Sitting of 24 March 1975

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

    Skytrain
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to persuade the United States authorities to fulfil their obligations under the Bermuda Agreement so as to enable Laker Airways Limited to receive its Skytrain licence.
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has made to the American aviation authorities on the subject of the Skytrain project.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): As my right hon. Friend stated in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) on 21st March, Skytrain is to be considered as part of our review of civil aviation.
    Miss Fookes: Does the Minister accept that that is a rather disappointing reply? We had hoped for more action in this matter.
    Mr. Davis: It would be palpably absurd, having regard to the recommendations of the Civil Aviation Authority in relation to the market reaching a healthy state, which it did not expect would happen for about 12 months, for us to do other than I have said, particularly in view of our own policy review.
    Mr. McCrindle: Can the Minister do anything to assure us that the heart of the Government and the heart of the Secretary of State for Trade really are in the Skytrain project, and that he will not be deterred from pressing the United States authorities simply because Mr. Laker is what might be called a buccaneer of private enterprise?
    Mr. Davis: With respect, those are not the relevant considerations. The fact is that Skytrain would be a scheduled service, and one of the main questions in our policy review is to determine what part publicly-owned and privately-owned airlines should play in regard to scheduled services.
    Mr. Higgins: Does the Minister accept that he has a duty to ensure that treaty obligations are observed? What does he propose to do about the CAA's statement? We are conscious also that the only reason why the Skytrain service has not been operated for the past two years is that the United States authority has

    3
    engaged in unconscionable procrastination. What action has the hon. Gentleman taken and what action does he propose to take now in the light of the CAA's statement?
    Mr. Davis: I answered several Questions about that at this Department's last Question Time, when I agreed that there had been unconscionable delay on the part of the FAA in America in arriving at its decision. What I am saying now is that we would expect the American authorities not to take any adverse action which might damage and prejudice our rights under the Air Services Agreement. We have made that absolutely plain. For the reasons that I have already adduced, however, which I think, with respect, are very reasonable, we are not proposing to take the matter any further than that for the present.

    Exports (EEC)
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Trade how many firms have, in the calendar years for 1973 and 1974, sought his Department's advice concerning new exports from Great Britain to the EEC.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Renton: Will the Secretary of State at least confirm that the EEC took one-third of all British exports during 1974? Has he any reason to believe that if we were to leave the EEC our ex-Community partners would be willing to sign a free trade agreement with us? if they were so willing, why should this have any good effect on our trade deficit?
    Mr. Shore: I certainly confirm that our present trade with the EEC is roughly one-third of our total trade. On the second question, about whether or not a free trade agreement would be concluded if we left the EEC, I have expressed the view previously at this Box that I think this is a very likely outcome of the fact of our withdrawal. [Interruption.] I have said it before and I say it again. I think it is a likely outcome. It so happens to be in the interests of both sides, and perhaps, if anything, marginally more in the interests of the countries of
    4
    the Eight, which are exporting to us more, unhappily, than we are exporting to them.
    On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as to whether I believe that this would be better, I repeat what I have already told the House—namely, that if we had a free trade agreement with the Eight instead of a Common Market agreement, we should not be obliged to buy food from the EEC when it was cheaper elsewhere, nor would we be obliged to contribute to the budget more than we ourselves got back.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Why are we exporting less to Europe than we might be? Is it the fault of private industry, or what are the reasons for it?
    Mr. Shore: Many factors are involved. I recall very well from the debates that preceded entry that many of us took the view that the general effect of joining —that is to say, the change-over in the pattern of trade preferences that membership of the Common Market would bring—would be an adverse situation for our visible trade. That was the position we assumed. In addition to that, there was a countervailing argument, which my hon. Friend will recall, that it could be that certain dynamic effects might be produced which would offset this alleged impact effect. But the dynamic effects, so far at any rate, have not emerged, and the effect has been a far greater deficit in our trade than I think anyone in the House realised. There are other factors, including depreciation of the pound and changes in the relevant exchange rate.
    Mr. Marten: As the Question refers to the narrow matter of exports, may I ask the Secretary of State why the export of motor cars to the Common Market declined by 25 per cent. in 1974 when the Common Market was supposed to be such a great benefit and as there are so many cars awaiting export?
    Mr. Shore: What is clear is that the manufacturers of motor cars on the Contient of Europe were much better prepared to take advantage of the enlarged market than was British industry which had been pressing on successive Governments so strongly the advantages, as British manufacturers saw it, of our membership of the Common Market.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of fact, where is food cheaper elsewhere? It will not be cheaper in New Zealand for much longer.
    Mr. Shore: That is a matter of judgment. [Interruption.] There are two factors involved. The judgment is about what is the medium-term probability of price increases in the Common Market and in the rest of the world. That is a very important factor.
    As for the immediate situation, I remind my hon. Friend that there has been a ban on imported beef into Europe for the past nine months. The reason for that ban is that the beef elsewhere is undoubtedly in good supply and is cheaper than it is in Europe. in addition, as my hon. Friend must know, the taxes and the prices we have to pay on imported butter and cheese indicate that those commodities are far cheaper outside the European Community than they are within.
    Mr. Shersby: Does the Secretary of State for Trade accept that, if the answer he gave a few minutes ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) was correct, we should have to negotiate new terms for trade with the EFTA countries and that any new terms we might negotiate might not be favourable?
    Mr. Shore: I should be very happy to undertake the task of negotiating new terms with the EFTA countries. I have been in touch with them for some time. I have no reason to believe that there would be any interruption in the long-established free trade arrangement between Britain and EFTA.

    London and Counties Securities Group
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether the special investigation being carried out by his Department into London and Counties Securities Group has been completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: I have now received the inspectors' report and I am considering it. I am not in a position at the present time to make a statement.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend, when he is considering this report, devote
    6
    a great deal of time to the essential part which was played by the Leader of the Liberal Party in keeping going this bankrupt concern at the time when he was—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a personal implication in that. The hon. Gentleman must not do that, except by motion.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, that is a personal implication, but nevertheless it is a question which in my view has to be answered. It has to be answered—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The only way in which the hon. Gentleman can keep within the rules of order and make such an implication is by substantive motion.
    Mr. Skinner: It is rather strange that a lot of personal imputations are made against me, but I do not go crying to the Chair. I am prepared to stand the criticisms that are made against me because of my stand in politics. I am asking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to take full consideration of the way in which the Liberal Leader—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not do that. I have ruled that it is a personal implication.
    Mr. Skinner: —of the way in which all the directors of the bankrupt London and Counties Securities Group kept that concern going when it was obvious to many people within the City and to those writing the financial columns that it was a bankrupt concern. Will my hon. Friend take cognisance of the domino effect that that had on other secondary and fringe banks? Will he learn one important political lesson out of this, namely, that we must have public accountability for all banks and insurance groups?
    Mr. Davis: It follows from the fact that I am considering this matter that I shall consider all relevant circumstances.

    South Africa (British Firms)
    Matherasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about the implementation of proposals in the White Paper "Wages and Conditions of African Workers Employed by British Firms in South Africa".
    Mr. Shore: I have asked over 500 British companies to publicise improvements in wages and working conditions

    7
    of African employees of their South African affiliates. A First Secretary (Labour) has taken up post in our Embassy in Pretoria.
    Mr. Mather: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he reconciles the code of practice in the White Paper with the change of law in South Africa—the second General Amendment Act 1974—which makes it illegal to declare information outside the Republic? I gather that this includes labour relations. Does not this make a nonsense of the policy in my right hon. Friend's White Paper?
    Mr. Shore: My present understanding is that the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman refers was devised for a specific purpose, that it was not at all related to employment questions and that, although couched in general terms, it is unlikely to prove a serious obstacle in the present context.
    Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to a proposal that we should enact legislation requiring British companies which have widespread commercial interests abroad to pay decent rates of wages and have decent working conditions wherever they are operating?
    Mr. Shore: That is a much wider question. We have to give consideration not only to conditions and the wages which are paid by our own companies overseas. We cannot operate in this area unilaterally without taking account of the relevant conditions and the competitive rates of pay and other provisions operated by other companies, both companies domestic to the country concerned and other foreign companies.

    Motor Vehicle Exports (Japan)
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Trade how many British motor cars it is expected will be sold in Japan in the coming year.
    Mr. Shore: British manufacturers sold 1,805 motor cars to Japan in 1974. It is not possible to give a precise forecast of sales in 1975.
    Mr. Golding: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 86,899 Japanese cars were imported into this country last year and that the discrepancy between the figures is a scandal? Is he aware that those of our electors who work at Rists and
    8
    Michelin's in North Staffordshire and car workers generally are looking to the British Government to take action to stop the import of Japanese cars on this scale until the Japanese import ours?
    Mr. Shore: I am aware of the very great disproportion in trade in motor cars between this country's exports to Japan and our imports from Japan. It is a remarkable contrast in numbers. I should be justified in taking action against Japanese cars only if it could be properly and seriously presented to me that the Japanese were engaging in dumping and that this was a significant cause of the present distress in the British motor car industry.
    I remind my hon. Friend that, although these numbers are worrying, they account in themselves for only about one-fifth of our total car imports at present. Therefore, it would not be justifiable to select one source of supply and attempt to check imports from that source without looking at the whole situation.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Secretary of State aware that those of us who are trying to help with the exports of our motor cars to Japan are greatly handicapped by strikes, which cause bad delivery performance, and by failure to observe the social contract, which increases costs? Will he assure the House that we shall not retaliate because of those factors and impose import controls which are bound to work against this country?
    Mr. Shore: I have already made clear my attitude towards import controls in relation to motor cars. It is a question of whether they are being dumped and causing material injury to the United Kingdom home industry. No such representations have been put to me.
    In looking at the performance of our motor car industry in its selling to Japan, it would be wrong to attribute blame to strikes in the United Kingdom. It is an astonishing fact that as long ago as 1965 we were selling about twice the number of cars to Japan as we sold last year. The truth is that for one reason or another British motor car firms have until very recently not made any serious attempt to enter the Japanese market. I believe that they are beginning to make such an attempt. I believe that they will have some success.

    Tourism
    Sir George Youngasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will merge the British Tourist Authority with the national tourist boards.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: The Development of Tourism Act 1969 established these bodies as four separate units. We have no plans for amending the statute.
    Sir G. Young: Does not the Minister agree that having two autonomous bodies responsible for formulating and implementing tourist policy is thoroughly wasteful and can lead only to confusion? Will he introduce a unified structure of tourist administration?
    Mr. Davis: My Department is not convinced that the remedy suggested by the hon. Gentleman on this and on other occasions is the appropriate remedy. Each of the bodies concerned has specific expertise which we consider to be valuable. For those reasons I do not believe that it would be helpful to change the present régime.
    Mr. Crawford: Does the Minister appreciate that tourism is one of the most important industries in Scotland? Will he ensure that when the Scottish Development Agency is established the Scottish Tourist Board will come under it and that it will have full control over its own finances?
    Mr. Davis: That is a matter to which we shall give consideration.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that the review presently being undertaken by the Secretary of State appears to consist almost entirely, if not entirely, of consultation with Government-sponsored bodies and that those who work in the industry in a commercial sense are not being consulted? Is it too late to reconsider whether the hon. Gentleman's Department should consult such bodies as the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association—I happen to be on the association's national council in an unpaid capacity—before coming to any conclusions about this important review, which itself is welcome?
    Mr. Davis: No doubt the hon. Gentleman, in following the best course possible
    10
    to assist the cause in which he has just declared an interest, will ensure that representations are made to my Department. My understanding is that the consultations are not within the narrow confines which he has just suggested.
    Mr. Wigginasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will publish a table showing the amount of Government support through the English Tourist Board to the West Country Regional Board as compared with the contributions made to the Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards; and if he will show the number of tourists in the year for the West Country, Scotland and Wales.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: With permission, I will circulate the tabulated replies in the Official Report, although, as will be apparent, there is no appropriate basis for comparison given the different range of responsibilities of national and regional tourist boards.
    Mr. Wiggin: Does not that reinforce the case for the West Country having a tourist board with status equal to that of the Scottish and Welsh boards? Will not further examination of these figures show that more tourists go to the West Country than to Wales and Scotland put together? Will the Government give an assurance that before any cuts are made in tourist board budgets a per capita calculation will be made to ensure that the West Country does not suffer?
    Mr. Davis: I do not agree that there is any point in establishing a separate West Country board. If, as is the case, fewer tourists visit Scotland and Wales than the West Country, that justifies the Government's view that by giving assistance to those two areas they will increase the number of tourists going to Scotland and Wales, which I should have thought would be the desire of all hon. Members.
    Mr. Adley: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a West Country Tourist Board and that what we are asking for is status, not a new board?
    Mr. Davis: By adding his voice to that of his hon. Friend, the hon. Member does not help to reinforce the argument. There are in fact Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards.
    Following is the information:

    TABLE 1

    Grant-in-aid 1973–74:

    Scottish Tourist Board

    £712,000

    Wales Tourist Board

    £537,000

    English Tourist Board

    £1,750,000

    Contribution by the English Tourist Board to the West Country Tourist Board's 1973–74 income of £116,000

    £30,000

    Source:
    International Passenger Survey.
    British Home Tourism Survey.
    The tables above, however, are not an effective basis of comparison. The cost of generalised promotion, information services, research and other schemes of assistance for the tourist industry undertaken by the three National Boards and benefiting individual areas, in the case of England is borne by the English Tourist Board and is not represented in the allotment made to the West Country Tourist Board.

    Trade Mission (South Africa)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade how many Government-supported or Government-sponsored trade missions will visit South Africa in 1975.
    Mr. Shore: During 1975 17 missions are expected to visit South Africa under the Government's Outward Mission Scheme.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is an extremely disappointing answer? Does he agree that it would be better for relations with that country and other African countries, as well as better for race relations throughout the world, if we suspended trade missions to South Africa altogether? Would it not be better to encourage British firms to trade with countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, Zambia and Tanzania rather than to invest in a racially dominated country such as South Africa?
    Mr. Shore: I have not received any representations from other African countries, or from any country, protesting
    12
    in any way against the normal flow of trade between this country and South Africa. Therefore, I think it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that I feel is in my hon. Friend's remarks that we are in any way jeopardising our trade relations, which I accept are very much improved, with growing markets in black Africa.
    Mr. Robert Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of the number of people in this country whose jobs are entirely dependent upon the success of these missions to South Africa?
    Mr. Shore: No, I cannot. Of course, our exports to South Africa account for about 3 per cent. of our exports.

    Trade Deficit (EEC Countries)
    Mr. Guy Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the size of the United Kingdom's trade deficit with countries of the EEC to the latest date for which figures are available for 1974.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the visible trade deficit with EEC, on a balance of payments basis and seasonally adjusted, for the last 12 months.
    Mr. Shore: In 1974 the visible trade deficit, on a balance of payments basis, with the EEC Eight is provisionally estimated to have been £2,035 million. Comparable figures are not yet available for later periods.
    Mr. Barnett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone in the House will find those figures deeply disturbing? Can he give us any kind of assurance that the situation in 1975 will not be even worse? Has he any evidence from estimates that he might already have in the Department that perhaps we are beginning to turn the corner in 1975 and that we can at last begin to see the long-awaited benefits of EEC membership?
    Mr. Shore: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend in what he has to say about the seriousness and the gravity of these trade figures. I regret to have to tell him that the evidence is that the deficit is growing quarter by quarter. If I were to give, as I will, in reply to my hon. Friend the available figures for the past three months, the position would be clearer. The figures are on a crude trade

    13
    basis and not on a balance of payments basis and they may slightly overstate the eventual outcome. However, on a crude trade basis the present deficit for the past three months—namely December, January and February—is running at a rate of £2,600 million a year.
    Mr. Marten: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the debates in 1972? I refer him in particular to what the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said quite clearly on 20th June—namely:
    "our entering the Communities…will be a positive and substantial contribution to our balance of payments, and will not result in any deficit at all"—[Official Report,20th June 1972; Vol. 839, c. 318.]
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was on that sort of statement that some of my hon. Friends were persuaded to vote for the Common Market?
    Mr. Shore: There is no question but that events have disproved that forecast. It is not only the authority of the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that one has to draw upon for persuading people in that period of the advantages of membership. Similar statements were made, although in broader terms, in the 1971 White Paper. That was the then Government's major recommendation to the British people and to Members of Parliament that they should join the EEC.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Does my right hon. Friend confirm that a major reason for the large deficit lies in the import of manufactured goods from Germany in particular and from other EEC countries? Will he tell the House how the problem could be ameliorated by exit from the Market and the creation of a free trade area?
    Mr. Shore: I thought I had answered that point in answer to a previous supplementary question. It seems that I shall have to do it again. I said to the House—it obviously was not listening at the time —that a free trade area agreement would face us with broadly similar problems in terms of industrial goods except in so far as higher food prices might affect the structure of costs in Britain's industry and, therefore, our export prices. What I said was that outside the European Community we would have the advantage of such cheap food as there is, and I believe that the supply of such food is much larger than my hon. Friend suggested.
    14
    Further, we should not have to make a contribution to the Community budget and we should have far better control over capital movements.
    Mr. Baker: In reply to an earlier question the Secretary of State said that if we were to withdraw from the Common Market there would be a very advantageous position for Britain in negotiating new trading arrangements in a free trade area. Is that the view of the Cabinet, is it merely the view of the five dissenting Ministers or is it merely wishful thinking?
    Mr. Shore: I have been asked this question before and I stand by the answer that I have given.
    Mr. Baker: Is it the view of the Cabinet?
    Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order now rather than later, but I shall not take up very much of the time of the House. The Secretary of State said quite categorically in his first answer to this set of questions that the deficit to the EEC on the manufacturing account was growing. There is no truth—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of an answer cannot possibly be matter for a point of order.

    Burmah Oil (BP Shareholding Sale)
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will call for an investigation under Section 164 of the Companies Act into the sale by Burmah Oil of its shareholding in BP.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: No, Sir.
    Mr. Rost: Why not? Have not the Government, by twisting the arm of the Bank of England, cheated many thousands of small shareholders and savers, including pensioners, out of at least £100 million?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman ought to rearrange his prejudices once in a while. In fact, nobody has cheated anyone in this matter. The hon. Gentleman asks whether Section 164 might be used to set up an investigation. I do not consider that there are adequate grounds for any such action under that section. Moreover, the section is wholly irrelevant to the purposes to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.
    Mr. Tim Renton: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that many people feel seriously disturbed about this sale, undertaken in a hurry, at what appears to have been a very low price? Many pension funds and unit trusts were shareholders in Burmah Oil. Will not the Minister, therefore, encourage an investigation into this sale?
    Mr. Davis: In my judgment, there are no grounds for an investigation under Section 164 or Section 165 of the Companies Act. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy informed the House on 21st February that the price agreed was the average stock market price from 31st December to 22nd January, the day before the transaction was completed, but leaving out of account any day's price below that of 31st December. I should have thought that that was a fair arrangement.

    EEC Membership
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent representations he has received from representatives of British importers and British exporters about the effects on the United Kingdom's overseas trade of British membership of the EEC.
    Mr. Shore: I continue to receive views from many sections of industry and trade and their representative bodies on a wide range of Community matters, including the effect of membership on our trade.
    Mr. Hurd: Is it not bogus for the Secretary of State to go on using the trade deficit as an argument for leaving the EEC while proposing a free trade area which would leave the deficit more or less unchanged? The right hon. Gentleman has already admitted that point as regards industrial goods. As regards foodstuffs, is he not aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection said in the House last week that prices of food imports which might be lower if we shopped around outside are just about balanced by the prices of foods which are lower precisely because we are within the Community? Is not the whole argument, therefore, bogus?
    Mr. Shore: I am inclined to say— and I shall say—that I have nothing to add to my previous reply.
    Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now possible to buy more cheaply outside the EEC not merely the beef, mutton, butter and cheese which he mentioned but also wheat, maize and most other grains as well?
    Mr. Shore: This is an important matter, and that is what I was trying to establish in my replies on an earlier question. It is necessary to recognise that there has now been a considerable change in relative price levels as between European and world food prices. My right hon. Friend has very properly pointed out that the EEC levies on wheat and maize have again been reimposed. My personal view is that this will be the trend which we shall see unfold over the next two or three years. Obviously one cannot be certain that that view is correct, but if it is we shall have all the burdens of the Common Agricultural Policy while at the same time denying ourselves the possibility of cheaper food elsewhere.
    Mr. Higgins: Despite the Secretary of State's campaign and constant innuendo in the House about the trade deficit, did he not recently say that he deliberately withheld judgment on the issue of whether our trade imbalance was the result of our membership of the EEC? Will he withhold judgment until after the referendum, or will he eventually make up his mind before it?
    Mr. Shore: As I said before—I say it again—my view, a view that the House heard many times in 1971 and 1972, was that the overall trade effect of our joining the Common Market would be detrimental to this country. That was my view then, and I have seen no evidence since to make me withdraw it. But what I have expressed surprise about is the enormous size of the adverse trade deficit.
    Mr. Higgins—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are soon to have a two-day debate on these matters.

    Import Controls
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Trade what consideration has been given to import controls in the light of Great Britain's current and prospective trade deficit.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement regarding his Department's policy on import controls.
    Mr. Shore: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in the House on 4th March, we reject the general policy of import controls since we do not believe that they would lead to an improvement in our balance of payments.
    Mr. Biffen: Last Monday, speaking from the Dispatch Box, the Under-Secretary of State said—these were his precise words—that the Government were dedicated to the principle of free trade. May we be assured that that dedication will be able to withstand the powerful influences of the Department of Industry, which, we suspect, harbours quite a number of those who would be much in favour of import controls?
    Mr. Shore: The general policy of this Government and of succeeding Governments has been in favour of a progressively freer international trade regime. But that has been based upon the premise that we are dealing with a long-term expansion and growth in world trade as a whole, and the problem which the whole world is facing now is that that expansion of world trade is coming to a stop and we are all confronted with particular problems of deficit on our balance of payments. Although one or two countries are now exceptionally in surplus, this is a grave problem. My approach, and my view on the matter, is that in this special post-oil crisis situation, when there are only one or two countries in surplus, it would be a great folly if we were to impose restrictions on each other's trade, because this would lead, as sure as anything, to retaliation and a snowball effect. Therefore, we must find alternative ways of financing these deficits rather than turn in upon ourselves and rend the expanding world trade system from which we have all derived such benefit in the past quarter of a century.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: In this context will my right hon. Friend look into the position of the steel industry, bearing in mind that for every ton of steel which we export to Western Europe we are importing no less than 17 tons from Western Europe into this country and that as a result of that sort of development some of my con
    18
    stituents are now going on short-time working? Does that not indicate that an over-concentration on the Western European market is not exactly in British interests, and does it not show also that the Common Market countries have a substantial vested interest in retaining our market?
    Mr. Shore: The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is that that is of course so, but my general remarks about our trade policy and the difficulties which we face at present do not exclude separate and special consideration of particular commodities where a case can be made legitimately, as I said in reply to an earlier Question, that they are causing market disruption, that goods are being dumped, and that material injury is being caused.

