not maintain good standards. We want an inflow of young people. Therefore, my right hon. Friend and the Government should consider how to attract them into the industry.
  I suggest that we should take note of what happens in Communist countries where men are paid a sum of money after being in the industry for a certain time. I am throwing this suggestion into the pool without any definite conviction. However, when a young man who comes into the mining industry at 16 or 18 years of age reaches, say, 28 years of age, I suggest that he should be paid a sum of money, perhaps to help him to start a
  398
  home, and 20 years later another sum of money to encourage him to stay in the industry. Coal will be vital to our needs for at least the next two generations. Therefore, I hope that something on those lines will be considered.
  Training and education are important. We should train people so that, if they have serious accidents or find their health impaired, they can go out of the industry into specialised jobs. That is an important consideration. We do not seem to attach sufficient importance to the education and training of our work force.
  I turn to consider natural gas. There is a grave danger, because it is there, to use it too rapidly. Some people talk of gas-fired power stations. It would be an injustice to future generations not to ensure the conservation of natural gas sources. It is used in great quantities, but we know that its sources are far more limited than are coal supplies.
  I turn to North Sea oil. Oil is important apart from its use for combustion in power stations and for heating. What will happen to the petrol engine if we simply run out of oil? There is no other motive power yet to take its place. Eventually we shall no doubt have an electrically-powered motor generator, but the moving parts will still need oil. I hope that within the next 10 years the Government will ensure that we get as much oil as possible from the North Sea to cushion the effect of what is happening in the Middle East. We can then consider whether, in view of the progressive rate at which oil will be required, we need to take so much and how to make it last as long as possible. The Middle East oil-producing countries are using their resources as a kind of bank. They know that once their supplies have been dissipated their wealth will disappear.
  I turn to nuclear power. Undoubtedly it is the future source of energy that we shall require. But I believe that we are moving too quickly in that direction. We are not giving enough thought to what can happen in future. I understand that nuclear waste can be dangerous for about 20,000 years. If we do not make certain that nuclear waste does not pollute our seas and land we shall pass on to future generations something that will have a

  399
  great effect upon them. I hope that we shall treat the matter thoughtfully to ensure that that does not happen. I do not think that enough research is being done on how to nullify the effects of nuclear waste.
  It is always said that nuclear power will be a source of energy for many centuries to come and will safeguard the needs of mankind until we find some other source. I want to make certain that the Government realise that within our shores we have supplies of oil, gas and coal, together with a nuclear energy industry. Coal is found in the greatest abundance, but it is the most difficult to bring to the surface to be used by man. I do not say this with any bias because I happen to be an ex-miner. Coal will be with us for many years to meet our needs, but we cannot get it unless we have the necessary manpower. For goodness sake let us consider the problem and make certain that men go down the mines to produce sufficient coal to help other sources of energy so that our needs are met to the full.
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: If this is an example of the new-style Conservative Party censure motion, I shudder to think what will happen when we get to our normal, quiet, peaceful and thoughtful debates. It would appear that this is a filler-in and it is apparent that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is not here to watch over the hatchlings in her new brood.
  Mr. Hamish Gray: The hon. Gentleman's bench is empty.
  Mr. Wilson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) on his appointment. I hope he hold it for longer than his predecessor did.
  We are debating a censure motion to deduct £1,000 from the salary of the Secretary of State for Energy, yet to judge from the amount of fire that has been displayed in the debate one would think that what was at stake was £5.
  So far we have had a small Scottish dimension, but I am glad to note that the concluding speeches will be by Scottish Members in both the Government and Opposition teams.
  400
  Despite the rude remarks of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench. I am not sure whether Opposition Whips lose any money on giving up their position as Whips. I know they must lose a lot of power and influence, but nevertheless the hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on his elevation to his new job.
  In Scotland we are very fortunate in the many forms of energy that are open to us. We are rich in oil and gas. We are relatively well off in coal, though not so well off as are some other parts of the United Kingdom. Hydro-electric power gives us a useful advantage in the north of Scotland, where it provides 30 per cent. of our needs. In addition, Scotland has a fairly substantial share of nuclear generation.
  When policies which are applicable to the United Kingdom are applied to Scotland, this is not necessarily to our advantage, because we have a different make-up in our energy composition and such policies may give rise to odd results. One can talk about the need for energy conservation, but one effect of it is a deliberate increase in petrol charges. For a country which has many remote rural areas this can be a disadvantage, and a policy which should not be adopted, considering that within a very short period Scotland will become an oil-exporting country.
  In this debate those of us who do not belong to the major parties are given the choice of deciding whether or not the Secretary of State for Energy should be penalised to quite a considerable extent in his salary through his failure to discharge his duties, on the initiative of an Opposition who themselves, when in office, unfortunately gave many opportunities for criticism over the development—or non-development—of their own energy policy. From the Conservative Party, which has not yet achieved the anniversary of its decline of office, reluctantly at the time, there remains the legacy it left behind, particularly in relation to oil matters; for example, the tax delays and the fumbling over that issue until they were prodded by the report of the Select Committee into closing one of the loop-holes. They did not even get around to framing more positive forms of taxation,

  401
  although shortly after the election they claimed that they had had a taxation policy in the pigeonhole, ready to take out.
  On tenders, there was a very successful scheme under which auctions of a number of licences brought in useful sums, but in the fourth round they proceeded on the basis of allocating licences without considering the benefits of the auction system. On participation, for which most oil-producing countries have gone on a very substantial scale, the Government of the day deliberately played shy, and although in Oslo, as we have heard, the Opposition flirted with the idea temporarily, they did not, when in office, do anything to secure any governmental share in the oil and natural gas industry except through the casual intervention in the market of the National Coal Board.
  They allowed business opportunities to pass them by. For instance, the very speed of development placed difficulties in the way of Scotland's industry in terms of picking up some of the new business opportunities that existed. There was a willingness to override the quasi-judicial inquiry at Drambuie. This is what we have to choose from on this side.
  One could say that the proposed reduction of £1,000 could more properly be attributed to the salary of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), but he enjoys only an MP's salary, and it would be unfair to deal with him in that way. But his own party have quite a legacy, which it cannot shrug off, and its attempt to do so in this debate is premature.
  Mr. John Davies: As the hon. Gentleman is constantly telling us that this oil is Scottish, will he give credit to the then Government for having devised the licence method by which the oil was found and is now being developed?
  Mr. G. Wilson: No. I do not give that credit to the hon. Gentleman. I would criticise the licensing arrangements which were evolved by successive British Governments, and certainly it was an earlier Labour Government which set in motion some licensing arrangements. Probably they would now have severe criticisms to make of their own plans in the 1960s. If one looks at the example of Norway, which was quoted earlier, one
  402
  finds that that country started working on licences in about 1965, and certainly in the earlier stages they were far bettter prepared than was the United Kingdom. The Opposition—thankfully, say many—are no longer in office.
  As for the present Government, what can we choose from them? [An HON. MEMBER: "Nothing."] Perhaps that is a fair statement, because they, too, have faults, as many of us would wish to suggest. We can look at the delay in presenting their taxation proposals and particularly at the rate of PRT, which was announced only today, at the uncertainty which this has caused, and at the doubts sown by one of the Government's Ministers over the terms on which participation may be obtained. Indeed, their policies in relation to participation are still veiled. We shall have to wait until the Petroleum Bill is published to find out what benefit they think the State can get from it. I am a protagonist of participation, but the Government are remarkably quiet in outlining the benefits they think can come from it.
  Some inquiry into the Offshore Supplies Office was made recently, through the medium of Parliamentary Questions. One small piece of information which emerged was that the audit engineers, whose job it is to find opportunities for British industry, are located mainly in London, while the monitoring engineers, who have a secondary function, are located in the Offshore Supplies Office, in Scotland. A recent parliamentary answer to a Question of mine showed that 33 supply ships had been produced in England and only five in Scotland. That is a sign that in many ways Scotland has not benefited from the policies of this Government or the previous one.
  What sort of terrors do the Government now have in store for us? One recent suggestion is that of oil swaps with Iran and Venezuela. My party is opposed to any exchange of oil with those countries without any particular advantages for Scotland being spelled out by the Government. The Scottish Daily Express today said:
  "The Government is planning a series of barter deals to secure supplies of Middle East oil now in return for British oil later. These would greatly reduce the balance of payments deficit. The Shah of Persia and other suppliers are interested in such deals as a means of conserving their own oil reserves in the future."

  403
  It is significant that many people in Scotland would like our oil reserves conserved much more productively and positively.
  Mr. John Smith: How can they be conserved productively?
  Mr. Wilson: I did say "positively".
  Reference has been made to the share of taxation which the United Kingdom hopes to get from North Sea oil. An article appeared in the Economist on 15th February rather attractively titled "Sharing the North Sea gravy". The article suggested some criticism of the Government, who, it said, had shown an astounding modesty over the propaganda campaigns which the oil companies have been waging over the last few weeks and months—successfully, judging by the Paymaster-General's statement today
  The Economist took the view that the Government had conceded the case of the oil companies without doing much to contest it.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I, too, saw that article and took the trouble to analyse some of its figures. I would only advise the hon. Gentleman not to put too much faith in it, because its figures were highly suspect.
  Mr. Wilson: Perhaps they are highly suspect from the point of view of the oil companies. It is their viewpoint that the right hon. Gentleman has been arguing in Committee on the Oil Taxation Bill. But I take his point. If he will send me his analysis, of course I shall study it, but it is significant that these reports have been appearing. In recent weeks, the climate of opinion has been changing as the Press has studied some of the statements by the oil companies.
  Our problem in Scotland is that oil off our shores is being used for purposes and on a scale of which we do not approve. We make it clear now to the Government and the Opposition that we would adopt an entirely different energy strategy in Scotland over development of our own resources and reserves. But in this debate we are being asked, in a sense, to join in the pot calling the kettle black. It is quite clear that there is room for criticism, and fault on both sides. If the Government are considering any such oil
  404
  swap, as has been indicated, I ask them to take that proposal back to the drafting board, because I assure the Minister that it would meet with considerable resistance in Scotland.
  However, because this is an internal battle about British energy policy, which is quite irrelevant to the Scottish situation, it is my intention to advise my hon. Friends that they should give their support neither to the Government nor to the Opposition, but should abstain.
  9.5 p.m.
  Dr. Colin Phipps: I shall address my remarks principally to the question of oil within the energy debate. The House will know of my interest in this matter. Before doing so, however, I should like to touch on two very important matters which have been raised, and to press the Government about them.
  The first is the question of the inversion of tariffs for electricity and gas. As a method of encouraging fuel saving and as a method of preventing a very heavy burden from falling upon members of the public least able to bear it, an inversion of tariffs would be a very suitable weapon in the hands of the Government.
  I should like also to draw the Minister's attention to the problems of pneumoconiosis suffers who did not work for the National Coal Board. The new measure proposed—the £30 million which is being made available by the NCB—for pneumoconiosis sufferers in lieu of claims that they might make against the board is, I understand, to be extended in some cases to coalminers who worked in the private sector. In my constituency there were a large number of small private mines which continued long after the NCB took over most of the mines in this country. Because of this, there are many ex-miners who suffer from pneumoconiosis and who would have had a claim against companies which are in many cases long since defunct. I have written to the Minister on this subject, but it would be helpful if the Government could make clear what exactly are the rights of miners from the private industry, the old private mines, with respect to compensation claims.
  I turn my attention to the statement which we heard earlier today. It would be churlish not at least to congratulate

  405
  the Paymaster-General upon his statement. Hon. Members will be aware that I was not exactly enamoured of the form of the Bill when it first appeared. It struck me as a cumbersome and complex piece of legislation. What we had today was, perhaps, a cumbersome and complex solution to the problem—but I am bound to say that it is a solution. In this respect, the sour grapes of the Opposition spokesman are very much misplaced.
  I should like to take up a little time in explaining why I think that it is a sensible solution, because I do not believe that the form of this solution has been fully understood, perhaps, by some of my hon. Friends. The problem of marginal fields is one that the country must face for its own purposes and not merely for those of the oil companies. The amount of oil which is likely to be produced in the North Sea from fields of 300 million barrels recoverable reserves and less will possibly rise to as much as 50 per cent. of the total recoverable oil. Many of these fields are very marginal indeed, but as far as this country is concerned they are vital. For us to get half of our oil from such fields it is essential that they are produced.
  This is a decision which the nation will take. The nation will decide that the oil will be produced. If it means that in some cases there will be almost no tax advantage to the country, this may be a decision that, in the best interest of our balance of payments and other matters, the Government ought to take.
  The announcement that was made today allows of that possibility. At the same time it ensures that the major fields, such as Forties and Brent, will bear considerable taxation. The total tax take will not be 45 per cent. The tax take of some of the smaller marginal fields may be zero. The average tax take, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, is likely to be 70 per cent. of all revenue from oil from all the fields.
  I cannot pretend to have worked out the matter precisely, but from taking a thumbnail sketch of the figures for some of the larger fields it seems that for fields of the size of Brent or of Forties would involve a total tax take of as much as 80 per cent. or 81 per cent.
  406
  That compares favourably with any take which any country in the world is currently levying upon production within its borders. We are looking not at a fixed 70 per cent. but at a situation in which, if it were in the interests of the country to exploit a field, it could be exploited. If the field were a particularly good one, the total Government take could be as high as 80 per cent.
  I believe that in practice we should welcome the Bill. It may prove rather difficult to administer, but at least as a basic structure it is what we require. Having welcomed it, I am bound to make one or two comments on aspects which I should like the Government to continue to consider. First, I turn to the sub-marginal fields which it may be in the national interest to exploit. I should like the Government to consider, particularly through the media of the British National Oil Company, whether it should not have some discretionary powers for purchasing marginal fields if it seemed to be in the national interest to do so, irrespective of the economics in a normal commercial term.
  I also believe that we should give further consideration to the problems faced by some of the smaller, independent and non-integrated British companies. The House will know of my special interest in this area. In particular I refer to the problems which are raised by the existence of the ring fence. If an independent British company engaged mainly in exploration wishes to make exploration outside the United Kingdom, it can have no recourse to its own funds generated inside the United Kingdom from discoveries that it might make within the ring fence. If we wish an independent British oil industry to prosper, the Government should look at special methods that could be applied to small independent British companies in that situation.
  There is also the difficulty of the expensing of the overriding royalties. One of the problems for many of the smaller companies is that if their borrowing is of a non-recourse kind they are often not able to provide the kind of guarantees from their other assets that the banks are demanding—that is, if the banks are to lend them money. Many of the banks are asking for overriding royalties as a form of equity participation in the loans

  407
  that they are making. If they cannot be expensed, many of the smaller companies will be in a position in which they will have great difficulty in borrowing any kind of funds for oil field development. I hope that the Government, even within what I believe to be a sound Bill as we now have it, will once again reconsider the points that I have mentioned.
  My last point is on participation. That is currently under negotiation. In essence, being stuck with the figure of 51 per cent. is unfortunate. I hope that the British National Oil Company will be vested with all future licences and that companies seeking those licences in participation with the BNOC will seek them and bid for them in terms of participation. We might then have the circumstances in which a large structure in a block could attract a bid in terms of a participation agreement in excess of 51 per cent. It might even attract 70 per cent. A marginal block might attract only 20 per cent.
  The advantage of BNOC is that it would have a larger share of the bigger possibilities and a smaller share of the smaller possibilities. This would be a clear advantage, with the greater reward that it would take in the larger prospects being set against the greater risk it might take on some of the more marginal prospects.
  If we believe this, the corollary is to say that in the existing fields we should have much higher percentages of the very large fields and much smaller percentages of the smaller fields. Unfortunately, we are stuck with a manifesto which says that we must go for 51 per cent. in all cases. I hope that the Government, in going for their 51 per cent., will not take the view that if they take over, for example, the National Coal Board interests, they will then count the National Coal Board's percentage as part of their 51 per cent., because that would mean that companies that had been sufficiently fortunate to be associated with nationalised industries would be in the position of not having to give up anything like as great an interest as would companies which were not associated with nationalised industries. This would be extremely unfair.
  I believe also that if we take over Burmah's interest—I do not know
  408
  whether we are going to do so—and if that is included as part of the 51 per cent., companies which are in partnership with Burmah will naturally be better off than companies which are not. I recommend that in our discussions on the question of 51 per cent. participation we seek to take the interest across the board. If we say that we will take 30 per cent. of one interest but will make that up by taking 70 per cent. of somebody else's interest, this is liable to be very unfair to the companies from which a large share is taken.
  Finally, I believe that we should be much better off taking our interest in existing discoveries if we took it in terms of oil, instead of paying large sums of cash. If we were to say to the oil companies, "We will take our 51 per cent. and we will pay for it out of the production that will belong to us", that would save us money and it would allow the oil companies to have the oil.
  I will merely say this about that very interesting idea, to which my right hon. is nodding assent: if the companies involved are integrated, that is fine, but if they are non-integrated companies, as are many of the smaller British companies, it could be very difficult because they all have very complex exploration and operation agreements. If we are to use some form of preferential buy-back arrangements with the companies to obtain our 51 per cent., the position of small independent companies which are non-integrated should be looked at carefully so that they do not suffer in a deal which is largely with the majors.
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. John Hannam: In addition to saying that this has been a long-awaited debate, I can also say that I have had to wait a very long wait to take part in it. As I have only two minutes in which to make my speech, I wonder whether it is worth while.
  The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps), who is an expert on the oil industry, referred to the solution announced today by the Paymaster-General as a mixed up kind of solution to the problem of the tax. It will also prove to be a very sticky solution for the oil industry.
  The Oil Taxation Bill has been a complete shambles from beginning to end.

  409
  I served on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. Unfortunately, the hon. Member was not able to serve on that Standing Committee. The Bill was started half-way through at Clause 9. The Committee was then invited to proceed to deal with the Bill from the beginning. We now await a Report stage which will probably last several days. The Bill should be recommitted once it has been reported to the House.
  I am absolutely convinced that the small SGHWR programme upon which we have embarked will prove to be totally inadequate. I therefore hope that the Government will consider embarking upon a greatly expanded programme. I believe that by 1980 a decision will have been made to go in for a mixed programme of nuclear development using the SGHWR and the PWR. I believe that the future of this country will depend on our producing cheaper nuclear power and in generating that power rather than the more expensive indigenous fuel power generation into which we shall be led without the development of nuclear stations.
  If it had not been for the pressure of time, I would have dealt with the important question of conservation. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), in an excellent speech, outlined many proposals on this topic and others which I hope the Minister will carefully consider. However, I stress the need for us to concentrate on the savings which can he achieved in the industrial sector. If the full research and development programme can be carried out and many ideas put forward by British inventors can be given governmental assistance in saving industrial costs, I am certain that we shall achieve the reductions that we need. At this stage, one year after the Government took office, I believe that we should censure them for inadequate answers to the problems which face us.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I wish to acknowledge one speech in this debate which went very much wider than many other speeches. I refer to the excellent speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). He brought to the debate a completely new
  410
  dimension, an international dimension which was very important in our considerations. Many of the speeches today have dealt with the narrow and parochial matters which affect this country, whereas we all know that activities of the oil industry know no boundaries. I believe that unless we approach this matter on an international as well as on a national basis, our chance of reaching a solution to many of our problems will be much diminished.
  I recommend this view to the Scottish National Party. I believe that unless we take account of the international dimensions of oil in the North Sea we shall ignore one of the major factors in the industry.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I thank the Minister for mentioning my party in his earlier remarks—
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not a Minister. We are not yet the Government.
  Mrs. Ewing: I meant to refer to the hon. Gentleman as the shadow minister. At any rate, may I take it from what he said that we are very high on his list of priorities? I should like to ask him an important question. If the interests of his country were in conflict with those of a wider international character in regard to energy matters, on whose side would he be?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for coming out from under her thistledown. I thought that my remark might have that effect. I assure her that I shall deal with the detailed aspects of the SNP's policy in a moment, if I have time. I assure her, as I am sure she already knows, that I put the interests of Scotland first and foremost in my mind but, unlike the hon. Lady, I believe in Scotland playing a national rôle in the United Kingdom as well as an international rôle amid the wider family of nations.
  Mrs. Ewing: But not in the United Nations.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What disappointed me in the Secretary of State's speech was his air of unreality and, indeed, of complacency on the very important matters which affect the energy requirements of this country.

  411
  I should like to deal with three aspects of the subject of energy. I hope that in the Minister's reply we shall see more concern for the real fundamentals of the problem which faces us. I refer first to the conservation of energy. I should first like to say a word to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), who suggested that we could save the use of private cars by using more public transport. Surely what we must do in many areas is to provide public transport. My constituents would throw up their arms in horror if they were to hear the hon. Member's suggestion, and I would not blame them.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is right about public transport in rural areas but the Conservative Government persistently cut the subsidies for public transport in those areas.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is not true, because we gave a considerable amount of help in that respect. I still believe that a great deal more could be done in respect of rural transport, and I hope that steps are taken on the lines of those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King).
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will be more forthcoming and more positive about effective measures for conservation, on the lines mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and Exeter (Mr. Hannam). If the Secretary of State is now to take credit for the efforts he is making to conserve energy, can he explain why no action was taken between his announcement of the 13th March, when he ended the previous Government's measures to conserve energy, and the statement of 9th November? We went through a period when measures could have been taken to conserve energy but the right hon. Gentleman's Government did nothing. They took away existing measures to conserve energy just after they came into office.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) spoke about the coal industry. The Secretary of State ignored two important matters in relation to that industry. He was conveniently blind towards the effects of the miners' settlement on the social contract. In an energy debate, to ignore the wider
  412
  implications and the effects on the economy as a whole is to ignore an important factor.
  The Secretary of State is particularly short sighted in regard to the effects of the recent settlement in the mining industry on the competiveness of the coal industry in relation to other forms of energy. I am sure that the Secretary of State will justify what has happened in the coal industry. Indeed, he has sought to do so. But what the Secretary of State has ignored is the longer-term effect on the overall energy picture and the balance between the different forms of energy. The coal industry has moved rapidly from a good competitive position to one where it is back in the old position of bumping up against the other industries, with much less room to manoeuvre in the future. This could be serious for the future of the coal industry.
  The third source of energy is nuclear power. I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said in opening the debate. Is the programme being pushed ahead with the urgency that it demands? After visiting Toronto, Frank Frazer, the energy correspondent of the Scotsman, wrote on 11th February:
  "There is, however, a decided sense of frustration among some of the people in the Canadian nuclear industry to whom I have spoken in the last few days about the apparent lack of momentum in the British plans."
  What my right hon. Friend said is not something hatched up by the Opposition, but is felt much wider.
  The Under-Secretary knows that nuclear energy is of particular importance to Scotland, because of the interest of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and its Chairman, Mr. Tombs, and because of the proposed power station for Torness. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can deny suggestions that the Scottish plans have been held up because of the lack of urgency over general plans for the United Kingdom. I ask the hon. Gentleman for an assurance that the proposals of the SSEB have been pushed forward with the urgency which the situation demands.
  The oil industry has occupied most time in the debate. The Government must realise the degree of uncertainty they have created throughout the oil industry in recent months by their lack of

  413
  decision over taxation and other matters. Anyone who is in touch with the industry knows of this uncertainty. Mr. Young, the general manager of the Bank of Scotland in the Oil Register published in the Scotsman of 28th January says this:
  "A major impediment to the development of North Sea oil production is uncertainty about Government policy."
  Mr. James Milne, the assistant secretary of the Scottish Trade Union Congress, at a conference on employment in the yards which produce steel platforms, as reported in the Scotsman of 23rd January, identified one of the causes of the steel order position as the hiatus of North Sea development due to political and financial uncertainty.
  Although the number of rigs in operation in the North Sea is greater than it was a year ago, the increase has not been as great as was expected. At the same time, the rigs which are operating are exploiting existing finds rather than pushing out the frontiers of exploration in other areas. I know that the Under-Secretary of State in Edinburgh at the weekend did his best to lay to rest uncertainty about platform orders, but The Press and Journal last Saturday again reported uncertainty about orders.
  Perhaps the most significant uncertainty is that which is referred to in the report in the Scotsman today that the Offshore Supplies Office has commissioned a technical study of the Government-financed oil platform construction site at Portavadie, to assess alternative uses of that site. A few months ago the Government, rightly, tried to make sure that adequate production sites were available. Now that that production site is available, within a matter of months research has been commissioned to find an alternative use for it. That is another indication of the uncertainty that exists throughout the oil industry. If all this uncertainty is allowed to continue, great difficulties will be created in the future development of the industry.
  Apart from the balance of payments position and the need to get oil on stream as quickly as we can, Scotland has the serious problem of getting the spin-off in jobs and in terms of a stake in the new technology.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have examined the causes of the uncertainty.
  414
  The most important of these is the question of taxation. We are grateful for the clarification given by the Paymaster-General in his statement. What the Government cannot duck and what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Energy sought to duck in his speech, is his and his right hon. Friend's responsibility for the uncertainty. That uncertainty has undoubtedly led to a slowdown in offshore development. A great deal of responsibility for this rests in the right hon. Gentleman's hands.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), speaking on behalf of the Scottish National Party, made an ambivalent speech. Members of the SNP take to themselves a superior knowledge in oil matters. The hon. Gentleman showed total ambivalence in his speech, endorsing neither one policy nor another and being unclear as to the precise nature of his own party's policy. But of course, we know what is the policy of his party. It was the same policy that the Government embarked upon at the start of their consultations on the oil taxation proposals. It was quite simply to ensure, by taking a high level of money from the oil companies, that oil exploration was quite uneconomic. That in its turn would have slowed down development in Scotland.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I will not give way again to the hon. Member. I remind her of a leader article which appeared in The Press and Journal which, for those who are not familiar with it, is the largest circulation daily newspaper in the North-East of Scotland, the area where these developments are taking place. That article said:
  "If the xenophobes this side of the Border would forget their Little Scotlander attitudes and tone down their megalomania, they might be in a better position to help obtain for the Scots their rightful share of oil wealth."
  It concluded:
  "Greed and go-it-alone arrogance can only meet with a backlash."
  That comment describes the policy of the Scottish National Party. Its members are trying in every way to have their cake and to eat it, too. If their policy was allowed to run its course, it would be disastrous for Scotland from the point of view of creating new jobs and speeding

  415
  development of our stake in oil technology for the future.
  The Government need not think that they can get off the hook simply because they have clarified the question of oil taxation. There is still an enormous question mark hanging over the proposals for State participation. The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag today when he said that the Government were embarking upon their participation policy as a political commitment. State participation will do nothing to get more money for the people of this country than could have been obtained by normal taxation methods.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: My party has made its position perfectly clear in the past. We criticised the Conservatives in the same way as the Public Accounts Committee criticised them, and we have criticised the Government, too. Our policy is simply the slow development of the oil to let the infrastructure and the contracting work catch up. That is a perfectly simple exposition of our policy and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has totally misled the House.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Lady because it provided her with an opportunity to show how she and her party cannot make up their minds. She criticised both sides of the House, and that is typical of her Party because in different parts of Scotland the members of her party speak out of different sides of their faces. I imagine that if she could, the hon. Lady would go one half into one Lobby and one half into the other.
  The Secretary of State for Energy must make it plain, as the Chancellor of the Duchy did last week, that participation will not mean one extra penny for the people of Britain. It is an act of political dogma. It is for that, as much as for anything else, that the Labour Party stands condemned tonight. The Government should be showing a great deal more urgency in supporting this great industry in Scotland. It is only when we get the houses, the roads, the sewerage and water schemes and the schools that we in Scotland will be sure that we are getting the development we need.
  416
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office, has made a great point about the £2½ million devoted through the rate support grant to helping areas where oil-related developments are taking place. Is that sum adequate for what is needed? For instance, the Government have just announced their school building programme. The local education authority in my constituency has been allocated £11,000 for 1976–77 for school buildings. If that is the degree of importance which the Government attach to it, that demonstrates the adequacy of the £2½ million.
  The Government stand condemned for their oil policy more than for anything else, including the way in which the tax question has been handled, the consequent uncertainties, the continuing threat of nationalisation, which was justified solely on political grounds, and the lack of urgency in providing the supporting services in the oil development areas. That shows that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand industry, which he is supposed to serve. For that reason he deserves a cut in his salary.
  9.41 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): Looking back on the debate, it is hard to imagine that it was supposed to be on a motion of censure upon my right hon. Friend. It has been pursued by the Opposition with a mixture of lethargy and indifference which makes one wonder how they happened to alight on the subject of energy for a Supply debate.
  We started off with a typical contribution from the right hon. Member for Wanstead of Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). No doubt he spent most of last night assembling his newspaper cuttings in the dark. He spent most of his time reading them out, which I notice is a habit also adopted by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). It is a pity that the Conservative spokesmen cannot tell us what their thoughts are without repeating, parrot fashion, a series of newspaper cuttings of indifferent quality. The root of the matter is that the Opposition were too lazy even to frame a substantive motion today. They took refuge in the age-old device of attempting to cut the salary of my right hon. Friend. They did not set out clearly

  417
  and precisely in the motion their criticisms of Government policy. We have listened carefully today to hear the indictment.
  Let us take some of the subjects in the order in which they arose. There was a great deal of talk about energy conservation from the Opposition. We have listened, each time there has been criticism of the Government's energy conservation programme, for realistic, practical and constructive suggestions, from the Opposition Front Bench. We have heard very few, although we heard some from Opposition back benchers.
  I listened with care to the contribution of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). Some of his points are already being carried out. However, he made a helpful and constructive contribution to the debate. I wish that that applied to the Opposition Front Benchers, who were careful never to suggest anything that would land them with political unpopularity. We know that the Government have already announced a very wide programme and have faced up to political unpopularity as a result of their programme of realistic energy pricing. The Secretary of State set out at length the list of measures he has taken. He is continually advised by the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, which is doing an excellent job in monitoring all the schemes that come forward.
  The Government have made it clear that the energy conservation campaign cannot be conducted in a gimmick-laden, short-term atmosphere. It is a long-term job. The principal effort will have to be made in industry.
  The Opposition should heed the advice of one of their back benchers, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who counselled them to be careful of bureaucratic interference with the working of industry in trying to save energy. There is a great deal of truth in what he said.
  A number of hon. Members raised points of detail about energy policy. I hope that they will forgive me if, in the short time available, I am unable to deal with those points in detail.
  A number of hon. Members showed their concern for the future of the nuclear power industry. I think that they know
  418
  of the decisions taken by the Government. I assure them that the Government are pursuing with determination the policy which they adopted.
  The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns raised points concerning Scotland, and referred to the offshore supplies' industry. One of the most important aspect of the oil and gas developments on the Continental Shelf is the opportunity afforded to our industry to enter an important new market.
  There has been much criticism about British industry for not breaking into this market earlier and with more determination. There is a great deal of force in some of the criticism. But the jibes of the Opposition should not deflect us from giving credit to those firms which are taking up the challenge of the North Sea supply industry. Already in Scotland we have more than 16,000 directly related oil jobs, and there are about 5,000 in the Northern Region of England. There will be much expansion in the next few years.
  I remind the House that during the last period in office of the Conservative Party we saw many platform orders going abroad. The present position is that of the 18 on order or under construction, 11 are being built in the United Kingdom. That is a significant advance. On another important aspect of the offshore oil requirements—modules and associated structures—only two were being built in the United Kingdom in the second half of 1972. In the second half of 1974, 152 were being constructed. I pay tribute to the companies which put three platforms properly in position in the North Sea. If a British company had towed a platform to the Frigg field, as a French company did, and put it 3 kilometres out of position, there would have been a howl of condemnation in the British Press, to say nothing of what would have been said in this House. All British platforms are in position and ready to start production later this year.
  The Government have been doing a great deal in this regard. We have expanded the Offshore Supplies Office and moved it to Scotland, where it works as a United Kingdom Department. Under the Conservative administration there were about 60 staff in the office—12 of them in Scotland. The staff has been trebled, and two-thirds of them operate

  419
  from Glasgow. We have brought order to the problem of sites for platform construction by identifying designs and giving planning permission for sites. In terms of training, the Government are establishing a centre for drilling technology at Livingston and a diving training centre at Fort William, and they recently gave a grant of £300,000 to Heriot Watt University to set up a petroleum engineering centre to provide postgraduate and post-industrial experience courses in petroleum engineering.
  The Government have been extremely active in promoting our offshore supplies industry. Their activities and achievements make the claim that there is some censure to be placed upon my right hon. Friend look ridiculous, especially when they are compared with the opportunities which were ignored when the Conservatives were in office. That is a matter that we have to have constantly in mind.
  There have been criticisms of the Government's taxation policy. Perhaps I should apologise to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, because my right hon. Friend, by making his announcement today, made matters difficult for the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, who had not time to rewrite his speech. As a result the hon. Gentleman criticised us for uncertainty, when a decision had been made and announced to the House earlier today.
  It comes ill from the Conservative Party to talk about uncertainty, since their Government had no taxation policy whatever. We have listened to a series of excuses and evasions from the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford told us about this in his Second Reading speech on the Oil Taxation Bill. He said that no decision had been taken but that his right hon. Friends were thinking about it and were about to decide. But what was to stop them, before they left office, producing a coherent taxation policy for the North Sea?
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have said before and I say again that my right hon. Friend, now Lord Barber, intended to announce his taxation proposals in the Budget. These are budgetary matters. However, the General Election came before the Budget. That is the answer.
  Mr. Smith: We have the same excuse again. They were about to do this. They were thinking about it. We have heard no details of what they intended to do. It is easy for the right hon. Gentleman to publish now what he had in mind then—
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We sent it to the Government.
  Mr. Smith: We were promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some realistic policies on energy. They never came, either.
  We cannot put very much faith in the promises of the Conservative Party. The truth is that it has no taxation policy. The Tory Government were rightly indicted by the Public Accounts Committee—an all-party Committee of the House—for the way in which they handled the fourth round of North Sea licensing. In case the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford is under any misapprehension about the matter, he can read that Committee report and see for himself the criticisms made in its conclusions.
  Not only did the Committee severely criticise the Tory Government for making no variation in the licensing terms between 1964 and 1971, despite the discoveries of oil in the North Sea and the knowledge of its potential; it also criticised the then Government for not obtaining a degree of Government participation in the 1971 licensing round. That was the unanimous view of the PAC, on which there was a Conservative majority. It does not require us on the Labour side to criticise the then Conservative Government. We have the record of the PAC to do that.
  In framing our taxation policies we have been concerned to secure the maximum return for the nation while making sure that there is sufficient incentive for continued exploration and development. The Government have judged it just about right.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman still adhere to the view expressed by him at a Financial Times conference in December, to the effect that one of the reasons for participation was to guarantee Government revenue not simply by taxation but also by a share of the profits earned on investment? How

  421
  does he tie that up with what was said by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the House last week, to the effect that the Government are not looking for any additional revenue from participation?
  Mr. Smith: I am glad the right hon. Member has raised that point. He has completely failed to take account of the future licensing policy which the Government will follow. In the next round of licensing, oil companies will not be allowed to get away with murder, as they did under a Conservative Government. It will be a condition of the future licensing rounds that there will be at least 51 per cent. State participation.
  There are many ways in which the State can use that participation profitably, as we know from the experience of many other countries. Nearly every other oil-producing country is involved in participation. I understand that even the Republic of Ireland has brought forward proposals for such participation.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The United States?
  Mr. Smith: Not the United States. I hope that we shall not follow the policy which that country adopts towards the oil companies. It is one which has attracted a lot of criticism within the United States. Let us, instead, follow the policies of such oil-producing countries as Norway and Denmark—particularly the policies of those countries sharing North Sea oil. It will be very much at the heart of the Government's policy to ensure that the nation gets a fair return.
  Apart from the ineffective challenge made by Conservatives we were favoured with a contribution by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). I am sorry that he is not present now because I want to criticise what he said. I was astounded that a member of a Scottish National Party should speak about the energy situation in Scotland without saying a word at any point about the coal industry, which is of great importance to Scotland.
  The hon. Member reiterated the National Party's contribution to this debate, which is that oil found in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf ought to be regarded as purely Scottish. Let me make the Government's policy quite clear. We
  422
  believe that this is British oil. If we examine the SNP proposition we see that it suggests that oil found 100 miles or so to the east of the Shetland Islands, where I would think few Scotsmen have ever been, must be apportioned only to one part of the United Kingdom.
  What about the great natural gas resources off the East Anglian coast, currently supplying 95 per cent. of the gas consumption in the United Kingdom? Is that English or East Anglian gas? What about the oil which may exist in considerable quantities in the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea or the south-western approaches to the English Channel? Is that to be apportioned to England and Wales, or to Cornwall? What about the vast coal reserves in the Selby field in Yorkshire—a find as significant, in its own way, as many of the North Sea oil finds? Does that belong to Yorkshire?
  When talking about nuclear capacity, let the Scottish National Party remember that the advances in technology taking place at Dounreay are there because of massive British investment in the nuclear power industry. When we examine this matter we can see how ludicrous it is—this artificial nationalist sub-division.
  Mr. Hamish Watt rose—
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman did not favour us with his presence during the debate. I give way to the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Since the Minister is a distinguished member of the Scottish Bar he will know very well where those reserves fall and under whose jurisdiction they fall. It was not the Scottish National Party that divided up the North Sea and labelled the Scottish sector and the English sector. That was done by international arrangement. The Minister must be aware of that.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady is incorrect. Regarding what is described as a Scottish and an English sector, an arbitrary line was drawn for the application of the civil law. It is in no way a median line, drawn for this purpose or for any international convention.
  Another aspect of the SNP policy to which I must draw attention is the suggestion that we should cut back oil production to 40 million tons a year.

  423
  That would be a foolish policy to adopt. I hope that the SNP will explain to the people working in the platform yards, the steel yards, the concrete yards, and to those building modules and working in engineering works, that it wants to kill our offshore oil supply industry before it gets off the ground. I hope that it will explain why these people will be put out of work.
  Mr. Evelyn King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I shall not give way. I have very little time left to complete what I want to say.
  I hope that the Scottish National Party will make it clear that if we cut back oil production to 40 million tons a year there will be no development of the offshore oil supply industry in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, and that there will be considerable unemployment. I hope that the SNP will face the consequences of that situation.
  In considering the motion we must compare the policies principally of the Conservative Party against those of my right hon. Friend. I remind the House that a year ago the Conservatives left office in the midst of power cuts and shortages which they politely described as an attempt at energy conservation. I think that they must be guilty of a policy of overkill.
  We do not want to go back to that bleak time—to the rota cuts and the interruption of supplies. The then Government left the coal industry in disarray. Under this Government we have had the tripartite plan and we have got £600 million investment being put into the coal industry, which is set fair for the future.
  Mr. Evelyn King rose—
  Mr. Smith: I turn now to the nuclear power industry. The shifts and indecision—
  Mr. Evelyn King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No. I come now to the nuclear power industry. It is galling that hon. Gentlemen should criticise my right hon. Friend because, after a delay of 44 months, they took no decision on our next stage of reactors, whereas within four months my right hon. Friend took the courageous decision which he is now pursuing. The previous administration's policy on oil is a history of bad bargains and negligence of the nation's interests. It is clear from what the Government have done within a year that we are securing our energy resources by the full development of coal, nuclear power, natural gas and oil.
  I remind the Opposition parties that North Sea oil exploration and development is still going on. We have 28 or 29 rigs there at the moment. There have been two important discoveries recently, one by Conoco-NCB and the other by Texaco. What puzzles me most is why, of all subjects, the Opposition should start, at the beginning of what appears to be a new régime in their ranks—
  Mr. Evelyn King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No. The hon. Gentleman will not divert me from what I want to say. What puzzles me is why, of all the subjects that the Opposition could have picked, they chose energy which seems to be the one in which they have the least credible record while in Government and the least credible excuse for attacking my right hon. Friend. It is amazing that, given the choice of political weapons, they should be so masochistic as to choose the boomerang. That is what has happened. There has been no attempt to frame a censure motion and no attempt to deal with the matter actively and diligently. The right Hon. Member—
  Mr. Humphrey Atkins rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly,
  That the salary of the Secretary of State for Energy should be reduced by the sum of £1,000:—
  The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 298.

  Division No. 107.]

  AYES

  [4.16 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Graham, Ted

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Allaun, Frank

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Prescott, John

  Ashley, Jack

  Grocott, Bruce

  Price C. (Lewisham W)

  Ashton, Joe

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Radice, Giles

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hamling, William

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Hardy, Peter

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Beith, A. J.

  Hatton, Frank

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Bennett, Andrew(Stockport N)

  Hayman Mrs Helene

  Rooker, J. W.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hooley, Frank

  Roper, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)

  Bradley, Tom

  Huckfield, Les

  Sandelson, Neville

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Selby, Harry

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hunter, Adam

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Carter, Ray

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Silverman, Julius

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Small, William

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Snape, Peter

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Kelley, Richard

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cryer, Bob

  Kinnock, Neil

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Lambie, David

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lamond, James

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Stott, Roger

  Dempsey, James

  Lee, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lipton, Marcus

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Edge, Geoff

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Madden, Max

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  English, Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Weetch, Ken

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Newens, Stanley

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Noble, Mike

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Forrester, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Pardoe, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Park, George

  Woof, Robert

  Ginsburg, David

  Parker, John

  Golding, John

  Parry, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gould, Bryan

  Penhaligon, David

  Mr. Martin Flannery and

  Gourlay, Harry

  Perry, Ernest

  Mr. Ian Mikardo.

  NOES

  Baker, Kenneth

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Channon, Paul

  Bell, Ronald

  Brotherton, Michael

  Churchill, W. S.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Benyon, W.

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Clegg, Walter

  Biffen, John

  Buck, Antony

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Cope, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Corrie, John

  Costain, A. P.

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Crouch, David

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lamont, Norman

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lane, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lawson, Nigel

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Farr, John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Fell, Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  McCusker, H.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  MacGregor, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Silvester, Fred

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Marten, Neil

  Sims, Roger

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mates, Michael

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mather, Carol

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gorst, John

  Maude, Angus

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Gray, Hamish

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Speed, Keith

  Grieve, Percy

  Mawby, Ray

  Spence, John

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Hall, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sproat, Iain

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Stanley, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mills, Peter

  Stokes, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Hannam, John

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Molyneaux, James

  Tebbit, Norman

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Monro, Hector

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Trotter, Neville

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Hordern, Peter

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Wall, Patrick

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Mudd, David

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Howell David (Guildford)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, John

  Hurd Douglas

  Neubert, Michael

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Newton, Tony

  Wiggin, Jerry

  James, David

  Normanton, Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas

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

  Nott, John

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Jessel, Toby

  Onslow, Cranley

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Younger, Hon George

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Osborn, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kaberry Sir Donald

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles and

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Division No. 108.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mawby, Ray

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Alison, Michael

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Glyn Dr Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mills, Peter

  Baker, Kenneth

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Banks, Robert

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Beith, A. J.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Moate, Roger

  Bell, Ronald

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Monro, Hector

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Gray, Hamish

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Benyon, W.

  Grieve, Percy

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Morgan, Geraint

  Biffen, John

  Grist, Ian

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Blaker, Peter

  Hall, Sir John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Body, Richard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mudd, David

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Hampson Dr Keith

  Neave, Airey

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hannam, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Neubert, Michael

  Brittan, Leon

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Newton, Tony

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hastings, Stephen

  Normanton, Tom

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Nott, John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hawkins, Paul

  Onslow, Cranley

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Buck, Antony

  Heseltine, Michael

  Osborn, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Burden, F. A.

  Holland, Philip

  Pardoe, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Penhaligon, David

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Percival, Ian

  Channon, Paul

  Howell David (Guildford)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, W. S

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Clegg, Walter

  Hurd Douglas

  Raison, Timothy

  Cockcroft, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rathbone, Tim

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, John

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Cordle, John H.

  James, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Corrie, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Costain, A. P.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Critchley, Julian

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Crouch, David

  Jopling, Michael

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Crowder, F. P.

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Kaberry Sir Donald

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Durant, Tony

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lamont, Norman

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lane, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Elliott, Sir William

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Emery, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Colin

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shersby, Michael

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Silvester, Fred

  Farr, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sims, Roger

  Fell, Anthony

  Lloyd, Ian

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Luce, Richard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Speed, Keith

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacGregor, John

  Spence, John

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sproat, Iain

  Freud Clement

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stainton, Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Mates, Michael

  Stanley, John

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mather, Carol

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Maude, Angus

  Steen Anthony (Wavertree)

  426

  427

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Stokes, John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wells, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tapsell, Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Wakeham, John

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Younger, Hon George

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Wall, Patrick

  Mr. Adam Butler and

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

  Trotter, Neville

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Doig, Peter

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Allaun, Frank

  Dormand, J. D.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Archer, Peter

  Dunlop, John

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dunn, James A.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ashley, Jack

  Dunnett, Jack

  Judd, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Eadie, Alex

  Kelley, Richard

  Atkinson, Norman

  Edelman, Maurice

  Kerr, Russell

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Edge, Geoff

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Lambie, David

  Bates, Alf

  English, Michael

  Lamborn, Harry

  Bean, R. E.

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lamond, James

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Evans John (Newton)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Bennett, Andrew(Stockport N)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lee, John

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Boardman, H.

  Flannery, Martin

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Booth, Albert

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Litterick, Tom

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Ford, Ben

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bradley, Tom

  Forrester, John

  Luard, Evan

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

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

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Buchan, Norman

  George, Bruce

  McCusker, H.

  Buchanan, Richard

  Gilbert, Dr John

  McElhone, Frank

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Ginsburg, David

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Golding, John

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Gould, Bryan

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Campbell, Ian

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Graham, Ted

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cant, R. B.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Grocott, Bruce

  McNamara, Kevin

  Carter, Ray

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Madden, Max

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Magee, Bryan

  Cartwright, John

  Hamling, William

  Mahon, Simon

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hardy, Peter

  Marks, Kenneth

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Harper, Joseph

  Marquand, David

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Meacher, Michael

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Hatton, Frank

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hayman Mrs Helene

  Mendelson, John

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Mikardo, Ian

  Corbett, Robin

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Millan, Bruce

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hooley, Frank

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Horam, John

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Molloy, William

  Cronin, John

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Molyneaux, James

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Huckfield, Les

  Moonman, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Cunningham G. (Islington S)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Hunter, Adam

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Newens, Stanley

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Noble, Mike

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Deakins, Eric

  Janner, Greville

  Ogden, Eric

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  O'Halloran, Michael

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dempsey, James

  John, Brynmor

  Ovenden, John

  428

  429

  Owen, Dr David

  Selby, Harry

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Padley, Walter

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

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

  Park, George

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Parker, John

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Parry, Robert

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Ward, Michael

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Watkins, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Sillars, James

  Watkinson, John

  Perry, Ernest

  Silverman, Julius

  Weetch, Ken

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Weitzman, David

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Small, William

  Wellbeloved, James

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Prescott, John

  Snape, Peter

  White, James (Pollok)

  Price C. (Lewisham W)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Whitlock, William

  Radice, Giles

  Stallard, A. W.

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Stoddart, David

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Swain, Thomas

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Woodall, Alec

  Rooker, J. W.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Woof, Robert

  Roper, John

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Rose, Paul B.

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Tierney, Sydney

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Ryman, John

  Tinn, James

  Miss Betty Boothroyd and

  Sandelson, Neville

  Tomlinson, John

  Mr. Johh Ellis.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tomney, Frank

  Question accordingly negatived.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Motion relating to the Town and Country Planning (Industrial Development Certificates Exemption (No. 2) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 2028) may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Dormand.]

  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES (LONDON)
  Mr. Speaker: Before calling on the Minister to move the motion standing in his name, I must say that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch (Mr. Brown).
  10.15 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer): I beg to move
  That this House takes note of the Town and Country Planning (Industrial Development Certificates Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 2028), dated 4th December 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December.
  The aim of regional industrial policy is to encourage the expansion of industry in the development and intermediate areas. To this end, as the House is well aware, the Government give assistance in financial and other forms towards industrial development in the assisted areas. The beneficiaries of this regional assistance are Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Northern England—that is, the North-East and Merseyside—and the extreme South-West. These are the areas which, for economic, geographic and historic reasons, have had a very difficult time for decades. These are the areas which have long experience of persistently high unemployment. Their unemployment rates are markedly higher than those in the rest of the country.
  Let me illustrate the employment situation. I am using November 1974 figures. These are the latest for which there are full and substantial details. I find, for example, that in Liverpool there were 43,900 registered unemployed—an unemployment rate of 6·8 per cent.—against a mere 3,800 vacancies recorded by employment offices. In Glasgow, the unemploy-
  432
  ment rate was 4·9 per cent.—26,800 people unemployed against only 8,000 vacancies. In the very much larger total area and population of Greater London, on the other hand, there were 59,400 unemployed—an unemployment rate of 1·5 per cent.—and no fewer than 67,600 vacancies. I realise, of course, that the detailed figures will show some changes in the pattern I have described, but I have no doubt that the relative problems of places such as Liverpool and Glasgow will not have diminished. The figures would have been even worse if successive Governments had not pursued regional development policies in the last 30 years.
  It is the aim of this Government to continue the battle to reduce as far as possible the unjust and wasteful disparities between different parts of the United Kingdom. I would remind the House that the Gracious Speech last March promised that high priority would be given to the stimulation of regional development and employment.
  Let us look at the pledges we made when in Opposition. The Labour Party's programme for 1973 declared our intention to strengthen the industrial development certificate controls, and to tie their operation in closely with our overall planning at national and regional levels. What has happened? As the Prime Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) on 5th December last, the Government have doubled the regional employment premium, tightened the industrial development certificate control in the non-assisted areas, and announced three new programmes—that figure is now four—of advance factories. We therefore have a situation in which regional policy operates, as it has for many years, through a combination of inducements and controls. The inducements are the provision of financial assistance and buildings, and these are available to firms investing and providing jobs in the assisted areas.
  The control is the IDC control, which was introduced in 1948. Its purpose, as I have already implied, is to secure a better economic balance between the different parts of Great Britain. In practice, this means encouraging the establishment of new industry and the expansion of existing industry in the assisted areas and,

  433
  where appropriate, controlling the establishment of new industry and the expansion of existing industry in areas liable to pressure on available resources of labour.
  IDCs are not required in the development areas, including the special development areas. Outside the development areas, an application for planning permission for an industrial development in England and Wales must be supported by an IDC, if the industrial floor space to be created by that development, together with any related development, exceeds 5,000 sq. ft. in South-East England, 15,000 sq. ft. in the intermediate areas and 10,000 sq. ft. elsewhere. We have recently published an up-to-date guide to the operation of the control. Hon. Members will find this in Trade and Industry for 13th February. There are copies in the Vote Office if Members would like to have them.
  I carried out a review of the control in the spring of last year and announced in July that we would be making a more critical examination of IDC applications where the project is considered to be mobile. I also announced the reduction in the IDC exemption limits which has led to this debate.
  I should like to remind hon. Members of the history of the exemption limits. From 1948 until 1965 IDCs were required throughout Britain for any new industrial floor space exceeding 5,000 sq. ft. When we were last in office we extended the control to include ancillary floor space, and took power to vary the exemption limits. In London and the South-East, the limit was for a time brought down as low as 1,000 sq. ft. When we left office in 1970, the limit was 3,000 sq. ft. The Conservative administration raised the limits twice. In London it went first to 5,000 sq. ft. and then, in the middle of 1972, to 10,000 sq. ft.
  I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that, in many ways, it is not the level of exemption limits which is the key but the Department's attitude to individual applications. It is a matter of setting the exemption limits at what can reasonably be regarded as a sensible level. I can assure the House that the IDC control will continue to be operated flexibly and with understanding of the needs of firms, and of the needs of areas which
  434
  have not shared consistently in the relative prosperity of the South-East generally.
  Let me explain the way in which we have applied this policy in my Department. The special difficulties for the dockland areas of London are well known. In the two calendar years, 1973 and 1974, my Department approved 71 IDC applications for dockland locations, representing 2,159,000 sq. ft. of industrial floor space and 1,449 jobs, 881 of them male. In the same period, only three IDC applications, totalling 72,000 sq. ft., were rejected, and two of these were for speculative developments, which could not be entertained. I stress—and it is one of my Department's clichés—that each IDC application is considered on its own merits. It is the only way, as no two cases are alike.
  We have found that a great majority of IDC applications in London—and indeed for other parts of the country—are for projects which are not mobile to the extent that they could be carried out in an assisted area, and relatively few applications are unacceptable on congestion grounds. Consequently, it is not surprising to find that, in the last three years, 93 per cent. of all IDC applications in Greater London have been approved.
  You, Mr. Speaker, have told us that you have selected the amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). We have looked very carefully at this amendment which poses for me and my Department certain practical problems of administration. It is, however, an arrangement which I believe we could make work, because we recognise that there are serious problems in certain areas in Geater London and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that I am prepared to accept the amendment.
  I would assure the House once again that we shall continue to apply the IDC policy sensitively in all the areas where it applies, paying due regard to local circumstances, and to changing industrial situations, but subject always to the overriding needs of the assisted areas. The Government consider that these arrangements for the operation of the IDC control give the right balance between the interests of the assisted areas and those

  435
  of the rest of the country. I therefore invite the House to approve the motion with the amendment.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: I beg to move, at the end of the motion, to add,
  "and desires that in so far as its operation in Greater London is concerned, applications for an industrial development certificate of up to 10,000 square feet shall not be refused, save on the intervention of the Secretary of State after consultation with the appropriate local authorities".
  May I immediately express the thanks of my colleagues in London to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the very forthright way in which he put his case and for his kindness in accepting our amendment. We tabled the amendment because of the importance of this issue to London. The problem of the decline in industrial employment in London has reached alarming proportions. In the country as a whole the numbers employed in industry fell by 4 per cent. between 1961 and 1971. During the same period they fell by 25 per cent. in London. Since 1971 a further 125,000 such jobs have disappeared. This is the stark reality.
  It cannot be right to allow all industry to disappear from an area such as London. It has a population of 7½ million. It represents one-seventh of England and Wales. It covers 620 square miles. It is surely inconceivable that the only jobs available in London should be in the service sector—and that assumes that there are any jobs available.
  Apart from the social problems created by deliberately destroying the skills and crafts attained by workers and forcing them to seek employment in jobs which have little or no skills and which pay greatly reduced wages, how can we train apprentices to become the craftsmen of tomorrow? What are the manpower services all about? Of what value is it suggested that the industrial training schemes are? The primary reason is to train young men and women to work in industry. One cannot equate the destruction of industry in a conurbation such as London with the basic concept of industrial training.
  We in London accept the needs of the assisted areas. We support the Govern-
  436
  ment without reservation in their policy in this regard. The assisted areas are entitled to all the help that the Government can give. The Government's acceptance of our amendment does not stop them from giving the maximum help to those areas. They will have our full support.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has made a wise decision in accepting our amendment and I wish to place on record our appreciation. Although we appreciate that it will not dramatically improve the situation in London, it is our fervent hope that it will at least slow down the rate of decline. It will give confidence not only to industrialists but to the workers in London that the Labour Government cares that these matters are not left to somebody in Whitehall who has no understanding of their problems. I therefore hope that the House will accept the amendment.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Much of the Minister's speech, especially at the beginning, was irrelevant to London's needs. I should like to ask whether the House would have had an opportunity to debate the matter had it not been for the activities of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, in another place. In an interesting speech on 6th February he made the point that London's needs were being neglected because praying time had run out in this House.
  We are grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) for making the point that this was an all-party motion against the Government—not the Labour Government but the government in Whitehall—as to how London should be treated.
  The hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, Department of Industry, was a little less than usually sensible in his remarks. Having read to us a long speech, he said we could have read most of it in the supplement to Trade and Industry dated 13th February. I shall return to that point in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch was becomingly modest in expressing his gratitude to the Minister. What he should have said was that

  437
  he and other London Members of Parliament on both sides of the House had enough votes to lead the Minister to deliver the goods tonight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] We know the facts quite well. I very much welcome the chance of asserting London's needs. It is right to remind the House that as recently as 2.38 a.m. on 29th January the GLC unanimously resolved that there was a need for the Government to rethink the situation on industrial development certificates.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: We are used in this House to hearing about regional problems and the way in which they are expressed by Scottish and Welsh nationalists. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is regrettable that we are now apparently seeing the development of London nationalism? Fortunately, that attitude has been eschewed by my hon. Friends but it is now being represented to the House directly and meanly in the words of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). Does he not appreciate that these are common problems in the United Kingdom and should not be resolved by threats about votes?
  Mr. Finsberg: For far too long the voice of London has been silent in this House. The amount of time given to debating London matters such as the present motion compared with the amount of time devoted to Wales and Scotland needs to be looked at in the columns of Hansard. Certainly the Conservative Party proposes to give London its fair share of discussion in this House.
  I very much hope that the House will accept the amendment, which is bipartisan and which was tabled for tonight because it was too late to annul the order. The order would have been annulled if the right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary had given time for it at the right moment. Being a Londoner, he knows that.
  There is growing unemployment in London, as the Minister said, but until now he has seemed rather less interested in the London problem than perhaps he should have been. When asked in the
  438
  House whether he would raise the IDC limits in the London area, he replied:
  "No. It is less than six months since the limits were reduced and I have no plans at present to make any further changes."—[Official Report, 18th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 399.]
  He then talked about the Trade and Industry supplement.
  The hon. Gentleman gave us figures which he said were the latest available. The latest at my disposal, given to me in Hansard yesterday, show that in Greater London the total numbers unemployed in May 1974 were 53,292, and this month—
  Mr. David Lambie: What is the percentage?
  Mr. Finsberg: People and people. I am not interested in percentages. Every unemployed person is to me someone out of work, and meaningless percentages shouted from a sedentary position are irrelevant. By this month the figure had risen to 71,000.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Is not the 43,000 unemployed on Merseyside, many of whom are my constituents, a far more significant figure than the figure which the hon. Gentleman quotes for the unemployed in the London area?
  Mr. Finsberg: If the hon. Gentleman can restrain himself, I shall come to the question of Merseyside a little later.
  London is doing badly. Unemployment this month is up to 71,000.
  The Minister must not always appear to suggest—I say "appear", because I do not wish to do him an injustice—that the world begins and ends at Merseyside, Glasgow or elsewhere. He must look at the figures as a whole. He has given the impression that while he has his ear to the ground at Meriden or Kirkby he seldom has his ear to the ground in London, and it is time he did. If the capital city's heart is sick, the national body will be sick.
  I have been at great pains to make it clear that this is a bipartisan—
  Mr. Neville Sandelson rose—
  Mr. Finsberg: I have promised to be brief.
  Mr. Mike Noble rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat if the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) is not giving way.
  Mr. Finsberg: I notice that a quieter hon. Member wishes to intervene, and I give way to him.
  Mr. Noble: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman typifies the current trend in the Conservative Party to represent the South-East. What would be his comments if he represented a constituency within a region which has the textile industry concentrated in it, where 55,000 out of 80,000 employees were on short time, and a substantial proportion were unemployed? Would he then be arguing that London was under-represented?
  Mr. Finsberg: Having in the early 1960s negotiated with textile unions in Lancashire, I know the problems of the textile industry well. One does not have to represent a constituency outside the South-East to understand the problems of other parts of the country.
  Mr. Sandelson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every London Member on the Government benches, particularly those whose names are associated with the amendment, would wish to dissociate himself from the hon. Gentleman's approach? No Labour Member is more conscious of the needs of the assisted areas and the regions than are the London Members. We are very conscious of those problems, but we are equally conscious of the developing problems that face us in our own constituencies. The hon. Gentleman is doing a disservice to his own cause, which is shared by Labour Members representing London constituencies, when he approaches regional problems in his present cavalier fashion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate finishes at 11.30 p.m. tonight, not at 11.30 a.m. tomorrow morning. If there are many lengthy interventions there will be little opportunity for the matter to be disposed of sensibly. I fail to see why so much heat has been generated, as the Government have accepted the amendment.
  Mr. Finsberg: I knew that it was a mistake to give way to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). I regret doing so and I shall not do so again. The fact that the bipartisan amendment has been accepted by the Government means that the general feeling in the House is that London is not getting fair treatment. Up to now the Minister has been utterly inflexible. I know that discussions have been going on among Labour Members representing London constituencies, their colleagues and the rest of the country, but they did not secure a debate at the right time to enable the order to be annulled. It is only because of their Lordships that we have the opportunity of this debate.
  Several Labour Members have been worried about development areas. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) mentioned the textile industry. In July 1972, as the Minister said, the IDC limit was raised. For the rest of the country the limit was raised to 15,000 sq. ft., and all the controls were removed from the special development and development areas. There is no question of the amendment taking one job away from the development or special development areas. Indeed, the Minister said that, but some of his hon. Friends did not seem able to comprehend it. London has no desire to try to get jobs at the expense of other parts of the country.
  None the less, because of London's growing unemployment problems, it was wrong for London to be singled out by the Minister when the limits were reduced. No good reason has ever been put forward for the reduction that the Minister made. The decision which the House is being asked to take, which is that the limits shall be restored—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Heffer: He does not know what he wants.
  Mr. Finsberg: I know more than the Minister does what I am talking about. He may know more what he is talking about. We are being asked to agree that for London, certificates of up to 10,000 sq. ft. shall not be refused, except on the Minister's intervention after consultation with the local authorities. Up to now that has not been the position. That

  441
  is all I said. The Minister may have misunderstood me.
  Had it not been for the opportunity of this debate, London would not have had this concession, for which the local authorities in London have been asking since early December, when the Greater London Council sent out a detailed statement referring to Statutory Instrument No. 1283 of 1974.
  It would be churlish to say that the Minister has not responded to London's needs. I do not intend to be that churlish. I have been churlish against a Government Department and not against an individual. The Minister has shown that in response to the views of the House he is prepared to be flexible. Since he is prepared to be flexible I believe that the House will welcome his repentance and will welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch in putting down the amendment which I hope the House will accept.
  10.46 p.m.
  Mr. James Welibeloved: It is a tragedy that in debating such serious matters as employment and the effect of the order on the Greater London area we should have been subjected to the sort of comments made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). I am sure that all hon. Members must be painfully aware of the human tragedy which is involved in the high unemployment figures of so many parts of this country, which are the shame of this country and which compare with the relatively low unemployment level in the Greater London area.
  Our argument this evening is not directed against the rest of the country. We London Members fully support the Government's policy in trying at long last to do something realistic about unemployment by bringing jobs, industry and homes to those who are faced with these grave problems. London has problems which can be overcome by the very sensible attitude which the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have adopted in the order.
  The amendment demonstrates the good will, the serious intent and the understanding by the Labour Government of the problems which confront the country and with which we grapple in Greater London. We London Members have had
  442
  many discussions with the Minister of State and the Secretary of State. We are delighted that they have accepted the amendment.
  When the hon. Member for Hampstead purports to speak on behalf of the people of London one is forced to recall that he has been strangely silent on the many other occasions when Labour Members have fought late at night in this Chamber for the rights of Londoners. By accepting the amendment Ministers have recognised the force of the pleas made to them by the trade union movement, particularly the national executive committees of the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and many others who have made representations through the London Labour Party.
  My hon. Friend the Member of Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has participated many times in these debates. So ardent has been his dedication to the problems of Londoners that he has earned for himself the title "Mouth of the Thames", and he carries it with great eloquence. He is affectionately known among his hon. Friends as "Ronologue". In organising the London group of Members so as to get the amendment accepted by the Government he has done a great service to London in a way which has not devalued the Government's efforts to deal with the regional problems elsewhere in the country.
  During the past decade many thousands of jobs have been moved away from Labour constituencies in the southeast of London. Although serious unemployment has not resulted, many men and women have been declared redundant, in some cases no fewer than five times, during the past decade.
  This amendment will restore confidence and hope to London. However, no hon. Member representing an area of high unemployment need have any fears, since the Government will see justice done to the workers of the United Kingdom.
  10.51 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have not been deluged with requests from people living in the London area. However, on Saturday night I spoke to several constituency Labour parties in Deptford. This matter came up at the meeting. I

  443
  did not answer the specific question although I defended the Government's record in a limited number of areas. The Under-Secretary of State replied to the point and said that he would bring it to the attention of his boss. However, the matter had been brought to the attention of the Secretary of State by Members of Parliament representing London constituencies.
  We must be clear about what we are doing tonight. The idea of industrial development certificates and intermediate and special development areas is to push industry—private industry in the main, since it is relatively easy to push public industry around without these incentives—to the badly affected areas throughout the United Kingdom. That policy must be flexible so that it takes account of changing circumstances in the United Kingdom.
  It may well be that the employment position in the south east and the Greater London area is not as good now as over the past four or five years, but that is not to say that it has deteriorated in relation to developments in the rest of the country. Although the percentage of industrial capacity and employment in London has fallen, it may well be that the position has deteriorated even faster in Scotland, in Wales and on Merseyside.
  We must be flexible. If it can be shown that there is to be a slight marginal shift in resources to the advantage of London, that will affect the distribution of jobs in the worse-off areas.
  My view is that to raise the limit for industrial development certificates to 10,000 square feet without the other inducements and incentives is to make only an extremely marginal improvement. But it is not for those of my hon. Friends who propose in their amendment to raise the limit to 10,000 square feet then to say that they support what the Government have done hitherto for the rest of the country. That cannot be so.
  Mr. J. M. Craigen: Would not the logical conclusion of the amendment be to scrap the whole of the industrial development certificate apparatus?
  Mr. Skinner: I do not make so strong a point—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Meyer Galpern): Order. It would be entirely out of order to discuss the principle of industrial development certificates on this amendment.
  Mr. Skinner: I have done my best to steer clear of that argument. I am trying to concentrate on the marginal issue which will occur as a result of the amendment. I do not go as far as my hon. Friend in saying that we can sweep them all away. But I suggest to those who believe in the Common Market principle that they should bear in mind that when we get any regional policy from the Common Market, and if it is on the lines propagated a short time ago—on more narrowly defined areas than our existing intermediate, development and special development areas—they are in for a rude awakening, because they will not be able to make amendments of this kind and have the sort of flexibility that we are discussing tonight. That is why I support it, because I do not see that it will shift our industrial capacity to the extent that some hon. Members imagine—certainly not to the extent that some hon. Members representing London constituencies hope.
  I suggest that we have to concentrate on trying to find the real causes of employment. We have to concentrate our activities towards that end. If we are to solve the problems existing in the regions and in the Greater London area, we have to take into account the way in which we can use the Industry Bill. In addition, because in some of its aspects the Industry Bill is weak, we have to concentrate our minds on ways of developing industry throughout the country on a much wider basis, and we have to do that by public investment where private investment has failed.
  One reason why the Greater London area is in relative trouble is the lack of activity by private investors and the asset stripping which has gone on over the years. I am concerned with the overall level of investment. I realise that it is no use continually paying lip-service to the idea that we can find a sufficient number of carrots and sticks to improve the relatively low level of investment in past years. It has to be done by public investment. That is the answer to the problem. It will not be found in the wider context of the Common Market,

  445
  that is for sure. That will be another shackle on the Greater London area especially. Certainly it will be a shackle on the intermediate and development areas.
  Those are the lessons that we have to learn from this proposal. I support it. It will make a slight change. I have no doubt that hon. Members representing London constituencies will applaud it. But let us have none of this hypocrisy which says that we are behind the Government in what they have done hitherto in their attention to the special development areas, the intermediate areas and all the others, but which says at the same time that this order in itself will not change the situation.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Not for the first time I follow, not only physically but mentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am glad that this has turned out to be not merely a London debate but a debate about the principle of the industrial development certificate.
  I was pleased to see my hon. Friends representing London constituencies taking part in the debate and, rightly defending their own people. Their speeches contrasted with that made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). While there are elements in the London amendment which I regard with anxiety as they affect regional policy, there is no doubt that the speech of the hon. Member was hostile towards regional policy. Too many people in the City think that the North begins at Finchley and ends at Hampstead. That is not good enough.
  If we are right in saying that this debate is about regional policy and IDC policy, it is right to compare the difference between the two sides of the House. We have a well-stocked Labour bench comprising people concerned about unemployment, regional policy and investment. The Conservatives have not even got a forward line. They have four hon. Members in all. Even the House of Commons football team has more forwards. What is worse is that there is not one Liberal Member present—but I see that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has entered the Chamber. Even more serious, when we bear in mind the propaganda there has been
  446
  in Scotland and Wales, there is not one nationalist Member here. The nationalists claim that they have been neglected in debates. Now they have the opportunity to participate and they are not here. I hope that the people and the Press of Scotland and Wales will take note.
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend agree that this would be an ideal time to have television cameras here?
  Mr. Buchan: Every time I speak is a good time to have television cameras.
  I have been sceptical about certain aspects of regional policy. I am reminded of what the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) once said about regional development. At this point I must congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead on his translation to the Opposition Front Bench. I think that perhaps he was a little less churlish on the back benches.
  The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet in a previous incarnation, when he was Chancellor, said that Governments could offer industrial development certificates to industry along with other inducements but that if industrialists did not go to a certain area there was nothing else that could be done. The IDC policy is a minor part of the regional policy, but when I look at my constituency I realise that a great deal of the employment there is due to the operation of regional policy.
  We have Babcock and Wilcox. Were it not for that firm's involvement on a United Kingdom basis in the generating programme, it would not be there. We also have Chrysler. By God! we are fighting to keep it at Linwood. It would not be there—with 7,000 jobs—without a regional policy. The IDC system plays a part in this.
  What we are concerned with is not a new amendment, flexible or otherwise, for London. We are concerned with unemployment which is now reaching totally unacceptable levels. Those who have jobs with Chrysler in Scotland are working two days a week and fighting to keep their jobs. This week a deputation, not of trade unionists but of councillors from five councils in the area, is coming down to argue about Chrysler. Having read

  447
  tonight's headlines I would say that the Industry Bill is not being introduced before time. If we get the sort of reply from leaders of the industry that I read in tonight's headlines, it is time that we had planning agreements, public investment and public control.
  Finally, I again thank London Members who are correctly fighting for their constituents, but we should not confuse their problem of 1·5 per cent. unemployment in their areas with the 5 per cent. unemployment in Glasgow. There is a difference. In Glasgow, for every vacancy there are five people unemployed. That is a big difference which transforms the situation.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead said that we should be concerned with each individual who was unemployed. That is very good. It reminds me of the amendments I used to get from the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. One would put down a good motion for the conference and the executive would change it, saying that the resolution should be done by half-past 11 the following Tuesday. That is the situation here. The suggestion is that unemployment is as bad in one area as in another for each person. But it is not. The unemployed in Hampstead are five times more likely to get jobs than are the unemployed in my area. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reject the tone of his attack upon regional policy, however attractive it may be for the Tory Party to try to consolidate its basis on the relatively affluent South-East of England.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was giving way.
  Mr. Buchan: I was giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had delivered his peroration.
  Mr. Buchan: No.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I should like to make it clear that I was making no such statement on regional policy as the
  448
  hon. Gentleman has twice attributed to me.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman could have fooled me. I thought that his endorsement of flexibility was carried to the point of fluidity. It was pouring out through the Thames estuary. I should have thought that a very good peroration if I had been allowed to make it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would have been out of order.
  Mr. Buchan: Yes, of course. Were it not for the fact that regional policy is so well supported by the Chair, I might have attempted it.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. R. B. Cant: We are seeing a strange transformation of attitudes to regional policy. Tonight we have had the Minister of State's arm twisted by the considerable political muscle of London Members of Parliament. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I understand that it was twisted last night. The fruits are before us.
  Last Friday I attended a conference in the West Midlands at which the participants had to consider a document which stated that the West Midlands will be the problem area of this country in the 1980s. Last week, I read in the Evening Standard a report of a speech by a man whose name I cannot pronounce, the chairman of the policy committee of the GLC, in which he said that the 1980s will see the 1930s situation in reverse with Londoners, so desperate will be their fate, marching to Jarrow. I think that in some ways we are going mad.
  This situation raises the necessity for a completely new look at regional policy. I hesitate to say that it calls for the setting up of a Royal Commission or anything as distinguished as that, but it is obvious to many people that, while things would have been worse if regional policy had not operated, the 40 years for which we have had it have not changed the situation very much.
  The unemployed differential between Scotland and the national average over the last 30 years has not deviated from about ·7 per cent. by more than 0·1 per cent. I could give many interesting statistics. I am sowing the seed in the Minister's mind in suggesting that we need a

  449
  reappraisal, if not an agonising reappraisal, of regional policy. I hate being parochial, but I think that Stoke-on-Trent is somewhere between the Great Wen of London and the holy of holies, Liverpool.
  What we are debating tonight—namely, what we are suggesting is the problem of London—is something to which we have to give considerable attention. We spread the jam of regional aid very thinly across a surprisingly large part of the country. When the Secretary of State for Industry leads us into the Common Market we shall be more selective in our approach, and in a sense that will be a good thing.
  What I am saying is that we have to look not only at what is now almost the whole country, if we include the West Midlands and London, but at the growth areas. Therefore, we must adopt an attitude to industrial development certificates which bears in mind perhaps more important—or perhaps not—or possible more subtle, criteria than the crude yardstick of unemployment.
  I am making an appeal for an area such as mine where unemployment is not high. We must have a more ready access to IDCs because the export potential of the area is massive and much above the national average, and the import substitution potential in the energy field is much higher than in the country as a whole.
  That is one important aspect of the problem, but one could go on—I shall not do so—to talk about the whole question—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not go on because he is really out of order.
  Mr. Cant: I am sorry that I have roused you to such a state of indignation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members are prepared to fight for London, and I am prepared to fight for the city which I represent. If I am straying from the narrow confines of the order, I can only say that I have had many excellent precedents set for me this evening.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: One of the duties of the Chair is to determine when fights take place on particular issues. It is no use the hon. Member saying to the Chair that he is following someone's example. We are discussing an order and
  450
  an amendment, and it is the duty of the Chair to see that business is conducted according to the Standing Orders laid down by hon. Members themselves.
  Mr. Guy Barnett rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not realise that the Hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) had finished his speech.
  Mr. Cant: I had not finished.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case. I call the hon. Member to continue his speech.
  Mr. Cant: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us find out whether the hon. Gentleman has finished. Does he wish to continue his speech?
  Mr. Cant: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have finished me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a most unusual thing for the Chair to do. One wonders whether one could do it more often.
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I am sure that every London Member present, and certainly each one on the Government benches, welcomes the contributions to the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) and Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the way in which the debate has been widened to regional policy and the problem of national unemployment.
  A number of important points have been made, and I want to add only a marginal one. The effect of IDCs in London has been a good deal less than some people have pretended. Not long ago the Minister of State told me in a Written Answer the number of IDC applications that had been refused in South-East London—that is, in the boroughs of Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich and Bexley. I believe that out of 173 applications for IDCs between 1970 and 1974, precisely four were turned down. Two of those were in Southwark and two in Bexley. One could almost say that the consequence was that the boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich, the latter of which I represent, were not subject to IDC control at all during those four years.

  451
  I say that because I am not certain that the concession we have gained is as important as some hon. Members are apt to point out, nor indeed as important to the regions as has perhaps been suggested by hon. Members who represent constituencies outside London. The structural problems in London's manufacturing industry are much more deep-seated and long-term than we admitted tonight.
  I was very encouraged by a Written Answer I received on 24th February from the Minister of State, in which he said:
  "My Department is additionally contributing to a number of studies of the special problems of inner city assisted areas being carried out by the Government as a whole."—[Official Report, 24th February 1975; Vol 887, c. 25.]
  That gives me much more cause for rejoicing than the small concession that the Minister has announced.
  That is not to say that I am ungrateful, because it will do a good deal to restore confidence, particularly among working people in my constituency and elsewhere in London, but the problems of London are much greater than some of us have admitted tonight. For instance, a report entitled "Canning Town to North Woolwich: The Aims of Industry?" is very relevant to the debate. Some of the things it says suggest that London's problems may be as serious as those of some other great cities. In Chapter 9 it states:
  "What is needed is a set of policies for the outworn industrial areas of all Britain's towns irrespective of their geographical location within particular 'regions'."
  That would be directly relevant to the problems of Liverpool, Merseyside, Glasgow, London, Birmingham and the rest.
  Another reason why I welcome contributions from hon. Members for constituencies outside London is that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has drawn attention to the need to replace the kind of regional policy upon which we have tried to attract industry into the regions by the kind of policies contained in the Industry Bill. Since the war, regional policy year by year has become steadily less effective because of the concentration of economic power in private industrial hands. Instead of reacting to incentives by doing what the Government are trying to encourage people to do, these firms, some of them
  452
  multinationals, have been able to use the incentives for their own benefit and not in order to pursue the sort of policies which the Government have been trying to encourage in order to get industry to go where it is badly needed.
  I could quote case after case of mergers and regroupings which have adversely affected London industry—AEI-GEC is the most obvious example—because incentives have been taken but employment has not gone where it was intended to go. That is why I am delighted that the Department of Industry is pursuing these studies. I hope that they will be pursued in depth, with the widest possible consultation with local authorities, the GLC, the unions and the employers involved. Only on that basis in the great cities, with their outworn industrial areas, shall we begin to solve some of the appalling problems affecting so many individuals and families.
  11.19 p.m.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) argued that the Minister of State was oriented towards Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool. The Minister is certainly aware of the problems in those areas, and he knows at first hand what unemployment there means. He has himself been unemployed in Merseyside. Therefore, it is not a question of his being Merseyside-oriented. It is a question of a Minister who understands that level of unemployment there and in other areas. The policies now being pursued by the Government and acted upon, quite rightly, by the Minister, are directed accordingly.
  I want to draw some assurances from the Minister. First, I have never seen IDCs as being a positive way of controlling the economy in so far as movement of industry is concerned. At present, however, that is all that we have. Regardless of how marginal this may appear, I want an assurance from the Minister that there will be no effect upon Government policy in relation to dealing with areas such as Merseyside, where the unemployment figure is not 40,000, as was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), but 53,000 in the Merseyside travel-to-work area. That was the January figure—7 per cent.

  453
  I accept that the problems concerning IDCs in London should be examined, but this ought not to be a movement by the Government away from the desperate problems that exist in the regions I have mentioned. I should appreciate an assurance from the Minister that arising from the amendment there will be no shift of direction by the Government away from Merseyside and other areas of high unemployment.
  11.21 p.m.
  Mr. Heffer: It always seems as though any debate in which I get involved becomes rather heated at certain stages and of greater import and impact, perhaps, than many other debates. I cannot understand that. This has been a very heated debate at times, but it has also been very important and very interesting.
  First, I should like to contrast the speeches made by my hon. Friends with the one alien speech made from the Opposition side. That was an injection into the debate which really dealt very little with the serious problems we have been discussing. It was a piece of sheer political effrontery—I cannot think of another more appropriate phrase—which had very little to do with the serious problems that all my hon. Friends have raised, whether they be from the London area or from Scotland, Wales or the various English regions.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) more or less implied that the amendment would change the nature of the order. I want to make it clear that the amendment does not raise the limits. I repeat that it does not affect the operation of Statutory Instrument No. 2028. The IDC exemption limit for London and the rest of the South-East Region has been 5,000 sq. ft. since 1st September 1974 and it remains at that. What the amendment does is to give the Secretary of State guidance in the way in which the control is to be applied to small projects. If officials think it right to refuse an IDC for a scheme below 10,000 sq. ft. in London, they will seek the Minister's endorsement for that decision. That is the reality of the situation. We have gone slightly further than that by involving the appropriate local authorities as well. If I honestly believed that the amendment
  454
  was in any way harming, cutting across or undermining the Government's regional policy, I would not have accepted it. I would rather have gone out of the Government than accept such an amendment. I make that absolutely clear.
  I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) that it is not the Government's intention in any way to stop their regional policy of inducing firms to go to Merseyside, the North-East, South Wales, Scotland or other areas. On the contrary, it is our intention to continue with our regional policy and to step it up. But to some extent we are changing it. For a long time we have held the carrot. We have wielded the stick, as it were, by means of IDC controls, but that has not been enough. What is now required is the introduction of the sort of policies that we are bringing forward in the Industry Bill—namely, positive proposals to invest in the regions.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the carrots for London has been the new towns in South-East England? Further does he agree that one of the matters we should consider in terms of London and other parts of the country is whether our policy is as opportune now as it once was?
  Mr. Heffer: It is almost as if my hon. Friend knew that I was coming to that point. I am glad that he raised it. There has been reference to the extent to which industry has been moving out of London, particularly inner London. That obviously has a relationship to the whole question of new town policy. I think we all agree that that movement has been encouraged by the Greater London Council, and before that by the London County Council as part of the programme of overspill housing in the new and expanded towns. No one can deny that. A new town is built and then it is discovered that there is no local industry. Obviously the next step is to encourage industry, but that has nothing to do with IDCs. I know that the Greater London Council has given active encouragement to the policy I have outlined.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Is not this a sensible Socialist regional policy that is good for London as well? By

  455
  moving industry to the regions, the overcrowded school classes and the homelessness are reduced and the social fabric is protected. The sensible Socialist policy of moving industry into other areas is to the benefit of London as well as other parts of the country.
  Mr. Heffer: I have listened many times to my hon. Friends from London explaining the tremendous difficulties and problems raised by housing and education needs in London. Regional policy is very much integrated with ameliorating the difficult problems that exist in the London area.
  There is no doubt that there has been a serious rundown of manufacturing industry in certain parts of London. There has also been a rundown of manufacturing industry in other areas, many of them assisted areas. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) that that does not necessitate merely the broad regeneration of industry throughout the country but a regeneration of industry in the large cities. That is absolutely right. That is why the Government are now studying the city areas. We shall ultimately come before the House with our proposals.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Town and Country Planning (Industrial Development Certificates Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 2028), dated 4th December 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December and desires that in so far as its operation in Greater London is concerned, applications for an industrial development certificate of up to 10,000 square feet shall not be refused, save on the intervention of the Secretary of State after consultation with the appropriate local authorities.

  VIOLENCE IN MARRIAGE
  Ordered,
  That Mrs. Lena Jeger be discharged from the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage and that Mrs. Audrey Wise be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 21st November relating to nomination of members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, Mr. Airey Neave be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Anthony Nelson be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.
  Ordered,
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr Walter Harrison.]

  RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 14th January relating to nomination of members of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, Mr. Norman Fowler be discharged from the Committee and Mr. David Lane be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.
  Ordered,
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr Walter Harrison.]