    Food and Live Animals
    Mr. Jim Spicerasked the Secretary of State for Trade what proportion of the United Kingdom trade deficit with EEC countries is attributable to trade in food and live animals.
    Mr. Shore: In 1974 the "crude" trade deficit—that is, the difference between exports valued fob and imports valued cif—in food and live animals with the EEC Eight accounted for 55 per cent. of our crude trade deficit in all goods with the Eight. In January and February 1975, taken together, the proportion was 48 per cent.
    Mr. Spicer: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Those results represent a large percentage of our trade deficit with the EEC. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that that trade deficit came about in large part as a result of foodstuffs being purchased from the Community for the benefit of the consumer but to the disadvantage of our trade deficit?
    Mr. Shore: There are two matters here. Some part within that undoubted switch of food trade to the EEC will have been due to the fact that exceptionally, in 1973 and 1974, food prices in Europe were lower than elsewhere, but another part of it is due to the treaty arrangements and the requirement to give preference to food trade within the EEC even when it is more expensive than foods available elsewhere.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the Secretary of State aware that the last time his Department made a formal statement about the reasons for the large size of our deficit with the EEC it mentioned the cheaper cost of food in the EEC but did not attribute the size of the deficit to our membership of the EEC? Since the Secretary of State said recently that he wanted people to take their decision in the referendum in full knowledge of the facts, is it not his duty to state his opinion about the factors which account for the large size of this deficit?
    Mr. Shore: I would hesitate to embark upon that exercise and no doubt I should earn your rebuke, Mr. Speaker, if I were to make that statement at the moment. Perhaps the hon. Member, who is no doubt a devoted reader of the Economist, should have a look at the last issue, where he might find some of the answers.

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the objectives of the Government in the current round of GATT negotiations in terms of average percentage reductions in tariffs on industrial goods; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Shore: We wish to see the largest possible reduction in tariffs on industrial goods as can be negotiated bearing in mind the need for reciprocity. We also wish to ensure that the deepest cuts are made in the highest tariffs. The negotiating directives for the Commission which the EEC Council agreed at its meeting on 10th February are a worthwhile step towards these objectives.
    Mr. Moate: Will the Secretary of State say whether Britain will have a negotiating status in its own right at these talks? Is it the case that in broad terms the Community is aiming at cuts of between 25 and 50 per cent. on industrial tariffs? Does not the general move towards freer trade in industrial goods mean that if Britain leaves the Common Market industrial tariffs will be no impediment, or very little impediment. to British exporters?
    Mr. Shore: It is in our interest and that of the developed countries as a whole that we should resume post-war progress towards greater free trade and the elimi
    20
    nation of trading barriers. I am therefore glad to say that the general objective of an overall cut of between 25 and 50 per cent. has been agreed. It is, of course, a fact that the Commission, not the British Government or any other Government, will be undertaking the negotiations with other countries in Geneva in the course of the multilateral trade negotiations.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Will the Secretary of State contemplate adding to the agenda, unless it is already there, consideration of the dumping problem? It seems to many of us who respect the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the need for a free flow of trade that there are an increasing number of instances where dumping is a significant problem and where, for some reason or another, the British Government do not seem willing to act, certainly in the short term.
    Mr. Shore: We are certainly willing to consider any serious case that is put before us alleging dumping. The protection against dumped imports is one of the matters which will be discussed during the course of the multilateral trade negotiations.

    Foreign Trade Statistics
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Trade what estimate he has made of the extent of the problem of producing separate Scottish and English foreign trade statistics in terms of Civil Service manpower.
    Mr. Shore: The separation is not practicable and I do not think that I could justify the cost of making the suggested manpower estimates.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is there any evidence to show that if the statistics were available they would show a benefit either to the Scottish taxpayer or the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Shore: It is difficult to answer that question. Indeed, I could do so only after I had undertaken the exercise, and, as I have said, I do not think I should be justified in that course of action.
    Mr. Crawford: Does not the Secretary of State's reluctance to publish the figures indicate his fear that they would show Scotland to be in a basically healthy balance of payments situation and that the

    21
    only beneficiaries of the figures would be the Scottish National Party?
    Mr. Shore: There might be a case for carrying out this exercise if only to alleviate the anxieties of the SNP. However, I have no reason to believe that it would show the kind of figures which the hon. Gentleman would undoubtedly like to see.

    Book Exports
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he is taking to promote the sale of British books in overseas markets.
    Mr. Shore: The industry's sales promotion efforts overseas are encouraged and helped by the extensive range of export services provided by my Department.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the considerable support given by the Government to book exports has been completely nullified by the enormous increase in the overseas postal charges? For the first time, our book exporters are now paying much higher postal rates than any of their foreign competitors.
    Mr. Short: Of course, I regret very much that the increase in postal charges has had to be passed on to those who export books, magazines and so on from the United Kingdom. However, it would be quite wrong to assume that the export trade in British books would be damaged over any period of time by the present increase in charges.
    Mr. Stanley: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the increase in overseas postal rates will produce a relatively marginal increase in revenue for the Post Office but will significantly jeopardise £150 million to £200 million of exports? In these circumstances, should not the trading consideration have prior claim?
    Mr. Shore: I do not think that the purchase of British books is crucially affected by the increase in postal rates.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend please do something about the whole postal question including the effect on book exports? There has been an 1,800 per cent. increase in charges over
    22
    those imposed 30 years ago and about a 300 per cent. increase in the efficiency of postal deliveries. Surely we should be able to get some improvement, if only to restore us to the position attained 30 or 40 years ago.
    Mr. Shore: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. This is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the Secretary of State consider the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) that we are now at a disadvantage in overseas markets compared with our chief competitors? If that is so, surely something should be done to redress the balance.
    Mr. Shore: If a case of that kind can be seriously put to me, I will of course discuss it further with my colleagues in the Department of Industry.

    Trade Balance Tables
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Trade what information he has supplied to the EEC Commissioner for Trade, Mr. Gundelach, concerning Great Britain's balance of trade.
    Mr. Shore: I have sent Mr. Gundelach a set of tables showing trade between the United Kingdom and the EEC over the years 1970 to 1974. These tables have formed the basis of replies made to earlier Questions and a copy is now available in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Spearing: Has my right hon. Friend done so in reply to the replies which Mr. Gundelach gave in the European Parliament on 19th February? Has his attention been drawn to Mr. Gundelach's statement there that the trade deficit with the EEC was only 32 per cent. of our total deficit and that he believed that membership of the EEC was not therefore disadvantageous to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Shore: I think that in his reply Mr. Gundelach confused the situation because he failed to make the simple distinction between total trade, including oil, and non-oil trade. It is that basic error which led him to conclusions which I think were false.
    Mr. Dykes: Will the Secretary of State undertake to put into the Vote Office the documents that underlie that error, as

    23
    I think that there will be some doubt about the statement he has just made?
    Mr. Shore: I think that the facts will emerge absolutely plainly from the set of tables. They are quite full and I recommend all hon. Members who are interested to study them carefully.
    Mr. Luard: I accept that Mr. Gundelach's reply was misleading and that it referred to a proportion of the total deficit. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that even if one takes the non-oil deficit, as my right hon. Friend pointed out to me in a reply not very long ago, the proportion represented by our non-oil deficit to the EEC is lower today than it was in 1972, the last year before our entry?
    Mr. Shore: I do not believe that to be so. The proportion of our non-oil deficit due to trade with the EEC in 1974 was more than 100 per cent. of our total non-oil trade deficit.
    Mr. Higgins: Did not the Secretary of State tell Mr. Gundelach that he had deliberately withheld judgment of whether our trade imbalance was the result of our membershsip of the EEC? Was that not totally inconsistent with an answer that he gave earlier today?
    Mr. Shore: I did not say that to Mr. Gundelach. What I said was exactly what I told the House a short time ago, that is, that I have always taken the view —before we joined the EEC—that the trade effects would be unfavourable but that the extent of the deterioration would obviously bring in factors that were not readily identifiable and not easy to quantify.
    Later—
    Mr. Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my supplementary question I attributed to the Secretary of State for Trade a remark concerning his view on the trade imbalance and EEC membership. I said that the right hon. Gentleman had remarked in reply to Mr. Gundelach, the EEC Commissioner:
    "I have deliberately withheld judgment on the issue of whether our trade imbalance was the result of membership of the EEC."
    That is a direct quotation from the Press statement issued by the Secretary of State, commenting upon Mr. Gundelach's re
    24
    marks. That being so, it seems that, I am sure inadvertently, the Secretary of State has denied that he made a remark when clearly it was made and was obviously directed to Mr. Gundelach. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will clarify this.
    Mr. Shore: It is true that in the Press release that I put out, commenting on Mr. Gundelach's address to the European Assembly, I said:
    "I have deliberately withheld judgment on the issue of whether our trade imbalance was the result of membership of the EEC."
    That has been my practice in answering questions until today. That is what I have said in the past. But in view of what I thought frankly was a very one-sided statement made by Mr. Gundelach of the figures, and his explanation of hem—[Interruption.] This is the explanation. I wrote to Mr. Gundelach on 20th March this year making the two points that I made to the House earlier today—that is, recalling that my view had been that there would be a deterioration in our trade before we joined but adding the point, which I emphasised in the House today. that the extent of the deterioration was a matter on which we could not at this stage hope to give any serious and final judgment.
    Mr. Higgins—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow this matter to be debated now. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to raise a point of order because I thought it might be that the Secretary of State wanted to change something he had said. As that is not so, this is not a matter for the Chair. It is not a matter of order.
    Mr. Higgins: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is a matter for the Chair. The Secretary of State has misunderstood the point I made. He said quite clearly at Question Time "I did not say that to Mr. Gundelach". I understand that he is now admitting that he did. I should have thought that he would feel it right to correct the record and that this would be a matter for you to arrange, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me at all. I have no responsibility for what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is a matter for him.

    Concorde
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he can now make a statement about the start of Concorde services with British Airways.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 26th February—[Vol. 887, c. 196]—the question of the date on which British Airways and Air France should begin commercial services with Concorde will be a matter for discussion at tomorrow's meeting between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and the French Minister of Transport.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister give me a categorical assurance that Concorde will operate on the same date with Air France and British Airways, that there will be no question of Air France operating it before British Airways does?
    Mr. Davis: I would hope that that will be accomplished. I understand that British Airways has every intention of starting its services simultaneously with Air France.
    Mr. Terry Walker: May I urge my hon. Friend to impress upon British Airways the need to get Concorde into service at the earliest possible moment and not to allow this to be delayed by any problems concerning the North American route? If it is not feasible to start that route at the same time as Air France, will another route be considered?
    Mr. Davis: British Airways is well aware of the need to start services simultaneously with Air France, as I have said. The routes are a matter for British Airways to decide and it will keep the Government closely in touch with its plans.
    Mr. Shersby: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will be more pressing in his discussions in this connection that he was in connection with Laker Airways?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is even more irrelevant than usual.

  ENERGY

    Conservation
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a further statement of energy conservation.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): Energy saving is a continuous process and our programme will continue over a long period. The recently launched publicity campaign is already having effect and this, with the other measures taken so far, represents a substantial first step. My right hon. Friend will introduce further measures as appropriate.
    Mr. Rost: Why has the Minister still not launched a programme to utilise the fuel at power stations more efficiently by recycling the waste heat, which at present comprises two-thirds of the fuel input and which is now wasted in cooling systems? Why are the Government still planning and building new power stations without programmes for utilising waste heat for industrial and domestic purposes?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important subject that has been brought to the attention of the Department and is being considered.
    Mr. Ward: Has my hon. Friend yet concluded his consultations with the automotive industry with a view to encouraging fuel saving, particularly by a greater use of diesel engines, which would show a great saving of fuel?
    Mr. Smith: On this and other subjects my right hon. Friend is advised by the Advisory Council on Fuel Conservation, which is a highly expert and representative body. Any recommendations that it may make will receive very serious consideration by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: What steps is the Department taking to study and implement the proposals put to it by the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service?
    Mr. Smith: Proposals put by the NIFES have been among proposals that have been put to the Department. As my right hon. Friend has repeatedly said, all such proposals receive serious consideration. I must emphasise that my right hon. Friend looks very much to the advisory council for advice and guidance in these matters. Many suggestions for energy conservation have been made, but careful consideration has to be given to their capital cost and many other factors must be taken into account.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Piccadilly Line (Heathrow Extension)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a progress report on the Piccadilly line extension to London (Heathrow) Airport.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): The London Transport Executive plans to open the first stage from Hounslow West to Hatton Cross in July. The section from Hatton Cross to Heathrow Central is expected to be opened in the second half of 1977. Tunnelling work on this section is complete and track laying is about to start. Work is continuing on the construction of the station at Heathrow Central.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Has the Minister given any thought to an express Underground service from Gloucester Road to London Airport? Does he think that passengers carrying their baggage will want to go into an Underground train that has to stop at every station?
    Mr. Carmichael: That was naturally taken into consideration when the route was planned. The hon. Gentleman will realise that there would be great problems in running a regular express service along with an ordinary commuter service—unless he is proposing the building of a totally separate line.
    Mr. Spearing: Would not my hon. Friend agree that whatever slight disadvantages there may be for air travellers, as distinct from those travelling by rail, this development will be generally welcomed in London? Does he recall that at first the plan by the Conservative administration allowed for extra charges on this line but that it was later decided to provide the sort of grant that was given for the Victoria Line? Is not that an improvement on policy?
    Mr. Carmichael: When the service is running, certainly in the first few years, there should be a considerable improvement in traffic conditions on the M4. It was obviously because of the large volume of traffic travelling to Heathrow that a grant was ultimately made, and that is very important.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Gross National Product
    Mr. Adleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in gross national product of Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy, respectively, from 1958 to the latest date for which figures are available.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): With permission, I will circulate the figures in the Official Report.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the figures, which I presume he has studied, will show that the original Six have benefited enormously, particularly after the first few years of the Community? What evidence has he to show that this country will not benefit equally materially once we are able fully to take advantage of entry as a full member of the Community?
    Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman has put a very complicated question. I hope that he will wait until he has seen the answer in the Official Report.
    Following are the details:
    The increases in gross national product at current market prices, from 1958 to 1973, measured in their own currencies on the internationally used definition are as follows:

    Per Cent.

    Equivalent annual rate (per cent.)

    United Kingdom

    209

    7£8

    West Germany

    271

    9£1

    France

    368

    10£8

    Italy

    327

    10£2

    Estimates of gross national product at constant prices are not available internationally. The estimated annual rates of increase in gross domestic product at constant prices between 1958 and 1973 are as follows:

    Per Cent.

    United Kingdom

    …

    …

    3£1

    West Germany

    …

    …

    5£0

    France

    …

    …

    5£5

    Italy

    …

    …

    5£3

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PAY AND CONDITIONS)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Lord President of the Council in view of the fact that the majority of Members of Parliament are members of their appropriate trade unions, whether he will arrange to meet the general secretaries of

    29
    these unions to negotiate a trade union agreement on hours, wages and working conditions of Members of Parliament. within the social contract.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I have been ask to reply.
    This would not be appropriate.
    Mr. Lewis: You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, as will all hon. Members, that we have recently had an unfortunate dispute affecting the efficiency of the House. Is the Minister aware that the only body of workers now working for any reputable organisation but not having trade union recognition are those who work for the Government and that, irrespective of party, the Government have persistently and consistently refused to grant Members of Parliament trade union rights and recognition comparable with the rights given to every other worker, including every State employee? If other Members do not want to have their trade union recognised, am I not entitled to call for recognition myself?
    Mr. Fowler: We in this House are part of a sovereign Parliament, and we should take the responsibility for these matters ourselves. Members' pay and allowances are already referred to the Top Salaries Review Body.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 30 on the Order Paper is a Question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). who is not here. I had always understood that Questions to the Prime Minister could be put only in the last quarter of an hour of Question Time on Tuesday and Thursday. Is it now possible to put them on any day? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am much obliged.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand so.

FISH IMPORTS (BLOCKADING OF PORTS)
Mr. Brotherton Mr. Brotherton (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a
30
statement regarding the action of the Humberside trawlermen in blockading the ports of Immingham and Grimsby.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I have invited representatives of the fishermen to meet me tomorrow afternoon to discuss the position.
Mr. Brotherton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trouble is now spreading rapidly, and that 35 minutes ago the port of Fleetwood decided to join the dispute? Whilst I in no way condone the blocking of waterways, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman realises the seriousness of the problem, not only in that the port of Immingham and other ports are closed but because of the grave problems which the fishermen face? When the Minister meets them tomorrow, will he make it clear that he will take action to help them, particularly over the importing of frozen fish from Norway, Poland, Iceland and other non-EEC countries?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the seriousness of the situation. That is precisely why I decided to meet the fishermen's representatives quickly.
Mr. James Johnson: I do not condone the tactics used by the fishermen, basically inshore men at Immingham and Grimsby, but is my right hon. Friend aware that last Wednesday we debated the issue and all hon. Members, including me. were unanimous in asking my hon. Friend the Minister of State to take action by selective controls on imports, essentially from non-EEC States such as Norway, Iceland and Poland?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of that, but my hon. Friend must remember that we are dealing with friendly countries. I should like to reach an amicable solution. That is why I shall have talks with the fishermen.
Sir William Elliott: Will the Minister recognise the immense cost to the port of Tyne which the present stoppage is causing? Is he aware that six ships are unable to enter the river, four more are due, and five cannot leave, and that if the stoppage continues it will quickly have an effect on employment in the port? It is certainly very costly. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the need for urgency in holding his discussions?
Mr. Peart: I do. The hon. Gentleman, who represents part of that area, states the position correctly. That is why I am anxious to meet the fishermen's representatives quickly.
Mr. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman surprised that the fishermen's anger has boiled up into this regrettable action? Does he recognise that many fishermen feel angry that he does not seem to have given the problems of inshore fishing the attention they require in the Dublin talks or in the review of fish prices which was eventually and belatedly agreed by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection? Will he take urgent action on these problems?
Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. I believe that the aid we give will give some help to certain sections involved in the dispute. I want to resolve the dispute. That is why I am meeting the representatives.
Mr. Watt: Is the Minister aware that many of the men taking part in the blockade have boats under 40-feet long? Does he agree that they have every right to be incensed when they have been excluded from the subsidy arrangements?
Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that, because the aid I gave will help some of these people. We are talking about certain direct action. I am prepared to see the men concerned, and I hope that I can discuss with them sensibly what the solution should be.
Mr. Clegg: Is the Minister aware that the fishermen of Fleetwood are not only angry but desperate? Otherwise, they would not be taking this action. There is a clear case of dumping. We asked the Government last week to do something about it. That is the way out of the problem. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that action as quickly as possible.
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the problem, and I know that the fishermen of Fleetwood and the hon. Gentleman feel strongly about it. That is why I am taking urgent action to meet the fishermen's representatives and discuss it with them.
Mr. Bowden: is the Minister aware that I have had great difficulty in per
32
suading the Sussex inshore fishermen not to take illegal action? I sincerely hope that they will not, but unless the right hon. Gentleman and the Ministry can do something about the problem of beam trawling in relation to these inshore men, he will have a great deal of trouble on his hands.
Mr. Pearl: I am aware of the problem. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about taking action.
Mr. Pym: The House will be glad that the Minister is aware of the concern, which is very deep, particularly with regard to unfair competition and the way in which imports are coming into the country. There is also anxiety about the Government's determination to ensure that international arrangements are fulfilled and, if necessary, policed. We are glad that the right hon. Gentleman is to meet the industry. When did he last meet the industry? Will he make a full statement tomorrow, or on Wednesday, about the results of his talks, how he sees the position, and what he can do to help the fishermen?
Mr. Peart: I have met the major representatives of the larger section of the industry, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been in touch with the industry about which we are talking. I am anxious to meet representatives of the industry. They will come from Northumberland, North Yorkshire and, I hope, other areas. We feel that they have a problem, and I shall consider it.
Mr. Pym: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement?
Mr. Peart: If necessary—if we come to a solution, although I do not believe that it will be immediately, because the law of the sea is a matter for discussion elsewhere. I shall raise such matters affecting the industry when I next go to Brussels.
Mr. Pym: In view of the nature of the action being taken by the fishermen, is it not extremely important that the Minister should tell the House what the outcome of this meeting is so that we may take the matter a stage further?
Mr. Peart: I am always anxious to keep the House informed, and I shall do so in this case.
Mr. Fell: Will the longshore fishermen from Yarmouth be allowed to join the deputation visiting the Minister tomorrow?
Mr. Peart: If they make contact with my Ministry, I shall give every consideration to that.
Mr. Biffen: Can the Minister say whether the action of the fishermen contravenes the law?
Mr. Peart: This is a matter for the harbour authorities to decide. I do not wish to become involved at this stage in arguments about whether they are taking illegal action. I am prepared to see them and to discuss their problems with them.
Mr. Rathbone: In spite of the Minister's denial of any responsibility for this sad occurrence, because of the limited nature of the help given to the fishing fleet—especially the point made earlier about the exclusion of small fishing craft —I hope that the Minister will include that point in his talks tomorrow.
Mr. Peart: I have no doubt that something like that will emerge.
Mr. Skinner: May I prevail upon my right hon. Friend, whilst he is attempting to mediate in this important matter, not to use any influence he may have along the lines followed by the previous Tory administration when it allowed, or perhaps cajoled and persuaded, the powers that be to use the Conspiracy Act against people fighting for what they believed to be their justified rights?
Mr. Peart: I am anxious to meet the representatives of the industry concerned, and I hope that we shall hold constructive talks.

ANIMALS FOR SLAUGHTER (EXPORT)
Mr. Freud: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.
I have evidence that the Government assurance given about the implementation of the O'Brien Report on the export of live animals is not being honoured.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart)The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood that this application was being made to me, not the Minister.
Mr. Freud: It was not I, Mr. Speaker, who called the Minister.
As a result of the BBC "Midweek" programme of 20th March, which showed the transportation of lambs for the duration of 34, 39 and 48 hours without food, rest or water, I interviewed the director of the programme and am now in receipt of additional evidence to show that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grossly deceived the House in his assurances of 16th January, and that as a result of discussions today between the Ministry and the BBC—
Mr. Speaker: Not even on an application under Standing Order 9 is it in order to say that the Minister has grossly deceived the House. The hon. Member must not use that phrase.
Mr. Freud: May I withdraw it and use the phrase "inadvertently misled the House"? As a result of discussions today between the Minister and the BBC, they are well aware of the fact that the House was inadvertently misled.
Having voted for the adoption of the report as a result of the promises of the two Cabinet Ministers, I herewith make application to move the Adjournment under Standing Order 9 so that the House will have a chance to reassess the situation.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice of his intention to make this application. I have considered the matter. I have also considered what he has said today. No doubt this is an important matter. My decision is only whether it should be pursued under Standing Order 9. In my view this is not an appropriate matter to be pursued under Standing Order 9. The hon. Member can pursue it in other ways.
Mr. Burden: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement in the House on this matter before Easter?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING FINANCE (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.43 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill is the last chapter in the long-drawn-out story of the Housing Finance Act 1972. I shall hope to convince the House that its provisions are both necessary and just. I shall also show that, contrary to much public comment, this is not a unique solution to a unique problem. Conservative Governments have more than once made comparable decisions. Indeed we face here a problem which has troubled governments throughout history from ancient Athens down to President Ford and the Vietnam deserters today: when is clemency justified and when it is not? I believe in this case that it is, and I shall quote a number of precedents.
  Since the Bill stems directly from the Tory Housing Finance Act 1972, I must take the House back briefly to the circumstances under which that Act was passed, for the Bill is designed to clear up the mess, which was then created. It may be hard to recall now just how controversial that Act was. I said on Second Reading,
  "it is the most reactionary and socially divisive Measure that is likely to he introduced in the lifetime of this Parliament—and that is saying a good deal."—[Official Report, 15 the November 1971; Vol. 826, c. 48]
  It was not only the statutory increases in rents. More basically, it was the blow to democratic local government. For the Bill removed the responsibility for fixing rents for their dwellings from elected local authorities a responsibility which they had exercised for 50 years or more under many different Governments—and gave it to non-elected, non-accountable rent scrutiny boards. And this was done at the same time as the Local Government Bill was being introduced, which purported to implement the Conservative Government's White Paper pledge
  36
  "to return power to those people who should exercise decisions locally".
  As the House knows, we strongly contested the Bill in all its stages. It was clear that there was a real danger of local authorities refusing to implement some of its provisions. I warned the Government during the Committee stage that,
  "local authority opinion is outraged by the growing threat to local freedom and local independence".
  I went on to add,
  "There will certainly be some, and there will possibly be many, local authorities which will refuse to implement the Bill…I am talking about law-abiding, peaceable people who are devoted to the service of local government, and to whom it would never ocur to break the law in any normal circumstances."— [Official Report, Standing Committee E 22nd March 1972; c. 4177–8]
  The Government were unfortunately not persuaded. They wholly failed to grasp the intensity of the anger felt by locally elected authorities at their loss of freedom and independence under this Act.
  The situation was greatly exacerbated by the way the Act was brought into force. The council rent provisions came into force during August 1972, a fortnight after Royal Assent, at the height of the holiday season, when many councils —indeed like this House—were in recess. They required councils to pass the necessary resolutions at once in order to serve the statutory notice for rent increases to come into effect at the beginning of October. Hon. Members opposite must know that this was hardly the way to implement a new, complex and highly controversial Act.
  There was also the uncertainty caused by the so-called "Newcastle" amendment. This allowed authorities to seek from the Secretary of State a lower rate of mandatory rent increase if they could convince him that the mandatory rate would cause rents to rise above the probable fair rent level. After hours of argument in Standing Committee, the Government had this eleventh hour change of heart, and Section 62(4) was added to the Bill.
  Authorities were thrown into further confusion. In the interests of their tenants, many of them sought this dispensation. Week after week went by before they got their concessions, and they then

  37
  had to decide how to average out the rent increases over all their dwellings.
  So, confusion and muddle. Anyone with knowledge of local government must understand the deeply felt resentment, both at the contents of the 1972 Act and at the haste with which it had to be implemented.
  The outcome was that some authorities decided that they would not make the mandatory rent increases required of them under the Act. I ask the House to accept that this was not an explosion of some extreme Marxist militancy but the strongly felt reaction of mainly moderate but sorely tried men and women.
  During this period, as many Conservative Members will recall, I made my position quite clear. I said that the behaviour of the Tory Government was dangerously provocative, and I recognised the dilemma in which Labour councillors were placed. But at the end of the day, and without making myself universally beloved by Left-wing audiences, I had no doubts: the law of the land must be obeyed.
  In Standing Committee I said that
  "it is no part of my duty as a democrat, a Socialist and still less as an elected Member of my party's parliamentary committee, to condone, let alone encourage, defiance of the law." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E. 22nd March 1972, c. 4178.]
  And to Labour's Special Conference on the Bill, in July, I said
  "I cannot advocate non-implementation. I am in favour of constructive opposition".
  Mr. Peter Rost Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South-East) rose—
  Mr. Crosland: I have only just started. I shall give way later.
  How should the Conservative Government have dealt with this situation? Their own Act gave them ample powers. They had the power to send housing commissioners into any local authority which refused to implement the Act. The commissioners would have taken over all the housing powers of the authority and been responsible for collecting the rent increases laid down by the Act. As some Tory Members know, many late-implementing authorities were in fact expecting the Government to send in housing commissioners. Some of them actually, indeed repeatedly, asked the Government to send them in. Many of them thought—I know
  38
  this from what they said at the time—that they were acting within the law in refusing to implement themselves, so long as they asked the Government to appoint commissioners. They were wrong; but I can understand their confusion.
  In the event, about 35 authorities in England and Wales failed to raise their rents as required by the Act. A number have convinced the district auditor that there were reasonable grounds for their delay: a fact which underlines what I said earlier—that authorities were in genuine difficulties over implementing the Act. But in the remaining cases—a score or so—the district auditor may well find that the rent losses were due to misconduct, and that it is therefore his duty to surcharge the councillors involved. These losses could total about £1½ million; and the councillors concerned number about 400. I can only be tentative on these points, since district auditors, as the House knows, do not make up their minds finally until they have fully heard all the parties involved.
  What are the options facing us in this situation? One possibility, which I assume is what most of our critics want, would be to do nothing; and to let the law take its course. What would be the result?
  The point of a surcharge is to recover money. It is not—let there be no misunderstanding here—a penalty for a crime, because these are not criminal matters; neither is it a fine. But the amount of the lost rent income is absurdly out of scale with the generally modest means of the councillors who would be surcharged. I understand that in some cases the surcharge divided evenly between councillors could amount to well over £10,000 each. Any surcharges, of course, are made "jointly and severally". That means that if some of the councillors cannot pay their share, the rest have to make up the difference.
  Here I might say two things in parenthesis. First, it is interesting that in 1973 the then Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland—Mr. Gordon Campbell, now no longer with us—considered, as under Scottish law he must, whether or not certain Glasgow councillors should be surcharged for expenditure on publicity material opposing the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. That was the equivalent of the Housing Finance Act in Scotland. He decided, after considering

  39
  the merits of the case, that although he considered the expenditure to be unlawful there should, nevertheless, be no surcharges. A Conservative Minister then took a sensible decision, so I am hardly setting a completely new precedent this afternoon.
  Secondly, the previous Tory Government, as Conservative Members will recall, introduced changes in the law relating to audit under which, in fixing the amount of a surcharge, account may be taken of the means of the person concerned. Indeed, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the Secretary of State may himself make such a judgment in precisely the kind of situation in which we now find ourselves. This is not the moment to discuss the many differences between the law in Scotland and the law in England and Wales. But it is clear that the Conservative Party fully accepted in 1973 the futility of heaping enormous surcharge, liabilities on individuals of modest means.
  Mr. Richard Crawshaw: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, if these were not Labour councillors, this legislation would be going through today? If the answer is "No", does not that bear out the criticism that is being levelled at us that this measure has been brought in to protect certain individuals within our party? If the answer is "Yes", does not this give carte blanche to any Member on the Conservative benches, or councillors, to refuse to implement any legislation which we shall put through in this Session?
  Mr. Crosland: If my hon. Friend will bear with me for a little while he will see that my entire speech is directed to attempting to answer that argument, which I shall deal with fully and precisely later, namely, the question of precedent and possible incitement in the future.
  To return to the situation in England and Wales, what would follow these surcharges if they were to be made? No doubt many of the councillors would appeal to the courts—first to the High Court, then to the Appeal Court, then perhaps to the House of Lords. The process would drag on and on, possibly for years. Week after week the sores opened by the Housing Finance Act would be publicly exposed, the old dissensions
  40
  remembered and the damaging wrangling repeated. All these councils would be operating with their minds on the sterile disputes of the past when they ought to be concentrating on the challenge of the future, and, above all, on the overriding task of providing a decent home for everyone.
  We cannot say for certain what conclusions the courts would reach. But it is likely that many of the surcharges would be upheld. So what then?
  Mr. Rost: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the people of Derbyshire why he thinks it is just that those who were not a party to the illegality of Clay Cross should pay a surcharge on their rates? Will he further explain whether he will follow this by introducing legislation which will let off the next group of lawbreakers, those who decide that they will not pay the debts of Clay Cross?
  Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman may just possibly conceive it likely that I shall be coming to Clay Cross in some detail later in my speech.
  To go back to what I was saying, first, the councillors would become disqualified from civic office. Whole councils would be decimated; and some hundreds of by-elections would be fought in an atmosphere of unremitting bitterness—a bitterness which would endure for years ahead. Secondly, we should see the humiliating spectacle of the district auditor trying to collect the money. It is not simply a question of sending out a bill and waiting for the cheque to come in.
  Many of these councillors stand to be made bankrupt, to have their life savings taken away and their earnings attached, and to lose their possessions, even their homes. As I have said, most of them are not militant extremists. They are respectable men and women who acted on principled—though mistaken—notions of right and justice. Many of them have given a lifetime of service to local government, often at considerable personal cost and I cannot believe that Conservative Members would really want to collect the full pound of flesh from these people.
  In any case, what would be the result? As I have said, the whole aim of the surcharge procedure is to collect the lost money. Even if we went through the

  41
  process I have described, with bailiffs, bankruptcies, and so on, we should still not make up the lost rent income, or even a tenth of it. A deficit would remain to be met and, as the law stands, it would fall on the rates and hence largely, via the rate support grant, on the taxpayers. That is precisely what I wish to avoid.
  Mr. Julian Amery: The right hon. Gentleman said that the whole aim of the procedure was to recover the money. However, he has just said that one of the results of proceeding with the letter of the law would be the disqualification of the councillors concerned. Disqualification is not concerned with the recovery of the money. The disqualification is a judgment on the conduct of the councillors as such. Surely there is a difference here with which he should deal. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was intending to come to it.
  Mr. Crosland: I discussed the effects of the disqualification a minute or two ago when I referred to the effect on the councils concerned with the endless series of by-elections ahead. I said that I thought that that would create an atmosphere of unremitting bitterness which the House would not wish to see occur. The case against letting the law take its course seems to me to be overwhelming.
  Another possibility would be to allow the putative surcharges—the amount of rent income lost by late implementation —to become a charge on the central revenue and be met by the national taxpayers. We are wholly opposed to this. It would be quite wrong for the taxpayers to foot this bill, and we are determined that they should not. I shall explain this point in some detail later. It is for these reasons that we have chosen the solution set out in the Bill. I shall be interested to hear the Opposition's alternative.
  I have dealt so far with the generality of councils involved in the present situation. I turn now, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) will be glad to hear, to one particular and difficult case—that of Clay Cross.
  This case is different in one essential respect. Unlike all the other councils involved, the Clay Cross councillors have already been surcharged to the tune of £7,000—a surcharge arising from the
  42
  extraordinary audit of their accounts carried out in November 1972—and they have already been disqualified from office.
  On Clay Cross we have taken two decisions. First, we do not intend, despite the resolutions at the Labour Party Conference, retrospectively to annul the £7,000 surcharge, nor to use public funds to discharge the financial liabilities incurred by those councillors. The surcharge was a decision upheld by the courts, and we have no intention of retrospectively upsetting such a decision of the courts. So, contrary to some public comment, but fully in line with the advice given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, there is no indemnification for this surcharge and no recompense from public funds. The money to meet the surcharge will not be found by the Government, nor by the ratepayers of North-East Derbyshire. It must be found from private sources or the surcharge will stand.
  Secondly, the disqualification. My right hon. Friends the Lord President of the Council in October 1973, the Foreign Secretary in January 1974 and the Prime Minister in this House in April 1974 had already committed a Labour Government to shortening the period of disqualification which the councillors have suffered as a result of the surcharge. This Bill carries out that commitment. [Hon. Members: "Why?" That is what I am about to attempt to explain to the House.
  This decision has been widely criticised both as retrospective and as an undue interference with the judiciary. But it is not retrospective. By the time that the Bill is passed, the councillors will already have been disqualified for a considerable period, and no one can retrospectively alter that.
  As to the rule of law, if we had tried to reverse the High Court judgment and rescind the surcharge, criticism would surely have been valid, though I shall remind the House in a moment that a past Conservative Government did exactly that in 1927 in very similar circumstances.
  The surcharge of £7,000 still stands. But we propose to terminate the disqualification when this Bill becomes law, partly because we consider it wrong for the Clay Cross councillors to remain disqualified for failure to implement the Act when other councillors are released by this Bill from the threat of disqualification, and in

  43
  order finally to get the bitterness and rancour out of this whole situation.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Crosland: No. I propose to finish this passage on Clay Cross and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  I would remind the critics of this decision that when the Housing Commissioner was finally sent into Clay Cross, The Times, which has thundered so heavily against our proposals, editorialised as follows:
  "Once the case"
  —that is, Clay Cross—
  "had become an isolated one, it would have been better to stop the arrears mounting up, for they could only add to the drama of the affair…The surcharge is a necessary weapon of last resort, but it is unwise for a Government unnecessarily to give anyone the opportunity of making a martyr of himself."
  Unfortunately, that is precisely what the Conservative Government did. I would also remind the critics that, if Clay Cross had been in Scotland, these councillors would not have been disqualified, for in Scotland no disqualification attaches to a surcharge, whatever its size.
  Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend, as a relatively fervent admirer of the EEC and European rights, understand that the striking out of the Clay Cross appeal in the High Court by Mr. Justice Megarry, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the auditor surcharging these people £6,985 is a violation of Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? My right hon. Friend said that this could not have applied in Scotland. Does it not strike him that in this European context it could not apply either?
  Mr. Crosland: I am happy to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has just returned from Strasbourg and he will be better informed on these matters than I can possibly claim to be.
  I look on this decision as an act of partial amnesty. I believe that it is now time to close this miserable chapter in the history of our local government and to wipe the slate clean so far as the defaulting authorities are concerned. This, as I have made clear, does not mean wiping out the lost rent income at
  44
  the taxpayers' expense. Rather it means giving the local authorities a second chance to recover the rent income lost by their default. I believe that any responsible Government, of whatever persuasion, would have come to the same broad conclusion.
  There are worries—I profoundly respect them, and here I answer my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw)—about whether we are setting a dangerous precedent which might encourage others to break the law in future. The question is this: is this one of those exceptional cases where to apply the full rigour of the law would be neither just, compassionate nor sensible?
  I am not making a party political point here, but I note that historically, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said in her outburst last Friday, the Conservative Party has more than once followed this principle. I quote three examples. First, the events—not dissimilar—leading up to the Audit (Local Authorities) Act 1927. Surcharges far beyond the means of the councillors involved had been made by the district auditor at the London boroughs of Poplar, Bethnal Green and Woolwich. This was part of the continuing story of what came to be known as
  "Poplarism". Faced with the probable imprisonment of 97 councillors and the wholesale annihilation of these three councils because of the bankruptcy of their members, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, then Minister of Health, could as little stand idly by as I can today. The 1927 Act therefore contained what he himself referred to as an "indemnity clause" which he introduced in these words:
  "I might have left them"—
  these 97 councillors—
  "to their fate. I have not taken that view…one might fairly take the opportunity of wiping the slate clean as far as the past is concerned. and giving the benefit of the doubt to those particular cases."—[Official Report, 15th June, 1927; Vol. 207, c. 1033.]
  So Mr. Neville Chamberlain removed the surcharge—incidentally, first imposed during a previous Parliament—and the threat of imprisonment, referring specifically to the need to exercise clemency in such a situation.
  Secondly, the wartime Government of Sir Winston Churchill, no enemy of the rule of law—
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that important matter, I should like to point out that Mr. Chamberlain said that he removed the surcharge on the Poplar councillors because there was a reasonable element of doubt which could have been in the minds of the councillors because the Court of Appeal had overthrown the district auditor's view and sided with the councillors. As there could be a reasonable doubt among the councillors, he said that he was prepared to remove the surcharge on them.
  Mr. Crosland: With great respect, my right hon. Friend is not factually correct. After the case had gone to the Court of Appeal, it went to the House of Lords, a higher court, which sided with the district auditor and decided that the surcharge was correct. Therefore, Mr. Chamberlain changed the law in such a way as to overthrow a decision of the House of Lords.
  Mr. Leon Brittan Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby) rose—
  Mr. Crosland: I shall not give way any more. Secondly—
  Mr. Brittan Mr. Brittan rose—
  Mr. Crosland: I propose to complete the precedents and then if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so I shall give way.
  Secondly, there is the example of the wartime Government of Sir Winston Churchill—by no means an enemy of the rule of law—and the Betteshanger miners in 1941. Again, adherence to the letter of the law would have led to an impossible situation. Four thousand miners were on strike in Kent, and under the National Arbitration Order the strike was illegal. Prosecution of 4,000 men was in practice impossible. The local gaol could accommodate only a few at a time, and it would have taken years to work through the list. So a compromise was reached, the production of coal resumed, and the case was quietly forgotten.
  I say nothing of the case, of which no doubt we shall hear from the lawyers on the benches opposite, of the five dockers and their mysterious rescue by the Official Solicitor. When the Leader of the Opposition last Friday described the Clay Cross affair as being
  46
  "like something by Conan Doyle or Agatha Christie",
  I thought how much more aptly that description would apply to the bizarre actions of the Official Solicitor.
  I take as my third example the action in 1971 of the Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), who, using his powers under Section 228 of the Local Government Act 1933, retrospectively sanctioned the illegal expenditure on school milk of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough.
  In each of these cases a sense of proportion and fair treatment prevailed. In each of them a way forward had to be found which least damaged the national interest and the rule of law. In each case a way was found.
  Mr. Peter Thomas Mr. Peter Thomas (Hendon, South) rose—
  Mr. Crosland: I said that I would give way. I propose to finish this sentence about the precedents and I will then do so.
  In each case a way was found, and in each case I find it impossible to believe that the rule of law was in any way undermined as a consequence.
  Mr. Peter Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was provision by statute for the Minister to take a certain course, and for the course which I took, in respect of school milk. However, there is no such provision by statute in respect of a deficiency found under the Housing Finance Act. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with regard to the examples which he has given that in 1927, in particular, if one incurred a civil debt one was liable to imprisonment if it was not paid? That is very different from what we are considering today. When the penalty for a councillor for failing to obey the law can be disqualification, why is that penalty to be removed by this Bill?
  Mr. Crosland: In 1927 Mr. Neville Chamberlain introduced a Bill to alter the law with the purpose of removing a surcharge which had been correctly imposed on a large number of councillors. That fact cannot be evaded.
  Mr. Peter Thomas: Is it not a fact that a court of law at that time was in

  47
  doubt about whether there was validity in the surcharge, whereas the Court of Appeal has made it perfectly clear that the Clay Cross councillors were deliberately acting contrary to the law with the full knowledge of the effect of what they were doing, and also the Court of Appeal made it clear that they were unfitted to be councillors?
  Mr. Crosland: I am sorry to have to correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman again. The case in 1927 went to the House of Lords, which upheld the view that the surcharge was fully in accordance with the law, and, in consequence, Mr. Chamberlain proposed a change in the law. That fact cannot be escaped.
  Mr. Brittan: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is not possible to say that there was no doubt merely because the House of Lords overruled the Court of Appeal. The fact that two authoritative tribunals came to differing conclusions shows conclusively how much doubt there was in the case.
  Mr. Crosland: It is not for me to make a judgment on the standing and legal status of the House of Lords. However, if it is a question of doubt, there was a great deal of doubt about whether the previous Government could not have avoided the situation by sending in housing commissioners at once.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: May I offer my right hon. Friend an addition to his anthology of precedents? Does he recollect that in 1923 the Conservative Home Secretary was guilty of a gross illegality, causing serious injury to many people, rendering him liable to pay very heavy damages and liable to the penalties of the Statute of Praemunire, which, though nobody knows what they are, are generally believed to be very serious, and that he was saved by an indemnity measure introduced by the Conservative Government, who did not turn a hair, as though it were the most natural thing in the world?
  Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, who has underlined the serious point that I am making, that questions of clemency, partial amnesty and indemnity are not unique to this Bill but have troubled many successive Governments in many different circumstances.
  48
  I turn to the Bill itself. It is based on two principles. First, the lost rent income must be made good. But the burden of making it good must not fall on the national taxpayer. The loss was incurred locally; it must be made good locally.
  Secondly, the responsibility for finding the money must be placed fairly and squarely on the local councils in the areas concerned. They are the responsible bodies, and, as I have said, they will be given a second chance. Where local government reorganisation has altered the area covered by a council, the successor council must take on the job of collecting the lost money.
  I remind the House that, although the councillors concerned will not have to bear a personal penalty for their misdemeanours, they will—many of them—bear a considerable political penalty. They will still have to raise the money which they have lost, either by charging higher rents or by increasing rates. In doing so, they will no doubt incur considerable local odium. That is inescapable. They must meet the electoral consequences of their original decisions.
  Under Clause 1 the district auditors will continue their investigations right up to the point where they reach the decision as to whether the 1933 Act requires them to make a disallowance or surcharge for a matter relating to the Housing Finance Act 1972. This incidentally is very close to what The Tunes called for in a leading article today. At this point, instead of surcharging, the district auditor will issue a certificate in respect of lost rent, stating the amount and the persons he would otherwise have surcharged. This certificate will be subject to the same appeals procedure as a normal surcharge, and will not become effective until such a procedure is complete. As the House will see, we have sought to disturb as little as possible the normal audit and appeals procedures under the 1933 Act. Subsections 3 and 5 of Clause 1 provide transitional provisions for those cases where the district auditor might feel compelled to make a surcharge before the passing of the Bill.
  Our aim is to recoup the loss, and Clause 2 outlines the method by which councils are to do this. The defaulting authority or successor authority, as the case may be, will recover the amount certified by the district auditor as lost rent