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

  SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY (CHARGES)
  11.31 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: The subject of tonight's short debate is of general concern beyond the area of the Southern Water Authority of which I wish to speak in particular. I am very glad that the Minister of State is here tonight to reply, because in addition to his being a celebrated authority on and having an interest in sport he is interested in and is an authority on water and, as I assume follows naturally from that, water sport.
  Another reason for my being glad that the Minister is here tonight is that I wish to recall words he used in a debate on the Water Bill in 1973:
  "We should like to see …
  'that the fullest expression of consumer and local authority interests' is taken into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May 1973; Vol. 855, c. 1146.]
  I wish to refer to two aspects of water charges on which neither the consumer

  457
  nor the local authority interest has been adequately considered. The first of these is the speed of progress towards the equalisation of water charges within the area of a water authority. The second is the method by which those charges are equalised. It will simplify matters if, for the purposes of this debate at least, we accept that there is need and justification for the equalisation of water charges.
  On the question of how equalisation can be achieved. I hope that the Minister will agree that we must turn to the report of the Jukes Committee as the authoriy on this matter. I quote from the Water Services Economic and Financial Policies Report, paragraph 3.3:
  "We recommend as a general principle, therefore, that charges for 1974/75 and 1975/76 should be levied as far as possible on the basis which would have existed in the absence of water services reorganisation."
  Paragraph 3.4 of the report states:
  "This means that the Water Authorities should not initiate any moves to equalise charges in their regions during the period 1974/76".
  Paragraph 3.6 states:
  "It is recommended that the Water Authorities should implement only those adjustments aimed at equalisation or harmonisation of charges which would have been undertaken by the existing authorities but for the water services reorganisation."
  Those quotations make very clear what the Jukes Committee had in mind when it made its recommendations to the Department.
  We find astonishingly that the water rate charge proposed for Hove in the coming year is to increase from 2£66p in the pound to 6·9p in the pound, an increase of no less than 159 per cent. I hope the Minister will agree with me that that is an astonishing increase against the background of the recommendations of the Jukes Committee. It is brought about by the proposal of the Southern Water Authority to move to equalising water charges within its area, not subsequent to the year 1975–76, as was recommended, not in relatively easy stages, as recommended, but immediately, in the year starting with effect from April 1975.
  It seems to me that the introduction of an immediate equalisation at this time must be regarded as highly irresponsible. We are surely all familiar with the public outcry about rates generally. I do not wish—I am sure that you would rule me
  458
  out of order if I attempted to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to go into a general discussion on the subject of rates, but the public outcry and the continuing concern raised on a number of occasions by hon. Members on both sides of the House must be a factor in considering whether the proposal of the Southern Water Authority is a reasonable one.
  It seems to me that common sense dictates that, at a time when there is particular public concern about the level of rate charges, any step which introduces an unusual and dramatic increase in a particular element of the rate charge should be avoided. Against the background of the Jukes Report recommendations we have a strong reason for avoiding that step.
  But that is not the only consideration. There is another aspect of the problem which is a little more technical, and that is the method by which one arrives at the ultimate objective of equalising the charge. I hope it will be agreed that when we are considering the water rate we are considering not a tax but a charge for a service. The general rate itself can, in effect, be regarded as a tax on property. I think that all those who pay it so regard it. I suggest, however, that the charge for the provision of water is regarded not as a tax on property but rather as a charge for a service. I contend that in the same way as postage and other services are charged on an equal basis, the charge for water should similarly be on an equal basis.
  Surely we can all agree that if we are charging for water on an equal basis we do not set about so doing by charging on a basis of assessing so much per house, because houses on the whole do not use water; water is used by individuals, and the consumption of water varies fairly directly according to the number of individuals with whom we are dealing. It seems to me that a water rate that is assessed per head of the population is much more likely to be a fair water rate between areas than one that is based on an assessment of the value of property.
  Furthermore, we must bear in mind that when we try to compare the values of properties in different rating areas we are up against the different tones of the list that might be found in those areas. It has been recognised that comparative

  459
  valuations based purely on rateable values are not an entirely reliable guide to comparative values. The proposal of the Southern Water Authority to equalise its water rate according to rateable value will cause the charge per head of the resident population in Hove to rise to no less than £6·95p—by far the greatest in the authority's area.
  There are implications which go beyond even this immediate effect, because if this application of a uniform poundage is carried through into the general service charge we shall find that the charge per head for domestic ratepayers in Hove will be increased from the present £10·53p for water and sewerage to no less than £43·67p per annum by 1978 at present-day costs merely through the process of equalisation. That is an increase of £33·14 per head. We are looking at these two problems of equalisation on an immediate basis and against the background of the Jukes Committee's recommendations and of rate rises and the concern which they have caused. We must also consider the matter in the light of the fact that water rates as a charge on individuals do not qualify for rate rebates.
  Because of these factors, the burden of water rates is especially severe for elderly persons who live alone, very often in property which might have a quite high rateable value. I hope the Minister will agree that the case is established to consider the need for speedy action to avoid this alarming and indefensible increase in the water rate in particular areas of the Southern Water Authority, and particularly in the Borough of Hove.
  I am sure I do not need to remind the Minister of his power under Section 5 of the Water Act 1974, under which the Secretary of State
  "may give water authorities directions of a general character as to the exercise by such authorities of their functions … so far as the exercise of those functions appears to the Minister to affect the execution of the national policy for water or otherwise to affect the national interest."
  I submit that at the present time, when we are all agreed on the need for restraint, an increase in charge of 159 per cent. certainly affects the national interest.
  We have established the need and also the fact that there is power to act. I suggest that it is always a little
  460
  dangerous to rest one's case upon the question of what is fair and what is reasonable, but not often do we find a situation in which what is fair and what is reasonable is so far removed from what is proposed.
  I believe that we must reconsider the basis upon which we equalise these charges, because clearly it is not reasonable to charge for a service on the same basis as a charge for tax. More urgently, however, we must reconsider immediately the proposal to equalise the water rate because of its quite arbitrary and exorbitant effect on certain areas and the charge that will fall upon those areas.
  11.43 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and to say how glad I am to see with us the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, because I know that he recently had an enjoyable visit to Brighton to watch some international table tennis.
  I have in my constituency, about 20,000 retired people, many of whom live on small, fixed incomes. The massive increase in water and sewerage charges will be yet another burden upon them. The charges will rise from the 1973·74 figure of 2·48p in the pound to over 4p in the pound, and in 1975–76 they will increase to 6·9p in the pound.
  A large number of my constituents, particularly those on smaller incomes, are very angry about the situation. I wish to quote from a letter which one constituent wrote to the Brighton Evening Argus:
  "It is little short of a scandal that a ratepayer has to make an arithmetical analysis before he discovers that his water rate has gone up by 41 per cent"
  This group will have to face yet another heavy burden. I ask the Minister to support my hon. Friend's request to use his powers to minimise this further hardship which will be imposed on my long-suffering constituents.
  11.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): It is interesting that we are having this debate. I appreciate the courteous way in which both the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) have

  461
  put their case and have spoken about their great cause for anxiety, but it was predictable and was predicted. The hon. Member for Kemptown voted for the Second Reading of the measure concerned, when some of us predicted exactly what would happen to water charges. Nevertheless, the previous Government decided to go ahead.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hove for quoting one of my comments. I hope he will not mind if I quote another which reflects the point we are discussing, which is that the good citizens of Brighton and Hove were provided with ample and efficient and economic supplies of water and now find that in a sense they are penalised and in difficulty because of the prudence of their forefathers.
  On 1st May 1973 I said:
  "It is clear that some local authorities which have provided first-class capital works and water supplies for their citizens are in danger of having to pay twice. They have already paid to provide first-class facilities, but under the Government's proposals they may well have to provide new capital works in order to serve those authorities which, the Minister says, have been badly served in the past. There is a strong feeling that an increase in water charges could well be brought about not by improvement in supply and facilities in London, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere, whose citizens have already paid to do the job in their own areas, but because they will have to pay a further contribution to make up deficiencies of other areas—[Official Report, 1st May 1973; Vol. 855, c. 1058–9.]
  I should have included Brighton and Hove in the list when I was making that pertinent point.
  But I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the fact that some of us predicted what would happen is no consolation to their ratepayers now. The Jukes Report clearly deals with the matter. I think that the hon. Member for Hove quoted from the Second Report. There have been three reports. I want to read a passage from the third which, while not quite as specific as the quotation the hon. Gentleman gave, was relevant and along the same lines. Paragraph 1.24 said:
  "In view of the substantial increases in the general level of charges that may be expected next year, any moves towards the great equalisation of charges should be both gradual and limited in extent in order to avoid further sharp increases in charges to particular groups of consumers."
  Ministers in my Department, including myself, saw the chairmen of the water authorities on 20th November last year
  462
  and drew their attention to those wise words. We asked them to proceed in the determination of their charges for next year along those lines. By and large, we had from them a commitment to do so. Most of the water authorities aim to do what the Act asks them to do, which is to move towards equalisation. It is not for me to defend the Southern Water Authority, because it is an autonomous body, a nationalised industry, set up by the Conservatives. It is a body without proper accountability, which is a point that I made.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister agree that in that debate, which for reasons that he knows I was not able to listen to, he was pressing for nationalisation, and not for what the Act established, so that he can scarcely now say that we have a nationalised industry?
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman was not here and, therefore, could not take part in the debate. I am left to speculate which way he would have voted. I was pressing for a totally nationalised water industry at the centre under which we would provide water to the local authorities and maintain the position of local authorities, which would use the water, clean it and put it back into the national water system. That was the Opposition policy at the time which we urged on the Conservative Government without great success.
  It is not for me to defend the Southern Regional Water Authority, but I understand that the authority felt that the degree of administration necessary to get equalisation was much greater in its region than in most others and it could not therefore be done in one go. Other areas—for example, Thanet, Medway, and North-West Sussex—have benefited considerably. The hon. Member for Hove said that everyone would now pay 6·9p in the pound for water. Had it not been for equalisation, Thanet would have paid 7·3p, Medway 9·36p and North-West Sussex 11·64p.
  While I acknowledge the problem in the two constituencies mentioned, the Southern Regional Water Authority has given considerable help to a large number of ratepayers elsewhere. It is for the authority to make the judgment whether it is following the right policy. A majority of local authority members

  463
  serve on regional water authorities these days, although the situation is not exactly as we wish it to be.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I hesitate to interrupt in someone else's Adjournment debate, but I represent a constituency which has suffered from equalisation. I shall be sending figures tomorrow to the Minister showing that over the last two years the Ventnor town council sewerage rate has increased by 974 per cent. Will the Minister deal with sewerage rates in his reply?
  Mr. Howell: I shall not deal with that tonight. There may have been no sewerage disposal at all two years ago—I do not know the circumstances. The Government have just given a 50 per cent. relief to households with no sewerage services, and that is a not inconsiderable amount.
  We asked the regional water authorities to take account of the Jukes Committee's proposals. We are in difficulty about giving directions because we have no power to insist on being consulted by regional water authorities before they determine their pricing policies. They have determined their pricing policies, fixed their charges and told local authorities what is to be collected. I have sympathy with the general view put forward. We are trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted. It is this lack of accountability, which I forecast and complained of at the time, that causes considerable difficulty.
  The hon. Member for Hove said that the water rate does not attract a rate rebate. Again, that has resulted from the way the Conservative Government went about the reorganisation. They removed water from the sphere of local government and, in effect, established a nationalised industry. Once they did that, water was on the same footing as electricity and gas and, therefore, under the law of the land it was not eligible for rating relief.
  The hon. Member also said that rate-able value was an unfair basis, and the Government are inclined to be sympathetic to that view. That is why we established the Layfield Committee. On water charges I cannot go along with the hon. Member when he says that it
  464
  would be more equitable to have a charge per head of the population, since that would have considerable social consequences. The charges would fall hardest on large families and people who use more water than small families.
  Perhaps we should look at the question of charging per household, which would be a system with which I would have sympathy. That would mean that any house divided into, say, two or three households would pay more than the same house next door which was occupied by a lady living alone. I concede that there might be some justice in that. Certainly as and when we can look at these matters we shall do so.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we find the whole question extremely disturbing. It has been going the way that many of us predicted. It has caused considerable concern. We cannot divorce the water situation from the reorganisation of local government. Whereas previously the ratepayer was paying for only one set of officers and offices, he is now paying for one set for the county, one for the district and one for the water authority. That reorganisation has its own inflationary momentum.
  The question therefore is whether we can intervene immediately. My right hon. Friend said that it would be quite impossible for us to look at the water situation in less than two years. We have given an undertaking to the National Water Council and the chairmen of water authorities to that effect. We are getting on into that two-year period, but we said that we would give the authorities two years to settle down. Then we shall look with an open mind and see how the system is running. I give the assurance that all matters that have been raised tonight will be taken into account in our examination. I know that that is no great consolation to the ratepayers in Hove now.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The Minister talks of a two-year period. Earlier he spoke of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted. Surely the horse will have bolted that much further in two years. The new authorities come into full effect on 1st April. There is plenty of time for the Minister to exercise the powers that he acknowledges he possesses.
  Mr. Howell: This is the second year of charges for water authorities, and that is why I made the point that we are moving on towards the half-way stage of the period mentioned in my right hon. Friend's undertaking. I honestly cannot hold out any hope of doing anything for the hon. Member's constituents this year because it is too late. The charges have gone out, regrettable though that may be. They cannot be reduced for the people of Hove unless they are increased for the people of Thanet, Medway and North-West Sussex. That would be a very complicated balancing factor and
  466
  might cause even more widespread distress than the present situation.
  I regret the situation which has been created. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy. However, the present Government predicted the consequences of the legislation and we urged the House to vote against it. The Labour Party voted against the measure, but was outvoted by the Conservative Party.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Social Contract
  Social Contract
  Widows
  Widows
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  EEC RENEGOTIATION
  EEC RENEGOTIATION
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  INDUSTRIAL POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  INDUSTRIAL POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (BROADCAST)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (BROADCAST)
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  PERTH
  PERTH
ENVIRONMENT
  Empty Houses
  Empty Houses
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Farms
  Farms
  Grass
  Grass
  Animal Exports
  Animal Exports
EMPLOYMENT
  Retail Price Index (Fuel Prices)
  Retail Price Index (Fuel Prices)
  Employment Agencies
  Employment Agencies
  Medical Advisory Service
  Medical Advisory Service
  Hawker Siddeley Aviation
  Hawker Siddeley Aviation
  Training Boards (Oil Platform Fabrication)
  Training Boards (Oil Platform Fabrication)
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
ENERGY
  Coal and Oil Prices
  Coal and Oil Prices
  Electricity Prices
  Electricity Prices
  EEC BUDGET
  EEC BUDGET
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  European Assembly
  European Assembly
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Finance Corporation
  Finance Corporation
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Strikes
  Strikes
  Employment (Manufacturing Industry)
  Employment (Manufacturing Industry)
  Area Boards
  Area Boards
  Secondary Education
  Secondary Education
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Licensed Premises
  Licensed Premises
  Trading Stamps
  Trading Stamps
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Oil and Commodity Costs
  Oil and Commodity Costs
  Grain Supplies
  Grain Supplies
TRADE
  Shipping Accidents (English Channel)
  Shipping Accidents (English Channel)
  South Africa
  South Africa
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers
  Teachers
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Reading and Language Ability
  Reading and Language Ability
  Schools (Resources and Allowances)
  Schools (Resources and Allowances)
  Bournemouth Schools
  Bournemouth Schools
  Independent Schools
  Independent Schools
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Independent Schools (Handicapped Children)
  Independent Schools (Handicapped Children)
  School Transport
  School Transport
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Single-Sex Schools
  Single-Sex Schools
DEFENCE
  Widows (Pension)
  Widows (Pension)
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
  Seawolf
  Seawolf
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Low-Flying Aircraft
  Low-Flying Aircraft
  Offshore Oil Platforms
  Offshore Oil Platforms
  Aircraft (Construction and Conversion)
  Aircraft (Construction and Conversion)
ENVIRONMENT
  House Building Costs
  House Building Costs
  Housing
  Housing
  Transport Services
  Transport Services
  Local Councillors (Surcharging)
  Local Councillors (Surcharging)
  Carsington, Derbyshire (Reservoir)
  Carsington, Derbyshire (Reservoir)
  Sand and Gravel Extraction
  Sand and Gravel Extraction
  Borrowing Powers
  Borrowing Powers
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  District Boundaries
  District Boundaries
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Sewerage
  Sewerage
  Ringway Airport
  Ringway Airport
  A52, West Bridgford
  A52, West Bridgford
  Water (Pollution Control)
  Water (Pollution Control)
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  Driving Test (Fees)
  Driving Test (Fees)
  Hampshire
  Hampshire
  Rate Equalisation (London)
  Rate Equalisation (London)
INDUSTRY
  Chrysler Corporation
  Chrysler Corporation
  Borrowing Powers
  Borrowing Powers
  Industry Bill
  Industry Bill
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
SCOTLAND
  Departmental Land
  Departmental Land
  Fishing Vessels
  Fishing Vessels
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Cod Prices
  Cod Prices
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Health Service Expenditure (Leicestershire)
  Health Service Expenditure (Leicestershire)
  Benefits in Kind
  Benefits in Kind
  Children (Employment)
  Children (Employment)
  George Eliot Hospital, Nuneaton
  George Eliot Hospital, Nuneaton
  National Insurance Contributions and Pensions
  National Insurance Contributions and Pensions
  Elderly Persons (Care)
  Elderly Persons (Care)
  Supplementary Benefit (Strikes)
  Supplementary Benefit (Strikes)
  Disaster Services (Sheffield)
  Disaster Services (Sheffield)
  National Health Service Consultants and Doctors
  National Health Service Consultants and Doctors
  Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals
  Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Mental Health Services (Staff)
  Mental Health Services (Staff)
  Mexborough Montagu Hospital (Casualty Department)
  Mexborough Montagu Hospital (Casualty Department)
  Pneumoconiosis (Appeals)
  Pneumoconiosis (Appeals)
  Bomb Victims
  Bomb Victims
  Vaccine-Damaged Children (Eastleigh)
  Vaccine-Damaged Children (Eastleigh)
  Fraud and Abuse
  Fraud and Abuse
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  National Health Service Consultants and Doctors
  National Health Service Consultants and Doctors
  National Health Regulations
  National Health Regulations
  Hospital Consultants (Pay)
  Hospital Consultants (Pay)
  Influenza (Research)
  Influenza (Research)
  Foster-parents
  Foster-parents
  Overseas Patients
  Overseas Patients
  Clinical Psychologists
  Clinical Psychologists
  Harrogate District Hospital
  Harrogate District Hospital
  Excluded Persons (Dependants' Benefits)
  Excluded Persons (Dependants' Benefits)
  Dialysis Treatment (Nottinghamshire)
  Dialysis Treatment (Nottinghamshire)
  Major C. B. Thorne, Andover
  Major C. B. Thorne, Andover
  Departmental Leaflets (Birmingham)
  Departmental Leaflets (Birmingham)
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Hospital Building
  Hospital Building
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Psychotherapy
  Psychotherapy
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
WALES
  M4
  M4
  Cleddan Bridge
  Cleddan Bridge
  Atmospheric Pollution (Report)
  Atmospheric Pollution (Report)
  Local Councillors
  Local Councillors

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

BARONESS WARD OF NORTH TYNESIDE
Irene Mary Bewick Ward, C.H., D.B.E., having been created Baroness Ward of North Tyneside, of North Tyneside in the County of Tyne and Wear, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness North-church and the Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone.

LORD PRITCHARD
Sir Derek Wilbraham Pritchard, Knight, having been created Baron Pritchard, of West Haddon in North-amptonshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Netherthorpe and the Lord MacFadzean.
The Earl Haig— Took the Oath.

AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
3.0 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total amount of aid they have allocated to developing countries for the next financial year.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the White Paper on public expenditure shows that in 1974 survey prices the Government have allocated £339·6 million for their net expenditure on the overseas aid programme in the next financial year. This figure will be revalued to take account of price changes since the 1974 Survey was compiled.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask her how much of that aid is an outright gift and how much is in the form of non-interest bearing loans?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I could not give the noble Viscount accurate figures for the projected financial year, but in 1973, 61 per cent. of our total commitments were in the form of grants and 69 per cent. were loans which were interest free.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask her whether she agrees that in the present economic condition of this country, and bearing in mind our very large balance of payments deficit, in regard to interest free loans the old adage that charity begins at home would be the best policy to adopt?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am sure the majority of noble Lords will agree that although we are suffering economic difficulties, for these developing countries the economic situation means desperate hardship and real suffering, and in those terms we are still a wealthy country. I am sure the House would want us to play our part in the international programme for aiding the poorest countries.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, am I right in assuming that the figures my noble friend gave do not include private investment, the returns on which are twice as much as the aid that we give? Do her figures reach the 0· 7 per cent. of the gross national product which is our aim in this respect?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, my noble friend is right in assuming that these figures do not include private investment. I would not attempt to say whether his second point is in fact accurate. Unlike our predecessors in Government, we have accepted the 0· 7 per cent. as a target. We have not achieved it; it depends on our own economic situation, but we are trying our best.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is in a position to say how

641
these figures of aid by our country compare with the total aid being directed from the EEC?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, not without notice. I can say that because of the efforts of my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development there will be a greater amount of aid available for the new associated countries than there ever has been before.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is it possible for my noble friend to give a breakdown of the figures, not necessarily by furnishing the answer now because they may not be available at this moment, but either by publishing them in the Official Report or by placing them in the Library?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, if my noble friend means the figures for the future financial year that might take some time, but I will certainly hope to do it in due course.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, what I am asking my noble friend to do is to give a breakdown showing to which countries the aid is being directed.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, could the noble Baroness say whether the figures that she gave in the original Answer included the 18· 7 per cent. contribution to which this country agreed under the Lomé Convention? Also, would she not agree that it is in Britain's own interest, as a major exporting country, that we should help to develop the economies of these developing countries?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, indeed, my Lords, I confirm what the the noble Earl has said. It does come out of the total aid allocation of this country. Also it is indeed in Britain's interests, because about two-thirds of our aid is bilateral which means that much of it is used to buy British goods and services. This is tremendously to the advantage of this country, and, as the noble Earl said, builds up the economies of the developing countries which, in purely selfish terms, means markets for the future.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could clear up one point which puzzled me in the original Answer. I understood her to say that 61 per cent. were grants and 69 per cent. were interest free loans, which added together make 130 per cent. Does she in fact mean that 69 per cent. of the loans were interest free loans? What is the true explanation of this superficial confusion.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have not the faintest idea, but I promise to write to the noble and learned Lord and let him know.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, would it not be better if instead of lending this money interest free it was given under lend-lease terms, because so many of these countries will never in any ordinary circumstances be able to repay the loans or the interest thereon?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, it is a very interesting question. In fact, we now have about £40 million of amortisation money which we get back on loans each year, so I do not think what the noble Lord said is really correct.
Lord HAWKE: I was referring to the giving of new loans.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, could my noble friend confirm or deny the truth of the statement made by my noble friend from this side of the House, that the return from investment in the developing countries is greater than the total amount of aid which is given? I should like to know whether or not that statement is correct.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I did reply to that question. It is a different point. I should not like to confirm the accuracy of the estimate of my noble friend Lord Brockway.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness this question? As the Lomé Convention will be signed in a few days' time, is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to increase the percentage of aid to the 18 countries plus Mauritius—the original Yaoundé Convention countries? As I understand it, in

643
the past not more than 1 per cent. was allocated to those countries. In view of the increasing economic, cultural and social contacts with those countries, do Her Majesty's Government feel that a greater percentage of aid might be made to those countries in the coming year?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, in the first place, I am sure the whole House would wish to send its sympathy to the Government of Mauritius for the recent disaster which has struck them in the form of a cyclone. May I add that as the Lomé Convention has not even been signed, I cannot possibly say what allocations have been made to the new associates. We all know the deep interest of the noble Lord opposite in this question, and I will keep him informed.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, since the Government accept the need to grant aid to the developing countries on the basis of need, does the noble Baroness think that this will alter the amount of aid going to the Commonwealth countries as compared with any outside countries?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, this, again, is a very difficult question to answer in advance. As I said, the Lomé Convention has not even been signed. I am quite sure the noble Earl knows that there is a continuous review of where aid is most needed. I think that is the best answer to his question.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I endorse—?
Several Noble Lords: No, No!
The LORD PRIVY SEAL: (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, if the noble Baroness wishes to ask a question I would ask the House to allow her. But may I suggest that it be the last, because nine minutes is a very long time to spend on one Question.

HOTELS: FIRE PRECAUTIONS
3.10 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing I declare an interest, in that I am President of the Kent Hotels and Restaurants Association.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, whether in view of the number of small hotels being forced to close by the cost of implementing the Fire Precautions Act 1971, they will consider a selective system of grants and/or loans to enable such premises to remain in business for the benefit of the tourist industry.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no evidence that small hotels are being forced to close solely as a consequence of implementing the Fire Precautions Act 1971. Successive Governments have taken the view that grants from public funds should not be made available to enable commercial undertakings to comply with statutory safety requirements. Hotels and boarding houses accommodating up to 25 persons, as I am sure the noble Viscount knows only too well, are already eligible for low interest loans under the Fire Precautions (Loans) Act 1973.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I do not know whether I can completely thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I was really thinking of the smaller establishments. No doubt the noble Lord is aware that if they wish to remain open—
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware that if they have to implement—
Several Noble Lords: No.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if they have to implement the Fire Precautions Act it will amount to five or six years of their profits? Is the noble Lord aware that to do this will force a great number of them to close?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, again I think the noble Viscount will know that under the Finance Act 1974 tax relief is available in respect of all expenditure on fire precautions incurred by the hotel keeper in obtaining a fire certificate under the 1971 Act. In addition, the local authority loan scheme under the Fire Precautions (Loans) Act is available specifically to help the smaller operators. In the current financial year, the Home Office has received applications from 52 local authorities for loan sanctions of just over £1 million, but at present I cannot say how many loans have been granted.

EXPORTS AND THE OPEC MARKETS
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 what steps are being taken by the Commercial and Export Division (CRE5) of the Department of Trade to secure the active participation of British exporters in the expanding OPEC markets.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this new Division has been specifically set up to give greater emphasis and importance to our commercial relations with Middle East countries. It is concerned with all aspects of our commercial policy and effort towards these vital markets. The Division works closely with the British Overseas Trade Board and other Government Departments so that the skills and services available in these areas are organised and deployed in the most effective way to encourage and support United Kingdom exporters. In addition to travelling overseas for direct discussions with foreign Governments, officials of the Division are in close contact with representatives of British commerce and industry both directly and through the Committee on Middle East Trade.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the
646
share of British exporters in these markets declined in the year 1974 by no less than 16 per cent.? Is my noble friend also aware that there are complaints from some of these exporters that they are not receiving from the English banking system all the credit facilities required?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, our trade to the area under discussion has increased substantially, although it has dropped by about 2 per cent. in comparison with our competitors. Very firm efforts are being made by the Department of Trade to provide the necessary financial backing for aid to exporters to the area. May I refer my noble friend to the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place on 20th February relating to the extension of ECGD facilities to include costescalation insurance and assistance with the issue of performance bonds. Of course other problems will fall under review as they arise.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will make it perfectly clear to those OPEC countries that anything in the nature of a boycott of British firms, as a consequence of the fact that they happen to be or to have as directors persons of a certain religion or race, will neither be tolerated by this country nor by any decent people? Will he give an assurance that that kind of action will immediately be dealt with before it becomes a bitter and serious slant on our trade relationships?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I shall certainly bring the point of view of my noble friend to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Balogh will repeat a Statement on the Petroleum Revenue Tax.

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill—the first of four Consolidation Bills which, with leave, I shall be introducing—to consolidate the enactments relating to disqualification for membership of the House of Commons. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY DISQUALIFICATION BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to disqualification for membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.; —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to the salaries of Ministers and Opposition Leaders and Chief Whips and to other matters connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.— (The Lord Chancellor )
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate enactments relating to the redistribution of functions between Minis-
648
ters of the Crown, the alteration of the style and title of such Ministers and certain other provisions about such Ministers. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

OFFSHORE PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.18 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince of Wales (as Prince and Steward of Scotland) to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Hughes, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 1 [Acquisition of land for purposes connected with offshore petroleum]:
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved the following Amendment:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
(" ( ) Any such statutory instrument on the expiry of 28 days from the laying of the draft thereof in a House of Parliament shall, whether or not it has been referred to a Committee of that House as aftermentioned, proceed in that House as if its provisions would, apart from this Act, require to be enacted by a public Bill which cannot be referred to a Committee under Standing Orders of that House relating to private Bills.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hughes explained yesterday to your Lordships that he would be prevented from attending this afternoon because of official duties in Scotland. I think I too should apologise for the double deferment of our debate on Third Reading. On the first occasion the postponement was because copies of the amended Bill had not become available early enough. The second postponement was to enable a little more time to be

649
available to resolve the important question with which this Amendment deals. Once they have heard what I have to say I hope noble Lords will feel that, despite any inconvenience, the slight delay was worth while.
At the Committee stage of the Bill, an Amendment to Clause 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was approved. That Amendment deleted the provision which disapplied from expedited acquisition orders under the Bill the hybridity procedures of your Lordships' House. Since then, the Government have, as your Lordships' would expect, reflected carefully on the arguments deployed on that occasion in what was a most full and interesting discussion.
Noble Lords will recall that the Government's view was that the hybridity procedures of the House in their present form were incompatible with the element of urgency which would inevitably attend the making of an expedited acquisition order. These orders will arise only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that land for which planning permission has been granted is urgently needed for essential oil-related developments. Noble Lords readily recognised the need for speed but argued that observance of the hybridity procedures raised important matters of principle and, bearing in mind the other safeguards in the Bill, would not in any case occasion serious delay. If, for example, the planning procedure has been gone through and a public inquiry has been held, then any Petitions arising under the hybridity procedure could be dealt with expeditiously.
What we have to achieve therefore is twofold. First, the House very reasonably wishes to retain its hybridity procedures, which it has guarded jealously for many years, and which form an important part of the private individual's rights under our Parliamentary system. Secondly, we must keep the urgency which is required for our North Sea oil programme. The Amendment before the House represents a genuine attempt by the Government to meet both these objectives, and as such I hope that it will be generally acceptable.
The effect of the Amendment is that hybridity is retained for a period of 28 days from the laying of the Order. At the end of that period the Government
650
will be able to move an Affirmative Resolution whether or not the hybrid procedures have been completed. It is expected that hybridity procedures will be completed by then, but if not I should make it clear that it is the Government's intention to use this power in order that expedited acquisition orders can be made as quickly as possible. If of course there are no Petitions, or if no Petitions are judged by the Special Orders Committee to warrant a further inquiry, then the Affirmative Resolution would be moved before the end of the 28-day period.
The important question which this matter raises (and one about which I am sure the House will want to be dear) is whether the 28 days is sufficient to enable hybrid procedures to be completed. I believe it will be; and it is my understanding of the way in which this House conducts its business that the House will want to ensure that it will be sufficient. To achieve this, some modification of the hybrid procedure will be necessary, and if this Amendment is agreed to I propose to ask the Procedure Committee urgently to consider how best to meet this situation and what amendments of Standing Orders will be needed. In fact the Procedure Committee are already reviewing the Standing Orders on hybridity and will be able to take on this new task as part of their review. Consultations which I have held in the last few days indicate that, with good will, it should be possible to modify the hybrid procedure in such a way as to complete all its stages within 28 days without impairing the rights of Petitioners or their chance of a full hearing.
Bearing in mind the other opportunities which those who object to acquisition orders have under other provisions in the Bill to make their views known, I believe that this is a realistic timetable. Indeed, as I have mentioned, the spirit of much of the criticism expressed in Committee was that hybridity procedures would not be a cause of delay. The Amendment proceeds on that basis.
Personally, and through my office, I have made approaches to noble Lords directly involved in the debate at Committee stage. I am grateful for their understanding and willingness to help in finding a solution acceptable to them and to the Government. In particular, I

651
should mention the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who I see is in his place and whose hand can be seen in the drafting of the Amendment, for which I am very grateful. From my discussions I am hopeful that I can carry all noble Lords with me in recommending this Amendment to the House. The Government have tried to resolve the conflict between the hybridity procedures and the urgency of crucial oil-related developments and to suggest an acceptable compromise. I believe that this proposal should in large measure satisfy both requirements, and I urge your Lordships to agree to this Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.27 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his exposition of the purpose and objectives of this Amendment. For myself, I certainly welcome the fact that the Government have made a real effort to preserve the rights of individuals to petition against hybrid Orders. When we debated this matter on the Committee stage I certainly did not say anything to oppose or criticise the expedited acquisition procedure, which may be essential. At the same time I cannot but feel that perhaps undue emphasis is sometimes put on this element of urgency when one bears in mind that the expedited acquisition procedure would apply only after the full planning proceedings have been carried through. They normally take a very considerable time. I would have hoped that perhaps that procedure could have been accelerated without diminution of the individual's rights. But this is (and I welcome it) a serious attempt to preserve the rights of individuals and at the same time to secure the speed that the Government desire.
I do not think there should be any difficulty in dealing with the cases where a Petition is not referred by the Hybrid Instruments Committee for further inquiry within the 28 days. I am sure there will not be difficulty so long as the filter, which will be under consideration by the Procedure Committee, is right; and I personally take the view that, unless there is a substantive ground for doing so, a matter should not be referred to a
652
Select Committee for any further inquiry if the matter has already been inquired into, or if the Petitioner had had the opportunity of having it inquired into. Only in the exceptional case should there be any reference for a further inquiry. Indeed this procedure about hybrid instruments has existed for many years. I think I am right in saying that on only about three occasions in the last ten years has any Petition been referred for further inquiry. I do not think it will often happen. It will certainly not happen if proper inquiries are made before we ever reach that stage.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, called it a "safety net". I would rather say that it is more of a long-stop position in the event of anything slipping by the Government acting as wicket keeper. But the only point that worries me about the Amendment is this: let us assume that there is the exceptional case where something has slipped through and where the case for further inquiry is fully made out. I do not suppose that the Petitioner will know what is likely to happen until he has received the report of the Hybrid Instruments Committee, which will be some little time after the Order has been laid. Then he must have his case ready or prepare it more completely for a hearing. The hearing will have to take place and the whole procedure be completed and the report made to the House within 28 days of the laying of the Order. That is inevitable and is intended under the Amendment.
The only thing that bothers me about that is the exceptional case— which may not and, I hope, will not arise—because it appears to me to be quite novel, if the case for an inquiry is recognised, that it should be said at the same time that the inquiry must be finished by a certain date and that if it is not the rights of the individual will be over-ridden. That is putting a great premium on speed. I hope that it will work. I certainly do not propose to ask the House to oppose the Amendment, because it goes some way to meet a real problem.
At the same time, I think that we should watch to see how the procedure operates. I should like to see a little more flexibility. I should like the Government to have power in exceptional cases to say that the inquiry before the

653
Select Committee can go on, because they recognise that the case deserves further inquiry. However, we shall see how it works and, though I think it is almost without precedent to say that the inquiry must be finished by a specific date or else the right to continue it will be abolished, I wish the Amendment well. We shall keep an eye on how it works and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his kind observations with regard to the part I have played in formulating the Amendment, which had a considerable period of gestation, which I shall not go into in detail.
3.33 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, in moving this Amendment providing 28 days for the Special Orders procedure when hybridity is involved, the Government are contemplating circumstances of great national urgency arising from the need to get oil quickly from below the North Sea in the next five years. As we said at the Committee stage, Members of your Lordships' House would clearly act swiftly and not waste any time in the Special Orders procedures, once they had started. However, I should like to pursue the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount about what happens on the 29th day because, during the informal discussions on the Amendment which have gone on during the last few days and for which we are grateful to the noble Lord and his colleagues, I was given to understand that the position could be decided on the 29th day by this House, and that if the procedures had not quite ended in what might be a complicated case the House would not have to pass the Order on the 29th day, but would be able to permit the procedures to continue for another two or three days or a week, or whatever it might be. I should be glad, therefore, if the noble Lord could give us a reassurance on that.
Then, I, too, am glad that the Government have clearly tried to meet the wishes of this House acting in these matters on behalf of Parliament as a whole. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has been involved in the drafting of the Amendment and we are grateful for his experience and help, and for the warning that he has just given about the effects of the speed required in certain cases, and the fact that the
654
Petitioner and his advisers would have to move very quickly.
Also, I should like to draw attention to the fact that this Bill first came forward with a subsection which was struck out and then with the present Amendment—if it is agreed—as a special piece of legislation in contemplation of cases of national urgency. We believe that any future Bill must be considered separately on its own merits. We have noticed a subsection similar to that which was removed at the Committee stage of the present Bill, in Clause 10 of the Industry Bill in another place. Before the Government slip into the habit of putting in such subsections and then amending them, we feel that we should ask them to accept that any such proposal must be considered on its merits in the light of the urgency and importance of the different circumstances of a different Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who told us that, unfortunately, he would not be able to be here today, made it clear at the Committee stage that it would be in only very special circumstances that such a subsection would be used. He said this at column 1123 of the Official Report, where he explained that the Government were seeking in certain specified circumstances to abrogate the procedures in the special circumstances which exist. He referred to past occasions which noble Lords had mentioned, and said that those special circumstances had not at any time applied to anything that the Government had sought to do in the past. I would hope, therefore, that in the future as in the past, the precedent which will be set by the present Amendment, if it is eventually translated by the Procedure Committee, will not automatically be regarded as normal procedure in forthcoming Bills.
3.36 p.m.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that he hopes that his Amendment will be generally acceptable. I accept it only under the strongest protest and I hope that, in accepting it— because I feel that I may well be forced to do so—I can make it quite clear that I do not in any way depart from the principle that any truncation of the Hybrid Instruments procedure would be a great mistake. I argued this on Second Read-

655
ing and at Committee stage, when the Amendment which I put forward to delete the Government's attempt to bypass the Parliamentary scrutiny was accepted. In accepting the noble Lord's compromise I want to receive very strong assurances, so far as the noble Lord is able to give them, before I shall feel at all happy about it.
I think that the Government may well have had it in mind to reverse in another place the Amendment passed by your Lordships at the Committee stage. I suspect that they have refrained from doing so because they feared that a number of their own friends would feel that they were perpetrating a constitutional impropriety, and might well not follow them in doing so. Be that as it may, the Government have come up with this compromise in an effort to try to leave the Special Orders procedure more or less intact, though cutting it down in time. I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just said. In arguing for the necessity of the expedited procedure, and in particular for the cutting out of the Parliamentary scrutiny, the Government have made great play with the time factor. They have stressed how very urgent the matter is and have said that time is of the essence in what we do here, and that should we lose a week we may also lose millions of pounds.
I reject that argument; I felt that it was specious and I repeat that. However, if the Government feel that the urgency is so great that they must have a compromise provision such as the present proposal, then they must have it. I hope that they will not try to use this argument again in relation to any other Bill. As I said, I do not accept the Amendment even in relation to the present Bill, and I urge the Government not to do it again.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has raised the question whether the procedure can work. Looking at the time allowed, I am a little worried about this. Twenty-eight days are allowed, and I should like to review what that means. First of all, 10 days' petitioning time is allowed during which the objectors have to make their Petition. Then, let us say that four days over a weekend—it cannot be much less—will be needed for
656
the Hybrid Instruments Committee to meet. I shall come to this in a moment; it is a new name for an old Committee. The Committee then has to sit to decide whether there should be a Select Committee at all, which will take another day. Then 10 days will be left for the Committee to hear counsel and evidence. Then, last of all, there will be something like three days during which the findings of the Select Committee can be put before both Houses of Parliament. It is a tight schedule. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, mentioned this in Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned it again.
Can the solicitors prepare a case? One may well say that a great deal of this has already been gone over during the planning stage and that any objector will know his case. That may be so, but what if a new situation has arisen? And what about briefing counsel? There may have been no counsel at the inquiry or, if there were, perhaps new counsel have to be employed for the Select Committee. That must take time. One cannot brief counsel overnight, even if the solicitors involved in the case already know all about it. Then there is the question of the 10 days, or what looks like 10 days, for the inquiry in Select Committee. When the noble and learned Viscount was explaining the timetable to me he said that it was rather like saying, "You may have a fair trial so long as it is over by 3 o'clock." That is really what it looks like.
Before I am willing to accept— and I do so only under great protest— a state of affairs of that kind, I want certain assurances. First, there is the question, which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned, of the alterations to the recommendations of the Brooke Committee. One of those recommendations is that the newly-named Hybrid Instruments Committee should itself be the Select Committee which examines the petition. I regard that as quite sensible, because it will mean only one set of arguments and not two. There is also the fact that the Hybrid Instruments Committee is a sessional committee and has been appointed by this House at an earlier stage in the Session. I want an assurance that it will not, in constituting itself into a Select Committee, have to be put again to your Lordships' House because

657
that would represent a waste of several days.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, to clarify the position, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is a member of the Hybrid Instruments Committee at the moment and, if so, whether that is one of the reasons that he seeks satisfaction over the questions he is now posing?
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I am not a member. At present there is no such body; as the Hybrid Instruments Committee. I think I am right in saying that at the moment it is the Special Orders Committee. Under the Brooke recommendations, the Special Orders Committee will become the Hybrid Instruments Committee and when the latter looks into the question of whether or not it will recommend a Select Committee, it will, in fact, itself be the Select Committee which is appointed to hear counsel and evidence. I do not want a waste of these twenty-eight days in reappointing the Hybrid Instruments Committee as the Select Committee which will hear these issues. This is a small point but one which must be dealt with.
The noble Lord used the phrase "with good will" in saying that this process could be taken through within the twenty-eight days. However, Governments can frustrate things, as is only too well known to noble Lords. Business can be held up in ways of which we are all aware and, in a case like this, it is possibly a great temptation to a Government to do that. I hope they will not. I hope that, so far from trying to frustrate the course of events, they will see fit to try to give prior notice not only to land owners directly affected but also to certain named bodies such as COENCO, the National Trust for Scotland and the Council for the Protection of Rural Scotland. Any of these organisations will, I hope, automatically be given prior notice that the Government intend to make an expedited acquisition order.
This combines, in a way, with the frustration of the process of events— the question of the Government's power to organise business. If we are to accept that this will work on the basis of good will, it is to be hoped that the Government will so order their business that it will not be held up. Let me give an example of the kind of thing that can so easily happen in
658
this respect. On Wednesday, the day between Report and Third Reading— Third Reading as it was to have been— I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for an assurance about whether or not I would move an Amendment on Third Reading. I said that I should consult my noble friends and let him know within the hour. I did, but the noble Lord gave me no intimation whatever— I am not holding this against him; there may have been reasons which will be explained to me—that the Government were, in fact, considering an Amendment themselves. Thursday arrived and the Third Reading came up. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, withdrew the Third Reading on the grounds of printing difficulties. Again, not a word was said to the House or to me—not a squeak did I hear—that the Government were at that very moment engaged in conversations with the Scottish Office on this compromise.
I was in the House speaking on the Waterways Bill. I was here until 6.30 p.m., and although those consultations went on until that hour, none of them reached me. The first thing that reached me—I thought that I need not even come on Monday because there would be no Amendment, neither by me nor by the Government—was a message I received quite late on Friday in Cumberland to the effect that the Government had a highly controversial Amendment.
I am not saying that there was anything devious in this. I do not believe there was and knowing the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I am certain that there was not. Nevertheless, it could look very like an attempt by a Government to frustrate something and, as it were, position business so that it is too late to do anything about it. I repeat that I am sure that the noble Lord had no such intention, but this is the way Governments can, and as we know, do behave if they want to frustrate. I said before that I suspect that this attempt to arrive at a compromise— and I regret having spoken at such length about this because it is an extremely abstruse constitutional point which is not easy to grasp until one has spent perhaps half an hour considering it—
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I intervene only because I happened to intervene in the course of the debate which is the subject of this discussion. I re-

659
called, when the noble Lord moved his Amendment—and this applies similarly to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy —the case that was then being advanced. The Government were asking for compulsory powers, undefined, and a demand was made that no powers should be vested in the Secretary of State, the Minister involved, unless they were clearly defined. That was the only Amendment. There were no alternative proposals either on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or of the noble Lord himself. It was merely an objection to the Government seeking compulsory powers which were undefined. As the Minister found it impossible to define powers which might never be required or used, it was obvious that no conclusion would be reached, and that was why the matter was referred to the Minister with the valuable assistance of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and why this concession has been offered. I am bound to say that if the Government required compulsory powers in order to undertake something which was regarded as—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am particularly conscious of time and I would normally have allowed my noble friend full spate, but he is intervening in the middle of a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and I do not think that interventions permit a speech to be made. I hope that we can come to a conclusion on this matter very quickly, because there is a lot of business before the House.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will, if he wishes, make a speech after my speech. But he is, I think, misunderstanding me. I do not in any respect object to the Government's having compulsory powers; indeed, there is a whole field, and has been for 100 years or more, in which this Party and every other Party have supported compulsory powers. All I am saying is that there are certain Parliamentary scrutinies which I do not wish to see removed. We prevented the Government doing that at the Committee stage and they have now come back with a compromise. I say to your Lord-
660
ships that the compromise has been arrived at because the Government are not willing to take it back, or fear taking it back to the Commons, because they fear that some of their friends would not support them. That is all I am seeking to say. If the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can give some of the reassurances for which I ask, I shall be less unhappy about this matter than I am at present.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may say so, the speech of the noble Lord—
Lord CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say something about this, because I feel that this is a very common sense compromise and I wish to support it whole heartedly. I took part in the Second Reading debate in which I expressed the opinion that this is a very important constitutional point. I implored the Government not to discard your Lordships' Select Committee procedure, and the Government have brought out this compromise. One does not expect to get 100 per cent. when going into a compromise, but I think it is a very reasonable one. I congratulate the Government on having put it before the House, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, Lord Chorley. I did think—
3.52 p.m.
Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, I did not take part in the Second Reading debate, but I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on having arrived at what seems to me a very sensible compromise about a matter which is of some constitutional importance, particularly to Members of your Lordships' House. To some extent I share the reservations expressed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, as to how this will work. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has attempted— I think successfully—to achieve a balance between the legitimate demand, on the one hand, that the expedited acquisition orders procedure should not be unnecessarily impeded; and, on the other hand, that this House should preserve what it has always jealously regarded as its right to protect Her Majesty's subjects when they think