  49
  by rent increases, either over the area of the defaulting authority or over the whole area. This recovery is normally to be completed within five financial years. These rent increases in almost all cases need be no more than a few pence a week. But we insist that the whole amount must be recovered, and so only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that only a negligible amount remains is he authorised to write it off.
  We wish to give as much choice as possible to the councils concerned. Accordingly, in Clause 3 we widen their choice by giving them the option of charging the certified loss to their general rate fund, again over a period of five years, and again with the choice of making the charge over their whole area or only over the area of the defaulting authority. But, while providing this option, we want to ensure that any decision to charge the loss on the rates is exercised only after proper opportunity for public discussion of its implications.
  Clause 4 terminates the disqualification incurred by those councillors who have already been surcharged and disqualified as a result of opposing the Housing Finance Act. I have already dealt with our reasons for including this provision.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The right hon. Gentleman has devoted almost all his speech so far to justifying the non-charging of the potential surcharge. He has devoted very little to justifying the removal of the disqualification. This is what disturbs most people. He has just said that he has already dealt with this matter, but all he said was that other councillors who might be subject to disqualification will not be subject to it if the Bill is passed. It is treating the House inadequately to try to gloss over this point, which is the main one for most people.
  Mr. Crosland; I am sorry, if I have not satisfied the hon. and learned Gentleman on this point, but it is a point which I met head on and made no attempt to gloss over. It was during that section of my speech when I was most consistently —and reasonably; I make no complaint —interrupted.
  The remaining clauses are supplementary. They deal mainly with the accounting arrangements. They ensure that no expenses or losses arising from failure to
  50
  implement the Housing Finance Act will fall on the Exchequer by way of housing subsidy or rate support grant; and similarly that where a council decides to charge rent losses on the rates the relevant amount is excluded from rate support grant. So under no circumstances will the taxpayer contribute anything.
  I think that I have not in my political life faced a problem as difficult as this one. I shall be extremely interested to hear what course the Opposition would have pursued in these circumstances. My colleagues and I cannot fall back on the glib certainties of the leader writers; we have had to face the dilemma in practice as to what should be done. I do not present our conclusions to the House in any spirit of dogmatic certainty that we have got them exactly right, still less in a spirit of triumph. Others in the House will advocate different approaches. Some believe we have gone too far; others that we have not gone far enough. They are both entitled to their views, which they hold in good faith. But the House will also accept that we advance our solution in good faith.
  We must of course have justice, but justice should always be tempered with mercy. This Bill has to be seen not as an encouragement to law-breaking, but as an act of clemency on the part of Parliament. The rule of law is a vital value of our society; yet, at the same time, we recognise, as Conservative Governments have in the past, that laws ate sometimes imperfect servants of government, and unwise laws can get us into a horrible and unintended mess. In this case we are expressing the view, rightly or wrongly, that one set of social values —clemency, and a willingness to forgive and forget—should have temporary predominance over another social value—the rule of law. We are recognising that in certain situations it is healthier for society to forgive than to risk a Continuance of resentment and conflict.
  The Bill is not a concession to pressure.[HON. MEMBERS "Oh] It reflects, as did the decisions which I have quoted of Chamberlain and Churchill and of two recent Conservative Secretaries of State, our belief that in this situation an act of magnanimity will best serve society's interest. These problems have always confronted democratic governments and I

  51
  do not pretend that the answers are always simple, about when to exercise clemency and when not. In this case, justice and the rule of law permit the solution which I have put before the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.26 p.m.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: I find it difficult to say whether the Bill represents the most shameful or shameless action of the present Government. I would have been tempted, if I had taken the words of the Secretary of State at their face value, to say that they represent shamelessness, but I think that the House recognises that beneath his attempt to brazen this out there was some shame in the right hon. Gentleman—and so there should be.
  The arguments that the Secretary of State has put before the House are to a great extent an insult to this body. He himself must have been embarrassed by the pathetic nature of some of his points. His arguments about Neville Chamberlain and Poplar were fully defeated by his own right hon. Friend, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). His arguments about Betteshanger were utterly irrelevant, as were his arguments about the five dockers. They had absolutely no bearing on this case. His arguments about the affair of school milk in Wales were completely demolished by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas).
  If the Secretary of State has cause to be ashamed today, the Attorney-General has far greater cause. I do not propose to pursue the question of the Attorney-General, as my right hon. and learned Griend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) will do so later today.
  The Bill is an affront to the notions that we have always upheld about the rule of law and parliamentary government. The Secretary of State started his arguments by claiming that the Housing Finance Act and the procedures attached to it deserve in effect to be defied. What he said about that Act is utterly unacceptable. Having sat on the Standing Committee which considered it, I recognice that it was contentious, but the picture of it which has been painted bears no resemblance to the truth. That Act provides no justification for this Bill.
  52
  I acknowledge, of course, that, as the right hon. Gentleman has always said, the relationship between Government and governed is of great importance in democracy—we all know that—but to say that the Housing Finance Act breached that relationship is partisan claptrap. The fair rents system that it embodied was a Labour invention. Much of the Act remains on the statute book.
  We used to hear thunderous objections to local authorities acting as tax collectors, yet the Government have now brought in the Community Land Bill which provides for exactly the same thing. Both the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Construction have said that they will use the centre Government in the same sort of way as the Housing Finance Act did. In his book "Socialism Now" the Secretary of State said:
  "We must formulate comparable default powers to deal with councils which refuse to build."
  The Minister for Housing and Construction said in Committee on the Housing Finance Bill:
  "We shall not demur next time when we are in power from taking such power as the Conservative Government have taken on rent issues for house building programmes if necessary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E; 23rd March 1972, c. 4316.]
  So the present administration have taken exactly the same kind of powers as were taken in the Housing Finance Act. To say that that Act was a travesty of the relationship between Government and governed is absolute nonsense. Let us hear no more of the argument that the Housing Finance Act remotely justified the sort of resistance to it which took place.
  I want to consider the three purposes of the Bill as they are set out in the first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum, and explain our view on each of these. The first of these was
  "to prevent surcharges under the Local Government Act 1933 arising out of a failure to implement the Housing Finance Act 1972."
  I say straight away that we on this side of the House have absolutely no desire to be vindictive about this matter. I want to add firmly that my right hon. Friends who were then in office showed absolutely clearly that they had no desire to harry tenants and local authorities.

  53
  They showed that they were prepared to be reasonable to a degree. There is absolutely no question about that.
  The truth is that this Bill represents a shameless condoning of defiance of the law. One of the difficulties that we have to face in considering the Bill is that to some extent the degree of failure to implement the law is not really clear. The Secretary of State said today, what he did in answer to a Question on 17th March.
  "There may be about 20 authorities in England and Wales where these issues arise. The number of members concerned may he around 400 and the shortfall of income a bout £1½ million."—[Official Report 17th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 297.]
  A large part of our case today is that it would have been far better to have waited until we knew the facts before coming to the kind of decision which the Government have taken.
  I repeat that we have no desire to be vindictive, but the Secretary of State should have been in a position to come to the House with the full facts and to place them before us before any kind of decision was taken. I fully agree with what the The Times said this morning on this matter. In its leader today it said:
  "In the first place Parliament should not be asked to decide whether to intercept the financial penalties before it has seen exactly what those penalties come to. It follows that the procedure of audit and surcharge should be allowed to run its full course. And the Bill should provide that at that point the Minister may submit for the approval of Parliament an amendable Order for the remission of all or parts of the surcharges imposed."
  I could argue about the last sentence, but I entirely accept the first sentence. It is completely wrong that we should be asked to vote on something before we know what the truth is. If the argument is put forward that the procedure of surcharge involves a lot of apparatus, my reply is that the procedure of rent loss certification also includes a certain amount of apparatus. The Bill says that the auditor has to find out the amount of lost rent and say who has been surcharged.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman seems to he laying great stress on the suggestion that we should delay the introduction of this Bill until such time as all the facts are known. Will he agree that on that basis it was very ill-advised of the district auditor, Charles Lacey, to move in
  54
  to Clay Cross and decide that a surcharge of £6,985 should be imposed on the basis of an arithmetical calculation or an approximate estimate of £1,000 in respect of rent rebate purposes? Surely if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a sound argument to wait until all the facts are known, the district auditor should never have gone to Clay Cross until he had a properly calculated amount of money in his mind in respect of rent rebates, which he never had at any time?
  Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman's arguments are absurd. The district auditor had no alternative but to examine these accounts. His position is entirely different from that of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Mr. Swain. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Thomas Swain: I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) has wakened up. She has made a groan at last.
  Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the district auditor was sent in on the instructions of the Minister, under Section 237 of the Local Government Act, and was ordered to conduct an extraordinary audit? It was conducted not on a voluntary basis by the district auditor but under specific instructions, as a political exercise, from the Minister.
  Mr. Raison: I am fully aware that the Minister asked the district auditor to go in. We have already heard from the Secretary of State the argument that there was undue delay in some respects. It seemed to me that it was entirely proper for the Minister to send in the district auditor, because there was very good reason for getting the matter cleared up quickly. The only regret is that the foolish councillors of Clay Cross did not behave as they should have done. As the Bill stands, it represents a blanket absolution for the offending councillors, regardless of the extent of their actions.
  One thing is absolutely clear, in spite of what the Secretary of State said. There was absolutely no reason for uncertainty as to what the law required. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), whose performance as Under-Secretary when the Bill was considered in Committee was brilliant, made

  55
  that point absolutely clear. In the course of those proceedings he said:
  "…the existence of default powers does not give a local authority the right to default on its statutory duties…default on a statutory duty is a breach of the law."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23rd March 1972; c. 4256–7.]
  That point was made with absolute clarity by Ministers. It was known full well to every councillor in the land, and there was no reason to argue that this was not known to everybody. To introduce the notion, as the Secretary of State did, that there was a kind of muddle about all this was a travesty. These statements by my hon. Friend were made months before the Act came into effect, and they were well and truly understood.
  It is not enough to say that a local authority should hand over to a housing commissioner and be absolved of its responsibility. The Act was clear on that, and so were Ministers. There was a deliberate campaign by some hon. Members opposite to provoke defiance of the law. We know that some local authorities did not operate the law for a brief period, and then accepted the position. But, equally, we know that other local authorities, notably Clay Cross of course, persisted in defiance of the law. It is absolutely outrageous that the Bill should in this way remove any surcharge imposed upon those who deliberately and persistently flouted the law.
  Mr. David Weitzman: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that under Section 62(4) of the Housing Finance Act it is open to a local authority to apply to the Secretary of State for the amount of rent increase to be reduced? Although an application was made to that effect, the Secretary of State either refused to meet the applicants or refused to reply to the application, and the result was that at the time when notice had to go out no reply had been received from the Secretary of State. The result was—hon. Members will find all this set out in a recent edition of the Economist—that when the local authority did not implement the Act, this was because it was in a position of doubt, not having received any reply whatever from the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Raison: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong. The law
  56
  is completely clear on this subject. The effect of removal of the surcharge has two effects—a financial one and disqualification. It has been argued that the financial penalties should be lifted on councillors, first, because they may not be able to pay and the charge will fall on the ratepayers, and, secondly, because the penalties are too harsh. My answer is that we should have the facts before this kind of question is decided. That is the answer to the Secretary of State's question "When is clemency justified?" Are the facts known? Even if the financial burdens were to be rescinded, there is no reason why blanket relief from the possibility of disqualification should be permitted in the way proposed by the Bill.
  I come to the second purpose of the Bill:
  "to substitute other means of recovering losses due to such failure"
  to implement the Act
  "without charge upon Exchequer funds••
  So far as the Clay Cross example is concerned, there are four possible ways in which this can be done. First, it is possible to increase council rents in Clay Cross. Second, it is possible to increase council rents in the whole new district. Third, the charge can fall on the ratepayers in the old Clay Cross area. Fourth, the charge can fall on the ratepayers in the whole new district.
  It seems to me that in equity the only proper thing is that the burden should fall on the old Clay Cross district. We understand that the figure is about £120,000. It is, perhaps, arguable that all the long-suffering ratepayers should bear the burden on the ground that they elected the offending councillors. But what is clearly and overwhelmingly wrong is that the ratepayers or council tenants of North-East Derbyshire as a whole should have to bear this burden.
  The Government must know by now that there is extreme anger in North-East Derbyshire at the provisions of the Bill. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends, and, indeed, hon. Members opposite if they are honest, will tell the Secretary of State very forcibly how utterly unacceptable and unfair this provision is. The truth is that to see law-breakers exonerated in this way has aroused disgust and anger, which the Secretary of State must understand.

  57
  The Secretary of State himself said in the House on 6th November that the deficit
  "will be found from the communities that benefited by late implementation."— [Official Report, 6th November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 1085.]
  That, presumably, applies to non-implementation. In no sense did the rest of North-East Derbyshire benefit from the actions of the Clay Cross councillors. I cannot see how that particular possibility under the Bill can square with the Secretary of State's comment on that date.
  Clearly, Clauses 2 and 3 are very wrong, but it is Clause 4 which is the great disgrace, the clause which ends the disqualification of those who have been surcharged to an amount exceeding £500. It is on this clause that we who believe in the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law must vote to deny a Second Reading to the Bill tonight.
  The point was well made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) when he intervened this afternoon, and he has made the point previously. In the Liverpool Daily Post of 5th November last, the hon. Gentleman is quoted as saying:
  "Those who seek to exempt them from liability by retrospective legislation ought to ask themselves if they have fully understood the implications of such action. The slipping slope towards Communism or Fascism has been reached when the Government starts to interfere with the courts or seeks to bend the law because they wish, to assist some of their friends."
  The point has also been made equally effectively it seems, by the Attorney-General, but, as I have said, I shall not comment on that at present.
  Quite simply, the Government we proposing the end of the five-year period of disqualification for the Clay Cross councillors after only one and a half years and to lift the possibility of disqualification for other councillors; including, it seems, again those of Clay Cross, whose offences we do not know exactly but might he substantial. This sets a hideous precedent. Like everything else in the Bill, it is wholly unfair to those people who did obey the law. One of the ingredients in the Bill which has made it most offensive to the country as a whole is the fact that the law-abiding should have been kicked in the face in the way that they have by the Secretary of State.
  58
  The Secretary of State has from time to time uttered high-minded noises about being a Social Democrat and believing in the rule of law, but when it came to the point he quite simply crumbled. As the Local Government Chronicle said, the day the Bill was introduced was
  "a black day for all who believe in the rule of law."
  It continued:
  "Whether that Act was good or had"—
  the Housing Finance Act—
  "is irrelevant. It is no good Anthony Crosland arguing otherwise. What matters is that it was the law of the land and should have been observed. Any who chose not to do so should expect to face the full consequences. But what has happened? The Clay Cross rebels have not paid a penny of the surcharge imposed upon them. Now they never will. They were disqualified from office. But now that is to be lifted. The men whom the Master of the Rolls described as unfit to hold public office', and whom the District Auditor accused of overspending and mismanagement, are to be welcomed hack into public life."
  Mr. Swain: is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was the law of the land also that the Minister should appoint a housing commissioner after making an order of default against a local authority?
  Mr. Raison: It was only the law of the land that the Minister could appoint a housing commissioner if the local authority went into default. As I have pointed out earlier, that is what happened, and, as I have said, by going into default the councillors broke the law of the land. The commissioner has nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Crosland: I do not object to any of the hon. Gentleman's personal remarks, but he has made two errors of fact which should be pointed out. The first was in repeating an error of fact in the Local Government Chronical editorial which implies that the Government have removed the £7,000 surcharge, which is not so. The second error was by saying that the Government have overturned a decision of the courts, which is completely incorrect.
  Mr. Raison: The Government are proposing to remove the surcharge which has fallen after the initial £7,000 surcharge was imposed, and this is a very substantial sum of money indeed. All

  59
  the actions of the Government are in defiance of the court.
  Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with this. No decision of the courts has been overturned. There is
  no—[Interruption.]—decision of the courts about this further money that might or might not be surcharged. The hon. Gentleman has no right to tell lies like that.
  Mr. Raison: I shall come to the comments of the Master of the Rolls.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the Secretary of State to declare that my hon. Friend told a lie[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—told lies? The Secretary of State's words were that my hon. Friend lied.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State—
  Mr. Burden: Oh, yes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. However, no doubt if the right hon. Gentleman said it he will say so and then withdraw it.
  Mr. Crosland: I did say it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, out of a strong resentment of being accused of overturning a decision of the courts, which we have not done. However, if objection is taken to the word, I withdraw it and substitute any synonym which hon. Members may care for.
  Mr. Raison: Let me quote what the Law Society Gazette had to say
  "There is no doubt that this Bill is a dangerous precedent. The rule of law is everywhere under attack, and Parliament, when it condones breaking the law, brings itself into disrepute: And measures such as this can only increase defiance of the law and even make that defiance respectable."
  That is the essence of the charge.
  Not the least sorry feature of all this has been the way in which the Secretary of State has tried to fog the issue. In his statement on 6th November he made great play of the fact that the £7,000 surcharge on the Clay Cross councillors was to stand, but tried to duck the remaining £120,000 until my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) brought it up. The Secretary of State also adopted the
  60
  line that the Attorney-General, in his famous advice, was advising not on the subject of disqualification but on financial penalties and a surcharge. But except for the £7,000 the financial penalties are to be lifted from the councillors. The Opposition will return to that matter.
  The question is: why did the Secretary of State crumble so pathetically? The answer, presumably, is that he had not got the guts to stand up to the Labour Party conference, except half-heartedly, over the initial surcharge. In 1973 a resolution was passed overwhelmingly at the Labour Party conference. It said:
  "Conference further agrees that upon the election of a Labour Government all penalties, financial or otherwise, should be removed retrospectively from councillors who have courageously refused to implement the Housing Finance Act 1972."
  That resolution was commended by the present Leader of the House, in words which condemn him for ever. The Leader of the House said:
  "Clay Cross is something rather special. It really is. I think everybody in Britain, in the Labour movement and outside, were full of admiration and sympathy for the stand Mr. David Skinner and his colleagues had taken."
  That is a wholly incredible remark. I expect that there are two hon. Members on the Government side of the House who can subscribe to it, but I cannot believe that any other person in the House can accept the notion that Clay Cross is something really rather special. The truth is that the Leader of the House is something really rather special.
  Mr. Skinner Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is not giving way the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must resume his seat.
  Mr. Raison: I should be very surprised if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not seek to catch the eye of the Chair later this afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fear that it is on the cards that he will be successful. He will have every chance to put his point of view then.
  An article in the Political Quarterly issue for April to June 1974 shows that there is after all quite a lot that is rather special about Clay Cross and its late councillors. It is an astonishing story

  61
  which is well worth reading in full. It emerges that the story began well before the Housing Finance Bill and the advent of the Conservative Government of 1970. In December 1968 the district auditor warned the council of its duty to maintain a
  "…proper balance between the interests of the ratepayers and those of the tenants …council delegations to London produced little sympathy from Labour Ministers at the Department of Housing and Local Government, and still less from the officials. Casting round for expedients to keep going, the council proposed to use £30,000 from the sale of land to keep rents low by covering the deficit in the housing revenue account. The clerk warned them that this was illegal. In London the Ministry refused to countenance the idea. Instead Ministers"—
  this was Labour Ministers—
  "warned that action was 'vital and overdue'. The council needed a 'comparatively modest' rent increase. Officials also ventured the suggestion that the building and clearance programmes were moving at too fast a pace'."
  It has become quite clear that the way in which these councilors—
  Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We can have only one hon. Gentleman addressing the House at a time.
  Mr. Raison: The way in which these councillors, who were virtually all council tenants themselves, treated their officers was also appalling.
  Mr. Skinner: They were not.
  Mr. Raison: They were. So, too, was the way in which they treated their ratepayers. At present the district auditor is inquiring into other activities of these councillors as well as in relation to the Housing Finance Act.
  There are two other matters which I should like the Secretary of State or the Attorney-General to clear up before the debate finishes this evening. First, an article published in the Daily Telegraph on 28th March 1974 stated:
  "Some members of the Cabinet appear to have anticipated their ministerial decision yesterday when the party's national executive adopted without dissent a recommendation asking the Government to hold up, if possible, the machinery of the district auditor, and to rescind all surcharges made because of non-collection of increased rents."
  I ask the Secretary of State whether this resolution of the National Executive
  62
  Committee has had any impact. Has it anything to do with what appears to be the remarkably slow progress of the district auditor in examining the 1972–73 accounts? We should like information about those authorities whose 1972–73 audits have not been completed. In other words, we demand assurances that the recommendation of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party has been disregarded by Ministers.
  Mr. Crosland: The answer is perfectly simple. Of course that recommendation has had no effect. I have no power to interfere with the work of the district auditor. In no circumstances would I dream of doing so. The hon. Member must understand that.
  Mr. Raison: I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State is willing to disregard the National Executive Committee. However, the fact remains that there is a remarkable coincidence between those authorities where the audit has not been completed and those which come under this Act.
  Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman is hardly being at his most generous when he makes these allegations, and then, when they are contradicted, will not withdraw them. I have spent the whole of my life ignoring resolutions of the National Executive Committee.
  Mr. Raison: That is the first cause for congratulation that we have had for the Secretary of State this afternoon. There are some details which need to be answered.
  Mr. Skinner: Withdraw.
  Mr. Raison: I will not withdraw.
  Secondly, I should like to know what is happening about the £7,000 surcharge on the Clay Cross councillors. The Secretary of State in a Written Answer last week told the House that it had not been paid. What is happening? When will it be paid? How long will it take? What has happened to the fund that the Labour Party set up to raise the £7,000 so that it should be paid? This surcharge was imposed a considerable time ago and the House is entitled to know when the £7,000 will be paid and how long it will be before the district auditor institutes proceedings to ensure that it is paid. We must he told.
  Mr. Burden: If money has been specifically raised to pay that £7,000, that money can be used for no other purpose whatsoever. The House is entitled to know how much has been raised and what will be done with it.
  Mr. Raison: I hope that we shall receive an answer to that.
  The Bill proposes to remove disqualification and the possibility of further surcharge from the Clay Cross councillors whose conduct was condemned by Lord Denning in his judgment, By any standards Lord Denning is one of our most liberal judges.
  Mr. Skinner: He is not liberal.
  Mr. Raison: Lord Denning said:
  "Each of them deliberately broke the solemn promise which he gave when he accepted office. Each of them has flagrantly defied the law. Each of them is determined to continue to defy it.…These men were flagrantly defying the law. They were not fit to be councillors. The sooner they were disqualified the better. These councillors are seeking, by one shift or another, to escape the consequences of their own wrongdoing. The time had come when they must be told quite firmly that the law must be obeyed. Their disobedience cannot be tolerated. They are disqualified. They must stand down. Others must be elected in their place—others who will fulfil the duties which these eleven have failed to do."
  Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These constant interruptions from a sedentary position make debate almost impossible. I must ask all hon. Members to bear that in mind.
  Mr. Skinner: But the hon. Gentleman will not give way.
  Mr. Raison: Those words of the Master of the Rolls sum up our case to full effect. The truth is that the Government are proposing in this disgraceful Bill to remit the disqualification and surcharge imposed or likely to be imposed on men of whom the judge spoke in those terms. That is why we find it totally unacceptable. I ask not only my hon. and right hon. Friends but all Members of the House to whom the word "honour" means anything to join with us in rejecting decisively this evil, contemptible measure.
  4.59 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: Should I begin by saying, in the
  64
  words of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raisosn), "comrade Speaker"?
  I speak today as the Member for Derbyshire, North-East and as the proud representative of the Clay Cross First and Second Eleven, and, if the Second Eleven are disqualified, the Third Eleven.
  I was sorry to hear the Minister, during what otherwise was a magnificent speech, say that he was in the main, but not completely, ignoring Resolution No. 191. It was accepted, in the best speech the present Leader of the House has ever made, at the Labour Party annual conference last year. Resolution 191 was passed by the constituency parties and by the trade unions and was accepted by the Cabinet. The resolution was to the effect that all penalties, financial and otherwise, should be removed retrospectively from councillors who defied the Housing Finance Act.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury alleged that my right hon. Friend had advocated defiance of the law. The hon. Gentleman said that that was giving a licence to defy the law. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) that the Bill would give people the right to defy the law. The Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Science said that local authorities should defy the Labour Government as to implementing comprehensive education.
  Mr. Hooson: Those who are concerned with the rule of law realise that there is intense feeling about comprehensive education, for example. If the House were to pass a law requiring local authorities to abolish grammar schools and if Conservative-controlled local authorities wished to defy such a law, would not the passing of this Bill provide them with an extraordinarily good precedent?
  Mr. Swain: Not long ago the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying that there was a great upsurge in Liberal thinking in the country. As the Liberals lost a seat at the last election, I do not take the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion as being valid.
  The Housing Finance Act 1972 was a wicked and vicious Act. One of the main points I want to make is that the Standing Committee sat for five and a half months, under a guillotine in the later stages,