661
that their individual rights have been prejudiced by some order, in regard to which there is no opportunity for criticism except under the limited procedure afforded by this House, of which there is no parallel in another place.
My only doubt— this is a matter on which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be able to give us an assurance—is that as I understand the language of this Amendment, which has only recently appeared, a Statutory Instrument made under this Bill will have effect on the expiration of 28 days, notwithstanding any proceedings that may have taken place: in Committee. May I say in parenthesis that it is perhaps unfortunate that this debate should be taking place at a time when the Procedure Committee of this House is reviewing the whole subject of the procedure of this House, under Standing Order No. 216.
But be that as it may, the point to which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will address himself is this. Let us assume that there is the exceptional case— and as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said, there have been only two or three of these in the past 20 or 30 years, but they have all been cases of some considerable importance to those concerned with them— in which one of Her Majesty's subjects feels aggrieved, because there has not been a public inquiry and no opportunity of presenting a case by Petition. Let us assume that a Committee is considering that matter within the period of 28 days. Would the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, please tell me whether in those circumstances it would be the intention of the Government, notwithstanding the terms of this Amendment, to proceed at the expiration of 28 days to ask the House to pass an Affirmative Resolution? Or would it be open to Members of this House to draw attention to the fact that there was an inquiry proceeding and, through no fault of theirs, it had not been completed, and would that be a case in which the Government would think it right not to exercise their powers on the 29th day in asking this House for an Affirmative Resolution?
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, following upon that, may I just put this point to the noble Lord? Does not this Amendment mean that after the 28th day
662
the hybrid procedures stop, and it then has to be treated as if it were a public order, with no hybridity?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and others who have welcomed the Government's initiative in this matter. The reason why we took this initiative has nothing to do with what may be or may not be the position in the House of Commons. There was a genuine feeling in your Lordships' House that Petition rights which have been jealously guarded for very many years should not be taken away lightly. The Government felt that, in a set of circumstances, the provisions in the Bill were right and proper. Time is of very great importance. If you were to delay a month or so, you could lose over a year because of the weather conditions in the North Sea.
The great difficulty stems from Standing Order No. 216, which I think the noble and learned Viscount will agree with me has been in our Standing Orders since 1925 unamended, and it provides that once the Hybrid procedure has been started, irrespective of the length of the inquiry, the House is not able at all to consider whether the order should be approved. That was the difficulty of Standing Order No. 216, and it was the reason for the clause that was in the Bill.
My Lords, I did not enjoy the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I thought it was rather sour. May I say to him, however, that the Government, the Secretary of State, will be required under the Bill to notify by advertisement and other actions those who are directly affected by any acquisition order, and this has to be done before the order is laid in Parliament. Therefore, there is no reason why some interested body should not be aware of the Government's intention. But with regard to those organisations which may not be directly affected but have an outside or overall interest in environmental matters., I will see what can be done to ensure that they are informed.
My Lords, as the noble and learned Viscount said, the Procedure Committee is now very anxiously looking into ways and means by which our procedures can

663
be streamlined; and we are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who has done a great deal in this matter. I believe that the Procedure Committee has already reached preliminary decisions and the question is now one of drafting. These matters will shortly come before your Lordships' House, and I think that as a consequence of the proposed Amendments to the Standing Order many of the difficulties that were foreseen by the Government will be removed.
My Lords, in regard to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, the position is that the hybrid procedure will be started. We certainly can use the flexibility and good will of your Lordships' House to ensure that as far as possible all the steps that are open to Petitioners are available and are proceeded with. But the procedure here now makes it possible for the Government on the 29th day to put down an Order for consideration under the Affirmative Resolution procedure. It is then entirely for your Lordships' House to decide whether or not you approve the Motion. Your Lordships can take into account the evidence that the Select Committee may have obtained; no doubt there will be circumstances mentioned by correspondents and by the Press. I want to impress upon the House that the procedure I am putting forward here does not in any way remove the rights of this House to reject a proposal or to move a Motion for the adjournment of its consideration if it should feel that to be the right course. To that extent, if there is an exceptional case I believe it can be dealt with on the 29th day. I stress that this permits the Government to move if they so wish; it is not a requirement to do so on the 29th day. Any sensible Government will take into account the general circumstances surrounding the proposal and whether your Lordships' House is willing to proceed and to give it favourable support.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has done his work on the Industry Bill. I feel very strongly about your Lordships' House and the way we conduct our business. I therefore have no intention of speculating or hazarding a guess as to what may be in the Industry Bill when considering
664
the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill. My Lords, having had this longer debate than I thought was likely on this Amendment, I hope your Lordships will now give it your approval. If there are any questions of substance which I have not dealt with I will write to noble Lords and I hope I can then put their fears, if any, at rest.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.3 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—.(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, briefly I felt that this Bill should not leave us in its present form at this stage without a few words being said upon it. It was discussed in the context of winning offshore oil in quantity as soon as possible— an admirable aim. But the Bill will do little to help to achieve that purpose, for two reasons: first, the oil programme is slowing down because of the likely effects of the Government's taxation policy and also their intention concerning 51 per cent. participation. Secondly, the Bill concerns itself with the acquisition of land, and that has not yet been a cause of any delay with the oil programme. The delays which have occurred with, unfortunately, the loss of tens of millions of tons of oil in the years 1977–78, have been due to planning procedures which are not dealt with by this Bill. Therefore, the Government in this Bill are trying to close the stable door long after the occupant has cantered away; moreover, they have chosen the wrong door to open. They are dealing with land acquisition and not with planning procedures.
Some parts of the Bill, when it first reached us, were commended on the grounds that it seemed they would never be used or applied, which was a strange commendation. The Bill has been much improved by the three main amendments, and I think they can all be described as being constitutional or Parliamentary procedure.
Finally, may I express our admiration to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—I am sorry his duties keep him elsewhere— for his stamina on each of the three days in replying to the many points and

665
queries which we have put. We only regret that the contents of the Bill have not been sufficiently worth while or as relevant to the urgency of winning the offshore oil to have made all his efforts necessary.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I do not reply to the noble Lord I do so only in the interests of your Lordships' House. I should be happy to continue the debate on the various points he has raised but I do not think this is the occasion to do so. I have next to introduce a very important Bill and it may be that I shall then need to inflict a long speech on your Lordships, so perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. If there are any other points I will write to him. I am grateful for his thanks to my noble friend Lord Hughes, who needs stamina when dealing with the Scots.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments disagreed to, with Reasons for such disagreement, and with Amendments to certain other Amendments; the said Amendments and Reasons being printed pursuant to Stand-Order No. 48.

PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX
4.6 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Balogh): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat—with apologies for the delay for which I am not responsible—a Statement about the Petroleum Revenue Tax, which has been made some time ago in another place:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about petroleum revenue tax.
"On Second Reading of the Oil Taxation Bill I indicated that any relief for marginal fields would be decided in the light of the consultations with the oil companies launched on 19th November. Following these consultations the Government have decided that safeguards for the marginal fields will be
666
of two kinds. First, there will be a discretionary provision in the Petroleum Bill to refund royalties in whole or in part. Any refund of royalties will be free of PRT and corporation tax.
"Secondly, there will be a non-discretionary provision within the tax system. In considering what form the provision should take we have paid careful attention to the various suggestions put forward by the spokesmen of the companies themselves, and our proposals follow some of those suggestions, though I do not claim that they go as far.
"The non-discretionary provision will contain two elements. First, under the present PRT provisions of the Bill an uplift of 50 per cent. on capital, expenditure is allowed in lieu of interest; we propose an additional 25 per cent., making a total uplift of 75 per cent., all of which can be claimed in the first year of tax liability. This will give the industry a further element of frontend loading, that is revenue free of PRT which will help them to recover capital early in the life of the field.
"Second, we propose an oil allowance per field of 1 million tons of oil a year, which will be free of PRT, subject to a cumulative total of 10 million tons per field. That is to say, in each chargeable period of six months, an allowance in money terms equivalent to half a million tons will be available to set against PRT liability.
"These provisions will of course benefit all fields, not merely marginal fields, in exempting a substantial tranche of their revenue from PRT, and to that extent giving them a more secure prospect of return on their investment. But, since the tonnage allowance is the same for large fields and small, it will be of proportionately greater benefit to the latter, and we have had this in mind in adapting the suggestions received from the industry.
"I believe that these provisions will help us to fix a rate of PRT with greater security that it will leave the companies an adequate rate of return. I am of course fully seized of the fact that a change in the price of oil relative to price levels generally could have a profound effect on profitability. I

667
therefore made it clear on Second Reading, and I take this opportunity to reaffirm, that the Government will stand ready to review and adjust the incidence of PRT in the event of a sustained and significant change in the price of oil in real terms.
"But I have given careful thought to the representations made that there should be some more automatic protection against a fall in the oil price and a consequential reduction in revenues. We therefore propose that there should be a safeguard provision that to the extent that in any year the PRT charge reduces the return on a field before corporation tax to less than 30 per cent. of capital expenditure measured on the basis of historic cost, that charge will be cancelled. There will be a tapering provision above 30 per cent.
"These non-discretionary provisions will be introduced at the Report stage of the Oil Taxation Bill.
"I come now to the rate of tax. I had originally envisaged that the rate of PRT would be enacted in the spring Finance Bill. However, now that the timetable allows this, I propose that it be incorporated in the Oil Taxation Bill. In considering the rate we have in mind two objectives. First, we must ensure that the Government, on behalf of the British people, secure sufficient overall revenue and sufficient benefit to the balance of payments from this raw material asset. Secondly, we must ensure for the companies an adequate return on capital and an adequate incentive for further development and exploration so as to ensure that the oil continues to flow. In the light of these considerations we propose a rate of PRT of 45 per cent."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
4.13 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the House will be grateful that the noble Lord has been able to repeat the Statement which at least goes some way towards putting an end to the damaging uncertainty that has hovered over the North Sea oil companies for far too long. But I am bound to regret the manner in which this uncertainty is being ended. This is a
668
long, complicated and technical Statement and we shall have an opportunity to discuss it fully when the Oil Taxation Bill comes before this House. For the moment, it seems to me that the Government have got themselves hooked with an arrangement which simply fails to recognise the realities. PRT is essentially an inappropriate instrument, I should have thought, for dealing with the North Sea; it is far too rigid.
In attempting to adjust the tax—and all credit to them for at least having listened to what was said to them—the Government end up with some very complicated qualifications. The noble Lord referred to the discretionary provisions. I wonder whether he could tell us what this means. Is this the Revenue's discretion or the Minister's discretion; and on what kind of criteria will this discretion be exercised? Then the Statement uses the expression "front end loading" in exactly the opposite sense to that which I have understood to be the normal one. My understanding is that it was used by the oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico when talking about bonus bidding systems when you pay out losses at the beginning and have a modest rate of royalties thereafter. It seems to me that in the Statement it is exactly the opposite way round.
Then we go back to the question of who defines a field which, in view of this Statement, becomes an even more important question than it has been in the past. It remains a very difficult question. So we end up, as I understand it, with a flat rate tax on a fleld-by-field basis, which is essentially a prior charge attempting to deal with a great variety of structures in terms of size of the reservoir, capital investment and timing. The shortcomings of the tax have been pointed out, I can only say, ad nauseam in another place. We should have preferred to see the excess profits approach, to cream off the windfall profits due to the price increases. This kind of approach allows for all variables, including the price.
I doubt whether this Statement will restore the wilting confidence of the oil companies. In particular, I should like to ask the Government how, despite the provisions they have announced in it, they think that this Statement will give an incentive to the oil companies to explore for new fields as opposed to

669
developing the fields already found. I suppose that we should thank Heaven for small mercies. I do so; but in doing so, I must raise a voice in small protest that we have provisions of this magnitude suddenly being introduced into a Bill at the Report stage. Is this not an extraordinary way in which to run the Government of this country?
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches would naturally study carefully this long and extremely complicated Statement and would not wish to express definite views on it at the present time. I should like simply to say that, along with the noble Lord who has just spoken, we trust that the measures will not in any way diminish or seriously affect the incentive on the part of the companies to extract the oil. There is one question which perhaps the noble Lord could answer. Can he say, broadly speaking, how these proposed measures compare with similar measures proposed by the Norwegian Government.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I appreciate that this is a very complicated Statement and I fully understand why the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, did not understand it at all. It would have been a superhuman effort; and unlike some noble Lords opposite, we are not all superhuman in understanding and dealing with this matter. First let me say to the noble Lord, although my English is imperfect, that I am certainly not capable of interpreting expressions used by American companies in the Mexican Gulf. "Front end loading" means that the loading will be allowed at the beginning of the life of the field. I do not think, as I say, that I can be responsible for the American expression; but I can say, so far as British practice in this field will be concerned, that as our allowances take effect at the beginning it enormously increases the profitability of the field. Anybody who has any notion about discounted income flows will readily agree to that. The noble Lord then said that this is a fixed charge.
I was not aware of the fact that income tax and surtax in this country were fixed charges before the new reforms introduced by the previous Government! There was only one income tax rate, except for a small variation at the beginning of the payment. But, of course,
670
exceptions, tax allowances, et cetera, made it very much a progressive tax. This is achieved by our proposals in this case. As a result of the investment allowances, the million ton tax free oil allowance and various other measures, we have a system which is variable but which increases very rapidly. In that sense, it is an excess profits tax.
For instance, the Norwegians and the Americans in the beginning thought of an excess profits tax, but it proved difficult to implement and extremely clumsy. The Norwegians, like ourselves, have now introduced a petroleum tax of 25 per cent. of the profits, but in their case this cannot be offset against corporation tax. If it is grossed up the Norwegian rate is slightly above 50 per cent. and ours is 45 per cent. So on the whole, if we compare only the rates—45 against 50 per cent.—ours is slightly lower than theirs.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made some remarks on the Bill which has just departed from us. His words were repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, about wilting confidence— American companies are "upping and going ". At present activity in the North Sea, despite abominable weather— not previously experienced I believe since 1891—doubled last year. Even the Conservative Government did not inspire a three-day week in the oilfields last winter, only in the coal mines. So on the whole I do not see any wilting confidence.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, may I interrupt for one moment? I am not suggesting that the companies are "upping and going ". I am not suggesting that there is not an expanding programme in being. What I am suggesting, and what I am absolutely certain is the case, is that the rate of expansion has slowed down practically to a halt. This is what bothers us.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, the noble Lord can make double differential equations. I congratulate him on his skill. It is obviously not true that one can expand as one has been expanding. I remember, although the simile may hurt the noble Lord's feelings, that when Stalin made two motor-cars instead of one he said that there was a 100 per cent. increase in the rate of expansion in the

671
motor-car industry in Stalinite Russia. I do not want to enter into a statistical exercise such as this.
The noble Lord complained that this important matter will be introduced in the Report stage of the Oil Taxation Bill. At the same time, he also complained that there were not enough discussions. Which does the noble Lord want? Discussions obviously take a long time. These are complicated matters with an extremely complicated system of reducing income to present values. The companies themselves were not always able to reply promptly, although they have co-operated and I must pay tribute to their co-operation. The question of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was a very proper one. I can assure him that our taxation rate is slightly lower than that in Norway. But the overall effect of various measures is difficult to ascertain because their depreciation provisions, to which I attach the greatest importance, are on the whole less favourable to the companies than are ours.

HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES BILL
4.26 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendments to certain other of the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendments to certain other of the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith.— (Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OTHER OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (51) as first printed by the Lords. Commons Reasons and Amendments are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 1 and 2.]
Clause 2, page 2, line 3, leave out from "circumstances" to end of line 5.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason —
Because the Amendment would enable local authorities to make a profit on their Housing Revenue Account.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2:
"Because the Amendment would enable local authorities to make a profit on their Housing Revenue Account."
This Amendment was inserted by your Lordships' House against the advice of the Government spokesman during the Committee stage. The reason for what I may call the no-profit rule being in the Bill in the first place was my Party's adherence to the principle that local authority housing should be run as a non-profit-making service. I need not at this stage traverse all the ground of shortages, Rachmanism, the slum problem and homelessness which have led to our conviction that there should be provided in every town a substantial pool of housing to rent, of good quality, out of which no profit should be made, and that the Statute Book should say so.
Your Lordships discussed this matter in Committee, and I see from re-reading our debate that some of the points raised reflected a misapprehension regarding what a surplus or a profit might be, and I hope that I can briefly dispel this. The fear that the provision might prevent spending on improvements and amenities, or might prevent the housing account from balancing, or prevent provision for unexpected changes, all have in common a certain missing of the point. This provision will not hamper local authorities when they come to make their estimates. They will set down on the expenditure side exactly what they do now. If they think it right to set down some provision for improvements and amenities they will do so. Although we are now in a situation which calls for strict economy, it will obviously be right in principle, when the situation allows, to make such provision. If they want to make provision for some unforeseen change they will do that also. That will be included in the working balance. Another way of putting it is: provision for contingencies. Certainly in addition they will be making provision for inflation, as they do now. The no-profit rule

673
concerns a situation that may arise after all this has been done.
Let me take the case of an authority whose housing accounts are, relatively speaking, in a fairly good state. The joint first claims on any apparent surplus might be a rebuilding of the working balance to a reasonable level and restraining rent increases next year. As the next priority, the authority should carefully re-examine the housing needs of its area: have the council really replaced all unfit houses and provided houses for all families living in lodgings? If not, they will, we hope, use their favourable position to increase their building programme, giving perhaps more attention to special needs like the disabled, one-parent families and the single person. Next, perhaps, would come an expansion of work on general improvement areas and priority neighbourhoods under the Housing Act 1974. The local authority would, I hope, look to the quality of its housing environment. Fifth might come the provision of amenities on existing housing estates—work which local authorities often do, using their housing powers.
These, in the Government's view, and in the view of many of the Peers who spoke when we debated this subject, are the proper uses of any housing resources which a local authority may find surplus during its budgeting process.
There was also a more general proposition underlying the Amendment which your Lordships made: that although local authorities need not consciously plan for profit, it was suggested that a surplus which was built up in one year might help to stabilise rents in the following years as it was run down. As a principle of private finance, putting something aside for a rainy day is good, but as a principle of local authority housing finance it has disadvantageous consequences. It means a very large jump in rents now, in a difficult year, to build up any worthwhile reserve; it means finding the most inflation-proof home that one can for the reserve, which is not easy; it means defending the reserve from the raiding propensities of the chairmen of other committees; and it means another large jump in rents at the end of the period of apparent stability. It has not achieved anything that is worth while. It is far better to meet circumstances when they come and, if an increase is neces-
674
sary, then to make it, but for no more than is necessary.
Yet the Amendment which your Lordships made would have opened the way in recent years to an authority whose policies might be quite unacceptable. Small though the risk is in present circumstances, since the likelihood of any authority making a profit next year is small, it is not a risk that should be run, nor is it an idea that should be presented to a council as having any potential merit. For this purpose we need a financial safety net to ensure that housing funds are used for housing purposes and that the possibility of socially necessary housing generating funds to be used for quite different purposes docs not arise. This is the last stage in the Bill prior to Royal Assent. Local authorities are now in great and growing need of some definite statement of the law as it will stand for the next financial year. Those who might wish to prolong consideration of this Bill would bear a heavy responsibility if they did so.
Moved. That the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, it must be a matter of much regret to those of us on this side of the House that the Government have not felt able to support either of the major Amendments which were carried in this House. One of the objects of this Bill was to restore to local authorities freedom to fix their rents. By putting back the Amendment that we carried to Clause 1, the Government have begun by breaking this principle. There is now no freedom for an authority, if it wishes to do so, to make a surplus. Although I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said in trying to explain the very confusing Clause 1— when an authority is allowed to make a balance but when it is breaking the law by making a surplus—I am bound to say that I found her argument unconvincing. Of course, a good authority will try to provide something for contingencies, but it is very difficult to see what the difference is between providing a working balance for contingencies and providing a working balance for a surplus. The fact is that we are living in a very different world from the world of the 1957 Act, the

675
principles upon which this Bill is based. There is now rampant inflation. It is exceedingly difficult for anybody to say what building costs will be in six months' time, let alone in a year's time.
I believe that the consequences of Clause 1 could be very serious for local authorities. If, indeed, a local authority underestimates its expenses, two consequences will inevitably follow. One is the possibility that there will have to be a supplementary rate to offset the deficit. This is the only way in which they can make up the difference. Alternatively, there will have to be a very large rent increase. There is, in fact, a third possibility; that the Government might provide something more by way of subsidies. However, I think we can exclude this possibility, because that is not suggested under the terms of the Bill. What is much more likely to follow is that ratepayers will be asked to meet the deficits. These could well occur, not from malice aforethought on the part of housing authorities but because they are so restricted by Clause 1 that they may well feel that, although they could have made a surplus, they were not supposed to do so, and they have miscalculated what they need for contingencies. I believe that this makes housing sense, and I am sorry that the Government have not felt able to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 3 and 4]
Clause 10, page 8, line 1, leave out Clause 10.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because it is wrong that a tenancy should cease to be controlled by reference only to rateable value.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason No. 4:
"Because it is wrong that a tenancy should cease to be controlled by reference only to rateable value ".
With the leave of the House, I will speak now to all of the remaining Amendments. These will reinstate the provisions to bring to an end the programme of general decontrol under the Housing Finance Act
676
1972. The main Amendment is Amendment No. 3; Amendments Nos. 5 to 11 are consequential and technical.
In the course of our discussions on this Bill, we have examined and re-examined the arguments for and against general decontrol, and I do not propose to go over the whole of this ground again. However, I should remind noble Lords that the arguments turn on a question of principle, the principle that tenants should not be faced with rent increases of several hundred per cent. in respect of dwellings which do not have standard amenities and are in a poor state of repair. The Government are determined to protect tenants until we achieve the complete social ownership of rented dwellings which is, of course, our eventual aim. Tenants of controlled dwellings are in special need of protection, not just because of the sub-standard quality of so many of their houses, but because so often they are precisely those tenants— the old and the poor—who are least well able to help themselves.
Noble Lords opposite have argued that the termination of general decontrol will lead to the greater decay of this part of the private sector. The Government share their concern, since we agree that it is of no benefit to tenants or anybody else that controlled property should be allowed to decay. I think some noble Lords, however, have underestimated how much we are doing in this Bill to encourage the carrying out of repairs.
Termination of general decontrol does not mean that controlled properties can never move into regulation and the fanrents system. The tenancy can, of course, be converted to regulation if a landlord improves the dwelling to the qualifying standard— that is, with the standard amenities and in a good state of repair. We recognise that some landlords will not or cannot undertake this work, and we have provided additional incentives to maintain those properties in good repair.
Clause 11 goes further than any previous Government have gone in making it possible for those landlords who repair controlled dwellings—as well as those who improve them—to get a return on their expenditure. We have accepted, partly as a result of Opposition representations, that where landlords have in the past been keeping dwellings in

677
repair out of their own pockets or have already put their property in a better state of repair because they expected general decontrol, they should be able to get some benefit by way of increased rent. Otherwise they would be in a worse position than landlords who have neglected repair until their properties were automatically decontrolled, when they would get higher rents. The Amendment to Clause 11 which we introduced into this House made a significant concession in backdating the provision to cover repairs carried out since 6th April 1973.
As I have said the point at issue, in our view, is that the automatic change for a sitting tenant from rent control to rent regulation on the basis of rateable value, regardless of the state of repair of the dwelling and the amenities provided, is indefensible. On other occasions I have drawn the attention of the House to what is meant by the standard amenities, and there can be few people who would argue that such amenities should not be basic to every home. The termination of general decontrol is in response to the problem of tenants, and it is right that Government policy should be so directed. The needs of tenants living in controlled property deserve special attention for the reasons I have explained.
I hope that noble Lords opposite will realise that this is not just a tenants' Bill; it genuinely tries to take account of the difficulties, both financial and otherwise, that landlords face in trying to help their tenants by carrying out repairs. We are convinced that the Bill will improve the prospects that more controlled properties will be improved and repaired. I am sure the House will appreciate that, believing as we do, we cannot accept automatic decontrol. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, once again it is a matter of regret to us on this side of the House that, for purely ideological reasons and against all the evidence of the facts, the Government have re-inserted Clause 10. As I said on Second Reading and also at the Committee stage, I think the practical con-
678
sequences of this will not be as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and that in fact we shall see more property remaining slum property and not being improved, as we all want to see.
Of course I am glad to welcome the provisions in Clause 11, which for the first time do something to help the landlord to repair the property, but it is somewhat misleading to the House to suggest that the principle involved here is that tenants should not pay a 100 per cent. increase in rent. Any controlled tenancy that becomes a regulated tenancy will be subject to the rent officer, who will of course take into account the condition of the property, and the condition of the properties that we are speaking about is bad. I accept that fact, and also that the rent of them is very low, often as little as £40 a year.
But unless something is done to encourage the improvement of these properties and to give a reasonable return on what the landlord could do for them over a period of time, we will not see them repaired and they will simply continue as they are until they become ruins. I should have thought that to allow them to become regulated tenancies, subject to the rent officer and taking into account the condition of the house, was a reasonable proposition, not only because this seems to be a matter of common sense but also because it has the support of the Francis Committee which looked into rented accommodation and was set up by the last Labour Government, and which tried to do something about this difficult and intractable problem. As I have said, we on this side of the House regret that nothing is to be done, but we accept that there is nothing further we can do at this stage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. .5 and 6.]
Clause 15, page 12, line 31, leave out from "Act" to end of line 33 and insert "extends to the Isles of Scilly, except—

section 2;

sections 8 to 11;

Schedules 2 to 4. "

The Commons agreed to this Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment there-to:—
Line 4, at end insert "together with subsection (5) above so far as it relates to the repeals contained in Part III of Schedule 6."
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 to the Lords Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 to the Lords Amendment No. 5— (Baroness Birk).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 7–9.]
Schedule 5, page 29, line 24, leave out from "to" to end of line 32 and insert "the following provisions of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975, namely—
section 2 (reserve power to limit rents);
section 8 and Schedule 2 (phasing of rent increases for private sector housing);
section 9 and Schedule 3 (certain amenities to be disregarded in determining fair rent);
section 11 and Schedule 4 (increases of rent under controlled tenancy permitted towards costs of repaids)."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment, but proposed the following Amendments thereto:—
Line 8, at end insert—
"Section 10 (termination of decontrol of tenancies by reference to rateable value)."
Line 10, at end insert "together with section 15(5), so far as it relates to the repeals contained in part 111 of Schedule 6."
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 to the Lords Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 to the Lords Amendment No. 7.—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, may I say that we on this side of the House are grateful that in another place the Government have seen fit to keep in their Amendment by which certain amenities may be disregarded in calculating the fair rent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 10 and II.]
Schedule 6, page 35, leave out lines 1 to 12.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because it is wrong that a tenancy should cease to be controlled by reference only to rateable value.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on
680
their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 11, because it is wrong that a tenancy should cease to be controlled by reference only to rateable value.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.46 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Leader of the House at last begins his speech on this topic, I wonder whether I might ask him, without any desire to delay your Lordships, where we stand on the business of today. I do not think I ought to lay blame on any Member of the House or on the Government, but we have now reached 4.45 and we have a list of 24 speakers, which is usually considered the maximum that we can undertake in a day. It has been represented to me by Members of my own side of the House— and I was already contemplating asking the Leader —that he really ought to consider turning this into a two-day debate, because it is not doing any good to Parliament by starting at 4.45 on a list of 24 speakers on a Bill of this importance, which has excited this measure of public interest. I am sorry to have to trouble the House and the noble Leader with this complaint, but I think he will see that it is not without substance and that I have reason.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has said.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, did not need to join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in his comments on this matter, because I share his view. If he had not intervened I had intended to apologise to your Lordships' House, because with an important Bill of this nature it is quite wrong that it should start at 4.45. When the noble and learned Lord rose, my first instinct was to see whether another day

681
could be found. The difficulty is of course that a number of noble Lords whose names appear on the list are very busy people—I see the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in his place—and if we were to arrange a new date at this moment without warning, it might well place those noble Lords in great difficulties. Whether we could adjourn at some stage and turn this into a two-day debate, I do not know. But I will look at it after I have delivered my own speech, which I certainly intend to shorten, and will see whether I can meet the noble and learned Lord's suggestion.
Unfortunately, of course, tomorrow is not a Government day; it is a Wednesday, when it is the right of Back-Bench and Cross-Bench Members to have their own debates. I wonder whether it would be in the interests of the House to adjourn the second part of this debate till Thursday. I can foresee difficulties, but if the noble and learned Lord would permit me, when I have delivered my speech and have listened to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I will go away and see what we can do and perhaps discuss it through the usual channels.
My Lords, this is a small but important and unusual Bill. It would be wrong to claim that it is not controversial and, as your Lordships will be aware, the space devoted to it in the Press has been quite disproportionate to its length. I intend to discuss the issues which have recently commanded so much attention in the Press, but first I should like to explain the reasons for the Bill as a whole. I need not concern the House with origins of the particular provisions in the Bill. They stem from the amendments to the principal Bill, now the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, which were made both in this House and in another place against the advice of the Government in the last Parliament.
The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act was the first stage of the Government's legislation on industrial relations. Proposals for the second stage— the more forward-looking Employment Protection Bill— were set out in the Consultative Document published before the Election in September. This also con-
682
tained proposals for amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.
Following the Election, the Government decided it would be best to bring forward the measures designed to amend the Act in a separate short Bill, so that the period during which the unsatisfactory provisions remained on the Statute Book would be as limited as possible. We think that unnecessary hazards to good industrial relations should be removed as quickly as possible. These might arise from the operation of provisions which are contrary to the spirit in which the Government believe industrial relations should be approached, and which in some cases pose considerable difficulties of interpretation for the courts and tribunals in their application to particular situations.
My Lords, more important than this, however, is the difficulty of leaving on the Statute Book provisions which, to trade unionists at least, seem to belong to the Industrial Relations Act which the Government were elected to repeal. Some may feel that this is an aspect which is grossly exaggerated. I do not share that view. The Industrial Relations Act attracted considerable hostility, and while remnants remain on the Statute Book its impact is a factor to be reckoned with and the good will which is an essential component of the successful return to free collective bargaining is put in jeopardy. It is perhaps a somewhat unquantifiable factor, but those familiar with labour matters will well appreciate that sound industrial relations can come only from building up the right sort of atmosphere. We would be wrong to ignore this aspect, and therefore the need to remove the vestiges of the legislation which so soured the atmosphere is one of the main reasons for this Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and others took part last July in the considerations on the Act to which I have just referred. The Amendments were fully discussed in Committee and on Report. Looking at the Hansards of that month, and looking at the brief provided to me by the Department, I suspect that little new will be said. Perhaps in the interests of time I could turn directly to the two clauses of the Bill which have caused the most difficulty and the greatest

683
comment in the Press, leaving the other aspects of the Bill—important though they may be—for further consideration in detail in Committee.
Clause l(e) removes from the paragraph of the principal Act dealing with dismissals in a closed shop the proviso that such dismissals would be unfair if someone objected on any reasonable grounds to being a member of a particular trade union, and Clause 2(3) amends the definition of a "union membership agreement" so as to make clear that it is for the employers and unions making such an agreement to decide to what union or unions anyone who is covered by the agreement should belong. Let me state briefly why we are amending these provisions, so as to negate the effects of the so-called "Lever Amendments" inserted in the Bill in another place last summer.
First, the drafting of both clauses causes very considerable difficulties for those concerned in industry— employers, unions and individuals—and for tribunals who will have to interpret those provisions. But far more important, these Amendments undermine the whole principle of the closed shop. We cannot accept that employers and unions should not be free to arrange their own joint affairs by agreement without the intervention of the law to restrict such agreements or to impose terms in them against the will of the parties. Nor, however, can we accept that it is right to say that employers and unions may make closed shop agreements, but that an employer may have to pay compensation to an individual as a consequence of doing so; and that is the only issue on which these closed shop provisions have any bearing. In intent, if not perhaps in legal effect, these Lever Amendments cut clean across the legislation of the closed shop, and so prevent a return to the pre-1971 position when no one challenged the right of employers and unions to make closed shop arrangements, and in the final resort to dismiss employees who would not fall in with those arrangements. We cannot let the ghost of the Industrial Relations Act continue to haunt our new legislation in this respect.
My Lords, there are two strands to the attack on the closed shop. The first admits the possibility of a 100 per cent.
684
union shop, but says that employees should be able to choose to what union they wish to belong—regardless of what unions the employer wants to recognise. This case has been argued by a number of small professional associations in particular, who are concerned that their members may be compelled under closed shop arrangements to join large craft or general unions which, they feel, do not adequately represent the professional's interest. This is primarily a question of what unions an employer is prepared to recognise for various purposes, and that is a matter which we shall be dealing with more fully in the forthcoming Employment Protection Bill. I hope that this House would accept that an employer should not be compelled to have dealings with a host of small, different unions each representing perhaps a handful of employees. That cannot be good for industrial relations, or for the efficient conduct of free collective bargaining— and it is, of course, to avoid such a situation that some employers are anxious to enter into closed shop agreements. None the less, the definition in our legislation of a closed shop agreement ensures that every union or association has a chance of making special arrangements for its members if closed shop arrangements are made.
My Lords, closed shop agreements need not be confined to unions which an employer recognises for negotiating purposes. Any independent union can seek to make arrangements with an employer, either to require that certain grades of employee should join its membership, or to be recognised as an alternative to some other union in a closed shop, or to have its members or grades which it represents excluded from closed shop arrangements altogether. In another place we introduced in Clause 2(4) Amendments designed to ensure that the definition of union membership agreement would operate flexibly enough to enable particular groups in special circumstances to be excluded from the closed shop requirements. One of these Amendments was criticised on the ground that it did not seem to do what it set out to do, and at a later stage I intend to move an Amendment taking into account the Opposition's suggestion in another place.
My Lords, the second strand of the argument against the closed shop con-

685
cerns the right of the individual to opt out of union membership if he objects on grounds of conscience to joining a union. We have, of course, excepted religious believers, whose creed clearly states that they may not be associated with unbelievers, be they in unions, or any other form of association. But we do not believe that it is possible in legislation— and I stress "in legislation "—to identify in a realistic way other groups of conscientious objection to union membership. We are supported in our belief by the judgments of tribunals, who have interpreted the references to conscientious objection in the Industrial Relations Act as meaning religious objection.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but can he clear up a point for me? He says he has protected religious beliefs. Does he say that that means a man cannot be expelled from a union on the grounds of religious belief, or merely that if a man is expelled he is entitled to compensation? There is a crucial difference here.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my understanding is that a man on conscientious grounds need not join a union, even though it is in a closed shop relationship with the employer.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I hesitate to prolong this intervention, but I have to say that that is not the generally accepted interpretation of the Act.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps we can pursue this matter when we come to Committee stage. It is an important matter.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is it really being said by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that only religious people have consciences? Does he really forget that during the war, when it was a question of military service, the tribunals were able to identify conscientious objection which was not religious?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is quite right in terms of conscientious objection to joining the Services, and there were a number of grades of that. I rest my case and we will deal with it in Committee. But I do not think the noble and learned Lord will dispute that the tribunals, when
686
they had to consider these matters, were forced to rely and fall back upon a religious objection as being the conscientious ground. They have not found in any other way.
We do not accept that there should be a general "right not to belong". The reason for this is simple. It is by giving a "right not to belong" that the effective closed shop is outlawed—something which has been widely accepted on all sides as being undesirable and unworkable. But what we have done is to ensure that those drawing up a closed shop agreement have the maximum flexibility in making exceptions, and in particular avoided the risk that the tribunal might regard the union membership agreement as invalid because a few individuals were not required to join. It is in fact common practice, in those companies where closed shop agreements are made, to make special exceptions and arrangements to safeguard individual employees, and we have tried in this Bill to enable practices of this kind to be reflected in the definition of union membership agreement.
These two strands of objection to the closed shop have both been brought into the debate about the effects of the Bill upon the freedom of the Press, which is, of course, the main issue which has been discussed in relation to this Bill. This is a vital matter, and the Government in no way underestimate the strongly held feelings on the subject—indeed we share them. But, of course, this discussion has ranged far wider than the scope of this Bill. Let me try to summarise the arguments, and put them in the context of this particular piece of legislation.
The guardians of Press freedom start from the premise that there will be an NUJ closed shop in the newspaper industry if this legislation does not ban it. The law does not and will not require a closed shop to be established, and gives ample opportunities to proprietors and others, when negotiating any closed shop agreements which may be made, to exclude editors, to include special terms and conditions for them, and so on. But none of that, it appears, impresses those who are concerned about the Bill's provisions, who argue that, if the NUJ lawfully can, it will force proprietors to concede closed shops agreements covering editors. In other words, their argument

687
rests not on what is in the Bill, but on what they take to be the attitude of the NUJ.
Let us recognise that first fundamental point. I believe it is worth examining further. If we were to legislate in this Bill for the alleged attitude of the NUJ, what would be the result? First, we have to assume that a legal remedy would have the desired result. Unfortunately, the history of legisation in this area does not suggest that passing laws to deal with the closed shop is a fruitful activity for the Legislature. This may be regrettable to some, but we all ought at least to be prepared to learn from experience. I am not myself wanting to suggest that trade unionists in journalism would not respect the law, but it ill behoves those who fear the worst of the NUJ and who are not prepared to put their trust in voluntary agreements made by the industry to argue for a legal remedy which has so clearly failed to stick in the past.
Secondly, suppose that we do amend the Bill. We could do two things within the framework of this Bill— and I emphasise that. First, we could say, in the definition of a "union membership agreement", that there is no "union membership agreement" in so far as it applies to editors. What are the effects? Not to prevent closed shop agreements which apply only to editors being made — the Bill does not touch on that at all. The only effect is that if an editor is not a member of the NUJ and his employer dismisses him—which, of course, he does not by law have to do—then the editor may be entitled to compensation for his dismissal. Does that protect the freedom of the Press?
Alternatively, we could specifically say that dismissal of an editor for non-membership of a closed shop union is unfair, and therefore he should be able to receive compensation from his em-employer. The same result again— but I suggest no substantial protection for Press freedom. The only issue at stake —all that this Bill deals with in the context of the closed shop— is whether compensation should be payable by the employer on dismissal. That will not influence the attitude of the NUJ.
So what those who would legislate for the attitude of the NUJ are seeking
688
is, in fact, some kind of provision which is completely outside the scope of ths Bill as it is before this House. The definition of "union membership agreement" and the dismissals provisions in Schedule 1, paragraph 6(5), cannot be used to ban the closed shop in journalism. Nor can any other provision in the Bill. I beg any of your Lordships who are contemplating Amendments to this legislation to consider most carefully what I have said, and to consider the effects of Amendments which they may have it in mind to table.
I recognise, however, that the debate on Press freedom has gone too far for me to stop there, with saying that this Bill is irrelevant. Let me pursue the arguments further. Suppose that we were to attempt to ban the closed shop for editors by saying, not that they could not be dismissed without compensation, but that they could not be dismissed for not being a union member. I would emphasise again the unenforceability of such a law, but that is not my main point. What I want to ask is this: what would be the effect, if the law was enforced, upon Press freedom? In other words, I am asking now: is the closed shop issue in fact relevant to the matter?
The arguments advanced against closed shops in the newspaper industry are, first, that if editors have to join the NUJ, they will be subject to its rules and discipline, which will lay them open to influence by the NUJ upon their editorial policies. Secondly, it is argued that an NUJ closed shop for newspaper staff will prevent outside contributors who are not—and cannot under the union's rules become—NUJ members, from contributing to newspapers.
Let me take editors first. The argument that Press freedom is in jeopardy hinges upon the assumed sinister attitude of the NUJ. I do not want to go into the claims and counter-claims about that. I will assume the worst, for the purposes of my argument. Pressures can and have been exerted on an editor during industrial disputes—irrespective of whether the editor is a member of the NUJ, and irrespective of whether or not there is a closed shop. Banning the closed shop for journalists would not stop such pressures, would not prevent "blacking" of any articles, would not stop a total halt in production of newspapers. That is not a

689
"closed shop" issue, and I sincerely hope that no one in this Chamber will fall into the trap of citing actions during an industrial dispute in support of arguments for banning the closed shop.
But let us suppose that similar actions were taken when there was no dispute, and the editor was told what to leave out of or put in his newspaper. He can of course cite the NUJ's own code of ethics in refusing to accept such orders. But the question is, would the issue of whether he is or is not a member of the NUJ make any difference? Since we are assuming ill-intent on the part of the NUJ, the answer must surely be, No.
If the editor is a member, he is in a better position to influence the union's policies than if he is not, and he can avail himself of the union's excellent procedures to argue why he should not take orders about the contents of his paper. If he is not a member, the NUJ has only to turn what might otherwise have been a matter for internal resolution within the union into a full-scale dispute, in which union membership is not an issue. Banning the closed shop will not ban militancy directed against editors.
Let us consider the outside contributors and the whole question of free access to the Press. This is a question about which more concern has been expressed than any other. But it is not one which should arise from the provisions of this Bill, because the existence of a closed shop does not, in itself, prevent outside contributions. Closed shop agreements (union membership agreements) as defined in our legislation may apply only to employees. Those who work on a contract for services to write a weekly column, or to cover a local football match, but who are not employed on a newspaper's staff, are not employees. Closed shop agreements as dealt with in our legislation do not affect their position. The existence of a closed shop for staff does not give the NUJ a right to demand that outside contributors should also be union members.
What those who are concerned about free access to the Press are, in effect, asking for is not a ban on closed shop agreements, but a ban on any agreements between proprietors and unions in the industry, as to the use of contributions by non-professional journalists. Again, that is a matter completely outside the scope
690
of this Bill. I hope that I may have convinced at least some noble Lords that a highly important subject— the freedom of the Press—is being discussed in the wrong context; a context within which the scope for action to deal with the anxieties expressed by those who believe sincerely in the freedom of the Press, among whom the Government must be included, is virtually nil.
But noble Lords are entitled to a little more than a despairing shrug from the Government; they are entitled to know what we intend to do to safeguard Press freedom. We have made clear that we think that the best and most effective solution to the potential problems facing editors— in terms of principles governing the application of closed shop arrangements to editors, of the protections against outside interference from any source which should be accorded to editors, and of the principles governing the use of outside contributors—will be those worked out between the parties in the industry. We shall not lightly be dissuaded from that view.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment welcomed the initiative taken by the NUJ in suggesting discussions within the industry about the principles governing the application of closed shop agreements to editors, and about possible model clauses for inclusion in any such closed shop agreements. He encouraged the parties to come together and to discuss and agree upon what safeguards might be embodied in any such agreements. He also welcomed the widening of the scope of these discussions, to cover the whole question of the principle to which all in the newspaper industry should adhere in support of Press freedom and the avoidance of improper pressures.
This broadening of the issues, which really goes to the heart of the matter in a way that the limited issue of the closed shop does not, seemed to be the welcome direction indicated by the draft "editors' charter" drawn up by the editor of the Guardian after discussions with others, and which was also to have been the subject of discussion within the industry. However, alas! some of those involved in the industry proved unwilling to come to the table to discuss matters of the kind which the NUJ proposed last December. Finally, after a good deal of useful