  65
  under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). The Committee sat all night and every night every week for five and a half months.
  I had a duty to my constituents to go and listen to many of the discussions. Very sensible questions were put by my right hon. and hon. Friends under the leadership of the present Secretary of State. The answers given by the then Government were foolish and showed the House of Commons that the Tory Government intended to have that Bill come hell or high water.
  Mr. Rost: The hon. Gentleman referred to a duty to his constituents. Will he explain why so many of his constituents are writing to me and even coming to see me in my surgeries complaining about the threat of their rates being surcharged in North-East Derbyshire as a result of this legislation which the hon. Gentleman is supporting? How will he represent his constituents when they refuse to pay this surcharge in North-East Derbyshire because they regard it as unjust?
  Mr. Swain: When the hon. Gentleman first got here many of his constituents came to my surgery and asked me why the hon. Gentleman could become a Member of Parliament after being drummed out of the Stock Exchange.
  Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Unless the hon. Gentleman withdraws that remark immediately, I shall raise it as a matter for the Committee of Privileges.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are required not to make personal attacks upon individual Members. I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) does not wish to make a personal attack and would wish to withdraw that expression.
  Mr. Swain: I do not see why I should withdraw it. It is the truth. It was printed in a newspaper only a fortnight ago. We can provide you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with a copy within half an hour, if it is wished. Why should I not repeat something in this place—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If we repeat everything that we see in the papers about each other we shall be
  66
  in great danger. I know that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East will withdraw that remark at my request.
  Mr. Swain: I will withdraw the remark at your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will tell you something else. I will publish an apology to all the dogs in this country for their being brought to the low extent the hon. Gentleman brings them to in his constituency by dealing with my constituents.
  Mr. Rost: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether the House can regard that as an apology for a completely personal attack in the House, when because of the privileges of the House I am not allowed to take action against the hon. Gentleman. I seek your protection.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has completely withdrawn the statement.
  Mr. Swain: The first gentleman to whom I apologised was in hospital for three months. The point I was making when I was rudely interrupted was that the Standing Committee met for all those months under a guillotine at the end. I sat all one night and half the next night listening to arguments from the Government Front Bench as to why Clauses 95 and 96 should be an integral part of the Bill. It was then stated quite clearly and with as much honesty as any Tory can commend that there were intentions to use those provisions in the event of any councils defying the Bill when enacted. Section 95 of the Act contains a preface leading to the appointment of a housing commissioner. Section 96 allows the Minister to appoint a commissioner after conducting such inquiries as he sees fit.
  The Clay Cross Council, on my advice, wrote to the Minister and asked him politely to send in a housing commissioner because it did not intend to implement the Act. That was a declaration from the word "Go", so there could be no misapprehension in the Minister's mind about what the intentions of the Clay Cross Council were.
  Within six weeks of 1st October—on 14th November, after the shortest time in history and the least amount of money in history—an extraordinary audit was instructed by the Minister to be carried out

  67
  by Mr. Charles Lacey, the auditor. We have a transcript of the audit. I should love to be able to read it to the House tonight, but it takes nine and a half hours to read it, providing that the reader does not take any breaths or pause in the meantime.
  The transcript of the audit shows that I made a special plea to the auditor, who appeared to have his mind closed, because of ministerial instructions, for the audit to be adjourned temporarily so that he and I could seek advice from the Minister as to why he was instructed to take proceedings under Section 228 of the Local Government Act instead of under the Act that he, the Minister, had taken so much trouble to steer through the House of Commons. The auditor, apparently acting on the Minister's instructions, completely ignored my plea.
  As a consequence, the audit took over two days to complete. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has stated, the facts were not known to the auditor—[Interruption.] I should be obliged if I could have a couple of hours of quiet, because the only two people I can listen to at one time are the mother-in-law and the wife.
  In my opinion, in the opinion of the Clay Cross councillors and in the opinion of the people who were present during the audit and who were completely neutral, the district auditor had been misled into conducting an audit without being aware of the facts and the figures. As a result, hypothetical figures were produced. It was suggested it could not be proved—that so much would be allowed for rent rebates and so much would be allowed for this, that and the other. It was proved in the ultimate that had everything been equal and had everything proceeded according to normality, the ratepayers and rent payers of Clay Cross would have been saved a considerable amount of money. Mr. District Auditor would not admit that, although he knew of the situation because he had been acquainted with the figures as we presented them in evidence. The result was that we spent two days arguing whether the audit was bona fide.
  The main point I am making is that the appropriate sections of the 1972 Act were inserted to deter local councillors from refusing to implement. The Min-
  68
  inter turned to Section 228 of the 1933 Act only because the penalties in it are 1,000 times more vindictive than the penalties in the 1972 Act in terms of instructing an auditor on recovery and penalties.
  The only fiscal penalty in the 1972 Act is contained within the section which deals with individuals obstructing an auditor engaged in carrying out his duties. It levies a penalty of £400 against any individual who interferes with the carrying out of the duties of a district auditor.
  As time rolled on it became patently obvious to everyone that the audit was politically motivated. We still have a transcript of every word that was said during the two days. It includes every fact that was known and every argument that was put forward.
  Mr. Paul Channon: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation against the district auditor who conducted the Clay Cross audit. I believe that it is the custom of the House that civil servants are not attacked. I know it is the custom of the House that judges are not attacked. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to say in the House that the district auditor conducted a "politically motivated audit"?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Hon. Members are responsible for the statements that they make. They must carry their own responsibility. I can go no further than that in specifying who shall be criticised and who shall not.
  Mr. Swain: I am prepared to justify my argument because I stated a fact. After we had had a five-and-a-half hour session the district auditor suggested that we should adjourn for lunch.
  Mr. Skinner: A cup of tea.
  Mr. Swain: Yes, a cup of tea. The district auditor was going to the Station Hotel, Chesterfield, for a seven-course meal whilst my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and myself were going for a sandwich. I refused to adjourn but in the end we agreed to have a 10-minute adjournment so that the district auditor could have a drink of water and a smoke. During that interval he let slip to the Press in a moment of indiscretion—this was two and a half hours

  69
  before the completion of the evidence—that his mind was already made up against the Clay Cross councillors. Does that prove political motivation? Does that prove that the district auditor entered the matter with a closed mind?
  Sir John Hall Sir John Hall (Wycombe) rose—
  Mr. Swain: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not shown any interest in our proceedings this afternoon He has only just come in. I would imagine that your seat is still warm in the smoking room. I am not giving way.
  Sir J. Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has made an allegation and I am not sure whether it was directed at you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or myself. If it was directed against me, let me make it clear that I have not been keeping any seat warm in the smoking room. I have been here long enough to follow the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's present argument. It is only on that point that I wished to intervene.
  Mr. Swain: The answer is that which my wife gave on dozens of occasions before we were wed—namely, "No."
  This afternoon the argument about freedom has been used very forcibly. The Housing Finance Act 1972, for which many lads and lasses are to be penalised, took away from local authorities the freedom to levy their own rents. In a speech that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) made last week he said that the Labour Government were taking away the freedom of local authorities as regards the selection of education. I suggest that the Housing Finance Act took away one of the freedoms that local councils most treasured. I was a member of a local authority for 22 years and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was a member of an authority for 12 years. Between us we know a thing or two about freedom for local authorities. We were honest.
  Mr. Skinner: We never claimed the £10 allowance.
  Mr. Swain: We were honest. We did not sell pork pies to councillors. If the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) could lift his double-barrelled body and make an interjection whilst standing I should be delighted. The hon. Gentleman
  70
  is shouting like a Leeds supporter at Luton last Saturday.
  I suggest that freedom is all important to any local authority. One of the freedoms that we enjoyed most was the freedom to fix our own rents. We were bound in law to balance our housing accounts year by year. I well remember the famous audit that preceded the one that took place in 1970. At that time my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was a member of the Clay Cross Council. We had an extraordinary audit because we were making an 18 per cent. contribution to the housing revenue fund from the general rate fund. We were accused of making the highest contribution in the country. Through diligent research in the Library we discovered that 18 other authorities were making higher contributions and that 14 of them were Conservative controlled. But the district auditor did not proceed against the Tory controlled councils. He picked on Clay Cross.
  The argument that I put forward about political motivation started not with the 1972 Housing Finance Act but much earlier. Unfortunately a previous Minister with responsibility for housing in a Labour Government involved himself in it. I led three deputations to that Minister—I am pleased that he is not still with us, not in this place anyway—and we got a blank "No" on every occasion to the sensible suggestions which we made. I have been with five deputations to my right hon. Friend the present Minister, and he has told me that he is an implementer and would bring in this curate's egg of a Bill which would cure all evils.
  I do not wish to delay the House further, but I must assure my right hon. Friend that, if I have the opportunity to serve on the Committee, I shall do my best to amend the Bill. We give it a qualified welcome today mainly because, as I say, it is a bit of a curate's egg. There is some good in it, the good being the removal of the disqualifications, but the had is the spread-over of the finances, and Labour Party Resolution No. 191 demanded the removal of all penalties. I suggest, therefore, that the Minister should look at that part of the Bill again. If this Government can spend millions of pounds, just as Tory Governments have spent millions of pounds, on projects which have proved very wasteful, it is my

  71
  candid opinion that the £1½ million involved here, spread over 400 councillors, should be looked at again. Let the Minister think about it and perhaps wipe off the £l½ million.
  The surcharge still stands. That was one of the financial penalties inflicted by the Tory Government or by the district auditor on the Clay Cross Council. The complaint is made that it has not been collected. The Clay Cross Council saw fit to take legal advice and decided that it had good grounds for taking the case to appeal. We finished up before Lord Denning claimed the privilege of the Bench to slander men who were working down the hit every day and women who were working at the factory bench every day, doing an excellent job.
  It is noteworthy that in the year when the audit took place we were the only authority in the country to reduce the rates by 3p—and that at a time when every Tory authority, including Dronfield in my constituency, not only increased its rates but increased council house rents by 60p, making a total of 75p increase for council tenants in one year.
  I ask the Minister to say that the Government are prepared to look at any sensible amendment which is put down to relieve me. I have to live with this in North-East Derbyshire. We have a split faction in my constituency, and we have a split faction in my local authority. Until we get real satisfaction out of this Bill, there will be local authorities suffering as a result of split factions. I should add that there were not just the Clay Cross eleven surcharged. There were 1,600 council house tenants who stood out for 12 months before they paid a penny arrears. I was talking to a man the other day, a man of 27, and he reckons that by the time he has cleared up his rent arrears under the Housing Finance Act he will be 108. He has agreed to pay them off at 2p per week.
  What idiocy the Housing Finance Act was, and how viciously the then Minister behaved. He ought to be hung up from the yardarm for what he did and said in Committee on that Bill, between periodic visits to Committee Room No. 7 where the Tories had a commercial going for John Haig 24 hours a day.
  I ask the Minister to look at this matter again. I hope that my hon. Friend the
  72
  Member for Bolsover, who has done a hell of a lot of research on this matter, will catch the eye of the Chair later so that he may outline the whole thing in more detail than I have given.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Channon: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) had such a weak case to put to the House that he had to spend all his time abusing Ministers, judges or district auditors. It is always somebody's else's fault. It is never his own fault or the fault of the Clay Cross Council, which happens to he in his constituency.
  Fortunately, no hon. Member need go to great trouble to refute what the hon. Gentleman said about the district auditor, because the judgment of Lord Denning. which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), shows how invalid were the Clay Cross councillors' objections to the extraordinary audit and the decision of the Secretary of State of the day to call for an extraordinary audit at that time.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East says that the Housing Finance Act was a wicked and vicious Act. acknowledge that he and I, and many other hon. Members, hold differing views about the merits of that Act, but on important issues such as this I shall try not to exaggerate, and I wish that he would not exaggerate. There are many things in the Housing Finance Act which even the hon. Gentleman, I suspect, would in his heart of hearts have approved and should have approved.
  I shall not weary the House by recounting the merits of the Act, but let me remind hon. Members of two of its features. Until that Act, there were 40 per cent. of local authorities which had no rent rebate scheme whatever. Until that Act came into force, no private tenant, in spite of having his rent set at fair rent levels by the Labour Government, could possibly have got a rent allowance, unless he lived in Birmingham.
  Mr. Swain: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the implementation of that Act and the rent rebate scheme under it, the people who were paying most rent were paying rebates for the others? The Government were not paying them.
  Mr. Channon: That is a common falsehood put about, as a result, I hope, of misunderstanding, by many Labour Members during the passage of the Bill. In fact, it was not so. The truth was—I suspect that it applied also in Clay Cross—that the failure of the local authority to give rent rebates meant that by the policy which it had been carrying on over many years it was helping its better-off tenants at the expense of its worse-off tenants. There must have been tenants in Clay Cross who would have qualified for rebates had that council had the practice of giving them.
  The House will have formed its own view about the merits or demerits of the Housing Finance Act, and I shall not deal with that now. It was a matter of serious disagreement between the two main politicial parties. But there are many Acts passed by Parliament under Governments of both political complexions which are strongly opposed and which encounter great controversy and strong opposition, sincerely meant, from whomever happens to be the Opposition at the time. Even if the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) were right in his description of the Housing Finance Act—which I certainly do not accept— there would be no case whatever for the present Bill.
  As long as we have in the United Kingdom the sort of democracy which we have had for the past century or so—we are not yet in Soviet Russia or the modern equivalent of Nazi Germany—it cannot be said that British citizens may pick and choose and decide which laws to obey and which not to obey. The moment either side of the House starts advocating that, we are in serious trouble. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) pinpointed the issue a few moments ago when he asked what would happen if local authorities said that they would refuse to implement schemes for the compulsory abolition of grammar schools. There will be just as much deep feeling on that issue among many Conservative local authorities as there was among Labour local authorities on the Housing Finance Act.
  It would be quite wrong for such local authorities to do anything illegal if the law put that statutory duty upon them.
  74
  They are perfectly entitled to do what they wish within the law to frustrate the Government's wishes, but they are not entitled to break the law. And that applies to laws passed by Parliament under a Labour Government just as much as it does to laws passed under a Conservative Government.
  The Secretary of State gave some explanation earlier this afternoon of the delays, saying that the Act did not come into force until 15th August, the local authorities were under a statutory duty to implement it by 1st October, that some of them could not get a direction in time, that they were therefore in difficulty, could not implement the Act in time, and were in danger of surcharge. I doubt very much that that is right.
  For there to be a surcharge in this situation, the district auditor has to find that there has been wilful misconduct or wilful negligence. If there had been a misunderstanding or muddle which was made in good faith, the district auditor would surely not surcharge. I think I have conclusive proof of that fact. Last week the Secretary of State gave me details of the number of audits which have taken place for the year 1972–73. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury pointed out, there are as yet far too few details available for us to form a full judgment about the facts. Nevertheless, I notice that some audits have been completed, and we have been told by the Secretary of State that there have been no hearings on them, no public objections and no surcharge by the district auditor.
  Let me take the five examples at random—Carlisle, Salford, South Shields, Walsall and Bedworth UDC. In each of these cases the local authorities to my knowledge were late in implementing the Housing Finance Act in 1972. Carlisle was as much as 13 weeks late; Walsall was as much as 14 weeks late; Bedworth UDC which, like Clay Cross, no longer exists, was also 14 weeks late. Yet, the district auditor has made no surcharge upon the councillors concerned. He cannot therefore have found that there was wilful misconduct or negligence in those cases.
  The House must get it quite straight. The only cases in which there are likely to be surcharges by the district auditor are those where the councillors set out

  75
  deliberately to flout the law which they knew to be the law and were guilty of misconduct or wilful negligence. There can be no doubt that Clay Cross is not a case of local councillors not understanding the law, not knowing the position and getting into a muddle Most of the people we are talking about deliberately set out to break the law at that time.
  Can it be right, whichever party is in power, and whether the councillors concerned are supporters of that party or the party in opposition, that the Government of the day should, on coming into office, retrospectively remove the penalties which attach to the breaking of a law which was passed by the previous Government? That is a most dangerous act for the House to condone.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury rightly pointed out that no one on the Conservative benches wishes to he vindictive or wishes the councillors to be bankrupted or wishes extreme penalties to be imposed. First, however, we want to know the facts. I believe that as a result of the subsidy structure of the Housing Finance Act there are far fewer authorities on which large sums would have been levied by surcharge than has been made out by the Secretary of State. It will help the House if the Attorney-General will tell us tonight about these cases and whether, rightly or wrongly, under the Housing Finance Act as it was drafted, most of the default would have been made up by the Exchequer at that time.
  It is my understanding that under that Act a very large proportion of the defaulting rent income would have been paid from the national Exchequer. I believe therefore that the number of councillors who would have been surcharged for any large sum is very much smaller than the House realises.
  The law of surcharge needs to be reformed. No one can say that it is perfect. Of course, I accept that. as the law stands, the concept of surcharge is one of recoupment. It is not meant to be a financial penalty or a punishment on the councillor. It is meant to be a method of recovering revenue lost through the councillors' negligence or misconduct. Some changes in the law have taken place. Maybe we should move from recoupment. That system is unfair to the local authority with a large number of houses. Even
  76
  if it were in default for only a short time. the surcharge on the councillors would be greater than for the authority with a small number of houses which might have been in default for a very long period.
  Perhaps there should be a daily penalty All these matters should be considered. However, the House cannot properly consider them until we know how many councillors are in danger, where they are, what the financial penalties are and whether or not they exceed the £500 limit which leads to their being disqualified.
  The course of action the Government have chosen to adopt is unfair on every count. First it will be unfair to rent payers in the areas affected, many of whom will be different from the rent payers who did not pay the increased rents. It will be grossly unfair to the ratepayers if the local authority decides that the ratepayers will have to make good the default. What is even worse is that it is intolerably unfair on those councillors who disliked the Housing Finance Act but nevertheless thought that it was their duty, regardless of their personal beliefs, to implement it because it was the law.
  This is a situation that may well occur again in this House. If it does, how are hon. Members to react to their local councillors who might not like the law? If they try to persuade them to implement the law because it is the law, then what answer do they have when the councillors say, "Why do you not give a pledge that when you get back to office you will retrospectively remove the penalties? Why, therefore, should we obey the law?" That is an intolerable situation for the House.
  The situation at Clay Cross is quite clear. The councillors defied the law. They were rightly surcharged. The Court of Appeal, in one of the most scathing judgments ever heard, gave its view on the conduct of the Clay Cross councillors. The House knows of their conduct over a number of years long before this situation arose. Whatever the rights and wrongs of surcharge and the level at which it is placed, one thing is crystal clear. Councillors, whether in Clay Cross or elsewhere, who wilfully break the law or are guilty of wilful negligence or misconduct should rightly serve the full term of their disqualification under the law. The Secretary of State has in no

  77
  way addressed the House on this issue this afternoon. He gave us about one minute of his time in seeking to justify removal of the penalty of disqualification.
  What is more appropriate than that a councillor who breaks the law should be disqualified from serving in a position of public responsibility—on a local authority? Surely no one can dispute that that is the correct penalty for someone who knowingly breaks the law. To remove the penalty of disqualification in this situation is a most serious step. It leaves the Government open to the charge which they have not convincingly refuted that they are engaged in paying back their own supporters only because they dare not face the political pressures. Some Ministers, including, I suggest, the Attorney-General, know in their heart of hearts that it is wrong to remove the penalty of disqualification for those who break the law. I believe, as has been said outside the House on many occasions—I need not quote the innumerable articles in the Press, many of the publications not being supporters of my party —that what the Government propose is wrong.
  Just at this moment when the country is facing appalling problems of inflation and the equally appalling prospect of mass unemployment, with all the social strains that these problems are beginning already to create, it is highly irresponsible for the Government to condone the breaking of the law. I cannot think of a more irresponsible action on the part of any Government in our peacetime history. It is for the Government of the day at all times, but particularly now, to set an example by ensuring that the law is scrupulously obeyed.
  There may be arguments about the level of the penalties imposed. As I have said, the surcharge is strictly meant to be not a penalty but a recoupment. I would join with the Government if they said this evening that they wished to re-examine the whole law of surcharge. Personally, I would go even further, though I do not know that all of my hon. Friends would, and say that when we have seen the full extent of the surcharges that may be levied on certain people, I might be prepared to agree that some of those surcharges would be unreasonable, although, for the reasons I have given, I do not know that they necessarily would be.
  78
  But what I cannot agree with and do not believe that the House should agree with is retrospectively removing the surcharges in totality, and particularly the disqualifications on those councillors who have deliberately broken the law and who have been guilty of negligence and misconduct. I do not believe that in comparable circumstances Parliament in the past would ever have been willing to pass a Bill such as this, and I very much hope that tonight the House of Commons will once more reassert its belief in the rule of law and fling out this wretched and disreputable Bill.
  5.41 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Chan-non) has, as usual, made a persuasive speech, and there were some points in his case that may be echoed in all parts of the House. But I am not clear what he wants done. He says that the Bill will be unfair to ratepayers and to rent payers, and there is a measure of truth in that. It will be unfair to some rent payers and some ratepayers. But what would the hon. Member himself like to do? If he were a member of the Government, what would he do? Would he leave things as they are? That would mean that 400 councillors would among them have to pay £1½ million, that they would not be able to sit on councils, although many of them have done admirable service for a long time.
  Unless something is done, complete chaos will result, and I suppose that in the end the taxpayer would have to bear the burden of the loss in rents that the councils concerned have suffered. I do not think that condemnation of the sort advanced by the hon. Member, without suggesting some alternative action, is worth while.
  I believe that the Bill is inevitable and necessary and I shall certainly support it and vote for it this evening, because there is no alternative. I support it wholly, with one important qualification. I ask the House to appreciate that people who are not politically motivated, who do not feel strongly against Labour or against Clay Cross, consider that there is a strong case for the Bill.
  I want to quote to the House the cornments of an establishment newspaper that

  79
  is certainly not sympathetic to Socialism —the Economist. Last week it published a very reasoned and sensible appreciation of the Bill, and I wonder how many hon. Members will disagree with it. It said:
  "…it would now be necessary even for a Tory Government to introduce a similar measures.".
  Talking about the people who would be surcharged if the Bill were not passed, the article said:
  "These men were technically in breach of it"—
  that is, the law—
  "but their difficulties were caused by the dilatoriness of the Department of the Environment in replying to their applications under Section 62(4) of the Housing Finance Act to raise their tenants' rents by an amount less than that specified in the Act. The then Housing Minister, Mr. Julian Amery, failed to explain the detailed provisions of his Bill either to the Standing Committee of the Commons or to representatives of the local authorities whom he persistently refused to meet."
  Speaking of councillors other than the Clay Cross councillors, it said:
  "As soon as the legal position became clear"
  they carried out the law. That is the view of a highly responsible paper that stands for the constitution on every occasion and condemns any breach of it. It says that the Bill as it stands, with one exception, is fully justified, and I share that view.
  Mr. Channon: What I was trying to say to the House was that I thought that was right. Local authorities that did not implement the Act in time, either because of a misunderstanding or for the reasons outlined in the Economist, would not be be surcharged. I instanced five authorities that to my certain knowledge were considerably late in implementing the Act but that had not been surcharged, which tends to prove my case.
  Mr. Strauss: I understand that argument, but if this action is to be taken at all, the only sensible way in which to take it is to say that if some councillors have not been surcharged for acting on political motives and some because they did not get a reply from the Department of the Environment in time, we should be sensible and wipe out the surcharge from all those councillors, and
  80
  that is what the Bill does. Unless someone puts forward an alternative way to deal with the matter, I do not see what else can be done but support the Bill.
  I say that with one qualification to which I hold very firmly. It is that Clause 4 is unnecessary and undesirable and should not be passed. The situation in that respect is obviously entirely different. Nobody can suggest that what the Clay Cross councillors did they did in ignorance. They knew exactly what they were doing and, because they thought it was right and probably in the interests of their constituents, they deliberately made their own judgment on the matter and they defied the law.
  Mr. Skinner: My right hon. Friend is correct in as much as the 11 councillors at Clay Cross certainly knew what the law was, what the Housing Finance Act represented, and they watched it closely as it proceeded through Parliament. So closely did they watch it that they ensured that the Government, in the person of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), then the Secretary of State for the Environment, were duly informed well in advance of the Bill's becoming law what they felt the Minister should do, namely, send in a commissioner in order that he could operate that part of the Act that entailed the extra £1. The councillors gave good reasons for that and told the right hon. Gentleman at that stage in no uncertain fashion that they would not obstruct the commissioner.
  Mr. Strauss: Perhaps a commissioner should have been sent in, but the fact is that he was not sent in and there was no justification for the councillors breaking the law or continuing to break the law as they did. They knew what they were doing and they knew what the penalties would be for doing it.
  As a result of their action, they became heroes, not only locally but over a large part of the country. They had many sympathisers and were regarded as heroes by many people who should have known better. They were regarded with admiration and sympathy by leading party speakers at our party conference. They knew what they were doing and they knew that they were deliberately making themselves martyrs.