691
informal discussion by some of those involved, the parties did manage to get together on Thursday last week under the neutral chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, to discuss these general matters of vital concern to all in the industry.
Unfortunately, as we all now know, the parties were not prepared to conduct their talks on an industry basis. They have had the chance to consider seriously and deeply all the issues arising from the debate, before committing themselves to any course. What could have emerged from these discussions would be a powerful aid to the maintenance of Press freedom.
Basically it is only in the industry itself that all the issues—by no means confined to the closed shop—can be sorted out in a manner that will ensure the continued support of those in the industry. But the parties have chosen, by a majority of 12 to 2, with one abstention, to refuse to discuss any code designed to protect Press freedom, unless the Government legislate to exclude editors from any closed shop agreements. That is not, I think, a proper way in which to conduct industry talks. Nor, I must make clear, would it be proper for this Parliament to legislate and to amend a Bill, which is not relevant to many of the issues which are thought to be at stake, in a totally unsuitable fashion.
The Government have made clear that they are not opposed to legislation on grounds of high principle, but because they are not convinced that Amendments to this Bill would produce a solution satisfactory to all or any of the parties. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he would be prepared to consider, by some means or other, giving some Parliamentary backing to a charter or similar agreement drawn up by the industry. Those responsible in the industry have in effect declined—I hope only for a short while—to play their part in this, and have refused to bear their proper burden and responsibility as managers with a part to play in the area of industrial relations, and the attendant problems of Press freedom which necessarily arise.
I hope that this House will not be frustrated by the outcome of these discussions and will share with the Secre-
692
tary of State, the Government, and, perhaps, many others in the Press world, who realised how much they had to gain from a successful outcome of general talks on Press freedom, our genuine regret about what has happened. I hope that this House will join with all those who genuinely want to establish a charter for a free Press, in hoping that those parties who voted against an unconditional declaration of support for such a charter will reflect further, and will have further discussions on the matter. That, and not usurping the functions of the legislature, is their role, and the role in which they can make a real contribution if they have only the will to do so.
I do not wish to imply that the Government are washing their hands of such a vital issue as Press freedom; far from it, and we still have time. We are prepared to come in at the right and proper time, in support of policies which command the support of all sides of the industry. If the parties themselves feel that it would be helpful for us to do so, we are prepared to consider how any agreement which emerged from the talks might be incorporated in, or associated in some way with, a code of practice or some similar document. But if it is felt that some wider recognition should be given to what would otherwise be a purely industrial agreement relating to the freedom of the Press generally, or some aspects of it were more specifically recognised by the Government and by Parliament, we would certainly be prepared to consider ways and means of doing so.
Finally, in the light of what has happened, I must repeat further assurances which have already been given in another place. We have at present a Royal Commission on the Press set up by the Government, which is considering evidence from all quarters on issues such as the freedom of the Press, and within whose terms of reference are included inquiry into
" management and labour practices and relations within the industry ".
If all the threats to Press freedom which have been postulated from the NUJ materialise, and if the Royal Commission adduces evidence and recommendations calling for more positive actions by the Government to safeguard Press freedom, we shall not hesitate to act upon the

693
facts in whatever way is likely to be most effective.
I repeat that we do not favour a legislative solution, because we do not think that it will be an effective solution. But if the facts demand such action, we are not turning our faces against bringing forward legislation in the future. But if we do so, it will be well-considered legislation, aimed at genuine problems, not measures which we believe will fail to achieve the ends we all wish to see. I hope that what I have said about the limited scope of the legislation we are considering tonight, and the assurances of Government interest in, and readiness to act upon, the wider issue of the freedom of the Press, will enable us to keep forthcoming discussions of this Bill within the bounds; of conciliation.
My Lords, may I end on a personal note, as the mover of this Bill, to those who will express their concern? I do not believe there is anything between us. We have a desire and determination to ensure the freedom of the Press.
Once, many years ago, I was a member of a union in a closed shop arrangement with the proprietors of the Press, not as a journalist. If a closed shop was in itself a risk to the freedom of the Press, it has existed very many years. But our Press is still free. There is a problem— that I accept. Your Lordships' House has options open to it. I believe this is a wise House. Sometimes it departs from its high standards, but when it wishes it is a very wise and sensible place. We could fight the issue or we could seek a solution. We have our leads into the industry. I hope we shall use our time quietly and constructively to find a solution.
The Government can help and it will — but the House itself can have great influence in reaching a solution. The Government's approach is flexible and understanding. Our eyes are not closed nor are our ears. My door is open to anyone in your Lordships' House who has a constructive suggestion to make.
It is not a draconian measure designed to suppress our traditional liberties, but is, we believe, a worthwhile contribution towards better industrial relations in this country with no pretentions to touch upon grander issues of freedom, democracy and the right to write. I hope
694
that as such your Lordships will give it fair consideration. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Shepherd)
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask—
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sorry but I have sat down and the Question has been put. I should be completely out of order in allowing the noble Lord to proceed, and it would be even worse if I endeavoured to reply to him.
5.26 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, were my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel to devise a system of electing a leader of your Lordships' House which could cut across Party lines, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would do very well. He always speaks with such a perfect blend of authority and sweet reason, particularly, I have often noticed, towards the end of his speeches, and it seems almost ungrateful to oppose him. I shall read carefully the report of his speech, and I, too, with my noble and learned friend, hope that we may have another day on this subject to consider our answers, because in the earlier part of his speech the arguments seemed to my innocent ears to be of a complexity of almost medieval theology. I am still unclear, for instance, about the position of regular freelance journalists who are not on the staff side of newspapers. But whether or not we have another day, the noble Lord has made it clear that the Government have as yet had no real change of heart about accepting serious amendment to this amending Bill.
In making that clear, the noble Lord has, in my view, denied himself the chance of taking industrial relations legislation out of Party politics in Britain for at least a decade. That, as I understand it, is what the Government want; that, as I understand it, is what the Labour Party and the Labour movement in and out of Parliament want; certainly it is what the Opposition want. Of course industrial relations will continue in the forefront of political debate, but we have been told time and again that the law and legislative controversy only poison industrial relations. This Bill amends

695
the amended 1974 Act. It removes the minimum safety provisions in law which the Conservative and Liberal Parties in Opposition felt were necessary not only in themselves, but to prevent this turbulent issue from recurring. In seeking to cut the safety net, the Government will find themselves out on a limb on their own and with an articulate and hostile audience awaiting the inevitable fall.
Would it not have been a great prize to take Party struggle out of industrial relations legislation? I feel frustrated— and I think "frustrated" was a word used by the noble Lord—when I think how easily this prize could have been won. All the Government had to do was accept in substance—and, with suitable modifications, bring all the clauses into line with one another—the Act which Parliament passed before October of last year. Yet by bringing this amendment Bill forward, the Government are undoing all those long hours of useful work by Parliament, in this House and in another place. My Lords, please notice that I stress the word "Parliament". It was not just the Conservative Opposition who made it possible for the summer Amendments to be carried. Others felt, as did we, that there must be certain minimum legal protections for individuals in the workplace and for the wide public outside. For instance, Parliament passed an Amendment which would have prevented unfair dismissal without payment of compensation; that is, under threat of repeal in the present Bill. Let us take another instance. Last summer, Parliament made broad provisions as to what may be done in this country about trade disputes overseas. That, too, is under threat of repeal. So we are that much nearer the full-scale political strike, regardless of any position taken by the elected Government of the day and regardless of whether the interests and rights of individual members of unions are affected.
In a moment or two I shall try to demonstrate how these minimum safeguards and protections are in no way a return to the ill-fated Industrial Relations Act 1971. I shall try to show how the closed shop is not merely permitted but enshrined by the 1974 Act which we are now being recklessly and dangerously
696
asked to amend. In the meantime, all I ask noble Lords opposite to accept is that Parliament, no less than the great trades unions, has its instincts, traditions and obligations. Foremost among these must be the protection of the individual's right to live, which is to say, the right to work for his living. Closed shops are not threatened by the provision of emergency exits. It was with the individual, the exceptional or the emergency case that the bulk of last summer's Amendments was concerned. Nevertheless, I ask no prize for guessing that the bulk of today's debate will be concerned with another kind of emergency and with the protection of another kind of freedom. As the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, acknowledged, we have heard in recent weeks a great chorus of anxiety from all corners of the newspaper world. Famous conservative journalists like J. B. Priestley, Anthony Sampson, Peter Jenkins and Katherine Whitehorn— hankering for the return of the Industrial Relations Act—have expressed their terror at the possible implications of the closed shop for the media. Newspaper editors—normally a retiring lot who, like headmasters or planning officials, wield great power unseen by the general public —have stepped out into their own limelight. Rightly or wrongly—and in order to argue the case, I want for the moment to remain neutral —they see in the proposed repeal of the 1974 Act a recruiting ground for an attack on editorial independence, the free flow of ideas and the right of the public to know. Their anxiety is shared by many members of the Labour movement and many supporters of the present Government. At a tune when democracy is feeling the stress of inflation very keenly, the traffic in information and ideas must continue to flow undisturbed. We are in an emergency situation. Social tensions will increase with unemployment. The very least the Government must do is to allay the fears of those whose calling it is to put their fellow men in touch with one another.
The Government have tried to do this and failed. They had to fail because the refusal to provide in law for emergency exits from the closed shop is not just an acknowledgment of the reality; it actively encourages the extension of the principle into areas far beyond questions of pay or

697
conditions of work. I know that Ministers have said that the Bill is neutral as to the closed shop because the terms of a union membership agreement are not properly the concern of lawmaking or of lawmakers. But, given the circumstances in which the original Bill came before Parliament— the deal whereby the Government offered to put forward union-approved legislation in exchange for wage restraint—what were the communicators to think? Given, too, the really ferocious resistance which the Government put up last summer to suggestions that there should be one or two escape hatches from the closed shop, is it surprising that editors felt alarm? Many of them, regardless of proprietorial inclination regardless of "Lord Gnome", so to speak—and I do not think that I see the noble Lord in his place!—give considerable support to the present Government. But all of them, including supporters of the present Government, are aware of the situation that obtains in the high command of the NUJ. All of them are aware that the present Bill could empower the NUJ to insist that they, the: editors, join the union.
My Lords, I ask you to remember this point whenever it is suggested that the Government's only aim is to obliterate the memory of the Industrial Relations Act and to restore the purity of the years before 1971, or rather of the years before Donovan and In Place of Strife. Before 1971 or, indeed, until now, no power on earth could force editors to join a trade union, still less to comply with what a 100 per cent. closed shop might, after democratic and legal debate, choose to lay down. That could be a consequence of the present Bill. That is why there is all the fuss.
My Lords, I do not think that I am scaremongering. No concealment is necessary. No undercover or under-the-bed subversion of the kind we shall debate here tomorrow is in question. The Annual Delegates Meeting of the NUJ has a Motion down for debate which states categorically that:
" It is NUJ policy to support members campaigning by any genuine trade union means for: 100 per cent. membership in chapels, including editors; the right to influence editorial policy; and the right to exclude non-journalist material from publications."
No doubt we shall hear more on this last point as our own debate progresses. It is crucial. I was delighted to learn
698
yesterday that it is of concern to Time Out as well as to The Times.
My Lords, I accept that the closed shop principle is considered to be the major protection of the right of people at work to combine. I do not, of course, accept that religion should be the only grounds of conscientious objection to that principle. At the same time, I do not see how it can remain watertight and be subject to the free flow of ideas and information. But, my Lords, is it really necessary for the closed shop principle to be watertight, to be so absolute? In terms of this debate, are not noble Lords opposite who support this amending Bill going absurdly far in defence of a principle that is, after all, under no threat whatsoever from the present Act? Indeed, the reverse is the case. As I said earlier, the Act enshrines the closed shop principle; nor are there plans to resurrect the Industrial Relations Act which was said to be hostile to it.
My Lords, time and again in discussing industrial relations matters, I have heard noble Lords opposite say we on this side of the House have no understanding of the traditions of trade unionism, of the pressing psychological need—if I may call it that—for the closed shop. They argue that the closed shop is the guarantor of the need to combine effectively. They also cite, as an instance and development of this need, what is known in industrial relations terminology as the "Bridlington principle". This, if I understand it rightly, is the development of the need to prevent and reduce the proliferation of trade unions in various trades and professions. Well and good, my Lords, but more than half this country's infinitely damaging industrial disputes can be ascribed to a Byzantine hierarchy of competing labour organisations. Our competitors have far fewer and far more rationally composed groupings. But it is truly absurd for noble Lords opposite to present the trade union movement as a whole as vulnerable or shivering. It helped to bring down Mr. Wilson in 1970; it brought down Mr. Heath less than four years later. We are not living in Dickens' day. The trade union movement is not merely protected; it has a major share in the formation of policy in our State, and, for what my own view is worth, it is right that it should have such a share. Here let me say quickly that it was Mr. Heath, not Mr. Wilson,

699
who first offered this major share to the unions. One of the ironies of my right honourable friend's career is that he was in Office one of the best face-to-face negotiators the union leaders have had to deal with. My authority for this is my friends — and I have them— in the TUC.
My Lords, in the same spirit, Conservative Members of another place have restated that it is no part of policy to bring back the Industrial Relations Act. All they have tried to do is to minimise the harm which the successful operation of the closed shop principle can do to the rights of the individual and the rights of a free Press— and do not let us hear that these rights are nothing to do with Parliament.
The Government have acknowledged that harm can be done by pointing to remedies to be provided by a review body appointed by the TUC in consultation with the Secretary of State and the chairman of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Is it surprising that my friends in another place feel that this must go a little further or must be so modified as to ensure that the TUC is not judge and jury in its own cause? It has been very well said that the Labour Party would look askance at any suggestion that the police, for example, should investigate complaints made against them. And imagine the outcry there would be if any abuse of the Companies Act could be investigated only by tribunals set up by the CBI!
My Lords, there is no return to the Industrial Relations Act. There is only the desire to provide individuals, including editors, with the barest and most narrowly limited protection against the abuse of power. I cannot see what is wrong or what is so psychologically damaging about the provision of such safety nets in legislation. It is possible that the great trade unions have not moved with the times—that they are unaware of the degree to which the 1974 Act, as it stands now, unamended, protects them. It is possible that they have put out of mind the great increase in union membership among professional bodies, although I doubt it. Editors are not the only people who believe that the absolutism of the closed shop must be tempered with individual and professional legal safeguards.
700
Many of your Lordships will have been approached, and rightly so, by local government officers who are seriously worried about the lack of machinery for establishing priorities when there is a clash between loyalty to union and loyalty to the general public. Surely noble Lords opposite accept the need, even in a closed shop situation, to have a union to protect general employees and another union, guild or association which could likewise protect managerial functions and responsibilities. I am not saying that one is any more important than the other. Both are important. Those in senior and professional posts may have to take account of matters which are not of great interest to those engaged in framing normal union policy. As the General Secretary of the Association of Local Government Engineers and Surveyors has pointed out, the professional code of conduct for engineers provides that they shall not do anything which will endanger public health or safety. It could create a major conflict for chartered engineers, to give one example, if they were forced to belong to a union to whose disciplinary procedures they might be subject. I acknowledge that these are Committee points and we will wish to look long and hard at them in Committee. I am not against our moving towards a more united society and one in which there is more rather than less exchange of information, with more consultation, more participation and the like, but only Cloud Cuckoo-land has no separation of functions and responsibilities and the likelihood of there being no clashes between them. And only in Cloud Cuckoo-land, not in England in 1975, is the right of trade unions to combine effectively under attack.
My Lords, I close as I began, in real frustration at the chance which this Labour Government have lost in taking labour relations law out of Party politics for years. We know why they have felt obliged to introduce this Amendment Bill to an Act which my colleagues here and in another place found painful but bearable. It was part of the Social Contract, which is under heavy fire at present on the wages front, Settlements are running at 25 per cent, and over and are making the exchange negotiated between the Government and the major unions one-sided in favour of the unions. This is putting

701
it as mildly and constructively as I can. It is not my colleagues who are at present shouting this from the rooftops. It is Mr. Crosland, Mr. Roy Jenkins by proxy, and above all Mr. Healey. They are echoed by others in the Labour Movement. We are saying— and I shall return to this in a debate in my own name next week—that the Social Contract will continue to be meaningless unless all the people feel involved in it. They cannot feel involved in an arrangement which swops the integrity and freedoms of the professions for wholly illusory wage restraint and for a level of lost working days which shows no improvements: over the effects of the Industrial Relations Act.
It was a bad day for the Tory Party when it decided to do too much too quickly in industrial relations law. It will prove a bad day for the Labour Party when it engages in confrontation— confrontation with the humane centre of this country and the professional and political institutions that watch over it. The 1974 Act went quite far enough. It is a shame that the Government have felt compelled to push it still further. It is shameful that they should do so in the name of a Secretary of State who once had a great reputation as a libertarian, Parliamentarian and journalist. This is a bad Bill and we shall give it a Second Reading only in order to amend it.
5.47 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, when the Secretary of State in another place introduced the Second Reading of this little Bill he reminded his listeners of the long and bitter battle that had been fought by working people to ensure the right to combine in the defence of their own interests. We and the Conservative Party were fighting that battle on their side 70 years ago when we put through the. important Act of 1906. We are, therefore, no strangers to, and certainly no enemy of, the right of free association. Indeed, I would say, just as my Party would say, that the right to free association is beyond doubt one of the essential rights on which all freedom rests.
Let us look briefly at what we really mean by this right of free association. It has been said by both speakers in this debate so far that the closed shop is accepted as a necessary part of good industrial relations But I suggest that
702
it is a curious logic which, while maintaining the right of free association, denies the right not to associate. I know it has been claimed time and again that the right to associate has nothing to do with the right not to associate, but as a matter of logic I find this hard to understand and I remind your Lordships that there have been many industries in which there have been excellent industrial relations and in which the closed shop has never been part of the industrial relations system. But if, as a matter of convenience and from choice as the lesser of two evils, we have in some degree to accept the existence of the closed shop today— and if I do this I do it with reluctance— then I stress that we can see no reason for an extension of this principle or enshrining it into a right. The freedom of association, even if it does not mean the freedom not to associate, must surely mean the right to choose with whom one is associating. Must it always be with the one union which is declared to be the union which has the right to a closed shop in an organisation?
As the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said, there are people in different grades of industry who, while accepting, indeed demanding, the right to associate, do not wish to associate in a prescribed union, and if we have to admit the closed shop and 100 per cent, unionism—and there is a great deal to be said for it, I agree— then there is surely the right of any individual, be he engineer or editor, to choose the group with whom he is to associate.
Let us look at the other freedoms. We accept the right of the freedom of association, but this is only one of the essential freedoms. There are other freedoms which cannot be overlooked or ignored in our anxiety to assert trade union rights and rights of association. As important is the right to defend the position of the individual threatened by the big battalions, the rights of the minority against the majority. This, surely, is one of the hallmarks of a genuine democratic society. Yet what do we find in the legislation before us at present? If an individual refuses to conform, for all reasons except religious objection, then he can be either expelled or excluded from the union, and in the closed shop situation this means that he is excluded from his chosen livelihood. This is a serious penalty.

703
If an employer were to exclude a man from his choice of livelihood he would have to go through due process in the Industrial Tribunal, and if his case were not upheld the man would be entitled to re-engagement or to compensation in its place. But what do we find in this Bill? When the offender—offending in that he will not join the prescribed union —is to be excluded from his place of work and denied the livelihood that he has chosen, his case is to be heard by a tribunal set up by the trade union: not established by an independent organisation; not set up with statutory powers; but to be set up by the very organisation which has shown at every turn that it supports the complete principle and total enforcement of the trade union. Is this giving due justice to the individual who will not conform? If he loses his job, no compensation is forthcoming for him. His case is not even to be allowed as a case of unfair dismissal, and yet surely in the eyes of the individual, and in the eyes of most impartial observers, this would be regarded as every bit as unfair as many other reasons which would be considered as unfair by an industrial tribunal. There are other freedoms and other rights, not more important, but as important, as the rights of association.
There is also the second right, which has already been discussed so much this evening— the freedom of the Press. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has given us to believe that the Government are extremely anxious to see that the Press remains free, that there are no real grounds for fearing that the closed shop in the hands of the National Union of Journalists will be a threat to Press freedom; that journalists are reasonable men and that we can expect that they will behave in a reasonable way when they have this power to force editors to join their union. But, my Lords, law does not exist to deal with a large number of people who undoubtedly are reasonable and decent in their behaviour. Law, in all spheres of life, has to be invoked because there are a minority who will not behave in such a fashion. As the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has already pointed out, resolutions are coming from the National Union of Journalists which must at least give us cause for alarm and cause to think again as to whether
704
this is the kind of power which can safely be given to a body producing such statements.
My Lords, quite recently a delegates' conference of the National Union of Journalists made it quite clear that it was standing for 100 per cent. NUJ membership and the exclusion of all nonunion members from contributions to the Press. This not only is unfair to many people in your Lordships' House who, from time to time, write an article in the Press— that is an issue, but a minor issue —but is surely a most serious threat to freedom of expression, freedom of the Press and freedom of the media. Perhaps it is only a small risk that these extreme measures will be enforced, but it is a risk we cannot afford to take. There has been plenty of suppression of fact, and revolutionary and radical opinion in the Press. We know that. We know that there have been abuses on the side of proprietors, but because there have been things which we would not have wished, or things which we would have wished to see banned by the proprietors, this is no reason to make the situation still worse by adding a further exclusion of rights— a limitation of the freedom of the Press—by extending the powers of the National Union of Journalists.
My Lords, such powers are not needed by the journalists. Why do they require them? They are well able to defend their position without having to acquire 100 per cent, unionism, without excluding the individual contributor who surely cannot be seen as a threat to the livelihood of the professional journalist. Many attempts have been made—many in recent weeks—to try to see whether there can be some satisfactory compromise, or some way out of this difficulty which has arisen due to the Government's commitment to the closed shop in the National Union of Journalists, and because of the very uneasy and widespread feeling voiced by persons who are certainly not reactionaries against trade unionists— persons like the Editor of the Guardian who surely cannot be considered a person opposed to free trade unionism.
Efforts have been made, and as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, only last Thursday, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, an attempt was made—up to a point successfully made—to get together all the

705
interested parties in the Press world to see whether some agreement could be made for a charter to secure Press freedom. The initiative for that meeting was taken, I am extremely glad to be able to record, by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons. It will be known to all those of your Lordships who are aware of what took place on that occasion, that that meeting was called because of the initiative he took, and it was made quite clear, with the exception of two members from the NUJ, that, if the closed shop was banned for the Press and the media, then a charter to secure Press freedom could be agreed by all the interested parties. We have here the basis for progress to go forward. Surely it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said in his speech that this had to be regarded as a failure, and that we could not proceed on the lines; outlined in the meeting held under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce. For those reasons, we must say that in attempting to protect the right of association we are sacrificing far too many other deeply important rights which it is the task of Parliament to protect.
But when we look at the position of the trade unions at the present time, and at their position in relation to Parliament, surely there is a larger issue— indeed, two larger issues— which we cannot afford to ignore. As the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. said, we are not living in the days of Dickens. We are living— surely, it must be plain for all to see— in a time when the balance of power has swung to a very large extent in favour of the trade unions. In some ways this is not a bad thing, but trade unions do not need additional legal powers in order to be able to maintain the legitimate rights of their members. They are well able, for technical and commercial reasons over the vast range of industry, to look after the interests of their members without such additional support.
Indeed, what we are facing in many parts of industry at present is the growth of monopoly union power. Monopoly, wherever it may be found, is something which has to be fought by all democratic societies. We on these Benches were early in the fight against the monopoly power of the big employers and we maintain that fight today, but we see no great
706
advantage in adding to the threat of monopoly from employers the growing threat of monopoly by the trade unions. It is quite apparent in present matters of wage negotiation that the monopoly power of trade unions in negotiations is one of the major problems, political and economic, facing the country today. Why then go out of our way to strengthen trade unions by the kind of legislation which is included in the Bill before the House today? It is unnecessary to ensure their freedom and it enhances the danger that comes from already excessive power in many quarters of the union world.
Let us go further, my Lords, and look at the even more vital question. From what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was saying— and as was raised in debate in another place on this same Bill—it was apparent repeatedly that the supporters of this Bill were saying that it is too difficult to pass laws which are unacceptable to trade unions because we have not the ability or the power in Parliament to make such laws stick. If such laws are necessary in order to protect the proper freedom of other members of the community, then it is a vital and essential task of Parliament to discover how such laws can be made to stick. It is not good enough for the sovereign power of Parliament to say that when the unions or any other powerful group of society do not wish a law to be passed then that law is not to be passed, (hat it will create inconvenient situations and tiresome confrontation. It is the job of Parliament to decide not in conjunction with any one section— be it an economist or a trade union— but with the support of the country as a whole, what laws ought to be passed and then find ways to ensure that those laws are truly enforced.
May I add one point. There is no country in the world in which Parliamentary democracy has faded away, has never come into being or has been defeated in. which a free trade union movement giving true protection to all its members has survived. I say to those noble Lords who defend this Bill today—and who are not prepared to accept the rightful task of Parliament to legislate in the interests not of one section but of the community as a whole—that if they will not oppose this Bill, because it is right and proper in the

707
interests of the sovereignty of Parliament and the people of this country to oppose it, then they should oppose it in the interests of the unions they serve.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the Leader of the House is not here. I wonder whether the Whip could tell us what the situation is likely to be. It is now six o'clock and we have had three speeches— not a minute too long any of them— but it was 4.45 p.m. when I first raised this point. We already have down 21 more speeches and I do not know whether any other noble Lords may wish to speak. May I have some news?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the position is that my noble friend the Leader of the House is at present out of the Chamber because he is discussing this matter with the Chief Whip and also with the Opposition. We hope to be able to make an announcement as soon as possible. Beyond that I cannot say more.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Thank you very much, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. He will bear in mind of course, that it is for the convenience of the House that they should know where they stand at a reasonably early hour.
6.4 p.m.
Lord GREENE of HARROW WEALD: My Lords, it is a great honour for me to address this House today, and I have taken due notice of my noble friends' advice about what to do and have read the literature that was handed to me. I understand that on the first occasion on which one makes a speech it should not be controversial so, if I may, I want to speak about industrial relations. I do so because I feel that there is too much heat in industrial relations. Basically it is something that should operate between men and women of good will, seeking to get agreement between one side and another. In a modern society, where we both believe that we have something to do with industry— whether as shareholders or workers—we are both part of that machinery and we want to get agreement. I believe that the way to get that agreement is by understanding between the two sides, and it is not necessary to
708
have the kind of legislation that is laid down. Even with legislation, if people do not have good will the progress that is likely to be made in the way we want it is not likely to be achieved.
Over the last century I suppose that only six or seven Bills in connection with trade unions and industrial relations have been presented to this House. The Bill which we are dealing with today is the short Bill arising from the 1971 Act. Oddly enough, in my other capacity I was involved in the Industrial Relations Act of 1971, and people will remember the action of the then Government in connection with the railwaymen and the question of the cooling-off period; and, of course, the ballot as well. I do not know what our members would have thought had the ballot gone the opposite way, and had there been nobody in authority on the trade union side to speak on behalf of the members. After all, the leader of any trade union reflects the wishes of the members of his union. He does not take the decisions himself.
We saw what happened at that time. The remarkable thing was that, after that exercise with the railwaymen, the then Government at no time again used the Industrial Relations Act, and I know of no major employer who used the Act either. The cases that came to light were concerned with small individuals and small firms. It might well be argued today that of course they should be protected, but on the basis of what the Act was supposed to do. The fact remains that the Act was to apply to industry and trade unions, and nobody wanted to use it. In the light of those circumstances, the Act has now been cleared and we have these two outstanding problems: the question of the closed shop, and the question of people who are removed or expelled from their unions and what they can do in connection with an appeal.
One talks about the monopoly of trade unions. I was operating in the railway industry prior to 1971 with a closed shop agreement. It did not apply only to my union, but applied to all unions in the railway industry. Therefore, this question of one union having a monopoly over all the others did not apply. You can have a closed shop including all the unions. The closed shop was arranged

709
by agreement. Prior to our achieving the closed shop, we had 95 to 97 per cent, of people organised, so you might ask, "Why did you worry about getting the closed shop? "The pressure comes from the members of the union. I am not particularly worried about the chap who is not in the union. I do not have to do anything for him; I take no notice. But the chap who is annoyed is the fellow who is; paying Ms contribution towards the negotiating machinery within the industry, and an agreement applies to both sides of the industry. The man who does not pay gets the benefit while making no contribution at all. Do we defend that sort of situation? I should have thought that in those circumstances there should be a collective effort on both sides in connection with that principle. So we had the closed shop and we made agreements.
When the new Act came into operation in 1971, the fad: that we were then considered not a trade union but a workers' organisation did not really make any difference to the then government. They consulted us just as much as they did earlier. The technical difficulty at that time was elsewhere, in connection with tax— but I need not say anything about that today. We made this agreement regarding the closed shop, so when the 1971 Act came the closed shop went.
Yesterday, one of my noble friends made a Statement concerning a dispute now going on in the railway industry in connection with signalmen. I do not want your Lordships to run away with the idea that the chaps running this dispute are arch-Communists, Left-Wingers, Marxists and so on, for they are not; but the remarkable thing is that they are not members of the trade union, they are not members of the NUR. In the past — thank goodness I do not do so now— I have had to sit down and watch these chaps running an industrial dispute against an agreement that the trade union was prepared to defend and honour with the management. After this dispute had already gone to an arbitration tribunal, we now hear that these people, because somebody not in the union does not like the agreement, want to start another inquiry into an inquiry that has already been made in connection with the dispute. How this can be defended I do not know. I should have thought that it would be
710
in the best interests of all the people, on both sides of industry, to make sure that the members in their industry are parties to the unions with whom they negotiate.
I agree to a certain extent that there might be conscientious objections. But I do not think you can have a conscientious objection to paying any money to the union that negotiates the agreement from which you benefit. As regards some sort of agreement in connection with conscientious objections for religious purposes, I do not really know what these objections are. On occasions when we have had a closed shop and were working through the agreement in connection with workers not of the union and who did not want to belong to a union, I have wondered whether it was worth while having a row and forcing the issue. On the sheer principle alone, I do not think it could be said that you should have people in an organisation who are not bound to honour an agreement and make no contribution to it.
We must keep in mind that had it not been for the 1971 Act we should not have had this argument. Incidentally, when the 1971 Act was introduced, quite a lot of people criticised it as a case of, shall I say, "Was our journey really necessary." The fact remains that having had that Act we ought to try to get it completely out of the way, and get back to where we were prior to 1971 relying on negotiations of good will between management and unions.
Then we have also agreed on the matter of reference to appeals. I do not know what more is wanted when the Trades Union Congress are going to set up an appeals body for the benefit of somebody who has left their union and has not carried out the constitution of the union. They are going to appoint a chairman and two members who are independent and will be appointed only in agreement with the Secretary of State in the Department of Employment, and the chairman of the conciliation and arbitration body. What is really wrong with that arrangement? What more is wanted in that connection, other than taking the matter to law? After all, there is the exercise which we took when going to law in the shape of the Industrial Relations Court in connection with the ballot. Probably the only controversial remark I

711
will make is that the only people who did well out of it were the lawyers.
So what are we now doing? Apart from this, there has also been set up the Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Somebody said to me only last week that the number of cases before the Conciliation and Arbitration Service in the first four months of its existence is twice as many as were referred in the previous eight months to the Department of Employment. I think it proves conclusively that the trades union movement, as such, are more concerned about trying to get agreement and settlements of dispute by arbitration and conciliation, than by confrontation. But when we mix up the two matters in connection with the closed shop, we must remember that there are roughly 5 million people in the trade unions in the industry who are covered by closed shop agreements. While this one is at the moment becoming more prominent than is probably necessary, you are talking about 29,000 people out of 5 million who are covered.
Reference has been made to the freedom of the Press. I am not greatly in agreement with the exercise in relation to the Press. Some reference has already been made to the social contract which was drawn up by the trade union movement and presented to the present Government. Let me say that it would also have been presented to the previous Government if they had wanted to talk about it. I am not now arguing about that. At a later date I could probably give some information which I think would not be disputed. If there had been an amount of understanding previously, we probably might not have had the miners' strike and certainly not the three-day week.
The fact remains that at that time before the social contract when everybody was talking about the monopoly of the trades union movement and said that it was strangling the nation in connection with the economic problem, that argument was removed when the Arabs decided to increase oil prices five times in one year. So it is not only the trade union movement— and I agree that we make a contribution—that adds to the inflation so far as this country is concerned. They are trying— since we are talking about the social contract—to do
712
something about inflation. The social contract does not deal only with wages or with the Industrial Relations Act; it deals with investment, it deals with productivity and with future arrangements in connection with industry, which are very important indeed. The question of using the full capacity of industry is important.
The remarkable fact in connection with our good friends the signalmen, and the social contract, with all the publicity that has been given to the signalmen who have been taking this unofficial action against the advice of the employers and the trade union movement, is that the Press have not said to them, "What about the social contract?" With only one increase in a year, and that only in accordance with the cost of living, they have given the general impression that they are justified. Recently, in connection with the miners' settlement, all the publicity was given to the two miners' leaders or representatives, who had said that they had broken the social contract; that is, broken a social contract— if they had done so— which was drawn up by the trade union movement. It did not matter about the other people on the miners' Executive who had accepted the settlement as such and not as a question of whether or not it was breaking the social contract.
So far as the freedom of the Press is concerned, I welcome it. I wish only that the Press was a little fairer in presenting its problems. I suspect that the criticisms, the opposition or the points of view put forward in connection with the Press, not only in relation to the recent miners' settlement but also in relation to the railway dispute, have not been pointed to the view of trying to get peaceful solutions to our industrial disputes in this country. They seem to me to be adding more coal to the fire, so far as the miners are concerned.
I hope that when we pass this Bill— and I hope that we shall do so— the next question will be on what we do then. Prior to the passing of the 1971 Act, the TUC and the CBI were holding meetings to try to draw up a new charter in connection with the relationship between one side and the other. When the 1971 Act came on the board, those meetings ceased and, with the best will in the world, the relationship between both sides of

713
industry arising from that Act was not improved; in fact, it got worse. However, we have now passed that situation. We are now trying to solve the problem of removing the Act, and already the TUC and the CBI are in consultation to find out what can be done to improve the industrial relations and the economic situation of this country.
Do not let it be said that trade unions are not interested in private enterprise and are worried only about nationalised industries. After all, 75 per cent, of industry in this country is private enterprise, and it is essential that it should pay and be well organised in the interests of the nation. So from the trade union point of view we make our contribution, and I hope we shall continue to do so. It is not generally accepted that many modern trade unions (if that is the right expression) have not only an interest in the public side of industry, but also a considerable proportion of their funds in private: enterprise, in equities. It is in our interests to ensure that private enterprise is running successfully. On the question of whether there should be nationalisation, I would say that we shall have a mixed economy for as long as we are likely to live—I do not know how long that will be so far as I am concerned, but I hope it is a long time.
What is the basis of the Bill that is before your Lordships today? I sincerely hope that your Lordships will remove some of the arguments that are being put forward which narrow the situation, particularly in connection with the freedom of the Press in which I am very interested. And, for goodness' sake! my Lords, do not let us worry about the resolutions that are passed at organisations' annual general meetings. I have thousands. I do not know how long ago it was that my organisation, at an annual general meeting, passed a resolution calling for a 35-hour week. We have not achieved it; many people in other industries have. The fact remains that if you are going to become worried about resolutions, even if they are passed, you should remember that in the light of day they must be negotiated. And, in particular, in connection with a closed shop there must be an agreement between the employer and the employees. What we are really doing by this Bill, as I understand it, is putting
714
ourselves back to the situation which existed prior to 1971.
May I conclude, my Lords, by saying this. I believe there is a lot of good will on both sides of industry. The media today are in a parlous financial position, and it is probably not a good thing for them to tell everybody else how to run their industries— although I do not want to deal with that question at the moment. But it is because of the competition in the media today that the sensational and the exceptional are given the most headlines. In General Elections it is accepted that the Parties share the time available on the media, and the smallest Parties have the least time. But those who cause trouble in our industries today are the smallest section, yet they get the most publicity which, in the ordinary way, nobody could buy. So if I may give a message on the first occasion of speaking in this House—and I do not want to wear out my welcome—it is that there is a tremendous amount of good will on both sides of industry. If Parliament passes this Bill, with the assistance of this House, I think that both sides of industry will be able to get down to the task of finding out what further progress we can make in dealing with the serious economic situation that is facing this country.
6.25 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, the pleasantest part of my duty this evening, probably its only pleasant part, is to convey very warm congratulations on his maiden speech to the speaker who has just sat down. It was a model of what such a speech should be. He did not err by taking too seriously the advice tendered by older Members, that a maiden speech should be wholly non-controversial. The current tendency is to inject a slight note of controversy into a maiden speech, increasing it in successive speeches. I hope that we shall all have the pleasure and privilege of hearing again the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald, in the near future. We hope that he will be here for many years, and that he will find this a most agree-able House to come to.
Tonight's debate is an extremely difficult one for me to engage in, but I feel, it is my duty to do so. I hope I shall contrive to avoid rhetoric because this

715
is not an occasion for it. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government extended what I hope he intended to be an olive branch. If I examine it rather closely, even suspiciously, to see that it is not a stinging nettle, I am sure he will take no objection, because this is a matter where, on the whole, suspicion is a necessary ingredient in our approach. As to labour relations within the newspaper industry, I have been in titular charge of negotiations on behalf of the employers for nearly five years. Having regard to all the difficulties, they have not been too bad. We have lost very few days in the way of strikes, except for the so-called political strikes which in this situation must be regarded as irrelevant. Our relations with the several unions with whom we negotiate have been patient, good-humoured and good tempered, except for an occasional dramatic display which is artificially contrived by either side for the purpose of winning a point —but we are both such masters of this activity that we immediately recognise when the other side is engaged in it.
Unfortunately, the Government's determination to introduce this Bill creates a danger that those relationships may be impaired for the first time in my experience, because it imposes upon us an obligation to make certain remarks that may be misunderstood and which on the whole we should prefer not to express. I hope therefore that if I make remarks this evening which might give the appearance of being in any sense critical of unions, they will read them in the context of what I have just said, and in the context of the fact that for the whole of my working life I have been a passionate supporter of the union movement. When I was engaged in various activities, particularly in relation to the Arts, I do not think anyone enjoyed a better relationship with the unions than I did. There reposes in my home a most splendid radiogram, presented to me, in half, by a union. I shall not explain the reasons for this, except to say that for many long and laborious hours I sat as the chairman of an extremely intractable dispute that was believed to be insoluble. It was solved not by my talents but by a recognition that if rational human beings sit down together long enough to solve a problem they will arrive at a solution. This is what emerged in this
716
case, and I was the undeserving beneficiary of this splendid set on which I shall be happy one day to play records to some of your Lordships.
Against that background I would say that I am not here as a representative of the Newspaper Publishers' Association. I am here as one of several people within the newspaper industry, none of them a proprietor or chairman of a newspaper, who were sufficiently deeply concerned to come together to see whether they could urge upon the Government that some changes should be made to this Bill in relation to the Press. I am not concerned (I do not mean that I am indifferent) this evening to discuss the wider aspects of the Bill. I am not concerned to consider whether a closed shop is good or bad; whether a closed shop should or should not operate in other industries. I am concerned with one matter, and one only: that it shall be possible for a man to publish what he has written and to say what he wants to say in the British Press without the permission of a single newspaper union and without the permission of any group of human beings. If a situation arose where in the year 1975 it was not possible to publish a contribution because some body of men— some small or large body of men— exercised total control over the situation, this would be a disaster of immeasurable dimensions to the country in which we live. Hence, if I may be permitted to say so, I am appealing to your Lordships to consider whether there is not a real risk of this happening.
I believe the Secretary of State said that if it is a risk, it is a minor risk. May I invite the Government to consider whether, even if it is a minor risk, it is a risk which we are entitled to take. I believe that the noble Baroness who spoke from the Liberal Benches said precisely the same thing. Even if it is the smallest of risks, are we entitled to take any risks at all with this historic right and privilege which has been earned by the shedding of blood and by the sacrifices of innumerable heroic people over the centuries? To some people this may sound a melodramatic presentation of the issue, but I do not believe that it is. I believe that what we are doing today is a matter of historic significance.
May I examine the law on the subject. I hasten to say that I am not an expert

717
on industrial law. The law on this matter is in an immense tangle. I think that it was properly and fairly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, so far as he saw fit to state it for the purposes of his introductory remarks. However, I think that it is necessary to examine the law. We start with the 1971 Act. That Act is something that is not mentioned on the left hand side of this House without invoking the wrath of those who introduced the Bill. I do not know whether it is right or wrong; all I know is that the Bill was an enormous inconvenience to the newspaper industry because, as the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald, has said, we made no use of it but we suffered from it. Every so often everybody left their works to protest against it, and nothing that we could say would bring them back again until they thought that a sufficient period of time had elapsed to mark their high feelings. Therefore, deriving no benefit from it we suffered grave inconvenience from it. What that Bill provided in relation to the closed shop was, if I remember rightly, that one could have a closed a shop, first, if it was democratically determined upon by the workers in the industry and, secondly, if it was regarded as necessary by an industrial tribunal in relation to that industry. Whether it was a good or a bad thing to have, whether it was a wise and prudent provision, or whether it was a hideous and abominable invasion of privacy and liberty, I do not know. All I know is that that is what the 1971 Act provided.
The 1974 Act swept all that away and said that a closed shop could come into existence. I hope that any noble Lord who is better versed in this subject than me will correct me if my account of the law is wrong. Having swept away these provisions, the 1974 Act left it simply to negotiation between employer and employee as to whether there should be a closed shop. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that one of the inconveniences of this matter was that it was difficult for a tribunal to determine whether there were special circumtances, because if one were looking to see whether it was a. matter of conscience, or whether a man was reasonably objecting to belonging to any particular union— both of which are grounds for being excluded from the closed shop which was
718
retained by the 1974 Act—it was difficult for judges to say whether that was so or not. It is very rare for Parliament to be quite so solicitous about judges, or to worry unduly about the magnitude of the problem which they have to solve. If that is the only reason why this Bill is now being introduced, I am sure that an appeal to Her Majesty's Judiciary will earn from them an immediate willingness to deal with all the intractable problems which may arise.
The other reason which the noble Lord advanced was one which in some ways is less amiable— not, if I may say so, on his part, because he is the most amiable of men. However, it is less amiable because the noble Lord said that it took away from the people concerned with the matter; namely, from the employer and the union, the right to look after their own business; it was only their affair. But, my Lords, it is not only their affair. The person who is most concerned with this matter is neither the union nor the employer; it is the employee who is being excluded from the union. He is the person who is most concerned with the matter, and that he should retain no right in the matter seems to me to be wholly wrong.
We come now to this Bill. I was interested to see in the speech made in another place by the Secretary of State that he assigns some interesting reasons for the introduction of the Bill. One of the most interesting reasons is that we introduced this Bill in March for a quite different purpose and that we are persisting with its completion now because we are seeking, if I may mention so indelicate a matter, to carry out a pledge in our Election Manifesto. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether he could obtain a copy of the Election Manifesto, which I have not read—I do not have the time to read anybody's Election Manifesto—and show me whether it is there stated that part of his Party's policy is to introduce legislation which enables a man to be expelled arbitrarily from a trade union without compensation. I shall be very interested to see where that features in the Manifesto and what prominence and attention was drawn to it by those people who were seeking election on that basis. I shall be surprised if any reference is found to it, or if it can be suggested that these particular