  81
  In doing it they were defying not the Conservative Party—that would have been understandable—but Parliament, because they were refusing to implement an Act of Parliament passed by Parliament democratically elected according to law. It is all very well for these people to become self-inflicted martyrs. There is nothing easier for any one than becoming a respected martyr by refusing to implement a bad and unpopular law. But there is nothing more dangerous to social democarcy. Therefore, it is something which we, as social democrats and believers in parliamentary democracy, must condemn.
  I do not believe that those people who have deliberately made themselves martyrs have any justification in complaining when later the penalties of martyrdom are imposed upon them, or that they have any right to do so.
  Mr. Skinner: We must be clear about this matter, because it is very important. My right hon. Friend has continually stressed that these people regard themselves as martyrs. I inform him, with plenty of factual evidence to back me up, that on no occasion did any of the 11 councillors or the Clay Cross Labour Party make representations to any of my right hon. Friends in Government, or anyone else, to be relieved of these impositions. There is no question of their wanting to get rid of the impositions. Other people have done so, and I have done so, but they have never made any attempt to do that.
  Mr. Strauss: I completely accept what my hon. Friend says. I was not aware of that. I assumed that when loud and raucous voices were raised at the party conference and elsewhere, demanding that the penalty should be removed from these people, the councillors were aware of it and probably supported it. If I am wrong, I admit it straight away.
  I am objecting to anybody asking for the removal of penalties from people who are self-imposed martyrs. They must bear the penalty. Disqualification for a number of years does not mean bankruptcy for them. It is not as serious as that. It is not as serious as surcharging people for large sums of money which they cannot pay. It is an indication to local councillors, and indeed everyone throughout the country, that if one
  82
  deliberately breaks the law, knowing what the penalty is, one must bear it.
  Moreover, if there were no disqualification, other councillors or other groups of people who hate a law, and think that it is wrong, would defy it in the hope or belief that the penalty imposed upon them as a consequence of defying that law, the penalty which they well know, might be removed by a subsequent sympathetic Government. It is for that reason that disqualification should remain. The district auditor says that people who behave in this way have broken their oath of office and should not sit on a council again for a long period.
  Mr. Brittan: As the right hon. Gentleman has rightly stressed the grave constitutional consequences of the proposal to remove disqualification and as that proposal is at the centre of the Bill. surely the right thing to do is to reject the Bill?
  Mr. Strauss: I do not believe that it is the centre of the Bill. It is a feature of the Bill. It is a point to which I and many others object strongly, but it is only one clause out of many. The other clauses, which I believe are the essence of the Bill, are those which remove the danger of surcharge on 400 councillors who, through justifiable ignorance, folly or stupidity, have not been surcharged. I believe that that is the main purpose of the Bill.
  Mr. Weitzman: My right hon. Friend is surely forgetting that disqualification is a penalty. The councillors suffered the penalty to a certain extent. What is wrong with trying to mitigate the penalty to a certain extent? Why is that mitigation thought to be a breach of the rule of law?
  Mr. Strauss: Unless there is a strong case, there should be no mitigation for the serious offence of deliberately defying Parliament. The penalty laid down by law is five years during which those concerned may not serve as local councillors. The law implies that they are not fit to serve as local councillors, because they have broken their oath and the law.
  If there are good grounds for clemency, I am all for clemency. Did the councillors do this in ignorance? They knew

  83
  what they were doing. They knew right through to the end. I believe that my hon. and learned Friend will agree that they said and thought that they were doing something grand and that they were great local heroes.
  Mr. Skinner: No. It was because of their principles.
  Mr. Strauss: When refusing to implement the law, they said "To hell with the law, to hell with Parliament. We are taking the law into our own hands. Under the circumstances, I do not see why Parliament should show any clemency towards these people. If it did, it would set a serious precedent for the future. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the question of precedent is all-important. Many people might want to follow it and pray it in aid—not necessarily councillors but other groups of people in the community.
  It is especially important for Socialists, who want big social changes, to uphold the rule of Parliament and the rule of law. The great reforms they want can be brought about only through Parliament or by force. Any weakening of the parliamentary authority is a weakening of the ability of Socialists to achieve their aims in a democratic and peaceful way. For that reason, I appeal to my hon. Friends that there should be no weakening in our standing up for the law and its implementation.
  Lawlessness is becoming a feature of our society to an alarming degree. We see it in many areas, such as universities where people take the law into their own hands. Because they feel that they are doing something they believe in, they consider that it is all right. In these circumstances, it would be especially dangerous for the House to take any action to remove disqualification. The restless mood of anarchy and lawlessness is infectious and may well grow. It is therefore highly desirable that Parliament should stand by the law that it has passed and should say that the penalties, if that be the word, the disqualification laid down by Parliament on councillors who refuse to implement an Act of Parliament, shall stand to the full and that there should be no remission.
  84
  It is dangerous for the House to endorse in any way a refusal to implement the law, as it would if it passed Clause 4. It is wrong for Parliament to endorse it or in any way to condone it. I know that many of my colleagues on these benches agree with the views I am expressing. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter and say that they will think again, that they will withdraw Clause 4. However strong the appeal may be from those who are personally involved, and from their sympathisers and supporters, the Government must not give way to political expediency. We must in no way undermine the authority of Parliament.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I find it difficult to reconcile the exhortations of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) to his right hon. and hon. Friends to support the rule of law and his statement that he intends to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
  This is a sorry Bill, introduced for a shabby purpose. I cannot help thinking that if a Tory Government were introducing a Bill to exempt Tory councillors who had broken the law a Labour Opposition would be at their throats like a pack of wolves. The plain truth about Clause 4, which aims to remove the disqualification on the councillors concerned, is that they were 11 Labour councillors, and this is a Labour Government.
  I could not help feeling sad at the thought of a man of the standing of the Secretary of State for the Environment moving the Second Reading of the Bill. Some of his words must have almost choked him. The group of councillors concerned in Clay Cross, no doubt believing that a bad Bill was going through Parliament, passed a resolution on it long before it received the Royal Assent. That resolution, passed on 10th April, was that:
  "under no circumstances would the council members put into operation any of the provisions contained in the Housing Bill."
  The Housing Finance Act became law on 27th July. Those councillors had given three or four months' notice that they had no intention of implementing it.

  85
  The councillors were used by Labour Members. They were encouraged by some to break the law. It was a symptom of the lawlessness that we increasingly see in this country. It is something that one side can catch from the other. What will the Government's attitude be if the self-employed take the law into their own hands? What will their attitude be if they pass an Act to deal with comprehensive education and many local authorities, whose members feel as deeply as did the councillors in Clay Cross, refuse to implement it?
  The Labour Party conference passed a resolution which made a nonsense of democratic Government, and the present Leader of the House endorsed it at the conference. To put it charitably, he must have taken leave of his senses momentarily.
  Neither the Attorney-General nor the Secretary of State could possibly contemplate retrospective legislation to remove the surcharge. That was more than they could stand. What they have done is to compromise. They have introduced that part of the conference resolution, the removal of the disqualification, which enables them partly to satisfy the political pressures upon them.
  We are here creating a serious precedent. I can appreciate the practical problem when £1½ million of revenue is apparently lost. The Government were right not to make it a charge on the Exchequer. But if it is wrong for the taxpayers generally to pay for the defalcations of the Clay Cross councillors, why is it right for the ratepayers of North-East Derbyshire to be faced with the prospect of paying for them? If they had no voice in deciding the matter, why should they even run the risk of paying for them? How can the right hon. Member for Vauxhall justify that, if he is so keen on the rule of law? He did not refer to that part of the Bill. The local council is to be given the option of raising the revenue by a general charge on the rates in the much enlarged district of North-East Derbyshire. How can anybody justify that in principle?
  The other alternative is that the sum owing can be raised by increasing the rents of those in the district affected when the old council was in existence or the rents of those in the new district generally. How
  86
  can the latter be justified? Why should people who lived outside the Clay Cross district run the risk of having to pay for what the Clay Cross councillors did? The Government have accepted the principle that the general taxpayer should not pay. If that is right, why should other people. who had no influence or means of influence on the decision reached by the Clay Cross councillors, run the risk of having to pay for what has happened? If the Government want to deal with the practical problem of the outstanding amount, and say that there is no point in making the councillors bankrupt, why should they put the onus on anybody but the electors of Clay Cross who elected those councillors? They are the people who should pay.
  I agreed with the criticism made by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who did not suggest an alternative, although I agreed with much of the hon. Gentleman's admirable speech. If one simply indulges in criticisms, one is left with the prospect of the Exchequer paying, of the general taxpayers paying, and I am totally against that. Those who elected the councillors at Clay Cross should pay for their misbehaviour.
  It is all very well for the 11 councillors in Clay Cross to want to appear as martyrs, to have a great deal of publicity, to be willing flames to be fanned by those using them for political purposes. But now we see the consequences. The supporting tenants at Clay Cross should have to pay large increased rents. It would bring home to the people that they cannot have councillors who are prepared to break the law without taking the consequences.
  Mr. Channon: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what I would do. I do not know whether all my hon. Friends would agree, but I believe that the House should take no decision until we know the exact expenditure on the surcharges and how hardly they will bear on the alleged 400 councillors. Then the House should take a decision whether those surcharges are reasonable and should stand. But under no circumstances should the sentence of disqualification be removed.
  Mr. Hooson: I agree with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. But we should look at the matter from a

  87
  practical point of view. A rough estimate will show that the surcharges are obviously much greater than local councillors can bear. A surcharge is not meant to be a fine or anything like that. it is simply a recovery of money. We should be burying our heads in the sand if we ignored the practical problem. The disqualification is a totally different matter. That is a punishment for what the councillors have done, and it should in no way be mitigated.
  The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) interrupted his right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall to suggest that in certain circumstances the disqualification could be mitigated. Why should it be? If the Government are introducing a Bill which removes from those councillors the burdens of further surcharges, and effectively removes from them the threat of bankruptcy, why should the Government go further and remove the disqualification?
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House. have mentioned social pressures, which are very great in an era of inflation, when there will perhaps be a great deal of unemployment, and when Scotland and parts of Wales may be pressing for independence. We never know how often the Bill will be used as a precedent. I remind the Government that it will be used against them more than against anyone else. It is wrong for the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that the sentence, as it were, should be mitigated.
  Will any councillor be able to defy Parliament? Is the sovereignty of Parliament to mean nothing? Some Government supporters—among them the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) —constantly argue the issue of the sovereignty of Parliament in relation to the Common Market.
  Mr. Skinner: Read my speech on the matter.
  Mr. Hooson: I do not want to read them all. Spare me that.
  Many Government supporters eloquently claim that the sovereignty of Parliament will be affected if the United Kingdom permanently adheres to the Common Market. The shabby exercise today undermines the sovereignty of Parliament, if anything does.
  Mr. Weitzman: It seems too to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman is guilty of a great deal of synthetic indignation. To speak about Parliament and the authority of Parliament being undermined is, with great respect, utter rubbish. The hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise the principle of mitigation. The penalty of disqualification was exacted in this case. Those people suffered a disqualification for a period. Why is it wrong for a Government to say, "We recognise that there are all sorts of circumstances in this case. Although we recognise the gravity of the Housing Finance Act, we think that in the circumstances these people have served their period of disqualification and we mitigate that part of their penalty regarding this matter."? What is wrong with that? The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer. He knows a good deal about mitigation in legal cases. No doubt when he sat as a recorder he exercised judgment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is also a lawyer. We must allow others to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Hooson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for those words of wisdom.
  May I answer the hon. and learned Gentleman? There is no mitigation in this case. These councillors deliberately and wilfully set out to break the law. If we regard their position or beliefs as mitigating what was done, we are undermining the position of thousands of genuine Labour councillors who, though they hated doing so, implemented this Act. We are undermining every principle upon which local government is based. Although they are sovereign within their sphere, that sphere does not include the right to challenge Parliament. If councillors refuse to implement an Act of this kind, they are entitled to do so provided they take the penalty. It is wrong for a Government to say —as this Government have said—that they also disliked the Housing Finance Act and that, though the councilors were wrong, the Government would save them from the consequences of that brazen behaviour.
  Although this Bill might not strictly be retrospective legislation, that is what, in effect it amounts to. The Government

  89
  are exempting the councillors from the consequences of their acts of two years ago. This is a really shabby Bill. There is no way in which the Attorney-General can mitigate the matter. I shall not deal with the personal vendetta against the Attorney-General which the newspapers suggested should be conducted. I am sure that. the Attorney-General has suffered torment over this matter. I have been a Member of Parliament for long enough to have seen honourable and decent men of all parties under party pressure to do something of which they did not entirely approve. But I think that the Attorney-General has gone too far with this Bill. He will find it difficult to recover from his part in it. He should reconsider the measure with the Government.
  The House can tolerate the part of the Bill which seeks to remove any further pursuit of the surcharges. It is right that these charges should be recovered from the rents only of those people who elected the defaulting councillors. Apart from that, I do not think that the country will tolerate the removal of the disqualification. If the councillors concerned wished to act in that fashion they must take the consequences. It is wrong for any Government to try to save them from those consequences.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Crawshaw: As a lawyer, I have never told people that they must obey the law. I have said to them, "If you do not obey the law, you must take the consequences." Today we are discussing an issue concerning people who deliberately decided to defy the law. There is a slight confusion about what the Secretary of State said. Today he supported his argument about the 400 people by suggesting that there were some amongst them for whom we could feel sympathy, because they had been misled, or because there was confusion or delay. That statement does not tie up with what he said when he suggested i the introduction of this measure last November. He then said that these matters had been taken into consideration when they were assessed. He cannot have it both ways. I should like to know how many of the 400 persons come within the category for whom sympathy should be expressed.
  I believe that what happened with regard to this legislation was brought
  90
  about by the lack of leadership from the Labour Party. Many councillors received encouragement to disobey this Act, which it was suggested contravened the tacit agreement between the political parties in Parliament. I should like to be shown which part of the Act breached any of those tacit agreements.
  Perhaps the priorities were wrong. Perhaps a Labour Government would have done it in a different way. To me, an Act which seeks to raise the rents of richer tenants and lower those of poorer tenants does not breach any of the tacit agreements reached between the different parties.
  In seeking to recover this money from the ratepayers or tenants of the local authorities the Secretary of State will perpetuate a second injustice on some of those tenants. If the Housing Finance Act 1972 had been implemented, some of those tenants would have paid lower rents. They now pay a higher rent because the Act was not implemented. However, the Government are now asking them to pay an even higher rent, so that the people who did not pay the rents that they should have paid should be let off the hook. How can that be social justice, in any guise? The leadership of my party gave a wrong lead in that direction. I regret having to say this, because I consider the three persons concerned to be of great integrity. I admire them and I should not wish to lose their friendship. However, when people introduce legislation and put their names to it, they must take the consequences of it. Harsh words must be used One of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench said that the Tories did not need any friends when they had me on the Government side.
  Mr. Skinner: Who said that?
  Mr. Crawshaw: It is important to me that a political party or any other body to which I belong should do nothing which lowers its image in the public view. Today, what we are seeking to do will discredit our party. It will take a long time to live down.
  It has often been suggested that the Secretary of State for the Environment was destined for the highest office. Having regard to some of the things that I have read over the weekend, perhaps that does not do him a favour, because he is likely to lose any possible elevation if I

  91
  put that forward strongly. He is a man of integrity, and yet today did he sound convincing in the argument that he put forward? I believe that he put the case forward with a very heavy heart.
  It is true, as was said only a short time ago, that the purpose of the rule of law is to protect the weak against the strong. Once we do away with the rule of law as we understand it—once we reach the situation in which the Shadow Minister can tell his supporters not to carry out our legislation, democracy as we understand it is finished.
  There are people in this country who would like to see the end of democracy as we understand it, but I issue a warning today. If we reach the situation in which the tacit understanding and agreement between the parties which allows a smooth takeover by one Government from the other becomes in doubt, I warn my hon. Friends that it is not likely to be a takeover by this side of the House. My colleagues will still be reading how to take over the campus when the Conservatives are installed. This is an important day for the Labour Party, because we have so much more to gain than anybody else from the rule of law and adherence to the democratic process.
  It has been asked what alternatives can he adopted. I have never believed that because a law exists it is necessarily a good law. All I say is that while it is the law it has to be obeyed, or we take the consequences. But that does not stop us from considering whether we require an amendment to these laws. In the same way, I voted for a review of the law of conspiracy, although I am completely opposed to the two Shrewsbury pickets. I believe that it does not do any harm to consider whether we need new legislation for the future. I believe that today we ought to investigate the whole process of surcharging and come forward with other suggestions for the recovery of this money.
  I am not altogether with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hopson). Although the people at Clay Cross set out on a course of action, over a long period, to disobey the law and this Parliament, a law which imposes a disqualification for a fixed period should be considered by the courts, in the same way as a court considers an application to
  92
  restore a driving licence before the period of disqualification has ended after inquiries into the conduct of the person concerned. The important thing, as I see it, is that this should be done not by the Government Front Bench but by a court of law.
  My right hon. Friend did not answer my question, which required only a "Yes" or a "No" in reply. For those Members who were not here at the time, I repeat my question. If these were Conservative councillors, would we today put this legislation forward to save them? If the answer is "Yes", it opens up a whole field for people to disobey the law in future. If the answer is "No", it bears out what is being said, namely, that this legislation is purely partisan, to protect certain people who follow a particular party in this country—and that is the worst reason of all for putting any legislation before the House.
  It has been asked how this money is to be recovered. The sum involved is Eli million. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will agree with this. I have heard him say often enough that 10 million people in the Labour and trade union movements are behind those involved at Clay Cross.
  Mr. Skinner: I never said that.
  Mr. Crawshaw: That works out at 30p per head—not 30 pieces of silver, which I think would be more relevant to people who ought to know better and who are putting forward legislation which they know is a denial of all the things in which they have ever believed while practising in the legal profession.
  Before I close, I warn my hon. Friends, for whom I have a high regard and who can or could have occupied the highest legal positions in the country. I speak here to some of my hon. Friends who are in the legal profession and who may aspire to sit on the Bench. What will their attitude be if they support this legislation in the Lobby tonight? What respect or regard will they ever earn when they sit on the Bench, supposedly supporting the rule of law? Perhaps I may parody to my hon. Friends four lines from "The Lost Leader":
  "Just for a handful of silver he left us, Just for a riband to stick in his coat,

  93
  Just for the chance to cling on to office Brought in a Bill that stuck in our throat
  I believe that this will be a sad day for this House if the Bill goes through. It will be a sadder day for the Labour Party, which has so much to gain by maintaining the rule of law as we understand it today. It will be an even sadder day for my hon. Friends on the Government Bench who have put this Bill before the House. They will cease to deserve the respect which many of us have given them in the past.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: I begin by apologising for my absence earlier this afternoon at the beginning of the debate, but I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. I was absent attending the memorial service for a very old friend who for many years has occupied judicial office as a Metropolitan magistrate. I have come here straight from the Temple—the home of lawyers—to raise my voice against the Bill.
  I pay tribute to the courageous and noble speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). The whole foundation of the life and liberty of the people of this country depends upon the rule of law. If the two main parties—or any one of them—for party reasons, encourage any of their supporters to break the law and then bring in an indemnification measure they cut at the roots not only of the law under which we must all live—that is to say, the freedom and liberties of the people of this country—but of the democratic process itself, because it is vital to the continuance of good, democratic Government that we continue to be subject to the rule of law.
  Many hon. Members this afternoon have dealt in detail with the matter of the Bill itself and I shall not go into those details again, but over the last year in my constituency and elsewhere I have heard an ever-increasing volume of sound from those who are desperately put out by the burdens which modern Government are imposing upon them. The ratepayers are organising themselves into groups to defend their interests. Hitherto, they were determined to defend them by legal and not extra-legal or illegal means. But those very people, talking to their Members of Parliament not only in the pubs and clubs
  94
  of the constituencies but in halls at public meetings, are beginning to threaten illegal action by withholding their rates and taxes.
  In letter after letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment I have made this point. I have told the right hon. Gentleman that people have been encouraged so to act and are praying in aid the action of the Government and of the Labour Party when in opposition, in encouraging illegal activities in defiance of the law by the Clay Cross and other councillors throughout the length and breadth of the land for whose benefit the Bill is being brought in.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that on the indemnification proposals he was not wholly condemning the Bill, but he wholly condemned those parts which were designed to remit the disqualification. That was described by one hon. and learned Gentleman opposite as mitigation. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery described it as punishment.
  I submit that it is not punishment. The disqualification of councillors who deliberately and advisedly defied the law and announced that they would do so, is not punishment: it is the removal from public service of people who are unfit to be public servants. This is not punishment of the individuals. This is the protection of the people and of the rule of law of this country. It is not and ought not to be regarded as punishment.
  In the Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls said that these people were unfit to occupy public office, and so they are. This Bill is designed to give persons whom the courts have said are unfit to occupy office the opportunity of being put back in office. If that is done, how will Members of Parliament be able any longer to tell their constituents: "You must observe the law, because the law is for the protection of the liberties of all of us."?
  On the public platform in my constituency on numerous occasions in the last 12 months I have told my constituents, "I cannot and will not countenance breaches of the law by the withholding of the payment of rates." How can I continue to say that when the Government are encouraging breaches of the law by introducing this Bill?