719
changes have any electoral support of any kind.
I believe that what your Lordships are doing in this Bill is something that is quite wrong in general terms. I am, of course, concerned with its effect upon the Press. In another place the Secretary of State abused me roundly—may I say that he is a very old friend of mine and that I have suffered no serious damage; the next morning I was up and about and doing my business without any special injury and without the need to call in medical assistance—and said that I had brazenly misrepresented the situation, because I had said that once this Bill was introduced and once it was shown that there was a closed shop, a man excluded from a union, or a man expelled from a union, or a man who did not want to join a union would not be able to write in the British Press. He said that that was not the case.
May I analyse that proposition. It is totally the case in respect of any employee. If a man is employed on any contract basis by a newspaper, in a closed shop he must obviously be a member of the union. Therefore it goes without saying that he cannot write. However, the Secretary of State's exception to what he said was my brazen misrepresentation was that so far as casual and occasional contributions were concerned such a contributor was, by the definition of the Act, excluded as an employee. I have to say only this—and now I have to skate with very great delicacy on very thin ice, although some of your Lordships may have observed that I am not ideally equipped for any such physical operations! What I have to say is that there are certain practices which have manifested themselves already and which continue to manifest themselves on the part of the unions that make it abundantly clear that what I said about the exclusion of the occasional contributor was all too unhappily true.
I wonder whether I may show your Lordships a copy of the Financial Times. I have no particular wish to advertise any particular publication, but it has a somewhat rare feature which I have observed. In fact, later on I may auction the copy! Gentlemen, you will see that there is a blank space in that newspaper. In the blank space it says:
720
"We had intended to publish in this space a report by Mr. Peter Robbins, our rugby correspondent for the past nine years. The report does not appear because certain members of the National Union of Journalists, on instructions from their union, refuse to handle it".
The history of that matter is this. I first became acquainted with it—and, I may say, it is what has made me so passionately interested in the whole of this situation—when representatives from the National Union of Journalists arrived at a meeting, convened at the request of the Financial Times, which was held at the Newspaper Publishers' Association. The issue was whether the Financial Times could continue to employ Mr. Robbins. I am told that Mr. Robbins is an exceptionally accomplished rugby correspondent My own knowledge of rugby is limited. I used to go and watch it occasionally but I could not tell you whether or not he is exceptionally accomplished. I know only that he is regarded as being so by those who know a good deal about rugby. I know only that he has been employed casually for nine years and was doing nobody any harm but rather giving a good deal of pleasure to those people who read him. The National Union of Journalists said, "No, he cannot continue to write because he is not a member of the union ". "So be it," we said, prompted by the Financial Times, "he is perfectly willing to join the union." "Oh, No," they said, "he cannot join the union because he does not write enough. A third of his income does not derive from these contributions ". Now, gentlemen, need one say more?
Several Noble Lords: "Noble Lords!"
Lord GOODMAN: Is this a tolerable or a permissible situation in a civilised society in this day and age? Can we take these risks? Can even the most amiable of speeches by the most adroit of debaters— and there is no one more adroit than the gentleman who addressed us at the opening of this Motion—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: The noble Lord.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I do apologise, I should have said "the noble Lord"; I have been here only 10 years. Can we accept this situation because an effort is made to persuade us that this particular union will not act unreasonably? Is this not totally unreasonable?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but I have listened to the noble Lord and if he will recall my speech he will realise that I expressed concern here. I should like to direct his attention to the question raised— because I think it would be helpful to the House — as to the way in which this should be dealt with. I suggest, and I should like the noble Lord to agree with me—or disagree—that one should look at the question of the freedom of the Press in its widest possible context; not just within the question of a closed shop but in the widest possible context. I do not think that there is anything between us as to the principles in this matter; I want to find a way in which we can solve the problem.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, if I may say so, I am enthusiastic to a point of positive passion to find a solution to this problem that does not involve a confrontation in this House, if I may venture to say so. I shall also venture to say this: on the constitutional issue the Secretary of State in the lower House made a singularly elegant observation that he hoped we would keep our
"lordly noses out of this matter".
I am not a constitutionalist and it will not be for me to advise noble Lords what they ought or ought not to do. But I believe that we have rights under the Parliament Act, and if there is one issue upon which we would be entitled to force a confrontation it is the situation that prevails here this evening.
Having said that, I earnestly hope that it will not arise and I and my colleagues who are associated with me in this matter will go to enormous lengths to accept any compromise that saves the principle with which we are concerned. But I have to say this to the noble Lord. He has spoken about a charter and it is fair to say that, so far as we are concerned, no charter exists or has been proffered to us. Mr. Hetherington, the Editor of the Guardian and one of our group, wrote today to the Secretary of State explaining the circumstances relating to the meeting which took place under Lord Pearce. We have never had a charted presented to us officially; we have never seen any document drafted by the Government, and it is the case that he was extraordinarily vague—I shall not use words like
722
"evasive", because I do not think they apply but he was extraordinarily vague —in suggesting what kind of Parliamentary authority should be given to any charter and what kind of legal backing it should have. If there is a charter which is incorporated in this Act and has the force of law, I am perfectly happy to accept that charter as being totally adequate for our purposes if it deals with the matters with which we are concerned. But if it is a charter which is designed to have—as 1 believe the codes of conduct under the original Industrial Relations Act were designed to have— merely a persuasive power to be used in connection with deciding a matter on the basis of "this is evidential", it would be utterly useless and totally unacceptable to us. What will be acceptable to us is anything which has the force of law, and if we can rely on the force of law in any document of any charter that is produced we shall willingly accept it.
The noble Lord may ask why I am approaching this matter with such scepticism. I would explain to him that this involves, if I may say so, making certain reflections on the union concerned which apply (I hasten to say) in the very specialised industrial circumstances in which we live today. The 1971 Act, of which I was no admirer, has created a hideously corroded relationship in industrial affairs which has produced situations which we would not regard ordinarily as matters of behaviour or practice within unions; but it is the case that solemn engagements entered into by the unions are now rejected.
In Scotland, in connection with one newspaper there were 33 contractual relalionships with the members of this union in a period of 15 months. They had all signed agreements— every one of them; they were all contractually and legally bound. How can you offer us an agreement signed by anyone as a substitute for the freedom of speech that we have enjoyed for centuries? And how can you offer us that proposal in the light of our knowledge of the current morality that exists in regard to these matters? I urge the Government to familiarise themselves with what is happening in the world today. They are speaking literally from a fairly narrow world. They are speaking without an understanding of what the industrial relationships really

723
add up to and why fundamental rights have to be protected to the nth degree with the utmost force and power to ensure that they are still preserved.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me for intervening, I should like to say that he makes an impassioned case, with which I wholly agree, and should he divide the House I shall vote with him. But may I ask my noble friend how he distinguishes between the case he is putting tonight and the Transport and General Workers' Union, the AEU and all kinds of other unions who have indulged in these practices for a long time? My noble friend will remember that I once sought his help to stop some manual workers' unions from indulging in this very improper (as he now persuades us) practice. My noble friend was not really on my side. He would carry more of us with him if he would say, "I think this applies to any trade union that goes too far". Could he say that?
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I do not know that I am called upon to say that. My personal belief in relation to a closed shop in an engineering works or any other kind of works is not relevant to the speech I am making at this moment. I would say only that there is a profound difference between a union engaged in creative activity and a union which is engaged in mechanical processes; and it would be a strangely Philistine and illiterate community that failed to recognise that distinction. That is the only point I shall make. I do not know whether it is right or wrong to have closed shops elsewhere, and if I did know I would not be persuaded to utter a view here this evening, because I am concerned only with the Press. I do not want to open up this issue. But I believe that if a man has a talent to write— if he has something to write that is worth reading —it is preposterous to suggest that someone else could be sent from the union to substitute for him. Is it a rational possibility that the editor of a newspaper telephones the union and says, "That dramatic critic you sent the other day was not much good; he had never heard of Ibsen ", and the union reply, "To the devil with whether he has heard of Ibsen, but he is fully paid up".
724
If I may venture to say so, that, in a word, is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. There is a profound difference and it is one that we have maintained and respected for centuries. As a literate country there is nobody we respect more than the man with literacy talents, and that is what we are concerned to protect here today. I do not intend to prolong this speech, and I would say only that we have evidence that one cannot rely safely on agreements or undertakings that do not have the support of the rule of law and do not have the support of what is passed by this House and the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made one observation that I think one must challenge. He said "What is the use of legislating because if we legislate nobody will obey the law ". I venture to think that is a most unfortunate sentiment to utter in this Chamber.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is being less than fair. If he will look at my speech tomorrow he will see that I never said anything of the sort.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, if the noble Lord said nothing of the sort then I apologise in advance, but unfortunately he conveyed that impression very clearly to me, that he thought it would be futile to legislate because the legislation would be ineffective. Whether he said it or not — and I will willingly withdraw if he did not, and apologise to him very profusely —I believe that sentiment is being expressed much too freely in too many places. It is something we cannot take any notice of, because all we can do is legislate. We have no other power. We can do more; we can legislate and find agencies for enforcing our legislation, unless we are going to abandon all civilised behaviour in this country.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that this is an issue on which there should be no division between the Socialist Government and the Press. Many years ago, as a very young man, I remember being much impressed by debates over the Incitement of Disaffection Act, I think it was called, when it was made an offence to distribute outside barracks literature which might be designed to affect the loyalty or allegiance of soldiers. Protests came from the Socialist Party. Objections came from a Party dedicated to

725
the preservation of free speech. What they had to say was absolutely and totally right; that whatever risks there might be to loyalty, of subverting loyalty, they were nothing like the risks of subverting what people wanted to say, and suppressing it. With that sentiment, I invite the Government to think again, and to say that we will be absolutely and immediately willing to enter into any discussions which will resolve this matter, and respect and preserve the principle.
6.50 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that I did extend that invitation in the course of my speech. I undertook as a consequence of an intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to see whether it was possible to make some arrangements by which this debate could be extended to another day. I pointed out the difficulty that tomorrow is Wednesday, that it is a day for Private Members' Business, and I gather there are some 20-odd speakers already listed for the Motion on the Order Paper. I question, too, whether it would be right for the continuity of the debate to adjourn it until Thursday, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, pointed out that in the previous century there was a custom that Second Readings were adjourned for some weeks. I think we have moved on from that period. I considered whether we could adjourn at some earlier stage tonight and meet at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning, but unfortunately I have been informed that the Hansard writers would not be available.
My Lords, as a consequence of discussion through the usual channels—and this resulted in the fact that I was not able to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald—we have agreed that it would be right this evening to proceed with, and complete, the Second Reading. Those who have an interest in this Bill will recognise that it is one on which ground has been well trodden already, although there are one or two new issues. It is very much a Bill for Committee stage. May I make an appeal—and I know the "usual channels" "are associated with me here—that noble Lords should keep their speeches as short as possible, in the knowledge that we have at least two full days set aside for Commitee stage, when there
726
will be ample opportunity to debate these great issues. I am sorry we cannot meet the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, but I think this is the right decision. I hope I have the agreement of your Lordships' House.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, obviously I do not want to start a debate within a debate, because then we might get into an infinite regress. I recognise the difficulties of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and of course, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we try to be as helpful as possible. I think the Government have muddled their Business. This is an important debate about an important Bill. Although I recognise that we are not going to divide on Second Reading, there are questions of principle involved here which ought to be fully discussed, and fully discussed at an hour which is convenient to the House and not when it is inconvenient to the House so to do. There were 24 speakers listed, and no dinners were laid on. We have spent a very great deal of time— until a quarter to five this afternoon— discussing other Business which ought not to have been loaded on to this day's debate.
I can only say that although, of course, I will conform to the advice of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I do so with reluctance. At any rate so far as I am concerned, I do not think this is the way in which this House or Parliamentary Business should be managed..
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may say so without extending the debate, this is not the way I like a Bill of this sort to be dealt with either. But there have been occasions in the past when, for reasons which were beyond the control of the managers of Business, such circumstances have arisen. It is the job of the Leader of the House, and I take full responsibility, to ensure that this should not happen again. That I will do. I cannot promise I will always succeed, but that will be my endeavour. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord and to the House for the present circumstances.
6.57 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, as the first Back-Bench Member to speak in this debate, I wish to offer the congratulations of the House, which

727
I am sure are shared by noble Lords on both sides, to the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald, on his maiden speech. With his wealth of experience in industrial affairs, he made a contribution that we shall long remember. We look forward to hearing further contributions from him in the Session ahead.
My Lords, I must also support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in his protest at the position in which noble Lords on Back-Benches on both sides of the House find themselves. However, the noble Lord the Leader of the House made such a handsome amendemente, we can only accept it in the spirit offered to us, and be thankful for his reassurance that these circumstances will not recur.
On the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I would say only one sentence. He was so reassuring and so calm that he reminded me of someone who refuses to listen to the fire alarm which others have heard, and maintains that the air is unpolluted while others are smelling smoke. To me this is a sad debate. The Government make proposals and the Opposition object. The Opposition then make proposals and the Government will object. It seems to me in this debate we are shadow boxing to a large extent. I believe the economic power has today very largely passed from Parliament to outside bodies, to the trade unions, to the CBI. to the large multinational and international giant corporations, to scientists and to that massive bureaucracy which occupies itself with local and national government. I believe Parliament in industrial matters can check, can guide and can influence for the general good the exercise of power by those outside bodies, and can also try to safeguard the liberties of the individual. It is on that subject in relation to the Press that we are engaged tonight.
Trades union power is today almost unchallengeable by the Executive and by Parliament, unless Parliament knows that it has public opinion behind it on a particular issue. That this immense power has not been generally abused lies, I feel, to the credit of trades union leaders who, perhaps with some exceptions— as in every walk of life—are, generally speaking, good and wise men. But they in their turn are serving a democratically
728
elected body, and are becoming more and more contenders with militancy within their own organisations. We are seeing it all around us, in the signalmen and the toolmakers at Bromwich. I could give your Lordships many other instances of the growth of militants from the decentralised branches.
It is the knowledge of that steady persistent capture of the unions by militants on the fringe gradually working towards the centre, that makes the issue of a free Press so vital, and makes us urge Her Majesty's Government to write into the Bill safeguards for editorial freedom now and in the future. I believe that, whether or not the closed shop is written into law, trades union power can force the closed shop anywhere it is really determined so to do, including the Press. But there are cases, like the newspaper offices, where enforcement can be against the national interest and a national danger and it is the duty of Parliament to take action in such cases.
The danger to editorial freedom is recognised by the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists, Mr. Ken Morgan, and he has proposed—the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spoke about this today—a charter, a concordat, to ensure the editorial freedom that we seek. But General Secretaries come and go, and already the militants in the NUJ are advancing from the fringes towards the centre. When Mr. Ken Morgan tried to get his national executive to pass a resolution for no pressure on editors, he was defeated on votes. The NUJ, admittedly, are out for 100 per cent, membership, but certain sections of the NUJ are out to control, by exclusion or quota, outside contributors. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned this in his speech. Some NUJ branches are calling for workers' control of the Press; others for nationalisation.
Already in newspaper offices there is a growing intolerance towards editorial matter not to the liking of militant bodies of the Left. I can mention the case of the printers refusing to allow a certain article in the Observer some months ago, the case of the Evening Standard cartoon to which objection was taken, the case which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, cited today of the Financial Times. How long will it be before the militants take exception to attacks upon their leaders or to

729
views of which they do not approve. It is not a case of "Reds under the Bed "; it is a real danger of a militant minority now, but for how long?
The Government have said that if that danger ever arose, they would deal with it by legislative action when it happened. I submit to your Lordships that that is really not good enough. We do not want to wait until something happens, for then the Government of that day might not be in a position to exercise the power which the Government of today say would be exercised in the future.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. I have endeavoured to conform to the spirit of the Leader of the House by keeping my remarks very short. In spite of Mr. Foot's careful warning in such polite language, when he said in another place,
"… and to the other place, if by any mischance those there imagine that they should poke their Lordly noses into this matter …" [Official Report, Commons, 12/2/75; col. 532.]
then we should have what he considers we deserve; in spite of his courteous warning about Lordly noses, I think our duty is clear. Our duty is to amend this Bill in Committee and give the force of legislation to combat the dangers which I have tried to portray to your Lordships this evening. There is a fine line of distinction between determination and obstinacy; there is a fine line between Mr. Foot's strong determination to resist and over-proud pigheaded obstinacy, and I fear Mr. Foot has crossed the line.
7.6 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, we are all under the handicap now of the passage of time, but as the first speaker from the Labour Benches since my noble friend Lord Greene of Harrow Weald made his maiden speech, I feel that I should pay very warm tribute to what he told your Lordships' House. I think we shall all agree that we have in Lord Greene a significant addition to the wisdom and wealth of experience already in this House, and we all discerned, I am sure, the voice of moderation in the counsels of the Trades Union Congress. There at least we can identitfy a member of the TUC General Council who cannot be classified among the militants or the aggressive members of the trades union movement. Not always
730
has his wise counsel prevailed, but all of us who are in the trade union movement have had to submit at times to the democratic voice of our members.
I feel that this debate is becoming a little unreal. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was giving us his philosophy of power: can the Legislature control some of the power blocs, some of the movements inside the community? This is a profound question, I think, in modern times in a democracy. All of us, I think, are beginning to doubt the supremacy of Parliament in many respects in the community today, when pressure groups and combinations and mass movements and demonstrations and industrial action can all bring very strong pressure to bear upon Government. But it is idle to begin to revive the idea that the force of law, the force of legislation, provides a remedy for the sort of situation we are debating today. After all, Mr. Heath might still have been Prime Minister had he not found that the force of law was not enough against the movement which created the serious situation just over a year ago.
I think we have to realise that this Bill is not a piece of capricious or doctrinaire legislation. This Bill has its origins, as the 1974 Act had its origins, in the Social Contract. It was part of the bargain that the Industrial Relations Act of 1971 should be repealed. That was a firm pledge given by the Labour Party which would be fulfilled by a future Labour Government,. It was quite unequivocal and it had to be done. Actually, I think we discovered that it was not practical literally to put the clock back, because there were some sections of the 1971 Act that it would have been ridiculous to throw away, particularly the provisions for compensation by employers for unfair dismissal. Those benign parts of the 1971 Act were reenacted in the 1974 Act. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, referred to the pressure now being brought to bear upon the Social Contract, but I say to him that it does not help matters if the Government: weaken on their side of the bargain. That does not help to maintain the observance of the Social Contract.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord about that. I never urged the Government to weaken on their side of the bargain. All

731
I said was that I failed to see how the institution of powers well beyond the situation before 1971, particularly in regard to the Press, is anything to do with the Government's side of the bargain.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am coming to that point. I must observe at this moment that the 1971 Act was such a disaster from the point of view of industrial relations that it has imported prejudice into the trade union movement against using legislation at all to regulate conditions between employers and employees. They abhor the law as a remedy for problems which arise in industrial relations.
The aim of the repeal legislation was to restore, as nearly as is possible, the position obtaining before the 1971 Act was passed. That was the aim of the repeal legislation, and that is what this Bill is about, because it is trying to remedy some of the harm done in the 1974 Act by the Amendments which were passed in your Lordships' House and in another place which were unacceptable to the Government. What the unions wanted was to return to the pre-1971 position of voluntary collective bargaining and voluntary agreements. The 1974 Act attempted to facilitate that by abolishing large sections of the 1971 Act which the trade union movement found unacceptable. The Amendments passed in your Lordships' House and in another place last summer frustrated the Government's intention to keep faith with the unions over their part of the Social Contract. That is why we are debating this Bill today.
All matters raised on this Bill are incidental to the simple aim of the Government to restore the position, so far as is practical, to what it was before 1971. It is as simple as that. The closed shop issue, upon which we are going to hear so much before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House, comes up only because it had to be referred to in legislation on what constitutes fair or unfair dismissal for the purpose of the compensation terms. Had it not been for the re-enactment of the 1971 provisions regarding compensation for unfair dismissal, it would not have been necessary to refer to the closed shop at all. Before, when there
732
was no statutory provision for compensation for unfair dismissal, there was no mention, in any legislation of which I am aware, of the closed shop.
Nevertheless, I am still concerned about the right of appeal which a worker might, and should have against what he believes to be unfair exclusion from his union, or unfair refusal to allow him to join. My noble friend Lord Greene of Harrow Weald referred to the independent tribunal which the Trades Union Congress was prepared and ready to set up with an independent chairman and independent members, which could adjudicate upon grievances of individual trade unionists who said that they had been unfairly treated by their unions, and found no remedy within the rules of their union. I think that we shall want to examine that a little more carefully when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
I come now to the closed shop issue. The Amendments proposed by this Bill to the 1974 Act do not impose a closed shop upon anybody; union membership agreements are to be agreements and nothing else. The Bill does not enshrine the closed shop; the closed shop was enshrined in the agency shop agreement in the 1971 Act. That is where the closed shop was enshrined. No Labour Act of Parliament has enshrined the closed shop and made it legal, or in fact expressed any opinion whatever on the principle of the matter. As I said a few moments ago, it is only because of the provisions for unfair dismissal that it was necessary in the 1974 Act, and is necessary in this Bill, to refer to the union membership agreement at all. The 1974 Act neither sanctions nor prohibits a closed shop. It is not, however, strictly correct to say that this Bill and the 1974 Act do no more than restore the pre-1971 position. The Bill has to do a little more than that because, as I have explained, it is necessary to define unfair dismissal in relation to a closed shop situation for the purpose of compensation.
Quite recently we have had a great deal of publicity about what can now be described as Press freedoms, or the rights of editors. This has to do with the fears of the Newspaper Publishers' Association and newspaper editors, including news editors of broadcasting services, about

733
some possible consequences of having a closed shop in the profession of journalism. An Amendment to this Bill proposed and rejected in another place would have banned altogether a closed shop in the newspaper industry, and that is apparently what the editors and newspaper management want.
It is thought that this prohibition on having a closed shop in the newspaper industry could be forced upon the workers in that industry, could have the force of law, and could dispose of the matter by making a closed shop in the newspaper industry unlawful. I do not believe for a moment that that would be the likely outcome. The likely outcome is that we shall have five journalists in prison instead of five dock workers, with the Official Solicitor coming to their rescue as he did with the five dock workers.
We have to be realistic about this matter. We on these Benches cannot agree to any Amendment to this Bill which prohibits a closed shop situation in the newspaper and media industry. We cannot discriminate against the National Union of Journalists, or any other organisation in this field, and deny to them the rights of combination and collective action given to all other unions. This would be highly discriminatory, and would have to be justified by overwhelming reasons in the national interest.
It is quite unacceptable to us that a trade union, properly constituted, affiliated to the TUC, of national and international repute, should be disqualified from the same rights of combination', status and freedom enjoyed by all other trade unions in this country. This cannot be justified. Is the freedom of the Press, and are the rights and duties and authority of newspaper and other editors, in such peril that we must afford such safeguards against the abuse of one of the basic freedoms in a free society? This is what we have to answer. Is the threat as serious as all that? If so, since when, and what is the evidence of the gravity and the extent of this threat? The curious thing is that these forebodings about the possible consequences of a closed shop in the newspaper industry were never voiced in 1971, were never voiced in 1974; they arise now.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is not here.
Several Noble Lords: Indeed he is.
Lord HANKEY: I beg your Lordships' pardon. He cited a certain amount of evidence as did the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I do not see how the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, could suggest that there is no evidence. I would very much value hearing his comments on the evidence that was given.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I think that we must examine the evidence. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I do not take one instance, or even two, as constituting enough evidence to justify banning a closed shop situation in a trade union in the media industry. I think that the evidence must be far stronger than that. In passing, I would observe that the example quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, shows that there is something wrong with the industrial relations in that quarter. Obviously, there is some unresolved dispute there. I think we want to know why that dispute has not been resolved; what is the difficulty about coming to an agreement on the use of casual or specialist contributors in a newspaper like the Financial Times, and whether the professional journalist has a genuine grievance if he raises the question about the insecurity of his own employment in relation to the freedom of the editor to go where he will for casual contributions.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, in fairness to the Financial Times, I would be happy to show the noble Lord the minutes of the discussions between the union and the Financial Times, which I believe will satisfy him that the Financial Times was totally absolved of any responsibility. But I do not want to prolong the debate by reading it now.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says, and I do not deny that there are various troubles and difficulties in industry, including this one. But the point which the noble Lord raised has nothing whatever to do with this Bill, is not created by this Bill and cannot be solved

735
by this or any other Bill until the question of industrial relations has been properly discussed with attempts to reach agreement in the industry itself.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to make one point clear? He talked of the possibility of making some agreement between the NUJ and the proprietors on outside contributors. Does not any agreement postulate a limitation of contributions from outside people? Does not that interfere at once with the basic liberty of the Press?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I shall come to that point in a moment, if the noble Lord will bear with me. I come to the attempts which have been made to get an agreement to cover this and many other matters relating to the employment of journalists in the newspaper and media industries. The attempt was made last Thursday to make progress on a code of practice. Unfortunately, the attempt foundered. My noble friend the Leader of the House read out the motion which was heavily defeated at that meeting. The reason given by the majority who rejected the attempt to make progress on this proposed code of practice was that they first wanted the removal from this Bill of any sanction to the closed shop in the newspaper industry. They wanted, they said, to exclude the newspaper industry from this legislation, whatever that might mean. But what I think they intended to mean was that the closed shop situation should be prohibited in the newspaper industry as a condition of their settling down with the unions to work out a code of practice.
I thought that this requirement was quite unreasonable. It sounded preposterous to me. What the editors and the management were asking the NUJ to do was to yield up its own power of collective action before any discussion could take place on strengthening the power of the editors and the management —and that, surely, is an impossible proposition to put to the union. I think that if we have unreasonable postures on the part of editors and management in the newspaper industry, and have before them a union that is willing, unconditionally, to discuss a proposed code of practice, then the message should go
736
out from this House that we want them to resume their discussions in a more realistic atmosphere.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is talking as if there were only one union involved. Is not another union involved— the Institute of Journalists?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, the other union, to which the noble Lord referred, was present at the discussions the other day. They were all around the table, presumably with the genuine intention of trying to reach an amicable settlement of differences and difficulties between them, and I am not ruling out any other union from participation in discussions on a possible code of conduct. I think it is perhaps necessary to encourage the parties to come together to try to work out an agreed code of practice. I am minded to put down for the Committee stage an amendment to the Bill which would require the Secretary of State for Employment to lay before both Houses of Parliament, within a stipulated period, an agreed code of practice arrived at between the parties concerned. Failing an agreed code of practice, the Secretary of State should lay a draft of his own proposed code of practice before both Houses of Parliament and submit it for consideration under Part I of Schedule I of the principal Act of 1974. It seems to me that this is a practical step to take, which may have the effect of concentrating the minds of all concerned on the need to arrive at a speedy agreement on a code of practice, failing which Parliament would require the Secretary of State to have a go at it himself.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the noble Lord is suggesting the code of practice without the force of law behind it.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, a code of practice under the 1974 Act, as under the 1971 Act, would not have the force of law behind it. The first sections of the 1971 Act on the code of practice for industrial relations did not have the force of law behind them. What they did provide was that the code of practice would be admissible evidence in any matter arising under the Act which had to go to an industrial tribunal. They also provided that in determining any question under the Act, before an indus-

737
trial tribunal, the tribunal should take the code of practice into account. Those provisions were re-enacted in the 1974 Act of the Labour Government and they are still there. Under my proposal the code of practice would be put alongside, and without prejudice, to, the general code of practice which is still in force.
Probably, your Lordships do not appreciate that the code of practice approved by Parliament under the Conservative Government is still in operation. It was re-enacted by the 1974 Act, and that code is still there; and all the provisions for amendment of it, and the role of the Secretary of State in connection with it, which were embodied in the 1971 Act, are also there, literally, in the 1974 Act. Therefore, I propose that the role of the Secretary of State in connection with a code of practice for the newspaper industry should be similar to that which he has under the Act of 1974, as he had under the Act of 1971, for the general code of practice governing and guiding industrial relations. This, I think, may lead to a speedy solution. There is hope that way; there is nothing to be gained by pursuing a remedy in Statute Law. We have tried it and it has failed: it was disastrous. I think that further attempts to do it are bound to fail again.
Therefore, I hope that the parties concerned will get the message from this House and will come together again and try to work out an agreed code of practice covering the matters raised by the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and others of which we are aware. Where there are troubles and difficulties, they should if possible be resolved by agreement. If they cannot be resolved by agreement, the Secretary of State would, I believe, be fully justified in producing his own draft of a code of practice to be required by Act of Parliament to be placed before both Houses of Parliament and given the force of legislative approval. I believe that to be a possible way. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage we can look at that, and if there are any feasible alternatives, they, too, can be given consideration.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that only two conditions need to be laid down on this side of the House. One is that the closed shop cannot be prohibited for one union alone throughout the whole of the trade union movement,
738
no matter what position it holds or how sensitive that position in relation to the basic freedom of the community. The closed shop situation is the right of every union to have, if it can reach agreement on it— and only if it can reach agreement on it. The second condition is that we should not attempt to enforce by law codes of practice which give rise to contentious and unenforceable judgments of the courts, stirring up the action of large masses of trade unionists far beyond the area of the particular problem or dispute and going back to the dark days following the 1971 Act, which was the most disastrous period in industrial relations that I can remember since 1926.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have two questions which I should be very grateful if he could answer. First, may I recognise the enormous part that the noble Lord has played in the last few weeks in seeking to negotiate a settlement in this matter. We arc profoundly grateful for that, but that is not why I have intervened. I want to ask just two questions. First, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that the strictures on the various parties to the Pearce meeting, suggesting that they were unreasonable in some way in not continuing the discussions, are wholly unjustified because at that very moment a message was being sent to the Secretary of State from another source to say that my friends were perfectly willing to consider a code of practice, provided it had efficacy? So it is not fair to suggest that there was a refutation of any suggestion for negotiation at that meeting. That is the first point I should like to put to the noble Lord. My second question is: if a code of practice that has the force of law is valueless because the judgments cannot be enforced, why is it better to have a code of practice which is of persuasive effect in securing agreement, which would no doubt be equally ignored?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, on the first point, I think that if that meeting of last Thursday was not fully representative and not fully authorised, then it is desirable that those responsible in the field of management and editorship in newspapers and broadcasting should bring together a team which will have full authority to conduct the discussions with the National Union

739
of Journalists and the Institute of Journalists, who were also present the other day. We want representative people at a conference to try to work out the proposed code of practice.
My Lords, on other matters I think that if the parties concerned, when they have reached agreement, would like to sanctify their agreement by legislation and have it embodied in an Act of Parliament, or would prefer to have it given the approval of Parliament without taking legislative form, I am sure that both Houses of Parliament would be glad to meet any agreed suggestion in that direction. However, first let them reach agreement, then they can decide what they wish to do about it. I am sure that we can encourage them to do so. We can send out a message that they should meet, talk, discuss and try to reach agreement, because if they cannot or do not reach agreement Parliament may decide that it wants the Secretary of State to try to make good that default.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is in order for me to ask the noble Lord a second question before he sits down when he has already sat down twice, but I should like to ask him this. He said, as I understood it, that a person who has been expelled or excluded from a union had the right of appeal to an independent body, but how can it be said that such a body is truly independent when, as I understand it, it is to be set up by the TUC?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I can save the time of your Lordships' House by referring to the speech that I made in this House on 22nd July 1974, when I expressed my own views about the need for providing an effective and independent court of appeal to deal with a member's complaint that he was unfairly excluded from a union, or unfairly refused the opportunity of joining it. As I have said, that is a matter which I certainly wish to examine more closely when we come to the Committee stage.
7.36 p.m.
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, I should like to preface my remarks by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Greene of Harrow Weald on his maiden speech. He served
740
the trade union movement, his own union and the country well and we shall look forward to hearing him again. The Bill is a short Bill which is being urgently introduced by the Government to replace and amend those provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 which was included as a result of Opposition Amendments in another place and in your Lordships' House. As has been said, the Government were pledged to repeal the Industrial Relations Act 1971, and this Bill is intended finally and completely to carry out that pledge. One of the understandings reached between the unions and the Government under the Social Contract was a promise to restore voluntary collective bargaining. This, of course, is the fundamental issue. The question is whether one is to allow voluntarism to operate in the field of industrial relations or whether one is to control industrial relations by Statute. The answer is very heavily in favour of voluntarism.
The Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations 1965–1968—known as the Donovan Commission—came down very definitely on the side of voluntarism. Another interesting commentator on this proposition was Mr. Aubrey Jones, who, as your Lordships will know, was chairman of the Prices and Incomes Board from 1965 to 1970. He pointed out what he felt was the way to better industrial relations, particularly in the field of prices and incomes. He wrote:
"It is desirable if possible for the rules to be formulated through a parley between Government, trade unions and management."
On Governments and their powers, Mr. Jones said:
"To attain Office, Governments require a majority of individual votes, but to govern effectively when Office has been attained Governments need to carry with them the diverse interest groups."
In support of this contention, Mr. Jones quoted Disraeli:
"The great art in creating an efficient representative government is to secure its representation of those interests of the country which are at the same time not only considerable but, in their nature, permanent."
Mr. Jones comments on this matter that those interests or the modern counterparts of those interests which are the ancient estates of the realm are now labour and capital. My Lords, the final demonstra-

741
tion of the unsuitability of legislation in labour relations has, in my view, been amply demonstrated in the last 30 years and, more particularly, in the last decade.
Let us briefly examine the records of Government. The experimenting with policies by both Conservative and Labour Administrations illustrates how unwise it is to attempt to regulate industrial regulations by Statute. Consider, for example, how the 1964 Labour Government introduced prices and incomes control using the Prices and Incomes Board. By 1969 that policy was dropped and was replaced by proposed legislation on strikes. In Place of Strife has been referred to, and that was part and parcel of it. On that legislation there was much argument between the TUC and the Government and, in the event, the Bill was amended, although it never saw the light of day because it was overtaken by the June 1970 Election.
A Conservative Government were elected in June 1970 and were pledged to legislation on strikes. They abolished the Prices and Incomes Board in March 1971, and in that same year they introduced the Industrial Relations Bill, which became an Act although it hardly ever functioned, and after two years in Office the Conservatives returned to the point at which the Labour Government had begun the exercise in 1964; namely, to seek to operate a prices and incomes policy, a course which they had previously denounced. In November 1972 all incomes and prices were frozen.
My Lords, by this small Bill the Government accept that labour relations are best dealt with outside legislation. This is the attitude of the TUC, and on these matters the TUC asked to be consulted and to be given the opportunity to suggest remedies. This, of course, is the best way forward, not easily accomplished but rewarding if successful. What does that mean in relation to this Bill? On the rights of workers; as to arbitrary or unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a trade union, the TUC have committed themselves to set up a review body to consider appeals from individuals dismissed from their jobs as a consequence of being expelled from a union or having been refused admission to a union.
I appreciate all the absolute appeals to freedom which have been made in many
742
of the speeches this afternoon. I appreciate, equally—having been a member of the TUC General Council for many years and a practitioner in trade unionism for over 40 years, although I am now retired—that it is possible for the TUC to examine cases and to deal with them fairly. There is a committee of the TUC set up to regulate differences between unions on the Bridlington principle. This comittee works admirably and its decisions are accepted automatically. Thus, I can see no difficulty, if a man has trouble with a union, with him having the right of appeal to a committee set up by the TUC in consultation, of course, with the Secretary of State. When this Bill was being debated in another place on Third Reading—
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord turns to another subject, may I ask him to say what he thinks would happen if the union or unions concerned in a dispute were not members of the TUC? What would be the position of the Bridlington rules then?
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, that is a difficult one. Of course, if the two parties were agreeable to submit themselves to the TUC as the arbiter, then that would be a viable way of overcoming the problem. I remind the noble Lord that the mass of organised workpeople are affiliated to the TUC and that the numbers outside it are very small indeed. I can, however, envisage the possibility to which the noble Lord referred, and I believe that when such a case arose some time ago the TUC acted as arbiter.
I was about to refer to Amendments which were moved in another place to this Bill and to comment that I have been surprised by the narrow difference that actually exists between us. The TUC is prepared to set up a review body. In another place the Liberal Party introduced an Amendment asking for a tribunal to be established and a Conservative Amendment also sought a tribunal. The terms of reference were exactly as had been agreed by the TUC— they had been lifted, as it were—so that precisely the same terms of reference would have operated. The only difference, an important one I agree, concerned the personalities—who should adjudicate—and how the body was to be

743
set up, but, as I say, the difference between us is not all that great. As to the alleged interference with the freedom of the Press, the NUJ has suggested a meeting of all the parties and we have heard a great deal about that. So far it has failed, but I hope, however, that eventually there will be success. In moving the Conservative Amendment in another place the honourable Member for Lowestoft, Mr. Prior said—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I intervene in the noble Lord's speech only to remind him that direct quotations from speeches in another place are permissible only in the case of Ministers' speeches.
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, but not in the case of Shadow Ministers' speeches.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the noble Lord would be wise not to quote but to paraphrase.
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, in that case I will refer to what the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said earlier because he used words similar to those which I had intended to quote. He said that all they wanted to do was to go a little further. There is. as I say, a very narrow distinction between us. However, it means that if the present legislation remains and this amending Bill is not accepted there will still be this residue, as it were, of the 1971 Act on the Statute Book. It was to repeal that Act in its entirety that a pledge was given to the Trade Union movement, and I therefore hope that this pledge will be carried out.
7.48 p.m.
The Earl of COURTOWN: My Lords, I wish to refer at the outset to a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, when he said that there was not as much difference between us as was sometimes the impression given. I feel that a great deal of heat has often been worked up about aspects and different factors which are not really so important when they are looked at objectively.
This Bill clears away the last of what the Government, and presumably the
744
TUC, deem to be objectionable in the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I am sure that that Act was never thought to be perfect by those who sponsored it. Indeed, the point has been made time and again that what they produced was their idea of providing a basis of law to our industrial relations which then could be examined and proved over a period and, if necessary, amended. In the event, the unions never gave it a chance to be put properly into practice. They were determined that it should not be allowed and they were successful. It was a pity.
It will be for history to pass judgment on the significance of what has occurred and the effects, but in looking back after only three or four years various points seem to emerge. The aspects of the Act which proved to be the most objectionable from the unions' point of view resulted from the unions' determination not to comply with the Act rather than the Act itself, and to ignore the courts and other bodies which the Act set up. Nevertheless, all Parties in Parliament at one time or another have expressed the belief that there should be a better basis in law for our industrial relations.
I spent a lifetime in industry, starting at the bottom and moving upwards. When I first heard of the idea of producing an industrial relations Bill and providing a basis of law for human relations I felt that it would lead to trouble. Yet when we look at this matter, we find that much of our human relations are in fact subject to the rule of law. What, after all, are race relations or racial discrimination, other than human relations, and yet there will be few of us who would not agree that there is a necessity for racial discrimination legislation. Equally, our relations with our neighbours—and even with our wives—are subject to law; yet we are very unwise if we go to law. However, we need the law to deal with the unreasonable people who do not comply with what is regarded as social behaviour.
It will be for history to evaluate whether the Government are wise to proceed in this way with industrial relations, but the view of history would, I believe, have been very different if the unions had collaborated in trying to make the Act work and highlighting its faults. It is now the intention of the Government to complete the dismemberment of the 1971 Act, with a few exceptions which

745
they consider beneficial to the unions. The main purpose of this Bill is to reinstate the legality of the closed shop. Although there is some argument about this, it is clear that it takes the legal position back to what it was before the 1971 Act. AJ1 I can say is that it seams to me that before the 1971 Act the legal position of the closed shop was extremely obscure. It is difficult to see why the unions were so much against the 1971 Act in this respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, pointed out, the 1971 Act produced the idea of an agency shop, which was not all that different from a closed shop, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald, who mentioned the fact that people who wanted to opt out of the closed shop did pot pay their union dues. The Industrial Relations Act allowed for dues to be levied on those who in fact opted out of the union. It provided a logical basis, with elections and so on, for an agency shop, with proper safeguards; for the religious or conscientious objector, and once the agency shop was agreed it gave the union more power to maintain it than it often had in the previous closed shop arrangement. It was a great pity that the unions did not collaborate so that the real faults could be shown.
Even if it is true that the Bill is taking us back to the situation before the 1971 Act, it seems to me that there is even more need for safeguards for the individual than there was in 1971, due to the much greater power of the unions, which has been shown, and the spread of their influence into white-collar fields. I am not at all against unions or their spreading into white-collar fields; on the whole, it is desirable. But I believe that as far as possible an individual should be able to join 1he union of his choice, and that a body independent of the union should be available for appeals. Many employees, both white and blue-collar, prefer to belong to the union which reflects their own particular skills. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, chemists and many technological specialists have their own institutes, associations or unions.
I quite see the advantages in a particular establishment of having one union with which to deal, but nevertheless there is, I think, very strong feeling among the white-collar workers, as there has been
746
in many cases in the long organised factory workers, for unions which reflect their own particular skills. Are we entitled to stop them belonging to these unions of their choice? I doubt it. The Government propose to have any appeals to a non-statutory body set up by the TUC. What if the associations or unions concerned are not affiliated to the TUC? How can the TUC body act independently and properly in such circumstances? And how can its findings, if they are just, be implemented? What happens if a union insists that a manager should join it? It seems to me that the possibility of difficulties arising, which has been highlighted in the case of newspaper editors, could be reflected in many other situations in factories.
We know that in many cases, over many years, the closed shop has been in operation. In many cases it was not officially a closed shop, but a closed shop was operated. In many instances it was much less troublesome to management to allow it, even if it meant injustice to individuals. Some of these cases of injustice came to light and were widely publicised, but many more did not. As the unions gain power in new fields more and more cases will arise. We all know the misgivings of newspaper editors. I believe there is a possibility of many more such cases arising, especially if against their will management and specialists are forced to join unions, thus bringing about a clash of responsibilities. There should be some independent means of resolving these cases. I accept that the Government in their mandate from the country —if a minority vote can be deemed to be a mandate—are entitled to repeal the 1971 Act. I do not feel, however, that they are entitled to put nothing in its place, taking into account the changed situation since 1971.
7.57 p.m.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, first, I wish to say how pleased I was to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald. Of course I have heard him on many occasions at the Labour Party and at the TUC, and if he will forgive me, I have always thought of him as one of nature's Life Peers. He has this combination of wisdom, experience, sagacity, persuasiveness and rationality which are so highly

747
esteemed in this Chamber, and I am sure we all hope that we shall hear him many times in the future, particularly on trade union subjects, of which he has so much experience.
I should first like to confess tonight to as rich a variety of interests on this subject as I think it is possible to have. I am an employee of the Mirror group of newspapers, a member of the British Committee of the International Press Institute, and a member of the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Press Union. I am also a member of the National Union of Journalists, and have been for 46 years. In fact the noble Lord, Lord Castle, and I have almost 100 years of membership of the NUJ between us. I should also mention a very special relationship with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, since he has been my editor and I have been his, and our friendship has survived this most rigorous of tests.
With the background I have outlined, I am sure your Lordships will understand why today I am taking a path of moderation and reconciliation. Perhaps I can best start by describing what I think has happened. Three or four years ago the British Committee of the International Press Institute became alarmed at the increasing number of incidents in which trade unionists had used their power to try to influence the editorial content of the paper they were working for. Usually these were rather special cases when a newspaper was dealing with a dispute in which the staff was involved—but not always. Now it is being suggested that the current protest against the Bill has been stimulated by newspaper owners simply because they hate closed shops, rather than by editors who are concerned about the freedom of the Press. Now this is not true within my experience. Three or four years ago I was a member of a delegation from the British Committee of the International Press Institute which waited upon Lord Goodman and the Newspaper Publishers' Association to express our deep concern about union intervention in editorial matters, and to ask for the backing of the proprietors— that it should be given to editors who refused to make the changes in their paper demanded by a union or a chapel.
748
At that time, the National Union of Journalists were asked for their views on such a situation and they said very properly that they were against censorship of any kind in a newspaper. So the current anxieties have not suddenly sprung up; they have been developing for some years. Over the past few years my union have become extremely militant, and quite rightly. The noble Lord, Lord Castle, and I have lived through long years when the NUJ was the weakest of unions. Journalists could be sacked on the spot simply because they no longer fitted in, and provided they were given proper notice there was little or nothing their colleagues could or would do. At that time they were subjected to many indignities, and indeed sometimes to brutalities. Then in the post-war years they fell behind in their pay. The militant printing union did very well, but the journalists, who were the most flexible, the most co-operative, indeed the most dedicated of workers, did very badly. It was not until they adopted the disagreeable but effective techniques of the printing unions that they were able to make substantial progress.
The militants— and I bless them for this— have made great gains for journalists. Journalists now have a very high degree of security. They do not have to lie awake wondering, as we did as young married men, whether we were going to be fired on the whim of management, editor or sub-editor in a newspaper office. They have acquired many fringe benefits. Perhaps I can best describe the change in their pay by saying what has happened to some of nearly 1,000 journalists ranging from juniors to editors. Eight years ago, two-thirds of this group were getting between £ 1,500 and £2,500 a year. Today the middle income bracket in the same group contains four-fifths of the total and they are getting between £ 4,000 and £ 6,000 a year. So even when one discounts inflation it is obvious that the journalists have made a very great leap forward. Now that it has been made, the only problem is to keep it topped up. So I hope that there will be less frequent recourse to the harsher union techniques which may involve the loss of copies, perhaps 1 or 2 million copies in a night or even a whole night's run.

749
But what has given anxiety, not only to editors but to many ordinary, moderate, reasonable members of my union, is that the new legitimate, economic militancy has been accompanied by a developing political militancy. Some of it is far to the left of the views of anybody who sits on the Government Benches in either House of Parliament. The danger appears to be looming up. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is not yet convinced, but I think those who work in Fleet Street are convinced that the danger is looming up, even if it is not clear at present. The danger is not that they will try to put their extreme views into practice, but that they will lead less extreme men than themselves ino demands for some kind of workers' control over the editorial content of some newspapers.
The reason for the anxieties of editors at this moment is the conjecture of developing political militancy with the provisions of the Bill before us. The Bill removes some restraints on the formation of the closed shop, but marginally facilitates it by making it a fair practice to dismiss a man who will not join or who is put out of his union. The attainment of the closed shop must, of course, be the first goal of the political militant. Yet we ought not to become too alarmed. I think we do not have, on the editorial floors of newspaper offices in Fleet Street, what might technically be called closed shops. But we have what are virtually closed shops. We have very strong union chapels, and still the walls of the editor's room have not yet fallen. Yet the anxieties are real and the problem before this House is how to mitigate not the intended, but the unintended possible consequences of this Bill. Those consequences, I am afraid, were not perceived at first by either the Government or by the people who work in newspapers at any level. There are certain possible consequences which none of us, including my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, would like to see.
Some people have asked: how could a Minister, himself a journalist and one of our most famous defenders of liberty, have been so cavalier as he appears to some people to have been at the beginning of this controversy. The answer is, I think, that my right honourable friend, like all of us who have been concerned
750
throughout our lives with the liberty of the Press, and who have been preoccupied by the external threat which comes to the Press from Governments, from the Bench, the courts and other institutions, has not given very much thought to the problems of what the German journalists call "the inner freedom"; that is the relationships between owners, managements and editors, and between editors and their journalistic colleagues. We are dealing now with the question of "inner freedom", a possible threat from inside the newspaper, and if the debate so far among the editors, the proprietors and the journalists has been rather confused, it is because we are thinking through these problems for the first time.
I know that some of my noble friends and my honourable friends are cynical about the Press, and indeed say that the freedom it exercises is most imperfect and is most imperfectly employed. But there is no reason why it should become more imperfect than it is. What has to be stressed—and this is a point which has been missed from many discussions—is the right of a newspaper to have a political philosophy, and a policy based upon that philosophy devised and expressed by the editor. The editor is the guardian of the paper's tradition; the custodian, if I may borrow a phrase, of its unwritten manifesto. He is also the custodian of the social compact which every newspaper has with its readers.
There was a time, especially in my youth, when editors were absolute monarchs claiming divine right. They would disappear into their sanctum and communicate with God, or more likely with his agent, the proprietor, and then emerge with a policy. I have worked for editors like that. I am afraid I must confess that I have been one. Had I but served my proprietors with half the zeal I served my God, I might have done a lot better for myself. The age of the great intervening proprietor or publisher disappeared with the retirement of Lord Northcliffe's nephew, Mr. Cecil King, He was really the last of the line. Today in Fleet Street I think it is generally true to say that the editors run their newspapers, but of course they run them within the traditions and not in a personal way. It is not personal freedom that they enjoy. It is a happy coincidence

751
when they are able in Fleet Street to express exactly their own private views.
If I may give one example, the editors of both the Guardian and The Times in 1951 opposed in their newspapers the return of the Labour Government, but as private citizens neither of them voted Conservative on that occasion. Today the editorial power is much more devolved than it used to be. The multiplication of specialists in newspaper offices, particularly in political, industrial and financial affairs, and the development of political columnists have subtracted not from the power of the editor which remains in the background, not from the power he possesses, but from the power he is actually able to wield. We have to remember, too, that the newspaper today is a vast concern with, perhaps, 500 journalists in a number of departments which are in themselves almost autonomous little newspapers. The editor in these circumstances has perhaps only the first word and the last word, and not too many in between.
If I may say so to my noble friend Lord Bruce who wrote the other day to The Times suggesting that perhaps only 30 or 40 people in the whole of Fleet Street have influence on the newspaper Press, I suggest to him that influence is much more widely devolved than that. There are in any single newspaper 30 or 40 people at least having daily an important influence on the creation of that newspaper but not simply in the political departments; I am referring to all the departments.
The journalist's freedom is derived from the editor's own freedom and they will be less free and not more free, I strongly feel, if they have a voice in the political policy of their newspapers. Today there are very few jobs on a news-paper which require the commitment of a man to its policy. The others, even when they are Lobby correspondents or industrial correspondents, can do an honest job of work without any strain on their political consciences, no matter what their views are or what are those of the newspaper. This is a very valuable safeguard to journalists; for most papers in this country are Right of Centre and most journalists are not. It would be a terrible day for journalists if, perhaps, to work on the Daily Telegraph they had
752
to be Conservatives, because they would be taking part, in effect, in a kind of Conservative Party policy in the editorial discussions; and it would be terrible today, too, if people had to be Labour pro-Marketeers in order to work on the Daily Mirror.
I feel sure that in the long run my journalistic colleagues will not be seduced by proposals for chapel control of editorial political policy. The danger is that they may not react quickly enough. It is essential that the normal decency and liberality of British journalists should be one of the main supports of Press freedom but we cannot depend on that alone. Press freedom requires, with the world as it is today, some other supports. These are very difficult days. We are in an age of high inflation; and the professional ethics of medical consultants and schoolteachers can be strained simply by the need to get more pay. Sheer economic motives could cause good liberal journalists to have restrictive policies towards non-professional and semiprofessional contributors to newspapers and magazines. At a time of inflation and recession—with, perhaps, newspaper closures and journalists thrown out of work—the temptation to demand a reduction in outside contributors may become very strong indeed. The freedom of the Press cannot be left to owners, editors and journalists. No single individual has a right of access to the Press, but unless some leaders of opinion, some experts, some people with special experience are able to make a substantial contribution to the newspaper and magazine Press of this country, we shall become politically and intellectually starved.
Let me give one short example of the kind of mentality which nice, kind journalists have. When I became editor of the Daily Herald and, of course, they were the pioneer closed shop, being the official trade union newspaper, almost on the first day I suggested that Richard Titmus, the great labour expert, should review a book on social security. The assistant editor came back and said, "I am afraid that the lads are a bit upset. They want to know why somebody on the staff cannot do it." I explained that Richard Titmus was the great expert. He came back a second time and said, "Could it not be ' by Richard Titmus in an interview with a Herald reporter'"?

753
I said that we wanted Titmus, who is a splendid writer, to write on this subject because it would improve the paper and would sell many more copies to undergraduates who adore him. They saw the point of the argument and did not persist, so that I was able to continue with this policy. My successor, Mr. Sydney Jacobson, ran into trouble when he thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, should write a column for the Daily Herald. She did this in her usual forthright and vigorous style, and after she had made five contributions the father of the chapel came along and said, "She has exhausted her quota." It seems there was an arrangement by which an outsider could write only six articles in a year. They managed to get over that; she could go on writing provided that she did not—
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, that is not quite accurate. I did not exhaust my quota. They would not allow me to write political articles of any kind and after a while—after far more than five contributions—I just had other things to do.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, my noble friend will forgive me if I persist with the myth, which is very strong. Her recollection does not coincide with that of the farmer editor of the Daily Herald. He came to an arrangement that she could go on writing providing that she did not trespass on the specialist writers on that paper. The thing came to a climax on another day when it was suggested that it would be a good idea that she go to report the Conservative Women's Conference. They thought that this was a trespass—on whose toes, I do not know; perhaps on its millinery correspondent. Eventually, the thing was negotiated away. It does not matter very much on a paper like the Daily Herald or the Daily Mirror to have an agreement of this kind because the fashion of inviting public men to contribute to their columns has disappeared many years ago purely for technical reasons. But it matters vitally to papers like the Guardian, The Times, the Observer and the Sunday Times.
I should remind your Lordships that very little has been said in the general debate about the periodical Press—and
754
here I must stress my interest since I work for a concern which publishes an enormous number of periodicals. Many people in the periodical Press think that the unintended possible effects of this Bill threaten them even more seriously than their newspaper colleagues. By tradition magazines have always carried a larger amount of external material than newspapers. The fears are perhaps alarmist. His Grace Dr. Coggan will probably contribute regularly to the Church Times as his predecessor did. Could that be interfered with? Or could Harvey Smith go on as a contributor to Horse and Hound. These are alarmist fears, but they are the kind of things now said in the trade.
The trade and technical Press depends even more on external contributors because they tend to serve a specific science or professional technology. Most publications of this kind have union employees, but the editor and one or two senior editorial executives are often actively associated with the profession that they are serving. The closed shop will simply not work for them.
I sincerely hope that noble Lords are persuaded that the fears which we have are genuine and are only occasionally exaggerated. My belief is that the charter or a code of practice is necessary, and I hope it will be achieved despite all the current difficulties. I should like to express my own thanks for the constructive role played in this by the editor of the Guardian and by the secretary of the NUJ. But the code alone may not be enough. A really militant chapel could easily disregard anything of this kind. Can we, with all the good will and intellectual ingenuity for which this House is so famous, devise some addition to this Bill which will give a firmer base to some of the provisions in the charter? I fervently hope that between now and the Committee stage Amendments can be devised to soften the fortuitous conflict between the two great democratic freedoms, the freedom of combination and the freedom of the Press.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could I ask whether he is proposing to support the Second Reading of this Bill, or is he against it?
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, I am supporting the Second Reading of the Bill. I have said that I am dealing only with the unintended effects of the Bill and not with its intended effects which I thoroughly support.
8.19 p.m.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, I should like to join with those who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald, on his most interesting maiden speech. I have for very long been a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Greene, because I live on a railway line which is served by the NUR rather than by ASLEF. The ability of the noble Lord to settle the current disputes which arose fairly often affecting the guards, the drivers and others has been very striking and we have had a remarkably good service. As a former diplomat, I admire diplomacy where it occurs.
Speaking about commuters, I am sorry to say that I do not see how I can remain here until the end of this debate if it continues after about 11 p.m., because I have a date in the country tomorrow morning, and no bed in London, and it is absolutely unavoidable that I should take the last train. I had no idea that this debate would begin so late or go on for so long. I apologise, and no discourtesy is intended to your Lordships' House.
I would somewhat broaden the basis of this debate. We have spoken a great deal about the Press and about the closed shop, and I sympathise with a great deal that has been said. But I want now to approach this matter from a broader angle because I find that this Bill in tact does the opposite of what the interests of this country require. In my opinion, we need an orderly trade union system in which the leaders of the trade unions can ensure the proper execution of the agreements which they negotiate and secure the execution of the Social Contract. We need good order and discipline in carrying out agreements in our factories, docks, businesses and mines in order that we may at last begin to hold our own in world trade, and that there may be more investment in our industries. Without this, our standard of living must inevitably decline.
The clear effect of this Bill, however, is to multiply the occasions for causing
756
industrial disorder, to make it even more impossible to carry out the Social Contract, and to endanger even further the ability of our industries to fulfil their contracts or attract investments. These are very serious charges against the Bill and against the Government, my Lords, but I shall substantiate every one of them.
I would begin by saying that I am not critical of trade union leaders. I have a great personal admiration for them and many friends among them. But there has been a steady increase in the influence of the Left Wing, and I consider that this Bill will diminish still further the ability of the trade union leaders to lead their flock in the correct direction.
Section 6 of the 1974 Act (which I am sure all your Lordships hold in your hands), which is now to be repealed, contains important provisions about the rules which the members of a trade union must comply with: the use of its property and funds, the election or dismissal of its officers, officials or shop stewards, eligibility for membership, rules about expulsion of members, settlement of disputes in that connection, notably by adhering to "the rules of natural justice" —I am quoting. Similarly, Section 5 of the 1974 Act, also to be repealed, protects the worker against exclusion or expulsion by way of "arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination"—I am again quoting— and gives him the right of appeal to an industrial tribunal, with a further right of appeal to the High Court. One would have thought that all this was good for our workers and was highly uncontentious. But if we thought this we should be entirely wrong.
These sections, now to be repealed by the present Bill, prevent militants and Communist bullyboys from intimidating honest workers or those who might object to faked elections, or those who do not like being forced to hold up their hands in support of resolutions of which they do not really approve. And not only ordinary workers, either. Shop stewards, managers, or editors (whom we have so much mentioned) will be particularly exposed. One has to connect this also with the new provisions about union membership agreements. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned some interesting points in this connection. Anyone who gets into trouble with the

757
union or with a section of the union in his particular business may be forced out of the industry altogether; and it is much harder for shop stewards, managers or editors to obtain other jobs.
So what a grand background this Bill provides for private threats to resistant members of a trade union! Your Lordships may well believe, I suggest, that the phrases in the 1974 Act about applying rules of natural justice and banning arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination do not at all suit the intentions of the promoters of this Bill and the Left-Wing militants behind them. Do your Lordships remember the scandal in the Electrical Trade Union some ten years ago, and how Leslie Cannon objected to a faked election which would have put the union under Communist control? A new election was ordered by the court and the result was the election of Leslie Cannon. He was a great man and I was proud to be his friend and colleague. His death was a great loss to us all. I wonder whether that could happen again when this Bill receives the force of law. But, of course, militants do not want anything like that to happen again, so those sections of the 1974 Act are repealed.
Clause 2(1) of this Bill says that a member of a trade union may have an "implied" right (I am quoting again) to terminate his membership. But it is not clear what this means, and the intention to conceal any such right, and even to prevent its being used, seems to me obvious. Section 8(6) of the 1974 Act gave the Registrar the power to ensure that the rules of the trade unions complied with the provisions of the Act. That provision is now repealed by Clause l(c) of this Bill. Could there be any clearer indication that the trade unions or their members are to be allowed or even encouraged to play fast and loose? In parenthesis, the provision in Section 11(4) of the 1974 Act, that a trade union
"… shall at the request of any person supply him with a copy of its rules,"
remains in force. But how much use is that if the rules may contain almost anything or almost nothing? The clause becomes meaningless; and I find this rather significant.
I share the views of those who have said that unions cannot expect to be free of controls and rules. Companies,
758
building societies, co-operatives, banks, insurance and many other organisations, even the Churches, are subject to the force of law. I do not see how trade unions can expect to escape from a requirement that they shall carry out their agreements and comply with the canons of decent behaviour. I know quite well that most of them do. But I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said: we do not introduce legislation for the good chaps; we introduce it to enable the good chaps to control the bad ones. I have great confidence in our great trade union leaders that, with the proper background, they would be able to do that. But I cannot understand why the Government and the TUC bring forward a Bill such as this which, in my opinion, does the contrary.
I now come to the provisions about trade union immunities. The 1974 Act went back largely to the immunities of 1906, but at least it provided only protection against action in tort in respect of acts inducing another person to break a contract of employment Under Clause 2(2) of this Bill the immunity will be extended to an act inducing another person to break any—I repeat "any"— contract or interfering or inducing another person to interfere with its performance. The following sentence also gives immunity for threats to do these things. These immunities are of course granted only to acts done in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute. But Section 29(3) of the 1974 Act is amended in such a way by Clause 1(d) of this Bill that there is a trade dispute for the purposes of the Act even though it relates to matters—the word is "matters", not "disputes"—occurring outside Great Britain; that is, even though the persons acting in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute are not affected in any way by matters occurring overseas, as the 1974 Act requires.
May we now consider the effect of these provisions on our economy. This is what interests me most. This is what is of importance to the country. The militants in our trade unions can threaten to create a dispute or break a contract in any industry on account of any dispute anywhere or any matter occurring anywhere. It can be an incident in Greece, or Cyprus, or China, or Chile, or Pakistan, or South Africa, or Outer Mongolia. It

759
really does not matter. They have total licence to stop the mines, stop the docks, stop imports or exports of any kind, stop communications, posts, railways, or to threaten to cause the breaking of any contract, whether for exports or defence, or anything you like, for any reason at all. So far as I can see, the Government, the TUC, for which I have great admiration, the law, our many excellent trade union leaders—everybody will be powerless in the face of this bully-boys' charter. Thank God that the law of picketing still stands! I suspect that we owe that fact to the Home Secretary, not to the Secretary of State for Employment.
Yet even now the container port at Tilbury has been virtually closed for three weeks by an idiotic dispute between two sections of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Is this in the country's interest? I accept what has been said on this side of the House about the excellent Conciliation and Arbitration Services. These have my warmest support. I support what has been said about the TUC trying to settle these matters. But why has London's container port been closed for three weeks? It is an impossible situation for our traders. Having been concerned with export promotion for years, I know only too well what enormous damage this does to our export industries and to the chances of employment there, notably in the motor car industry.
The disorder and chaos in the labour relations of many of our most important industries, docks, mines and communications, has reduced this country in ten years from about the richest and most powerful country in Europe to a state of notorious poverty, industrial muddle and ineffectiveness. Our friends overseas—I say this because I travel a great deal— cannot understand why we have allowed ourselves to become industrial and economic pariahs. I suppose their kind sympathy is the most unbearable thing which I have to put up with on my travels. They cannot understand it. If I may say so, although we are supposed to be reliable people, we have become most untypically unreliable in carrying out our contracts, commitments and undertakings because we are hagridden by inflation and by chaotic labour relations in so many of our vital industries—
760
most fortunately not in all of our industries. But how can we maintain our position in world trade, or benefit by the immense opportunities which are now open to us in Europe, if we deliberately license even worse chaos, as we do by this Bill? Is it not an interesting coincidence that the Communists and Marxists are so much opposed to our joining Europe?
I have personally lived through two Communist revolutions, one in Poland and one in Hungary. May I assure your Lordships with all possible objectivity that this Bill, taken with the 1974 Act, will enable a good many of the more arbitrary and more unreasonable and objectionable features of those unhappy events to be repeated here—not dramatically but quite quietly behind the scenes. The militants go along and they make these threats. If the good trade union leaders cannot control the situation, then slowly the militants will get their way. They will for instance get some known Communist into the position of branch secretary when he ought not to be there. They will get other things, too. One has seen this. It really is time for your Lordships to be vigilant in these matters. May I draw attention in this connection to the debate which my noble friend Lord Chalfont will start tomorrow. I assure your Lordships that that debate will be of very great interest.
Of course, in Russia, or Poland, or Hungary, no utter nonsense like this Bill would be allowed for an instant. The Left-Wing deviationists who were responsible for it, or for disruptive action taken under it, would go straight to a corrective labour camp—or in Russia even to somewhere like the Karaganda coalmines.
We need Governments with much more serious consistency and with much less to-ing and fro-ing—if I may say so, speaking strictly from these Benches. It is sad to reflect that the Conservative inflation wrecked their incomes policy and their industrial relations policy and, finally, the Government themselves. I do not think that the 1971 Act was all that bad, but it could not stand up to the strains of inflation. The Labour Government, by licensing industrial disorder in a time of even higher inflation, are now making it impossible for the TUC, or even the best and the most powerful

761
trade union leaders, to carry out the Social Contract. In fact, certain trade union leaders have already vowed destruction upon it. The inevitable result must be very painful for the great trade union leaders, who are now unfortunately retired, whom we have welcomed to this House.
There are many very good and very successful ways of organising industrial relations. I have had the privilege of serving for many years on the Trade Union Liaison Committee of the Organisation for European Economic Development and of being able to study industrial relations at close hand in a number of countries. One can have a national contract or agreement between both sides of industry which is endorsed and given the force of law by the Government, as in Sweden; or one can have works councils and workers represented on the boards of companies and a very few and very powerful industrial unions, as in Germany; or one can take the workers into life-long social security partnership in the industries themselves and make them all feel personally consulted over every new company development, as in Japan; or one can have relatively free industrial relations but enforce rigid adherence to agreements, as in the United States of America; or one can protect the worker from inflation by indexation and the use of fiscal and other methods to prevent the indexed wage increase from being a mere starting point for another round of collective bargaining, as in Brazil. There are other indexation systems also, as in France. The worker is protected while inflation is being properly tackled. By contrast, the very unhappy experience of this country shows without a shadow of doubt that if one allows workers and unions to play fast and loose with their contracts and everybody else's contracts, and that if one pays for their families and refunds their income tax, however improperly they have behaved, as we have done since 1966, then the country goes to pot.
My Lords, I try never to be unconstructive. We have to look at our industrial relations in the light of inflation. People do not realise that inflation does not increase arithmetically—2, 4, 6, 8, 10. It increases logarithmically—2, 4, 8, 16, 32. This is a scientific fact. This year we have gone from 12 per cent. to nearly 20 per cent. Unless something much more
762
radical is done, we must expect something like 30 per cent. next winter. One cannot have good industrial relations with any such high degree of inflation as we have now. What can the worker do but go on strike in order to pay for his colour television set and his motor car? In practice, the employer will have to pay him at least the extra amount to compensate him for the rise in the cost of living. But why should we have such a system that the worker has to go on strike to wreck production and productivity in order to get what he is going to get, anyway? That is just the kind of bonus that our Communists and militants want.
May I urge the Government to study the systems of indexation which are in use in France and Brazil to see how we can adapt them. There would have to be sophisticated indices. You must not compensate for increased taxes or prices which are designed to remedy inflation itself; you have to be careful about higher import costs if the pound falls; you must pay for increased productivity but only—and I repeat, only—after it has been achieved. The calculation of productivity must be scientific and based on the known results for last year, not "pie in the sky" results for next year.
Such a policy based on indexation would not of itself cure inflation and it would have to be a more general measure than just for wages and salaries. But the workers would be protected while the Government tackled inflation seriously. No Government as yet have done that. Of course such a policy would require a great modification of free collective bargaining. Free collective bargaining is a shibboleth. We really must get used to that idea. We should have to find fiscal, social security or other means of preventing—and I repeat, preventing—the indexed increases from being the starting point for another round of free collective bargaining. That would fuel inflation more than anything. The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, made a most interesting speech on indexation to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. You will find it in Hansard of the 26th November 1974 at col. 1302.
Whatever is done, I should like to see some new and effective system put into a National Contract—I repeat, a National Contract—between the Government and both sides of industry and backed by the

763
law. There ought to be a National Contract; something more than the apology for a Social Contract we now have. I am not against it; I am in favour of it, but I really do not think it is working. It really ought not to be a Party matter, either, or an electoral gimmick; and the TUC and the CBI should receive and exercise powers to help police it and to ensure the execution of the agreements which the unions and industries make. This would also be a colossal change but it is high time that the CBI, the TUC and the unions accepted much greater responsibility. They are an essential part of our system but they must be made to carry their responsibility in making the system work.
It is really high time to reform our present system, which is demonstrably futile and will infallibly lead this country to ruin. I know as well as you do, my Lords, that we shall not get any constructive policies like these, or perhaps any other constructive action, from the present Government and the present Secretary of State for Employment; this does not accord with their ideas in the least. I accept that. I do not say that these are the only sort of ideas which are acceptable, but at least we need something new. It is as plain as a pie crust that this Bill will make things worse—more industrial chaos, less orderly labour relations even where they are now good; more cost inflation, more misery, probably more communism. Indeed this Bill seems to be positively designed to do just that. I do not know how the Government can have passed it through another place and presented it to your Lordships' House. I shall vote against this Bill if there is a Division, and if not I hope we shall amend it out of all recognition.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, sits down, he said at the beginning of his speech that as the debate had taken longer than he had expected he would have to leave before the end. As the average time of speakers before him was twenty-one minutes and he has now taken longer than that, I just wondered whether he would reconsider his decision to leave before the end.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, unfortunately I cannot, but I should like to
764
say that a great many noble Lords have spoken for longer than I have and I am not quite sure whether the average is twenty-one minutes.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as the one who is going to wind up this debate, I appeal to noble Lords to keep to the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, before participating in this debate, it would be proper if I were to disclose the nature and extent of my private interest. I am a director of a small private limited company called Tribune Publications Limited, in which I hold 60 shares comprising 14·6 per cent. of its issued share capital, which is shared among 26 members. In view of the fact that with your Lordships' permission I intend to refer to the editors of other newspapers during the course of what I have to say, I ought perhaps to inform your Lordships, if you do not know already, that the editor of Tribune is Mr. Richard Clements; we operate a closed shop and there is no question of in any way influencing what the editor of the paper does.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: You would be lucky!
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am a little disappointed that so far a copy of this extremely important and independent journal does not appear in the Library of your Lordships' House, and I hope this will soon be remedied.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give us one!
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, with the greatest possible pleasure, unless the noble and learned Lord is already a subscriber himself, as I am sure he is.
If I may, I should like to touch upon some of the issues relating to the freedom of the Press to which noble Lords have referred today, and indeed which appear to have been the centre point of our debate. Like most noble Lords, I believe myself—and I believe your Lordships do generally—in the freedom of the Press. What I have been troubled about for some time is the almost complete absence of it. What we have at the present time

765
in this country is not the freedom of the Press but the freedom of those individuals who edit the various national daily newspapers. It is the editors who have the freedom, not the Press organisation comprising journalists, compositors, graphic artists, mechanics and all the rest. They are the people who have the freedom, and what bothers me, and what I think disturbs many of my noble friends, is that this freedom, particularly since the war, has become progressively abused.
There was a time when comment was supposed to be free but when fact was sacred. I believe these were the principles which animated the late C. P. Scott of what was then called the Manchester Guardian. No one who has read the Press to any extent over the last thirty years can fail almost to despair of the way in which this dictum has degenerated, so that today fact has almost become inseparable from comment and comment from fact. This has given the editors of the national newspapers a licence which they now take for granted.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, as one who has worked for many years on the Guardian let me tell him that comment and fact were always mixed together. Fact was sacred but very often it appeared in a cocoon of comment.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention, but perhaps I could elaborate my point a little better by referring to the rough draft of a charter which has been prepared by Mr. Alastair Hetherington, the editor of the Guardian, as incorporating those ideals which were inspired by the late C. P. Scott, in which Mr. Hetherington invites his co-editors and co-members of the NUJ to agree. He says:
"We believe that news must not be distorted, suppressed or censored and that comment ought to be fair and based on accurate facts. We accept that opinions and conjecture ought not to be presented as established fact and that it is wrong to falsify by selection or misrepresentation ".
Anybody who can read that and agree with it and pretend that the editors of our great national newspapers during the last thirty years have followed, or permitted to be followed, the ideals that are put forward in this charter must, I suggest with the greatest possible respect, need to
766
have their brains examined because quite the reverse is true. Noble Lords opposite are quite accustomed to the support of the Conservative Press. They have had it for so long now that it has become a fact of life. We on the Labour Benches are now almost resigned to acceptance of the fact that most of the national daily newspapers will be edited by people who will always support the Tory cause. Of this there cannot be overmuch complaint. On the Labour Benches, it is not our complaint that we are outnumbered in comment and opinion. We are quite content with that. But what we are not content with, and what the country will not for long be content with, are situations where the Press has suborned and suppressed facts, and where facts are distorted until —
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would pay some attention to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that we should stick to the Bill.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I must be allowed to conduct my speech in my own way. I am only too sorry that it has caused some discomfiture to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, it causes me no discomfiture at all, but this House is working under very considerable disadvantages on this Bill, for which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has already apologised. There have been appeals from the noble Lords, the Leader of the House and Lord Jacques, and now we are having a long disquisition on the behaviour of editors of national newspapers which has nothing whatever to do with the contents of this Bill. I only ask the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington to have some consideration for his fellow Members in this House.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, many noble Lords have today discussed the behaviour of editors and the whole effect of the Bill on editors. I do not think that my noble friend is out of order. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord in

767
pleading for brevity, but I think his attack was rather unfair.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may I say this to the noble Baroness. I was only asking the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to pay some attention to her colleague sitting on her right-hand. This has been a most unfortunate debate; it has been badly mismanaged by the Government Front Bench, and we now are being subjected to discursive speeches which are in order, but are subjecting the House to considerable inconvenience. If this is the way the business of the House is to be carried on, I can only say that it will not inure to its greater credit. There we have the Chief Whip and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, taking diametrically opposite views. I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, instead of giving us a long lecture on the state of the Press, to talk about the Bill which we are supposed to be discussing, at not inordinate length.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, it ill becomes the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to take advantage of the generosity of my noble friend the Leader of the House in apologising for the general inconvenience, to attack my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington gets up again, may I say that there are several editors here present under whom my noble friend has written his thesis. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who waved me aside with the arrogance of the intellectuals which Aneurin Bevan once warned me against, I just want to know which of the editors behaved to him in the way he is now speaking about.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to—
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: Resume reading.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON—Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON— resume the speech that I was making when the noble and learned Lord intervened. I am sorry that the remarks I
768
ventured to address to your Lordships did not find favour with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I am very glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is still with us, because I should like him to clarify a point if he will, if necessary by intervention. He said that in his view the newspaper proprietors and the newspaper editors would join together with the NUJ in agreeing a charter. If it be that the parties can get together with the editors and with the NUJ, and possibly also with representatives of the proprietors, and if a charter can be agreed—even though it may not initially have the force of law— then this may well help to ease the problem at the present time.
We are concerned with freedom. I am just as much concerned with freedom as is my noble friend Lord George-Brown or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. The question is: how to achieve it. I do not think that the instances quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, this evening have any particular bearing on this problem. After all, they occurred under the existing law, before this new law had come into operation at all, so I do not think the answer lies there. I think we ought to give this Bill—
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, invited me to intervene. It is clear that intellectual arrogance is not a quality that makes for clarity. I was not able to explain that we are only too pleased to have a charter if it has legal efficacy. As to the episodes taking place under existing law, under existing law they took place and were driven off. Under the new law they will take place and will not be able to be driven off.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, that is entirely a matter for conjecture. I said in my initial remarks that I would not detain your Lordships long. If your Lordships will permit me, I wish to reserve my right to intervene, perhaps more fully, when this matter is raised again on the Committee stage. May I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that the question of the freedom of the Press and of the editors, which I have raised this afternoon, will be raised again on that occasion with even more documentation.
8.58 p.m.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, I will not follow my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, except to join him in threatening your Lordships with interventions at the Committee stage of this Bill, nor will I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. I will join with my noble friend Lord Ardwick in the confessional. My intervention tonight is inspired by the fact that I am at all times required to defend the principle of the freedom of the Press and other media in relation to the collection of information and the expression of comment and criticism. I shall strive to eliminate distortion, news suppression and censorship. That is what is required of me as a member of the National Union of Journalists. I think noble Lords will join me in my surprise that an organisation which can have such a declaration in its cede of conduct has produced the one identified hobgoblin in this discussion today.
My Lords, I join in the debate at this late hour having discarded the speech I intended to make because of my position in the batting order and in deference to the clock. But there are one or two things which must be said to dispel misconceptions which your Lordships may have had from earlier speeches. I do not think for one moment that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was at fault in pointing out that on the agenda of the NUJ annual meeting of this year there is a further demand for a 100 per cent. closed shop, and so on. But what he did not point out, and I think in fairness he should, was that the NUJ itself, which I admit has been going through a pretty erratic period, has four or five resolutions on the agenda calling for a restoration of associate membership, which excludes editors from the disciplines of the NUJ and the closed shop, a move which I hope succeeds. At least it is a move in the right direction, away from the years in which we have been troubled with the kind of terrorism in certain offices to which Lord Goodman has referred. I welcome Lord Goodman back after his defeat in the columns of The Times. I regard his intervention as one of the many adventures which we may perhaps expect in the field of polemics.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, may I venture to inquire who it was who defeated me?
Lord CASTLE: My Lords. I am sorry the noble Lord is unable to identify his opponents. But, frankly, in the course of his remarks he spoke of the gravest danger he saw, which was the exclusion of specialist writers and so on, and he introduced exhibit No. 1 to prove his case. I am not going to excuse or explain, because I do not know what happened on that occasion. All I can say is that, so far as I understand what my union is up to, it cannot occur again. The one man who has the authority to speak for the union, the man who has shown tremendous generosity of spirit in this dispute, the General Secretary, said this —and he was referring to certain contentions in the pamphlet produced by Hetherington, Astor and Hamilton:
" The other main fear is that village correspondents will be barred, and politicians and other specialists will be stopped from writing specialist articles for newspapers. They will not, at any rate, by the NUJ."
Your Lordships may not think that satisfactory, but what more do you want? That is a declaration by the chief official of the NUJ.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord must be honest. How much weight does a declaration by Mr. Morgan carry with the NUJ? I think many of us know that he is under very great pressure. Some other fellows in the NUJ carry a lot more weight. Should not my noble friend come clean on that?
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, I deny that anybody in the NUJ carries more weight than the General Secretary, and every trade union official in this House will recognise that the General Secretary is the repository of the power of the union until a national conference.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, it is not true.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, the noble Lord will have an opportunity to intervene later, and I hope that he will reserve his comments until then. I am sure the whole House agrees with me in that suggestion.

771
We have been talking with some frivolity, but generally with great seriousness about a thing called the freedom of the Press. The freedom of the Press is a splendid, blessed phrase. In Fleet Street itself it is used with a certain reticence. Its interpretation, I must say, varies from office to office. There is an entirely different definition of the freedom of the Press in the News of the World from that in The Times. Journalists themselves regard it with a certain reticence, as they would a personal religion. But, by and large, there is a general belief that ""freedom of the Press" means freedom of access to sources of news and freedom to publish without vexatious legal hindrance and obstruction. As a matter of fact, freedom through the recent history has found as its enemies not only legislators but lawyers themselves. This has been the case from John Wilkes to Harold Evans. I hope Lord Goodman's intervention tonight as a champion of the freedom of the Press is an act of contrition for his profession's actions in the past. However, whatever we say about that particular aspect of the freedom of the Press, surely we are all united in paying at least verbal homage to the concept.
Where I find it so distressing is that somehow or other, owing to misconceptions, the present proposals in this Bill are regarded as a threat to freedom because they may interfere with the freedom of editors. My noble friend Lord Ardwick has expatiated at length on the position of a modern editor in his office. Most of his time is spent in consultation with his fellow, hand-picked journalists, a hand-picked staff, and often his conclusions are tempered by what they have to say. He is a chief among equals. He is, as it were, the player-manager, who perhaps may not be the most brilliant player on the field, may not be the highest paid, but is responsible for strategy; and, of course, the frequency of his exits is comparable with those of the football managers themselves. But it is now suggested by those who oppose this particular clause in this Bill that he is to be subject to being sent off the field by the very men he is playing with, his fellow players. This will not do.
I think that we have perhaps served this House ill, and Parliament ill, by our
772
concentration on the effect on newspapers of this provision in the Bill. One has the feeling that in some cases this defence of freedom of the Press is a camouflage for a general dislike—I shall not put it higher, except in the case of some contributors to this debate—of strong unionism. It would be a great pity if this House spoiled what I believe, particularly in the time since I have been here—I cannot speak of what happened before—has been an impressive record of looking at subjects with complete objectivity, and attempting in the national interest to come to somewhat bipartisan decisions upon them. It would be a pity if it went out from this House that your Lordships were diametrically opposed to the closed shop, which, if we are not careful, is the impression this debate will give.
You can make what legislative provisions you will, it will not affect the number of closed shops which are created in Fleet Street or elsewhere. So whatever your fears—and I believe them to be unjustified—about the closed shop, it will not be affected by legislation.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, is my noble friend actually saying to us that no matter what the Parliamentary democracy of this country thinks, with his friends he is going to organise it differently? Does my noble friend understand quite what he is saying, that it is all moved outside democracy?
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, I have said nothing of the kind. What I have said, or implied, is that before the 1971 Act closed shops thrived. As was pointed out by my noble friend in his excellent maiden speech, 5 million people are in closed shops. I should say that most newspaper offices in this country are already closed shops. A tremendous number of newspaper offices are closed shops, but on the editorial side.
When there is a gesture promising to be as rewarding as that made by Alastair Hetherington in his possible charter for an agreement between the NUJ and all the other interested people, with some extraordinarily fine suggestions in it about how newspapers should be conducted, and which everybody is about to welcome as the way out of a difficult situation, what a pity it is that when they

773
got round a table together, as they did last Thursday, the only people prepared to go on discussing it with a view to a conclusion on principle were the NUJ, while the others laid down a kind of blackmail that they would not discuss this change, which could be the remedy for our ills, unless they got their own way over about four or five sentences in this Bill. I believe that the newspaper proprietors, who are so eloquently represented by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, must think again.
The fact that such a declaration will not have full, legalistic sanction, and will not be capable of complete enforcement in law, must not rule it out as useless. Declarations of faith are not useless. They may sometimes be in the eyes of too legalistically-minded people, but the Nicene Creed is a declaration of faith. So please, at this delicate stage in our discussions; here and inside the newspaper industry, do not let us say in advance that the actions upon which they are now embarked are going to be useless, so throwing away the good will of the one union which caters for 29,000 journalists.
9.14 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I shall be brief and speak only on general lines. I shall not try to undo all the nuts and bolts of the closed shop. First, I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Greene of Harrow Weald on his maiden speech. As a trade union leader he commanded my respect and admiration, and his experience will be an asset to this noble House. When this Labour Government promised to get rid of the 1971 Industrial Relations Act and then proceeded to exercise it, many of us who had fought so hard against it heaved a sigh of relief and satisfaction. However, since the question of Press freedom and the intention to make editors join a closed shop have been suggested, this idea has been introduced, it seems to me, to bedevil the argument about this Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. I wish we did not use the phrase "freedom of the Press" but substituted "freedom of information" which is wider and includes all the freedoms of the media. In any discussion about freedom of information we do not speak of absolutes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, or of an immaculate conception of freedom.
774
I wish for a moment to dwell on freedom in democratic societies, as I have to discuss this subject in the United Nations and in one or two Human Rights Committees. Developing countries will not accept freedom. They talk about "development freedom". I am always challenged in those countries as to why we allow racialist groups to put out propaganda and why we do not ban them. I always say that we believe in freedom of speech so long as it does not incite us to violence. Neither the Fascist nor Communist Parties are banned in this country. I am rather soft-hearted about the idea of a free Press, even though a free Press is not always a fair Press, for our Press is a reflection of the society in which we live and our society is not always fair.
I sometimes wonder why I feel this freedom should not be trammelled in any way, because anyone who is married to a top politician has very mixed feelings about the Press and about journalists, editors and proprietors. There are many times when these feelings range from persecution through indignation to cynicism. But these personal reservations shrink when I meet delegates from certain other countries where freedom of information and of the Press is rejected utterly; and then my belief in our freedoms in the Press and media almost takes on a halo. I forget the character assassinations in which the Press and media indulge. I think only about the freedom to say what one thinks, to answer back, to give all points of view.
In one seminar I was asked why the British Press had gone in for character assassination of General Amin. I must exercise a little self-censorship and not give your Lordships my reply! It is because many of us fear a threat to this freedom to speak freely about anyone or anything from the Queen downwards —all of which I feel is the hallmark of a democracy—that we wonder about the National Union of Journalists' intentions, which are not clear to me. I feel that we need some safeguard, so that anyone can be allowed to print in newspapers any independent views which they hold.
Finally, it only needs one tyrant like Stalin to extinguish the human rights of a whole generation. I am sorry that the charter which was drawn up by Mr.