  95
  We live in dangerous times. Inflation has created envy and feelings which have never existed in our past between groups and individuals, professions and occupations. People are beginning to feel that their own interests ought to prevail over the general interest. How, in that state of society, can we survive as a democracy if we tolerate a Bill of this kind?
  The financial indemnities provided by the Bill are to fall upon ratepayers. What shall we say to the ratepayers upon whom that new burden falls if they, in their turn, say to Parliament, "We do not like this. Why should we pay money to help those who brought this burden upon themselves and upon our communities? We shall withhold our rates."? Right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite will be among the first to say, "You must obey the law." It will lie ill in their mouths to say that if they bring in this legislation.
  I refer back to the time when the present Lord President of the Council, at a trade union conference in 1973, deliberately encouraged these breaches of the law. I suggest that it is as much to save the right hon. Gentleman's face as for anything else that this legislation is being brought in.
  The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): The hon. and learned Gentleman has more than once said that the then Opposition—now he names my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council —encouraged people to break the law. There is not a word of truth in that statement. It is absolutely untrue, and the hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw it.
  Mr. Grieve: I shall listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the end of the debate to discover whether he can defend the resolution moved by the present Lord President of the Council at the conference to which I have referred. For those reasons, I cannot withdraw what I said. But I say with feeling that outside this House I should refer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as my friend. I have known him for many years and have the highest regard for his integrity and honour. I ask him, from the bottom of my heart. to think again about this legislation.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: We have heard a great deal in this debate, as we have indeed from the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), about the supremacy and the importance of keeping respect for the law.
  Some hon. Members have asked what the Conservative Party would do in similar circumstances if it objected to a Bill coming before the House. I prefer not to gaze into the crystal ball, but to look at the book to see what the Tories did. For this precedent I go a little further back than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  In 1912 the then Liberal administration were introducing the Home Rule Bill for Ireland. What was the attitude of the Conservative Opposition? Their leading Members—I mention two in particular, because they are apposite—Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. F. E. Smith took part in the preparation for armed resistance in the well-known Curragh Camp incident. I will read what Mr. F. E. Smith said in one of those inflammatory speeches. I quote from a book published under the name of his son. This is important in view of Mr. F. E. Smith's career after that. He said:
  "The present crisis has called into existence one of those supreme issues of conscience amid which the ordinary landmarks of permissible resistance to technical law are submerged."
  I have no doubt that there were more inflammatory statements than that. In substance, these gentlemen were instigating an armed reistance to that legislation, if it became the law and passed through all its stages in this House, which it did.
  In the event, what happened? These gentlemen were not prosecuted for either disaffection or treason. The Government withdrew their measure. They capitulated and subsequently introduced an amending Act.
  Mr. Hooson: Surely the hon. Gentleman will not try to justify Mr. F. E. Smith's words. A continuing criticism of the Asquith Government has been that they did not put him on trial for treason and did not put down the Curragh mutiny.
  Mr. Silverman: I am not trying to justify those words in the least degree. I am pointing to the attitude of the Tory Opposition at that time. In the light of that statement it is complete humbug for the Opposition to adopt this attitude today towards the rule of law. In 1912 the Tory Opposition, because they did not like a particular Bill, were prepared not only to disobey it, but to incite and, indeed, to organise armed revolt against the Government. Therefore, we have no need to look into the crystal ball.
  It is interesting to see what happened to those gentlemen. Was it decided that Mr. F. E. Smith and Mr. Bonar Law were unfit for office as councillors or in any other position? On the contrary, Mr. Bonar Law became Prime Minister and Mr. F. E. Smith became Lord Birkenhead and Lord Chancellor, the pinnacle of the legal profession. Talk about poacher turning gamekeeper! No one suggested that a man who had made a statement such as that to which I referred and incited active resistance to an Act was unfit to hold office. In fact, he subsequently held the highest office in the legal administration. Therefore, in view of what those gentlemen did, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are totally unfitted to make the criticisms which they have made today.
  It may be that the sentiment of Mr. F. E. Smith, namely, that
  "The present crisis has called into existence one of those supreme issues of conscience amid which the ordinary landmarks of permissible resistance to technical law are submerged",
  is the attitude which some of the councillors who have defied the Act have adopted. I do not say that they are right, but it is a comprehensive attitude.
  We talk about the supremacy of the law in a democratic society accompanied by a sovereign Parliament and by councillors who also have democratic rights. Some councillors may think; perhaps wrongly, that, having promised the electors what they would do' about implementing the Act, they were entitled, in accordance with democratic principles, to carry out their promise. I do not say that that is right, but it shows the sort of conflict which exists in this case. There are two loyalties, two bases of democracy. One is the rule of law. The other, which is just as important, is the duty of a councillor to his electors.
  98
  Reference has been made to the sovereignty of Parliament, which is very important. Surely the sovereignty of Parliament means that Parliament can change its mind about any law and it can change its mind about questions of penalty. That is an essential part of Parliamentary democracy which is embraced in the examples which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave.
  Mr. Crawshaw: I did not mention it, but it was obvious that the things referred to were done by Conservatives to people who could not by any stretch of the imagination be their supporters. Is not the difficulty here that we seem to be legislating for people who are our supporters?
  Mr. Silverman: The point is not whether people are our supporters but whether it is right to do what is proposed. Is this an act of political wisdom? I think that it is, and I agree with those who say that any Government would possibly have had to introduce a measure of this sort. Therefore, the Bill is not in conflict with the sovereignty of Parliament. We are the sovereign body and we are entitled to say what will happen about the penalties imposed.
  Hon. Members may say that the Bill is wise or unwise. That is a matter of opinion. I believe that it is wise. I do not think that it will destroy respect for the law. If the only hope of the law breaker is that Parliament will subsequently introduce a Bill to indemnify him, this measure will afford him very little comfort. I do not think that an exceptional measure like this, introduced in exceptional circumstances, justifies the suggestion that it will bring about a breakdown of the law.
  It is interesting to observe that the Local Government Act 1933 provides for the Minister to adopt measures such as those proposed. The councillors who are surcharged can appeal to the High Court and to the Minister. The Minister can, if he so desires, remit the surcharge and if he does the disqualification goes with it. As I read the Act, there is no limitation on the powers which can be exercised in the Minister's discretion.
  Mr. Peter Thomas: Only if it is an expenditure.
  Mr. Silverman: The 1933 Act was passed while the Tory Party was in office.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend may recall that in the St. Pancras case of about 1960, which concerned the Rent Act 1957, a considerable number of councillors were involved, some of whom did not go to the Minister for relief or dispensation. However, some did and, although they were all together in the business concerned, namely, an attempt to prevent increases in rents of certain properties, the Minister disallowed the applications of a number of them, but six others continued the argument and it went to court. So the Minister has the necessary power.
  Mr. Silverman: He has the power, and it has been exercised. It is not limited to the question of expenditure. Any case of surcharge can be dealt with. The Minister has that right under Section 229(2) of the 1933 Act, and he can exercise it. The Minister can, without introducing a Bill. exercise the power to remit the surcharge. Therefore, what complaint can there be against the Bill when the Minister does not exercise the right but asks the House to approve this legislation?
  The people involved—there are many of them; the matter is not confined to Clay Cross and others who might have been involved if the district auditor had proceeded—would not normally be regarded as law breakers. They are honest councillors and are conscious of their responsibilities to their electors. They were doing a large amount of work for no remuneration at that time. It is wrong that their services should be lost to the public even if they have committed a breach of the law.
  I therefore welcome the Bill. It incorporates a very sensible policy and I hope that it will prevent this running and festering sore from remaining within the community. I trust that the House will support it.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Antony Buck: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) has entered into a spirited attack on the late F. E. Smith, Lord Birkenhead. It so happens that Lord Birkenhead's sister-in-law lives in my constituency—and that is a privilege. However. I shall not consider it my duty to
  100
  deal with the charges which the hon. Member levied against the late Earl of Birkenhead, although I shall have something to say about them indirectly in a moment.
  Mr. Silverman: I did not make an attack on Lord Birkenhead and Mr. Bonar Law; I simply stated what they did. In their own consciences, they may have considered themselves to be acting correctly.
  Mr. Buck: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read tomorrow—if he thinks it worth while—what he said. He will, I think, find that it constitutes something which could reasonably be described as an attack on attitudes held in 1912. The hon. Member has to go back a long way to find my party behaving in a way which he regards as reprehensible—perhaps it was—so as to try to destroy the cogent arguments from this side showing how heinous and wrong the Government's action is today. It is a commentary on the weakness of his case that he has to go back so far and to quote, if such it was, perhaps, some small aberration in a very, very great legal career. To cite an example from 1912 against the validity of our criticism shows the paucity of the arguments in favour of the Bill.
  Behind his speech, it seemed to me that the hon. Member was saying that it is not always wrong to break the law. I would go along with him to some extent, but the circumstances in which it can be justified must be wholly remarkable. The law in question must be contrary to certain absolute and fundamental rights—contrary to natural justice. If a law of that kind had been passed there might be some justification in the ordinary citizen's not obeying it. But surely no one suggests that the Housing Finance Act was of that character. I should be surprised if any hon. Member suggested that it was so fundamental as to justify anyone in disobeying it.
  This issue was analysed effectively in the Observer by Michael Beloff on 12th November 1974, when he said:
  "Mr. Crosland has sought shelter beneath the mantle of natural law. The Housing Finance Act. he said in Parliament, 'infringed the tacit agreement as to what is permissible and what is not. By excluding a large group of our citizens from democratic protection, it offended our basic sense of natural justice.'"

  101
  That is the right hon. Gentleman's defence of the breach of this law by councillors of Clay Cross in particular.
  The Observer went on to demolish any suggestion that the Act could be so regarded:
  "It was passed in accordance with its manifesto by a Government"
  —which had been elected properly, according to the constitution:
  "It was obeyed by a large majority of those to whom it applied. It increased the rents of better-off council tenants and provided rebates for the poorer. No doubt it was a subject for political debate but in what sense did it defy basic precepts of civilised morality?"
  I repeat that question to the Secretary of State now. Does he suggest that as a justification for disobeying this law? Only if the case were so fundamental would any citizen be entitled to disobey the law.
  Several hon. Members have already pointed out how dangerous a precedent is being set by the mass of legislation which the Government are seeking to put through the House, which comes far nearer being contrary to natural justice and natural law than does any legislation ever passed by a Conservative administration. What of the rent rebels in future? What of those who object to what is being done in education? Such matters are far more fundamental than anything contemplated in the housing legislation of the Conservative Government. I hope that the Secretary of State no longer persists in suggesting that the Housing Finance Act in any way contravened natural justice, or could be disobeyed with justification.
  In my 14 or 15 years in the House I have been much concerned with matters relating to law and order and, in more recent times, with defence from external dangers as well as from internal pressures. We have had a sorry week, in terms of the maintenance of law and order and the defence of our realm. Last week unilateral defence cuts were announced which will undermine and weaken our nation's ability to resist internal and external pressures. This week, with this Bill, I think in the view of hon. Members on both sides, we see an assault on the whole legal system and the sanctity of our laws.
  I am sorry that the Attorney-General is not here at the moment, but we have
  102
  the benefit of having before us what I take to be a true copy of an opinion that he gave to the Home Policy Committee of the Labour Party. I am conscious that the matters then being dealt with were the financial matters, but the Attorney-General's arguments—expressed as one would expect, ably and succinctly—apply just as well to Clause 4 of this Bill as to any financial considerations. I see acquiesence being indicated on the Government Front Bench. If so, what justification can there be for the Bill, especially Clause 4?
  The opinion, which has been reproduced in the Sunday Telegraph and elsewhere, says:
  "Legislation of the type contemplated would amount to an Act of Indemnity. Such Acts, though rare in British constitutional history, are not entirely unknown. They have been used after the ending of a state of martial law to absolve persons obeying the orders of the Executive in a manner which may be of doubtful validity. They have sometimes been employed to absolve Ministers or others from legal liability incurred due to some excusable error of law."
  The opinion then deals with the type of category in which there have been acts of indemnity in the past. None is similar to the circumstances of the Clay Cross case.
  I know that the Solicitor-General will pass on what I am saying to his right hon. and learned Friend. The Attorney-General must have given a later opinion to that Home Policy Committee, before this legislation was finally framed. I ask that the later opinion of the Attorney-General, who, I am glad to see, is resuming his place—an opinion which must have been prepared by him for the Government before this Bill was finally drafted—be made available to the House, certainly before the Committee stage. It would be extremely helpful if we could have that later opinion, which must have been expressed since the opinion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave to the Home Affairs Group of the Labour Party.
  I have searched to see whether there is any precedent for this situation. Erskine May states, on page 422, that
  "…it a Minister deems it expedient that such opinions"—
  that is, opinions of the Attorney-General—
  "should be made known for the information of the House he is entitled to cite them…

  103
  That is interesting enough, but the situation takes us back to 1865, and one reads in the parliamentary reports such headlines as "Riots in Ireland", a state of affairs with which we are all too familiar. One reads of an exchange in which Lord Palmerston, who was Prime Minister, was involved. The opinion of the then Attorney-General was quoted in debate, and it was held that that was perfectly in order.
  I ask the Attorney-General to be kind enough to indicate how the opinion which we have heard can possibly be squared with the legislation which is now before us, especially Clause 4. It seems to me that is an indemnity.
  Mr. Crosland: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman a question which is relevant to what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxeth (Mr. Crawshaw) has been saying? He is speaking in terms of dangerous precedents and is attacking our Bill on those grounds. Is it not the case—unless I misunderstood the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—that Conservatives also take the view that they should not be vindictive, that they would lift a number of these penalties which have been imposed—the difference being only that the hon. Member for Aylesbury wanted to see precisely what the numbers were and exercise discretion at the time? He also said that an act of clemency or indemnity would have been introduced by a Conservative Government at the end of the day.
  Mr. Buck: That matter is quite different, as is indicated by The Times of today, under the perhaps unfortunate headline:
  "Mr. Silkin then and Mr. Silkin now".
  In the leader which follows that headline there is set out an alternative, and it is, as I understand it. broadly speaking the sort of alternative which my right hon. and hon. Friends have in mind in dealing with this situation. The leader states that
  "In the first place Parliament should not be asked to decide whether to intercept the financial penalties before it has seen exactly what those penalties come to. It follows that the procedure of audit and surcharge should he allowed to run its full course."
  104
  So it ought.
  "And the Bill should provide that at that point the Minister may submit for the approval of Parliament an amendable Order for the remission of all or parts of the surcharge imposed."
  That is different in kind. One sees the specific character of what is liable to be imposed on any single councillor. One might be entitled to allow humanity to enter the situation. That is what we did, as I understand it, in relation to Scotland. One might take the view that if a person is repentant and no longer comes into the category referred to by Lord Denning —someone who has persistently and blatantly flouted the law—if he indicates that he realises the error of his ways, if he is liable to pay tens of thousands of pounds the House may well take a humane view and say, "This man recognises the folly of his ways. He has purged his contempt, and we direct that he shall pay only £5,000." I hope I have explained that this is wholly and fundamentally different in character from the case put forward by hon. Members opposite, with which this legislation seeks to deal.
  It seems to me that at this time, when the rule of law is under such heavy pressure in our land, it is a grave error of judgment that a Bill of this character should be introduced, when it is universally condemned, so far as one can see. by all the heavy Press, if I may so describe it, and by the legal journals as well. What is one to say to the students of Essex who support a rent strike? Are we setting a good example by giving an indemnity to people who have flagrantly and persistently flouted the law? Is that a good example to those in Essex who are going on rent strike? What about those who contemplate not paying their rates—though one has the greatest sympathy with them?
  One may have sympathy with them, but surely they must obey the law and pay up. I have said so in my constituency, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has done. I am sure that he has defended the rule of law and order in his constituency and among his family circle, as I have, but this is Parliament acting against the rule of law and order. It is summed up in

  105
  the Law Society Gazette, in its final commentary on the Bill, as follows:
  "There is no doubt that this Bill is a dangerous precedent. The rule of law is everywhere under attack, and Parliament when it condones breaking the law brings itself into disrepute. A measure such as this can only increase defiance of the law and even make that defiance respectable though it ought not to do."
  I concur in every word of that.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Having listened to this debate for several hours and having heard the many references to respect for the law, I must say that I find it rather strange. What the people are saying in the ordinary working-class environment in my constituency is that Parliament is doing itself a grave disservice, in view of the report of the Select Committee last week. They find it incredible that a man should have openly boasted, as he has done to the Press and the other media, of engaging in cheque-book journalism, and should treat this House and Parliament generally with complete disrespect.
  It seems to be a different world from that with which we are concerned today. I believe that we ought to consider sympathetically why the Clay Cross councillors did what they did, against the existing background. In Clay Cross it was to be expected that this situation would occur, not because anybody had been going round the area night after night cajoling and persuading people to break the law and not pay rent but because the people had been told for many years that local authorities had had freedom to levy their own rents since 1919, or whatever the year was, and they expected their local councillors not to implement rent increases unless it was a bsolutely necessary.
  That was the pattern. It had been established. So the people of Clay Cross quite naturally responded readily. Every person was involved, on all the estates. They did not find it incredible that they were taking part in this exercise. The many who belonged to the churches in Clay Cross—the Church of England; lay preachers in the Methodist Church; sides-men in the orthodox Church; even Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse to take part in elections—all of them did not pay their rent. It never crossed their
  106
  minds that what they were doing was breaking the law. No one went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was due to receive half of this money anyway, and said, "Look, I think that our councillors are somewhat misguided. I am a Christian, an honest, principled man, and I do not want to take part in this exercise." No one would give in to the Tory Government. They carried on for 80 weeks.
  Mr. Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Skinner: I shall give way, but 1 warn the hon. Gentleman that he had better be careful.
  Mr. Rost: If the hon. Gentleman is maintaining that his rebellion at Clay Cross had the virtually unanimous support of Clay Cross, can he explain why a Labour Party candidate has just lost a county council by-election in North-East Derbyshire by a vast majority of over 500 votes, to an independent Conservative?
  Mr. Skinner: The by-election was not lost in Clay Cross. What happened in Clay Cross—I shall refer to it later—was something very much different. The by-election was lost in an adjoining ward for reasons I do not want to go into now[HON. MEMBERS:
  "Oh!"]—because they have nothing to do with Clay Cross, and Mr. Speaker would very promptly remind me that they are not part of this debate.
  Having tried to put this matter in a proper perspective, I want to deal with some of the points that have been made in the debate. Very many points have been raised and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will bear with the many remarks I have to make.
  First, the question has been raised why my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made remarks and gave advice to the National Executive Committee or the Shadow Cabinet of the Parliamentary Labour Party way back in 1972, and why Opposition Members tend to get the impression that the advice is somewhat different now. I suppose that I should be the last person to have to stand here and back my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I am sure that he can do it very well himself. However, I suggest to Opposition Members that they

  107
  ought to read the small print, because there was much small print in the Housing Finance Act.
  It hon. Members look at the words used by my right hon. and learned Friend, they will find that he has covered every point. He talks only in terms of finance. He talks about recompense. He never mentions any question of disqualification. Although, quite naturally, I want him to carry out the conference Resolutions Nos. 191 and 192 and not to impose the increases upon the ratepayers and rent payers in all the various authorities up and down the country, the fact is that when he answers the debate tonight his problem will not be as difficult as some hon. Members of the Opposition believe. Sixteen times I have read what he said. I wanted to find something else in it. It was not there.
  The Bill does not go far enough. There would be only limited amounts of legislation at any time that would go far enough for me, be it on this sort of matter or anything else. I regard my rÔle, therefore, along with some of my hon. Friends, as being to continue to push the frontiers forward. Sometimes we manage that, but on very rare occasions indeed. Mostly we are trying to push them forward, and we fail. We failed on this occasion.
  I find it almost incredible to read the lunatic editorials in the posh weeklies and dailies, as I have been doing lately, from which one gets the impression that my right hon. Friends, steeped in orthodoxy as they are, are now actually in the process of setting some alarming precedent which will create violence in the streets and all the other sorts of things that have been mentioned earlier. It is not so. My right hon. Friends have mentioned many precedents before. I do not want to repeat them. I am sure that my right hon. Friends would not expect me to do so—except just to embellish the example of the Lansbury case and to say that it is almost identical in many of its forms. My right hon. Friend referred to the later stages of that and the way in which it had been finally disposed of. But long before that it had a great many similarities to what took place in relation to the Housing Finance Act. The Tory Government of the day and all the various Ministers turned a blind eye not just for a day and
  108
  not for a month but for several months, to the policies of the council in Poplar which were being carried out at that time. They did not implement one order. They were doing it continually, over and over again.
  Just as the Tory Government of 1972–73 turned a blind eye to what was happening on most occasions, so did their predecessors. A Left-wing Minister, I am told—how Left I am not too sure—a Mr. John Wheatley, came to the Front Bench in a minority Labour Government and had to remind Mr. Joynson-Hicks, I believe—it was a posh name—what he had been doing or failing to do during the course of the previous several months when he had been turning a blind eye to the rebellion that had taken place at Poplar.
  Let no one get the impression—those hon. Members who have not read the Lansbury case—that the people involved were in any way different from those at Clay Cross, or those in the other authorities who went along part of the way. They marched to prison. They had the band playing. It was very reminiscent of what took place on this occasion. It was a somewhat gay scene. They went to gaol. They made it abundantly clear, just as the people of Clay Cross and others did, that they would not carry out these orders. When they were brought out of gaol six weeks later they did not knuckle under. They said the same things again. They got a solicitor to stand up in court and phrase it in such a way that it could mean all things to all men. But they carried on.
  So, as for precedents, I suggest this to my right hon. and hon. Friends who regard the Bill as dangerous and adventurous: forget it. It has been happening all the time. For those in my constituency and most Labour supporters up and down the country, the biggest scandal that this Parliament has presented to them during the past few weeks has been that with respect to the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse). That they understand. They do not understand the treatment of people of principle and integrity, such as those at Clay Cross, Camden and all over the place, who stood up and were counted, some for a long time and some for a shorter period. They stood up and were