775
Hetherington was not accepted by the newspaper editors. Here I must say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, with whose views I sympathise greatly. But I think he goes, perhaps, a little far when he insists upon a legal application of the code of practice, or the charter, or whatever it is they have in mind.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, the editors have not yet had this before them. Two editors went to the meeting but they were not delegates in any sense, and such action as they took was purely for themselves and other editors might have quite different views.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain to me how it is that—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am sorry. I have practically reached the end of my speech. I was saying a word to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I plead with him not to insist on the legal bits about the charter, because here is a case where the Government are very sympathetic. The Secretary of State has gone very far to meet them and it would be a great pity, as the leader in yesterday's Evening Standard said, if the employers did not grasp that opportunity.
9.21 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I shall also speak on the theme of the dangers to the Press, because I myself sometimes contribute to the Press as a freelance and I naturally, therefore, fear the Bill. I was rather amused to hear the noble Lord, Lord Castle, say that there was no danger from the NUJ because the General Secretary had given all sorts of guarantees. The General Secretary is, presumably, only a human being. He might be knocked over by a bus tomorrow and the next General Secretary might have different views. The only way we can be sure of keeping the freedom of the Press is by having it written down in law. We cannot rely on the niceness of the General Secretary.
My Lords, I must not detain the House but, to take up a point very aptly made
776
by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, regarding closed shops, I have had some experience of closed shops in manufacturing industry. Some employers are quite happy with a closed shop, because some of them will do anything for peace. However, whereas one might have a closed shop for making plastic ashtrays, one cannot have one when one is dealing with artistic or literary talent. Usually, such talent is inherited. This is an art, like painting. I would not compare it with politics, but it would be very difficult to have a closed shop in politics and, with due respect to him, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Castle, that if the House of Lords were a closed shop he would not be here, or so I presume.
My Lords, I will not dwell on that, but I should just like to point out that in the Bill—and I shall stick to the Bill—under Clause l(a) and (e), the trade unions would be given power arbitrarily to exclude or expel members and workers who had reasonable objections to joining a union would be given no rights. Before 1971, there were no such arbitrary powers and any worker victimised by a union closed shop could seek justice in the courts. I well remember speaking on the Rookes v. Barnard case and there were other cases before that. There was the case of Bonser v. Musicians' Union and one or two others.
Another reason why I object to the Bill is that it is one-sided. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. For instance, employers who arbitrarily sack employees can be taken before an industrial tribunal. The industrial tribunal that the Secretary of State is proposing to set up under the Bill can hardly be called unbiased. A closed shop union which expels a member and thereby puts him out of work cannot be taken to any court. Why, then, should it be possible to take an employer to court? This seems to be one law for the closed shop and one for the employer. Neither will an expelled member be able to put his case before any court, once this Bill becomes law. I could quote the relevant parts of the 1974 Act on this point, but I will not delay the House.
I wish to explore a novel aspect of the Bill which has not been mentioned so far. I draw the attention of your Lord-

777
ships to the fact that this measure is a violation of Article 20 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees everyone freedom to join or not to join an association. With 1he exception of the Communist States, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, all members of the UN voted for that Resolution. If the Bill goes through unamended and an NUJ closed shop comes about—I agree that under the Bill it need not come about, but equally it would be perfectly lawful for it to occur—there will be gross interference with the independence of the reading public who will be denied the opportunity of enjoying the many freelance articles (I do not include those written by myself) from well-informed sources on every subject under the sun. I understand that about 60 per cent. of the news copy for some newspapers comes from outside contributors. Might not this affect readers' letters? I understand that the Daily Herald collapsed chiefly because it would employ only members of the NUJ and had no outside contributors.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, has my noble friend considered the future of horoscopes'?
Viscount MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I never read the horoscopes and I do not believe in them. The Secretary of State does not appear to take the militancy of the NUJ seriously. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Castle, who mentioned a pamphlet which I, too, have been sent. It says that the new militancy in the NUJ was demonstrated at last year's annual delegates meeting which instructed the executive committee, the NEC, in these terms:
" ADM instructs the NEC to launch an immediate campaign for a 100 per cent union shop covering all journalistic jobs, any work performed by non-union members to be blacked and the full backing of the print unions to be sought for any such blacking."
That official policy was put into practice during the recent pay dispute in the regions and the London suburbs between the NUJ and the provincial proprietors' association, the Newspaper Society. There is the answer. The NUJ intend to have a complete closed shop.
It is perfectly true, as several noble Lords have said, that if the union has
778
that, outside contributors will be unable to have their material printed. It might be asked: why can those contributors not join the NUJ? But they are not allowed to join unless they receive the greater part of their income—I cannot remember the exact percentage—from the contributions they write. Furthermore, there are many writers who would not wish to join the union, because they would feel inhibited about expressing certain opinions. We must therefore have safeguards written into the Bill for outside contributors and to protect the reading public, so as to ensure that there is the widest possible dissemination of unslanted news, ideas and knowledge.
I will end my speech within the next two minutes or so, but I should like to remind the House that shortly after the First World War all the newspapers in Canada went out of circulation, because the unions broke them. Canada was, I understand, without newspapers—apart from a Government news sheet—for two to three months. We do not want that to happen in this country. I admit that such a prospect may seem far-fetched, but if we do not protect the freedom of editors and the Press generally by the law, it could well happen here. I also have in mind what was laid down in the 1965 Act regarding monopolies and mergers. It was quite rightly said to be an intolerable evil to give monopoly control of the Press to one proprietor. Would it not be as great an evil to give control, or potential control, of the Press to one union? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I deplore the implications of the Bill, and I hope that your Lordships' House will amend it in order to protect the essential freedom. If the House of Lords cannot protect the essential freedoms in this country, then there is no point in having a House of Lords.
9.33 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, I will do my best to be brief, and my task is made easier by the very accommodating opening of my noble friend Lord Shepherd when he initiated this debate. Anybody who has watched his public career over many years, as also the public career of Mr. Michael Foot, the Secretary of State, will know, without the least question, how passionately sincere both of them are in

779
the matter of the custody of the democratic freedoms, and I accept that at once. They have by their attitude amply demonstrated that that is the case. They have intimated that they are, in effect, ready to talk and to see whether or not some accommodation can be reached on the question of the freedom of the Press.
I cannot, however, proceed with my speech without complimenting the maiden speaker to whom we listened with such pleasure, the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald. When I hear such speeches I always feel, in a sense, an inferiority complex. The noble Lord spoke with such authority on a matter to which he has given a whole life of service —trade union relationships and the atmosphere of trade unions. I wish I knew one-fiftieth of what he obviously knows about it. His speech was extremely valuable, and we will all take great pleasure in listening to him again.
My Lords, my anxiety is that over a period of time—I do not say six months or a year, but perhaps five or ten years— this Bill, when it becomes law, may have a bad effect upon the readiness of the Press to speak freely without inhibition, not to pull its punches and to keep the reading public fully informed. That is my anxiety.
It is said that the National Union of Journalists has behaved well so far; we had closed shops before the 1971 Act; we have closed shops now, and there is no reason to think that they have done harm in that respect. I would say at the outset that I do not really think that that is the question. We are discussing a Bill which may, and I presume will, become an Act of Parliament, and it may stay on the Statute Book for years, long after those at present in charge of the affairs of the National Union of Journalists have been superseded by others, perhaps much less reasonable and restrained than they are. We have to look forward to the possible effect over the years on that priceless freedom, the freedom within certain accepted restraints to say and write what you think it is proper to say and write.
Since 1689, the Bill of Rights, and 1702, the Act of Settlement, we have recognised that it is essential for a healthy
780
and vigorous democracy that certain exercises of the faculty of speech are sacrosanct and are entitled to a special protection. We enjoy it in this House. The barrister speaking before a court has special protection which others do not have. People who do not have that protection are the journalists. A journalist does not enjoy immunity from libel actions and all the rest of it which those whom I have mentioned do enjoy. As long experience over the centuries has taught us, if our democracy is to remain vigorous, active and healthy those privileges, if I may so describe them, are of inestimable value.
I view with suspicion and apprehension provisions in legislation which may create, I think or at any rate fear, a long-term background of pressure limiting the complete freedom of the journalist to say what he thinks he ought to say. When we look at public figures, people who take part in public life, the reading public, the viewing public and the listening public like to be able to say to themselves, "We know the worst that can be said about them. Nothing has been hidden. If nothing worse can be said about Mr. X or Mrs. X than what has been said or published in the Press, we know how we can evaluate it." Public opinion on the whole is merciful and reasonable, and I always think that the journalist who is extravagant in his attacks on people does his own credibility much more harm than he does harm to the objects of his criticism.
But the journalist, I repeat, is unprotected. Mr. Michael Foot deployed the broad argument of the Government on this aspect of the matter in his speech on the Report stage of the Bill which we are now discussing. He took my noble friend Lord Goodman to task for asserting that the outside contributor would be prohibited access of the Press and pointed out, quite rightly, that as a matter of law the only persons to whom union membership agreement could apply were employees, and employees are defined in the Schedule to the 1974 Act as persons, in effect, serving under a contract of service. Clearly, those who are on the staff of a paper, the editors, the sub-editors, the editorial staff, the regular reporters, the regular writers and contributors would be within the scope of the word "employee". But if I may say so, I

781
thought that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, gave an ample answer when he produced before your Lordships a copy of the Financial Times which seemed to show that, whatever the legalistic result of it was, the actual pressure extended far beyond the four corners of what is authorised by the 1974 Act in the form of union membership agreement.
I do not discuss that because it seems to me that the long-term situation is far more important in this context. I try to put myself in the position of a journalist, say, between 30 and 40, with a young family dependent upon him. He is paying his mortgage on his house and he has the usual calls on his budget as we all do, and the more so in an inflationary situation. Journalism is an honourable profession. It is the duty of the journalist, one which he accepts when he enters upon that profession, not to pull his punches; to write fearlessly subject to reasonable restraints that which he thinks; to record contemporary events and matters of public interest as he sees them; to criticise when he thinks necessary and to contribute his own comments. They may be valuable or they may be valueless; but that is his duty, and that occupation involves hazards. It involves the risk that you will make yourself thoroughly unpopular in various quarters when you express views which are resented in those quarters. You cannot be everybody's friend; you will become somebody's enemy, and that person will "have it in" for you. That is a risk of the profession. It is a risk of which the journalist knows and which he undertakes, and a risk which he honourably faces.
We have a magnificent Press in our country. Obviously, it has defects, as has every human institution; but it serves the purpose of keeping the public enlightened and, together with speeches in Parliament and the other media, enables the public to form a reasonable judgment such as enables this country to come through crises which have overwhelmed regimes in other countries. That is something that we should be very careful to preserve. My Lords, I picture that journalist receiving the kind of friendly advice that he might receive from friends: "I should pipe down a bit, old chap, if I were you, on what you write.
782
You are upsetting some of your colleagues in the union." It is so easy for us to persuade ourselves that discretion is the better part of valour. There is such a temptation for a married man in that situation to start saying to himself, "I owe it to my family not to become too antagonistic and to get involved in enmities quite unnecessarily." There is a temptation which may influence a journalist over a number of years, unnoticeably. It is a danger which I think the journalist is exposed to in the closed shop from which he can be expelled if he infringes the rules of the union.
A union might have rules which, however worded, in effect require that members shall not act contrary to the interests of the union. If he is expelled because it is alleged by those who do not like him and want to edge him out that he has infringed against the rules, I suppose that he can go to the High Court and challenge the rules or say that his conduct has not affected the interest of the union; but, in practice, what journalist in that situation will be able to do that. He will have the strongest temptation to conform, to pull his punches, to be what they used to call in the United States some years ago "a regular guy". That is my apprehension. I may be wrong; but it is a risk we should guard against.
The Secretary of State for Employment. Mr. Michael Foot, for whom I profess a very great admiration and, I hope I may be allowed to say, affection, stated that, "after all, what were the Government doing other than just restoring the situation to what it was before the 1971 Act? That is an incomplete statement of the situation. What the Legislature now says in the Schedule to the 1974 Act is that the dismissal of an employee
"shall be regarded as fair … if
(a) it is the practice, in accordance with a union membership agreement, for all the employees of that employer … to belong to a specified … union …"
and,
"(b) the reason for the dismissal was that the employee was not a member of the specified union … or had refused or proposed to refuse to become or remain a member of that union …".
For some reason which I have not discerned, the existing provision contained in Section 5(1), which provides that a mem-

783
ber shall not be excluded from membership or expelled from membership of a trade union or a branch or section of a trade union by way of arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination, is going to be repealed (if I read the situation correctly) by Clause 1(1) of the Bill we are now considering. I do not know why that should be so.
However, what seems to me the case is that it is no longer accurate to say, or not a complete statement of the situation to assert, that the Government are doing no more than going back to the pre-1971 situation. Here we now have the Legislature proclaiming, almost, that it is fair to dismiss somebody, although one may have nothing else against him, because he will not join a particular, specified union. It is almost saying to the employer: "Go ahead. So far as unfair dismissal proceedings are concerned, you may dismiss this man with impunity." Then the Secretary of State went on to assert that, so far as the editorial staff are concerned, who he accepted were employees within the meaning of the 1974 Act, they were amply safeguarded (if I understood his argument correctly, and if I misreport it I hope he will forgive me) by paragraph 32 of the Schedule to the 1974 Act (I believe he was referring to this provision) which provides that a union membership agreement is subject to negotiation and can be altered in scope by contractual agreement between the employer and the trade union.
I would submit that that is not an adequate precaution. The union may refuse to agree, and the employer may be put under pressure to agree to a union membership agreement which is not modified so as to exclude, say, the editor or sub-editor, the editorial staff or the professional journalist. So I would respectfully submit that that is not an adequate precaution. But I am greatly encouraged by what my noble friend Lord Shepherd stated about the attitude of the Government. I am not in the least surprised, because I am certain that Mr. Michael Foot would be anxious to do anything he could to obviate the least danger to the freedom of the Press, of which he is, after all, such an ornament, and was in his past career.
784
I want to make only one further comment. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in his impressive speech, said that the code of conduct, if it were possible to negotiate one, should have legal force. My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby pointed out that both in the 1971 Act and in the 1974 Act there was a provision that the code which is referred to in those two Acts should in a sense have legal force. In the 1974 Act it is contained in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. The relevant wording is that the code of conduct "shall be admissible in evidence" and" shall be taken into account by the tribunal "—that is a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. Speaking for myself, I would rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, when Lord Houghton says that that formula would in his view (I think he said this) be adequate. I should have thought that if one were amending the Bill, one should have something a little more compulsive in it than that language. I was most interested to hear from my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that he had formulated an Amendment which he had proposed. I myself think that the Bill should be a little strengthened. My Lords, I hope I have been brief. That is all I want to say and I hasten to sit down.
9.50 p.m.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, having listened to the debate, may I intervene in order to ask my noble friends to realise that this Bill is not entitled "Journalists, for the better protection of" nor, "Editors, for the better protection of". It is entitled the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. Apart from journalists, there are other members of trade unions. Some of us may be illiterate; we may be simply manual workers. However, some of us are included in a Bill which is entitled the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill.
Earlier in the day I had a slight brush with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who does not seem to be paying very much attention to the Bill, on the ground that he did not appear to think that what he was proposing to do had anything to do with the rest of us. At the risk of irritating the quasi journalists and the

785
quasi editors, of whom we have enormous numbers around here, may an ordinary transport worker like me—
Lord CASTLE: A quasi transport worker!
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: No, my Lords, a real one, like the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald. But may I just say that if all the things which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, the noble Lord, Lord Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, are claiming for this Bill were given to the rest of us, we would change the face of this Bill. I am bound to tell noble Lords that I see no reason at all why a fellow who just scribbles is entitled to special protection, which the chap who pulls the levers and decides where the train is to go, like my father who actually drove a Pierce Arrow lorry, does not have. To the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who has not done me the pleasure of coming to hear me, I must say that he has got it wrong. This is not a special protection for Fleet Street; it is something for all trade unionists. If the noble Lord gets his way, or if this Bill is passed, then all trade unionists, including the most illiterate among us, would claim the rights which are given under it.
Having said that to my absent friend, although he may read the report of my speech in the morning, may I turn to those of my noble friends who have been kind enough to stay. I find myself wondering into which debate I am intruding. This Bill is called the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. May I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, that giggling was never a replacement for argument. I have sat here for some hours and listened to certain people, who call themselves journalists, claiming special rights. I am a journalist, too. I write, too, and I ask myself what it is that they are claiming. They want the ability to tell the editor that in some circumstances they will allow him to employ somebody like me to write, but they will say, "You must work it out with Mr. Morgan"—or whoever Mr. Morgan's successor may be—" otherwise do not employ him ". My Lords, you would never allow the Transport and General Workers Union that right; you
786
would never allow the National Union of Railwaymen that right.
When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Castle, an hour or two ago I understood exactly what this was about. It is an actual claim by some people to get their outfit organised, to tell the editor —or the proprietor—who he will allow to write in his pages that week. Tomorrow we are to have a debate on subversion and the two debates are not unrelated. If the noble Lord, Lord Castle, were to have his way, the NUJ, infiltrated by some fellows from outside, could shut —and here I speak particularly to my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill; they could not open but shut—the pages of the Press to those they say should not write.
I ask your Lordships to understand what is involved in this. We talk about democracy and we do not mean it at all. What we mean is the ability in the name of democracy to deny democracy. I would say to my noble friends—not the noble Baroness who is sitting there because she knows, as she has said tonight —some of us have had to fight and fight and fight again (if I may resurrect a phrase) to allow people to say what they want to say. This National Union of Journalists' argument will shut it to everybody. I want the freedom for my friends in the Transport and General Workers' Union to fight Jack Jones; I want freedom for my friends in the AEU to fight Hugh Scanlon, but, equally, and on the same terms (if the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, will forgive me) I want the freedom of the Press, not to fight the proprietors but to fight Lord Ardwick and Lord Castle who, if they had their way, would shut it against the rest of us.
We shall get to the "nitty gritty" (as the saying goes) of this Bill when we get to the Committee stage. I intervene at this late hour—having sat here and listened—just to warn my noble friends that I shall be here through the rest of the Bill and to ask the House to understand—and if I may through this House appeal to the people outside to understand—that there is a great battle for freedom here. For the one real freedom is not the freedom of a branch, the West Central Branch of the NUJ; it is not a

787
freedom for a handful of people who can manipulate a trade union branch meeting, just because they stay when all the rest have gone home. It is a battle for freedom for the rest of us. We are getting overwhelmed. So although I did not wholly approve of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when he waved me aside about the Transport Workers' Union,
788
although I believe it applies to us as much as to the journalists, and although I myself would not give the Bill a Second Reading, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading. I hope the House will do it in the knowledge that some of us will fight for the freedom of ordinary people, not the freedom of organised branches of trade unions which have come under the control of a very few dedicated people.
10 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, almost everything that is original on this subject has been repeated many times over the last five years, both in your Lordships' House and in the other place. I doubt whether similar discussions have been taking place in the Parliaments of the other Western industrial nations, whose standards of living have so rapidly been overtaking ours. I doubt whether they have found it necessary to indulge in sterile arguments; year after year about the primitive and obsolete weapons of industrial warfare—the strikes, the lockouts, the pickets and closed shops. I do not believe that this Bill will contribute anything to solving the problems of our industrial expansion, our increased productivity or our increased efficiency. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, that the real issue raised in this Bill is one that concerns the freedom of the individual.
My Lords, two topics have been discussed this afternoon as though they were separate. I do not think they are separate; they are closely connected. The first topic discussed was that of the closed shop. It was conceded at once by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when the debate began, that the prime effect of this Bill is to facilitate the creation of closed shops. There is a clear division between the two sides of the House on this issue. Noble Lords on the Government side of the House have made it perfectly clear that they welcome that development, that they are enthusiastic about it and are prepared to minimise and tolerate any abuses that may result. Noble Lords on these Benches have made it, I hope, equally clear that although we are prepared to accept the closed shop as something so firmly embedded now in our industrial structure that it is quite idle to talk of uprooting it, nevertheless there is a real danger of abuses arising, and that it is the duty of your Lordships' House, and of Parliament as a whole, to seek to safeguard people against those abuses.
My Lords, it has become abundantly clear in the course of this debate that these abuses arise in two directions. They can affect the individual. They can affect his right to work; they can affect his livelihood if he comes to be expelled from a union which has a closed shop throughout an industry. Not only can
790
they affect the individual, but they can equally affect the right to existence of small unions, even if they have the effrontery not to belong to the TUC, who have every right to an independent existence. The prime function of this Bill is to give safeguards, included in Section 5 of the 1974 Act, against possible abuses.
What is now suggested is that instead of these safeguards, carefully worked out and agreed to by Parliament, there should be set up a committee to consist of three people, an independent chairman and two nominees of the TUC. Let me make it perfectly clear that I would accept at once that within the ranks of the TUC there is a large number of people, all with independence, all with impartiality and entirely capable of administering justice in dealing with complaints of that sort. But, my Lords, a litigant who is unsuccessful simply will not believe it. It is therefore, essential—and one of the matters to which I know your Lordships will wish to return at Committee stage— that a body should be set up to provide those safeguards, a body which not only is independent but which also gives the confidence to everyone that it is, in fact, acting wholly independently and free from outside pressures. That is one issue that has been debated tonight.
The other issue that has been debated, as though it were a separate issue, is the issue of the freedom of the Press. Again I respectfully agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. The issue of the freedom of the Press is not a wholly separate issue; dangers that arise to the freedom of the Press are merely particular and, perhaps, rather more spectacular examples of the dangers that are inherent in any closed shop situation. I accept at once, of course, that there are abuses on the proprietorial side so far as the Press is concerned. I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said about that. But I doubt whether it helps at this stage for the pot to start calling the kettle red. If I may, I propose instead to deal with the other side with which this Bill is, in fact, concerned.
We are dealing, in the case of the Press, with a particular union, the National Union of Journalists, the vast majority of whose members are beyond any question tolerant, sensible, intelligent, demo-

791
cratic people, and who are led by a General Secretary who is conspicuous for those qualities. But it is really not in dispute, when one looks back at the history of the last few months, that, equally, within that union there is an active militant and, indeed, revolutionary minority. It is against the possibility of abuse that we must now seek to legislate.
If there is a closed shop throughout the whole newspaper industry, what will happen? First, it will be clear that outside contributors will find their freedom threatened, and I have found no answer to that tonight in the arguments of noble Lords on the Government Benches. Secondly, it becomes perfectly clear that the very existence of that comparatively small body the Institute of Journalists, will be threatened. Why should they be? Why should they not be allowed to exist if they wish to? Why should they be subject to the threat of industrial action by the National Union of Journalists in a situation where we have to recognise that the newspaper proprietors arc really in no condition to withstand any threat of such action.
Thirdly, inevitably if there is a closed shop on that scale throughout the whole industry, and editors are compelled to join that union, there is the danger—I put it no higher than that—of pressure being put upon those editors. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he opened the debate, said that it would always be open to the editors of they were members of the union to take part in the union's discussions. So it would, but, in the meantime, who is to produce the newspapers? Really editors have better things to do than to be compelled to attend chapel meetings at whatever hour it may be of the day or night.
In those circumstances it is not unnatural that the tempting suggestion should be put forward that there should be some form of charter to safeguard the freedom of the Press. Clearly that is in certain circumstances likely to be acceptable to both sides of that industry. But I hope that I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, one very simple question, and really it can be answered, Yes or No: is it proposed that this charter should be more, or less, enforceable than the Social Contract? I ask the
792
question in all seriousness, because it is really not possible to continue to govern this country on the basis of agreements which are wholly unenforceable, because nobody is able to determine the terms with such precision as to know whether or not they have been broken. For that reason, I venture to suggest that there is something in the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, this evening, to the effect that a charter of this kind can be effective but will only be so provided there is backing which will enable it to be enforced.
The last observation I would make tonight is one that follows again upon a quotation that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, began. When the Secretary of State in another place was interrupted in the middle of his peroration he had got to the stage of saying:
" If by any mischief those there "—
your Lordships will appreciate that it is your Lordships who are being referred to by the expression "those there"—
"imagine that they should poke their lordly noses into this matter"—.
The threat remained unfinished because the Secretary of State was interrupted at that stage.
Whatever the threat was, I am bound to say that my noble friends and I on these Benches are not exactly quaking in our shoes. We regard the issues raised by this Bill as being issues which it is the duty of your Lordships' House to deal with firmly according to its convictions. We believe that there is a duty on your Lordships' House to assist here to protect the liberties of the individual, to assist the small battalions, and to help to preserve the freedom of the Press. When the Committee stage of this Bill arrives, those of us on these Benches will do our best to fulfil that duty.
10.13 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, with the exception of the brilliant speech, if he will allow me to say so, of my noble friend Lord Gowrie when he opened from this side of the House, and the notable speech from my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the speech also which I enjoyed listening to from my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, the critics of this Bill do not mainly come

793
from the Conservative Party: they come from the Cross-Benches, they come from the Liberal Benches, they come from the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, from the Labour Benches, and I thought that I detected a note of criticism even in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. If I have misjudged her, I immediately apologise. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald. I was called out by the Leader of the House just as I was settling down to enjoy his maiden speech. Therefore, I can only say that I enjoyed the exordium, and I shall look forward, as I have no doubt will all noble Lords who were here and more fortunate than I, to hearing him again. I must also apologise for the same reason to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for not having stayed through his speech. However, I have a fairly full note of it, which I certainly admired.
At this extremely late hour I shall, if I may, try to confine myself to the content of this Bill, and to judge it according to certain criteria. It is a Bill which repeals Section 5 of the principal Act; that is to say, it repeals the provision in the principal Act that workers should not be unreasonably excluded, or expelled, from a union. In closed shop context, that is the repeal of a provision which prevents people unreasonably from being deprived of their livelihood, and unreasonably from being able to appeal to an industrial tribunal which is one of the courts of the land That is the first thing this Bill does. No one from the Government Benches has sought to defend that.
The next thing the Bill does is to repeal Section 6 which makes certain provisions regarding the rules of trade unions and provides that there should be no control by the Registrar of the rules of the trade union. So the second thing the Bill does is to repeal Section 6, which says that the rules of the trade unions should conform with natural justice. So this is a Bill to legalise rules which do not conform with natural justice, and also to ensure that there is no sanction to ensure natural justice in the rules. Nobody has endeavoured to defend that provision. Nor has anybody from the Government Benches said a word to suggest that there was any particular feature of the other rules which offended
794
their particular views about union organisation.
It is a Bill under (e) to ensure that if a person on reasonable grounds refuses to join a particular union in closed shop context he should be dismissed without compensation. It is not a Bill to legalise the closed shop; that has already been done. It is a Bill to deprive of compensation somebody who on reasonable grounds refuses to join the particular union. No one has sought to justify that. Again, it is a Bill to enable people in this country to strike to the detriment of this country in support of disputes outside this country, glorifying the political strike and using the suffering of the people of this country as a means of doing it. Nobody has sought to justify that. That is what this Bill is doing, and of course if we were not to consider the lesser of two evils, as is sometimes the course which we have to follow, this is a Bill which ought never to receive a Second Reading in any civilised House of Parliament. That is where we stand at the moment I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack. I am not surprised that he played no part in our deliberations.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give way? I shall certainly take some part at the Committee stage of the Bill.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I shall be interested to see which proposals in the Bill the noble and learned Lord seeks to defend, because I wish now, in his hearing, to measure the things which I have described against the provision of the universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which this country set its hand in the aftermath of the war under the leadership of a Labour Prime Minister in 1948—a better Prime Minister than we have now. In the hearing of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I want to examine the provisions which I have described against the desirability of maintaining the rule of law. The targets of the Bill do not strengthen the unions against their employers. No one has suggested that. The targets of the Bill do not even strengthen the unions against the Government. No one has suggested

795
that. It is the individual, the minority, the unprotected, the unorganised—these are the people from whom the Bill withdraws protection; and to the organised unions of this country it gives the power to oppress them in the circumstances which I have described. That is what the Bill does. I thought that my noble friend Lord Gowrie struck exactly the right note at the outset of the debate, when he said that the Government had missed an opportunity of taking labour relations right out of Party politics by leaving the 1974 status quo exactly where it stood. I thought he was quite right. To what kind of labour relations will the provisions in the Bill which I have described give any improvement? The noble Lord knows perfectly well that labour relations have not improved since the repeal of the Act of 1971. But this is not an Act for the repeal of the provisions of 1971; this is a withdrawal of protection from the individual, the unorganised and the minority.
My Lords, let us look at the first of the provisions which I have described; that is, that part of the Bill which will legalise the unreasonable expulsion or exclusion of a member of a union, or a person who applies for membership of a union in a closed shop context. The universal Declaration of Human Rights to which this country has set its hand, and to which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is as much morally committed as I am, says two things: first, it says that no one may be compelled to belong to an association. That is Article 20(2). It also says that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunal. But here we have a Bill which is designed to compel people to belong to an association and which repeals the provision which safeguards them from going to the industrial tribunal.
It proposes a private court not suggested or provided for in the Bill, but which will be provided under some future dictate of the Trades Union Council which will propose a tribunal of its own constitution. My Lords, we do not even allow Ministers to appoint the chairmen of their own tribunals. That is why the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is given the prerogative of patronage in such cases to ensure the independence of the chairmen. In defiance of Articles
796
8 and 20(2) of the Declaration of Human Rights, people are to be compelled to join an association and the right of appeal to the tribunals of the land guaranteed by Article 8 is being taken away.
My Lords, everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, but some people, apparently, are to have more right to freedom and expression than others. The right I am quoting is from Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights, to which a Labour Prime Minister set this country's hand and honour. But of course the National Union of Journalists has declared that its policy is to stop outside contributions. What is the value of freedom of expression if the only freedom of expression that one possesses is a freedom in which one cannot appeal through the media, one cannot broadcast on the radio or the television and one cannot write the odd article as an outside contributor to the newspapers?
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would care to say from where he gets his information that that is the policy of the NUJ?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, that has been referred to more than once in this debate, but I will give my own piece of reminiscence. When I was much younger the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and I belonged to a debating society. It was formed on the lines of a model parliament in the institution founded by my grandfather, the Polytechnic, and I well remember the Leader of the Labour Party saying in that debating society—this was more than 40 years ago—how the NUJ, of which he was proud to be a member, was determined to limit the right of outside contributors. That has been their attitude ever since, and it has been established in this debate more than once, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, from the Cross-Benches underlined part of the very point I am seeking to make.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, I suggest that the noble and learned Lord is under a misapprehension about the policy of the NUJ. It is true that one of its branches has a resolution to that effect which will come up in April at the annual conference, but I do not know of any

797
decision to prevent outsiders from writing for newspapers.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I must not quote from the Hansard of another place. If the noble Lord will refer to the Official Report of the other place for 3rd December, 1974, column 1419, and also to the references in this House, he will find that he is not altogether right in what he has just said. What we are discussing is not what they actually want to do, but what it has become legal to enable them to do. The question that we have to decide as a matter of policy is whether the law has not, perhaps, some part to play in the protection of these human rights. I must tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that many of these rights—not all but many—are enshrined in the European Convention and are enforceable against this country before the European Court. Only this week there was a decision which stated that the policy of this country had infringed that Convention. I should not be surprised— and I add that I should not be sorry— if some of these provisions did not in time come before the European Court.
Perhaps the learned Attorney General will be disposed to argue that a man who is unreasonably compelled to join an association should be dismissed without compensation, without recourse to law, but Article 8 of the Declaration of Human Rights—and I think that this is infringed in the European Convention—says that everyone has a right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Is it not a good thing that there are international bodies supervising the activities of Governments who introduce Bills of this kind and then tell the Second House of Parliament not to poke their lordly noses into it? I wish I could share the encomiums heaped on the Secretary of State, but I cannot. I have never forgotten the day when Mr. Michael Foot tried to use the brutal machinery of the contempt procedure against Mr. Ian Macleod when he was editing The Spectator. I had the honour to speak against him. I had the honour to vote against him. I have never known him protect the rights of those with whom he does not agree, and I do not regard
798
him as a friend of liberty. I can only say that I have known him as long as some noble Lords and I do not regard him as a friend of liberty, nor do I regard the Labour Party as friends of liberty. They can never make up their minds whether they want freedom for everybody or simply for those who agree with them; and this Bill, which has been generated below out of malice and spite, has received no measure of defence whatsoever from those whose duty it is to defend it
We shall have a Committee stage. We shall discuss these various proposals one by one, and we shall see whether a better defence of them is made then than has been offered to your Lordships this evening.
Lord HOY: My Lords, all I can say to the noble and learned Lord is that his accusation against the case made at the Council of Europe will not be forgotten. The noble and learned Lord was Lord Chancellor when that happened.
10.31 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Greene of Harrow Weald. He made the kind of speech I would have expected from Sid Greene, and I hope we shall hear that kind of speech many times in the years to corns. I am going to speak from experience, rather than from legal or technical knowledge. During the whole of my working life I have worked in a closed shop in different parts of the country, and in the past 20 years I managed a business which had a work force of 5,000 and had a closed shop in every department. I therefore know something about the closed shop. The only problem arising out of the closed shop that I ever had to deal with in the whole of that 20 years was the failure of a tiny minority of the workers to pay their contributions to the trade union. They allowed their membership to lapse. Most of that tiny minority wanted to get the benefits of the trade union without paying their share. There were a few, of course, who were a bit negligent, and a few who were financially embarrassed, due almost wholly to their own behaviour; but in those cases both the employer and the union showed very considerable leeway. They allowed them time in which to pay up their arrears.

799
I never at any time came across a case of unreasonable expulsions or exclusion, and these closed shops covered several different kinds of trades, including building and engineering. My experience is supported by the researches of the Donovan Commission. The Donovan Commission reported that abuse of power by the trade unions in respect of membership was most uncommon. We have also the experience over a period of two years of the 1971 Act. That Act allowed complaints to be made to an industrial tribunal. The number of complaints taken against trade unions was less than 1 per cent. of the number taken against employers for unfair dismissal; and as to the cases upheld, the cases upheld against trade unions amounted to fewer than one-half of 1 per cent. of those upheld against employers. At the end of the two years there were altogether only 20 cases justified against trade unions, and in the majority of those cases the complainants were criticised for their conduct, especially their conduct in not using the established procedures before the appeal to the tribunal.
Then, since this House amended the 1974 Act, we have also had six months experience of the amended Act. There have so far been 11 cases for the tribunal; five have not yet been heard, four have been dismissed and two have been withdrawn. Not a single case has been upheld.
When we were discussing the 1974 Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said on 16th July 1974, that if there was only one case he had a right of defence.
A Noble Lord: My Lords, may I—
Lord JACQUES: No, my Lords. I sat through this debate without interrupting a single noble Lord. I ask noble Lords opposite to give me the same chance to develop my own argument. If at the end of the day I have not answered all the questions, I will stand at this Dispatch Box and say, "Fire them at me and I will do my best to answer". The noble Baroness told us that if there was only one case there had to be some means by which he could defend himself. That is a principle which we accept absolutely, but we must also have regard to the proposition that he who uses a sledge-hammer
800
to put in a tack is likely to do a great deal more harm than good.
If there is one lesson which we should have learned in the last two and a half years it is this. If you give individuals the opportunity of appeal to a statutory tribunal with compensation at the end of the road, then many will take it regardless of the merits of their case, regardless of continuing the established procedures and will take it out to the end without attempting to reach any sort of agreement with the trade union. If, in addition to the compensation, you give people the opportunity of snubbing those with whom they have been working and with whom they have fallen out, that is even more the case. That is the lesson, which above all, we should have learned in the last two and a half years.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, as he now is, made one of his most sagacious speeches during the Committee stage. In particular, he said that dealing with the expulsion and exclusion disputes is a matter of wisdom rather than a matter of principle. That we would wholly accept. The principle is not in doubt, but carried to extreme it is not always workable. It is the Government's belief that the General Council of the Trades Union Congress has acted wisely not only in setting up the independent review committee as an appeal body, but in some of the incidental arrangements which it is proposing to make.
There has been some question about the word "independent". Let me explain that. It is intended that the two lay members shall be completely independent of the union which is affected. That is what is meant by "independent". We believe that they have been wise not merely in setting up this independent review committee but in the incidental arrangements; and, in particular, in agreeing that there should be consultation with the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service. We believe it is inconceivable that these three bodies should not agree on the personnel of the review committee, having regard to the number of people who would be eligible and available for this kind of duty.
Secondly, we believe that the General Council has been infinitely wise in decid-

801
ing that the chairman shall be a man with legal qualifications. We believe this will ensure that the procedure of the committee is in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thirdly, we believe that the General Council has been wise in restricting the use of the Appeals Committee to those who have followed the full use of the unions' established procedures.
Fourthly—and this flows entirely and directly from my knowledge of industrial relations—it has been infinitely wise in stating that before the Review Committee decide about any recommendation at all. it will proceed by way of conciliation and agreement. That is what one has to do if one is to get good industrial relations. Fifthly, we believe it has been wise in restricting the whole procedure to the situation of the closed shop. After all, all the debates in Parliament and outside, last year and this, have shown that the concern is in relation to the closed shop which may involve a man whose livelihood is at stake. I believe that that is what Members of your Lordships' House had in mind when they suggested that there should be some appeal for the man excluded or expelled.
As to enforcement, I would point out that the Trades Union Council has for many years had disputes committees. It has proper procedures for seeing that the decisions of the committees are carried out; and we do not doubt that if over the years the TUC has been able to get the decisions on disputes committees implemented, they will be able to get the decisions of this dispute committee carried out. Furthermore, the Council has said clearly that it will be a clear responsibility on the part of the unions to act on the committee's recommendation, and in its opinion it is completely inconceivable that any union would flout the General Council's intention. We accept that.
I assume, and I hope I am right in doing so, that all sides of this House have a twin objective in mind. We all want to see justice for the individual, but at the same time we want to get that justice without disruptive industrial action which would frustrate and inconvenience the public and jeopardise our opportunity of delivering our exports. I say to the House that if one wants that twin
802
objective, this is the best way of achieving it.
I should like to comment on a question raised very early in the debate. It was pointed out that there could be conscientious objections as well as religious objections. I do not want to spar with the noble and learned Lord on legal matters; that is the last thing that I want to do. But my advice is that in the context of the closed shop, tribunals have been able to identify the conscientious objector only when he is a religious objector. I am given two cases to quote: Hynds v. Spiller-French Baking Limited and Woolam v. National Union of Insurance Workers.
I come now to the Press. I think we all want freedom of the Press; but, as the honourable Gentleman the Member for Rochdale, Mr. Cyril Smith, pointed out in another place, there is a great deal of difference between freedom of the Press and fairness of the Press. That has been reinforced tonight by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. Our Press is ostensibly free; but it is by no means fair. What has not been said in either House—and it is something which I think should be said—is that some of the unfairness of the Press is accidental. It is in the very nature of journalism that words should be taken down as they are spoken, that words should be taken out of their context; that texts should be reduced for publication. All that has to be done at very great speed. It is in-evitable that there will be mistakes of judgment. It is inevitable that there will be some unfairness. We ought to concede that a good deal of the unfairness is not deliberate; it is accidental. But some of it is deliberate. A great deal of the unfairness is deliberate in regard to individuals, groups of individuals and institutions. The honourable Member for Rochdale gave some choice examples but I have not time to repeat them tonight.
We on this side of the House—and I suspect that we would be joined by Members on all sides—want not merely a free Press but a fair Press; and whatever we can do to get a free and fair Press we will do. But this Bill is not about freedom or fairness of the Press. This Bill is about the freedom of the workers in industry and commerce to negotiate the terms of their employment. The parties

803
can negotiate a "closed shop" if that is what both sides want and decide upon. They can decide that they are going to specify that some people, clearly denned, need not be members of the union which is a party to the "closed shop" but can be members of some other union—some other smaller professional unions that have been mentioned in this debate. The Bill goes on to say that parties can in fact exclude members of the staff completely, including, one would assume, editors; and, incidentally, any outside contributor to a newspaper, not being an employee, would automatically be excluded.
I recognise, however, that there is a genuine fear, and it would appear to be a genuine fear on all sides of the House, that these two freedoms might conflict: the freedom of the workers to negotiate the terms of their employment and the freedom of the Press. But I would emphasise that, while that fear is genuine, we should not let it cast a shadow over the whole of the Bill, because the number involved in respect of the Press is a very tiny majority of the workers who are covered—something like 25,000 against 5 million. We do not share the genuine fear which is felt by many people. Why do we not fear it? We point to the code of conduct of the National Union of Journalists itself. That code of conduct will not stand for interference with the freedom of the Press from any quarter whatever. We have also in mind that it was the National Union of Journalists that took the initiative in promoting the possibility of getting agreement to a Charter. We welcome, no matter how it might be criticised and no matter who might be critical of it, the work done by Mr. Hetherington, the editor of the Guardian, and the draft of a charter which he has prepared. It is our belief that that draft could be the basis of a charter for the whole of the industry.
Two noble Lords who spoke on that aspect were very helpful. First, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. He at least narrowed down the difference between the Government and the Cross-Benches, if he did not narrow down the differences between the Government and the Opposition. But Lord Goodman said in fairly specific terms that he would be happy if there could be a code of conduct, pro-
804
vided that it had legal backing. That narrows down the differences quite considerably. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that if he is prepared to put forward specific proposals, I believe that they will be considered by the Government. However, in considering them, the Government would have to have due regard to all the attendant difficulties that there might be in making it part of the Statute.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, may be influenced by the speech that was made a few minutes later by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who said that he wanted to follow the precedent of the 1971 Act and to have a code of practice—but in this particular case a code of practice which was restricted to the Press, a code of practice which could be used in evidence in the courts or in tribunals. The noble Lord went further. He wanted a code of practice which had some kind of Parliamentary approval. I believe that the Government would look sympathetically at a proposal of that kind. May I point out that we already have precedents for this. For example, I was a magistrate for 25 years and, as your Lordships know, the Highway Code is used in particular in the magistrates' court. I never knew a single case where a decision of the court was taken in such a way that the evidence of the Highway Code was in any way disregarded or belittled. Once the Highway Code was quoted, the bench sat up and took notice.
May I also point out that we have, for example, the fair wages clause in municipal contracts. I am advised by authority that the fair wages clause is not a matter of Statute; the fair wages clause is merely a matter of Parliamentary resolution; yet it is something which is taken notice of throughout the whole country. I believe, therefore, that we should not dismiss lightly the possibility of a code which can be used in evidence that has that kind of Parliamentary approval.
In conclusion, may I say that the Government are quite determined on two things. We are determined that we shall carry out our election pledge to repeal the 1971 Act. Secondly, we are determined that the freedom of the Press shall be protected from all quarters, and it is for that reason that we have set up the Royal Commission on the Press.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT
10.52 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Education Act.

Arbitration Act.

Biological Standards Act

General Rate Act

Housing Rents and Subsidies Act.

COMMONWEALTH PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED BILL [H.L.]

  UNITED DOMINIONS TRUST BILL [H.L.]
  Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the
  806
  Table; Bills committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

  UK AND PAKISTAN: AIR SERVICES AGREEMENT
  UK AND PAKISTAN: AIR SERVICES AGREEMENT