  109
  counted not on the basis that they wanted to be martyrs but because they had a principle. They had a mandate from the people and the backing of the whole Labour movement. When they travelled along that road they did so in the knowledge that they were carrying the torch not for themselves but for the movement in order to defeat a piece of class legislation. That is what we must understand.
  Mr. Strauss: There were many other councillors wanting just as keenly to protect those who had elected them and who decided to take constitutional action, in areas such as Lambeth, and others throughout the country—organising, agitating, holding meetings. As a result of such agitation, important concessions were made to the Act. Their action was successful and not illegal. Therefore it is quite wrong to suggest that what happened in Clay Cross was highly desirable and that what others who were law abiding did was wrong.
  Mr. Skinner: I am about to deal with the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). He will never hear me make any inference about those who carried out the law as it stood. I heard, as I am sure he did, from many of the Labour councillors who carried out the provisions of the Act—they said it with a heavy heart—that they had to carry them out because there seemed no option. Many of them did it, despite the fact that they had voted against it, because there were not sufficient of them to carry the day. In some isolated cases those Labour councillors who voted against it could not carry their councils because there were Tory council members who, together with others, comprised the majority. That was the picture. I do not disparage the attempts of any of them. They were given conflicting advice, so I was not surprised that some took the course my right hon. Friend suggested.
  Like me, my right hon. Friend cannot understand why certain amendments were brought before the Committee on the Housing Finance Bill. There were amendments. I cannot say that that is because of the attitude in the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain). I cannot say that we have now got rid of the Housing Finance Act, that it has been
  110
  scrapped, as a result of their action. Like all class actions, this can never be measured. I wish to make it plain that my right hon. Friend cannot use the argument that, because certain councillors took a certain course, certain changes were made. I tend to put my money on the other group of horses, but I cannot always be sure.
  We have to consider what this fight was about. Some people have tended to forget what the Housing Finance Act represented. It represented Government-sponsored legislation and its aim was to send property prices rocketing.
  Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Member is very selective in his reference to a mandate. He said that the Act was Government-sponsored legislation. Was it not Government-sponsored legislation that was accurately foreshadowed in the 1970 Conservative Manifesto and in those circumstances was there not a clear national mandate for it?
  Mr. Skinner: I am pleased I gave way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was told to give way to him, in some other form. I was struggling to get on to another important point. It can be argued—I would not argue it too strenuously—that the 1972 Act, which was Government-sponsored legislation to promote inflation, was a violation of another part of the Tory Government's mandate at that time. In its manifesto the Conservative Party said that it would do its best to have less Government interference in the freedom of local authorities to operate. That was stark and clear. The Conservative Government did the opposite. It could be argued that the Conservatives said that they would have a change in the subsidy system. They did. But they did not tell the local authorities or the people they were asking to vote for them that they would strangle local authorities. That is why, at the outset, many local authorities which had Tory majorities said clearly and forthrightly to Tory right hon. and hon. Members that they could not stomach it. They knew what the consequences would be. I believe there would have been a rebellion of some size amongst local authorities had not the Act been so distasteful that it resulted in many of those Tory councillors losing their seats

  111
  in the first few months of the Bill going through Committee.
  It has been suggested by some hon. Members that the Clay Cross councillors defied the law. However, before those councillors carried out the policy to the bitter end, they made certain that the Secretary of State for the Environment knew precisely what they were doing. They told him in no uncertain terms that he had a duty to collect his own £1 a week. They said that they had a moral obligation to carry out the mandate they had from the people. The net result was that the Conservative Government refused to carry out that part of the Act, which would have resolved the problem.
  Some hon. Members have referred to legal documents and esteemed lawyers who have remarked upon this matter. Another article has been published in fie issue of the New Law Journal for 13th February 1975. It is probably one of the most up-to-date references. This is not the authentic voice of the New law Journal, whoever that represents The article is written by a solicitor, barrister or somebody with legal knowledge. It says:
  "There is a rule of statutory interpretation which applies in many jurisdictions and for which there is some authority in England: where the legislative body has provided sanctions in an enactment"—
  similar to the one of sending in a housing commissioner—
  "…it is the presumed intention of the legislature that those sanctions and none other should be used to enforce it unless the enactment expressly states otherwise".
  This piece of legislation states that there are three ways of enforcing local authorities to toe the line. One is to send in the housing commissioner, the next is to withdraw subsidies and the third is to ask the district auditor to take an extraordinary audit. Mr. John Parris, the author of the article in the New Law Journal, says that it would be expected in English law that the sanction of sending in the commissioner would be used and not that by which the district auditor, who in some respects does not carry the force of law, was asked to intervene. However, in this case the district auditor was called in. What a farce that was.
  112
  It can be argued that it is not a question of the technicalities and that it does not matter what happens at the audit, that what really matters is what Lord Denning said and what people in wigs and gowns say. It matters what Parliament thinks. Parliament is supposed to be a sovereign body—I do not like using that word, but that is what I am often told. Parliament has a right to know the technicalities.
  When the district auditor, Charles Lacey, carried out that audit, he got in a mess. He was cross-examined by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East. I do not want to criticise the district auditor too much, but he could not calculate the appropriate sum. He could calculate how much rent was missing, which was an easy job. All he needed to do was to calculate over six weeks, multiply it by the number of houses inhabited at that time, and arrive at a figure. But he had other important problems with which to deal. Mr. Lacey had an imponderable question to resolve, namely, how much would have been paid out in rent rebates if rent rebate had been paid—and none had been paid.
  Mr. Swain: Would my hon. Friend agree that at the audit it was stated categorically by the treasurer of the local authority that the real rent rebate in the area was 50 per cent. although it was proved beyond doubt that that figure was completely false and nobody knew what it was?
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend examined Mr. Lacey closely on this matter. I tell the House—and it has been said outside and has never been challenged —that when the auditor said that he was removing a sum of £1,000 in respect of rent rebates from the total of approximately £7,000, he was challenged by my hon. Friend who said that that figure was extremely low for an area of low wages, and the auditor changed it. The auditor then said "I am referring to the £1,000 that is to be paid by the ratepayers. That is 10 per cent. of the amount."
  So a quick calculation—anyone can do it—showed that the district auditor was saying—he has said it and has put it in writing—that what the Clay Cross councillors did was to save the ratepayers and taxpayers combined £2,015 for every

  113
  six weeks that they failed to comply with the Act. That is in the documents. It has not come out of Labour research. It is not contained in any Marxist document. Throughout the whole of the rebellion the Clay Cross councillors saved £25,000 to £30,000, according to the district auditor, whom we must believe.
  I always thought that the district auditor or any auditor was there to examine the books and to see whether expenditure balanced income. They used to tell me that that is how it was done in the National Union of Mineworkers—that every halfpenny had to be calculated. Even at the Bestwood Working Men's Club they had to balance the books. Charles Lacey could not do it. He guessed.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) had the effrontery to accuse my right hon. Friend of introducing the Bill before it had been properly considered and before the amount can be calculated. I say to my right hon. Friend in the nicest possible way that it never can be calculated. The rent rebate element is an imponderable that can never be calculated to the last penny. the last pound, or perhaps even the last £1,000. It cannot be done as it was not enacted in the first place. That is the kind of technicality with which we have to deal. It is part of the nuts and bolts.
  I say to my hon. Friends, to aid them in considering whether we can tread through the Lobbies in support of the Bill this evening, that the argument is full of holes. It has always been full of holes. That is apart from the fact that there are countless precedents all along the line.
  Let my hon. Friends compare the attitude of the previous Tory administration on this with their attitude towards those who were defying the Companies Act day after day in that they did not send in their registrations, not for one year, nor for two years, but for three years. Let my hon. Friends compare this matter with the statement by the previous Home Secretary—the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr)—who said in a Written Answer. replying to one of my hon. Friends, that he would not enforce the relevant Act. having recounted that there were hundreds of companies defying the law by refusing to register. That was the right
  114
  hon. Gentleman's kind of class legislation. That mattered to him. That is what it is all about.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on television on 13th October, just as the Tory Party Conference was coming to a close and when he was in one hell of a mess about the influx of Asians into this country. I applauded him on that occasion. What did he say on television when he was caught in a trap like a fly in a spider's web? The right hon. Gentleman was surrounded by members of the Monday Club who had been hostile to him right round the programme. He said on television—it is there for everyone to check—" At the end of the day moral obligations are more important than legal obligations. Upon that I will decide the issue." Upon that the right hon. Gentleman did decide the issue.
  Let us have none of this nonsense about Parliament's power. If it has the will and the guts, it can carry through measures of this kind. How many local authorities flew in the face of the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act which was passed under the previous Labour Government? How many local authorities are still defying that legislation? Countless pieces of legislation have been defied.
  So we had the punitive action by the Tory Government. They were not content with trying to get their legislation through. Had they been concerned about getting their legislation complied with in Clay Cross and other authorities, their first action would have been to send in a commissioner, as the Secretary of State for Wales had the good sense, as some would argue, to do. The net result of the action by the Secretary of State for Wales was that the kind of confrontation that arose in many local authorities in England did not arise in the two Welsh local authorities for any length of time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was more concerned with getting the Act operating in Wales. To some extent it can be argued that he succeeded.
  Mr. Peter Thomas: I think that I succeeded. I put the housing commissioner in at Merthyr Tydfil and after a short period Merthyr Tydfil council decided to administer the Act. I put the housing commissioner in at Bedwas and Machen. There the council remained recalcitrant until the end, but the commissioner

  115
  managed to operate the Act, although there may have been one person who refused to pay his rent. Therefore, it can be said that the Act was operated successfully in Wales.
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the housing commissioner is put in it is impossible for him to operate in a hostile atmosphere, if he receives no co-operation from the council or the council officials? Can the hon. Gentleman, who claims to deal with this with complete honesty, say that Clay Cross was prepared to co-operate with a housing commissioner if one had been put in? If the hon. Gentleman can say that, how does he reconcile it with a resolution which was passed by the council on 2nd September 1972 instructing its officials that they were not to help the Government on the question of the housing commissioner?
  Mr. Skinner: This is a very important question which I must deal with. It is true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman intimated, that a housing commissioner was eventually sent in. That was after the other sanctions had been used, after the Clay Cross councillors had been dragged through the courts.
  Mr. Peter Thomas: What about answering?
  Mr. Skinner: I am answering. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not very happy about what is happening today and that he must go through the Lobby with his right hon. and hon. Friends, but he should not get too impatient.
  The Clay Cross councillors having been dragged through the courts and having suffered the kind of language from Lord Denning that they endured—not that it mattered too much—the then Tory Government—it was not the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but it was somebody in the Tory Cabinet—decided that perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman's idea was not too bad, after all. So the Tory Government sent in the housing commissioner. However, at that stage it was almost a direct challenge. The council was more or less saying, "The Government send in the district auditor, hang the £7,000 surcharge round our necks, and do nothing for nine months." That is
  116
  what happened. The Tory Government allowed matters to go on for nine months and never bothered to collect rents from all the lay preachers and others who were occupiers of council houses. Even the clerk of the council was a council house resident and, although he was an upholder of the law and was very upset about the housing commissioner business, he did not pay his rent during those nine months.
  Mr. Peter Thomas Mr. Peter Thomas rose—
  Mr. Skinner: No, I will not give way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had his say. I am telling him now in no uncertain fashion. Those concerned wrote to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), and told him that he should come and collect the money. The Bill was then in Committee. They said that they would not collect the excess money. They told him that they had reason to believe that under certain sections of the Act the right hon. Gentleman would be able to collect his own rent. They said in the nicest possible way—I have a copy of the letter—" Come and do it yourself".
  Some people get mistaken about dates. They seem to have the impression that Patrick Skillington came in to collect the rents at the beginning of the affair. I have to remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that that was done at the very end of the saga. That is when they had been dragged through various courts of law in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain justice.
  Mr. Peter Thomas Mr. Peter Thomas rose—
  Mr. Skinner: No. I am delivering my coup de grâce. If these people at Clay Cross had been guilty of obstructing the housing commissioner, why is it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends in the Cabinet did not implement the part of the Act that says that obstructing the housing commissioner involves a fine of £400? They had three months in which to do it. We can only come to the conclusion that the Cabinet, or those pulling the strings, decided that it had better not fine. Perhaps it came to the conclusion—Patrick Skillington was resident only five miles away in Chesterfield—that he was not being obstructed.

  117
  Mr. Skillington was not being obstructed by many tenants. There were not many people obstructing him. If there was any question of obstructing the housing commissioner, why is it that the Conservative Government did not implement that part of the Act that would have entailed a £400 fine for each of the councillors involved?
  Mr. Peter Thomas: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is that the Government of the day did not pursue a certain part of the Act and did not put in a housing commissioner initially. Does he think that the Clay Cross councillors would have co-operated with the commissioner? It is quite clear from what he has said that he knows very well that they would not have cooperated. I put in—and this was the difference—housing commissioners in Merthyr Tydfil and Bedwas after I had received an assurance that both of those authorities would co-operate. Indeed they co-operated to the full. That would not have happened in Clay Cross. and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  Mr. Skinner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong again. When the councillors sent a letter to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment they told him in forthright terms to send in the housing commissioner. They made it public that he would not be obstructed if he came. That was the position in April, May and June through to September, October and November 1972. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably be able to find a copy of the letter if he makes inquiries at Marsham Place or if he asks his right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to supply one. He will see that the letter that was sent to his right hon. Friend made it abundantly clear—in fact, the councillors made this clear at a council meeting—that they would not obstruct.
  The matter then went before the courts. I do not want to argue precisely what happened, save to say that there is no doubt that there is a law for one section of the community and a law for the others. That has been said in this place and outside by many people on many occasions. It is clear that when the council. lors went to court there was not much of a chance for them. I do not know
  118
  whether it is treason to say so in this place, but my view is that when the establishment calls the tune it undoubtedly calls the tune. Perhaps it could be argued that that is happening today in another sense. I do not want to go into that at this stage.
  It struck me from the beginning that arms were being twisted in the Treasury chambers to get the case heard at an early stage. It did not have to take its place in the queue. Somebody called the Master of the Rolls, or somebody acting on his behalf, saw to it that it was put at the top of the list in early January 1974. The matter was then dealt with—it was all wrapped up, signed, sealed and delivered. As I said earlier to my right hon. and learned Friend, that is contrary, as good a European as he is, to Article 21 of the Declaration of Human Rights. It is all there and my right hon. and learned Friend knows it.
  Perhaps we should now reflect upon what has happened since. If the Act was so good, why is it—I have to ask myself this question over and over again —that the Tory Party did not include it in its October election manifesto? The Labour Party managed to get a minority Government in February. That Government froze the rents. A statement was made that the Government would deal with this detestable Act. If it was so fine and glorious, so wonderful and healthy for the people, including council tenants, why did not the Tory Party make a strong declaration in its October election manifesto, when it was making so much noise about national unity, that the Act was to be one of the totem poles around which the supporters of national unity were to dance? Of course, it did not do so. It knew it was dead. It had been killed. I cannot say precisely in what way it had been killed or to what extent the pressure from all the various quarters involved had contributed to its death, but we all knew that it was dead.
  All that we are doing today is cleaning up the entrails, cleaning up the mess that was left behind. My right hon. and learned Friend is correct to be doing what he is doing in the limited fashion that he has adopted. However, he has made such a good case for us this afternoon in quoting all the precedents and embarrassing the Opposition to such a great extent that it seems that he could have gone

  119
  the way in which some of us inside the Labour movement would have wished—namely, to write the lot off and to remove this sad feature from a chapter of our history.
  The Housing Finance Act has gone. Some commendable measures have been carried out in the meantime. The Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill is an improvement. It is not as good as some of us would wish and we shall do our very best to improve it. I still say that we should have gone the whole way and ridded ourselves of the last vestiges of the Tory confrontation policy.
  I finish with a few words about the people who have been vilified today as they have been on so many occasions over the past 12 months. That vilification can almost be calculated on a ready-reckoner basis. There was a time when some newspaper said that the councillors were men of principle and integrity. The fact is that they have not changed. They are still the same people. They have never claimed the £10 allowance. They never organised conferences to the seaside. But what has happened as each day has passed and as each succeeding month has elapsed? This is a true story of men acting in accordance with their principles and integrity. That has been clouded by the myth and by the lies that have superseded it. We now read of acts of illegality in the Sun newspaper.
  That suggestion comes from the same stable that is now paying out thousands of pounds in Australia to the right hon. Member for Walsall, North on behalf of the News of the World. We are not hearing the real story of the people who decided to get rid of the slums in an old industrial town. There is hardly a slum left. The slums were cleared in the 1960s when many people were merely talking about removing slums and building houses. When all the talk was taking place we were knocking down the slums and rebuilding. If the same action had been taken nationally we could have built 800,000 council houses a year. We were introducing free television licences for the old age pensioners. What did we do when we read stories of old age pensioners being found lying dead for five days because nobody was visiting them? What was done by these people of integrity and incorruptibility? They set
  120
  up a comprehensive warden scheme for every old age pensioner in all their tenancies. Everyone of them was covered day and night.
  That is the real story. It has not changed, and the people have never changed. They are the same people as set out from the start, with the help of many others in the trade union and Labour movement, to remove this piece of class legislation from the statute book. They did that because the people behind them—and there were a lot of them—were saying "Carry on. You are doing right. Conscience is more important than the rule of law".
  That is what those people did, and that is why all of us on this side should be defending them in the House today. I only wish that my right hon. Friend had carried his Bill a little further.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Percival: It may seem surprising, but I found myself almost beginning to agree with some of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), though I did not think so much of the coup de gròce, as he called it, or the four or five perorations which followed it, or of anything in between.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke with great passion. Does he not appreciate that there are those who believe with just the same passion in the rule of law and the age-old truth that it is the law alone which protects the weak from the strong? Does he not realise that there are principles just as important as those to which he referred in which others believe just as passionately as he believes in the principles of which he spoke?
  The hon. Gentleman failed to come to grips with the real problem, and he demonstrated that so much of what he said was riddled with, and was motivated and distorted beyond measure by, a class hatred for which there is no place in this country today. The degree to which the hon. Gentleman allows those feelings to distort his thinking was evidenced many times over, but I take just one example. He referred to the Housing Finance Act as a piece of legislation designed to bring about rocketing prices. Did he not hear one of his own hon. Friends point out that the main feature of the Act was to ensure that those who

  121
  could afford to pay a little more should pay it, and those who could not afford to pay so much should pay a little less? How can a mind become so distorted and so twisted as to misinterpret a piece of legislation in that way and describe it in the terms which the hon. Gentleman used?
  I suppose that we should not be surprised, because we have learned over the years to recognise those characteristics in many of the hon. Gentleman's speeches. But what is more surprising and more frightening is to find people such as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment apparently not looking the issue straight in the face. The Bill has been described as shabby, shameful and sordid—and it is all of those—but the fundamental reason why we should throw it out lies in the danger to democracy which it presents.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), in a courageous and cogent speech, developed that theme. I disagreed with him on one matter only. Referring to his hon. Friends and those whom they represent, he said that they had more to lose, perhaps, than did we on the Opposition side and those whom we represent. It is not a question of who has more to lose. We all have all to lose. We may lose all that we cherish in the tradition of parliamentary democracy if we start on and follow this road.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) developed the same theme with different examples, and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) did likewise.
  The House ought to realise that there has never been a time when it was more important—there have been other times when it has been as important, but never more important—for those in authority to show that they recognise that our country's laws must be observed and that those who fail to observe them must take the consequences of that failure. In particular, it is of the utmost importance that those in authority recognise that that applies especially to those who are themselves in a position of authority.
  That simple proposition, taken with the simple facts of this case, must lead one
  122
  to an equally simple conclusion—that if ever there was a case in which the principles which I have enunciated should be observed and in which those who break the law or fail to observe it should suffer the full penalty for so doing, it is this case.
  Here there was open and deliberate defiance of perfectly clear laws. Of course they were clear. That is why they were defied—because those who defied them did not like their clear effect. Moreover, it was defiance of the law by people who had taken an oath to carry out the law, to perform the duties it imposed upon them. And it was defiance on political grounds and for political purposes. If ever there was a set of circumstances which ought to bring into force the full penalties and consequences provided by the law, this is it.
  The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), and, I believe, his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman), suggested that the penalties should be mitigated. The hon. Member for Erdington, I believe, said that the public should not be deprived of the services of these men. Heavens above—is it not more realistic to say that the public should be protected for a period of five years from those who openly and defiantly disregard the oath which they have taken and show that they are not fit for public service, until they have had a substantial breathing space to get their ideas sorted out? The Master of the Rolls did no more than state the obvious when he said that these men were unfit for public office and that they should get out straight away and hand over to people who are.
  One should always temper justice with mercy, and those who have to decide such matters should always see whether there are mitigating circumstances as a result of which penalties should be lessened. But no such circumstances exist in this case, and it should not be difficult for anyone to recognise that if he is prepared to look the facts in the face.
  I am sorry that the Attorney-General is not here at the moment. I say that in no critical sense, because I realise that he has to leave the Chamber from time to time, but I regret his absence because I would rather say in his presence what I

  123
  now have to say. I echo what has been said by others. I want no part of any vendetta against the Attorney-General, waged from any direction, and I hope that it will be apparent from what I have to say that that is so.
  It seems to me that the view which I have expressed was at one time held by the Attorney-General. But what have we now? How did the Secretary of State seek to get away from the view expressed by the Attorney-General, among others, at an earlier date? The right hon. Gentleman referred to a number of previous Acts of indemnity. I hope that others will deal with those in a little more detail, because I have reason to believe that they were not very good precedents and would not take one far in any court if one were to rely upon them. I wish only to draw attention to the fact that the Attorney-General was well aware that there were precedents—there have been several references to his opinion—and it is clear there that he was not influenced by them, and quite rightly in my view, not influenced by them, because they have no bearing on the issues before us.
  It has been said that in that advice the Attorney-General was referring only to the financial penalties, and I think that that is right. But I do not think that that is in any way conclusive of the argument, because it is clear that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been asked about the disqualification as well his answer must have been the same. Had he been asked, in such circumstances, whether a councillor should be relieved of the disqualification which he suffers as a matter of law, and knew before he started that he would suffer, surely his answer must have been the same. Surely he should answer the same to that question as to the other and for the same reason. Surely it must be "No", because here too it would be "contrary to all constitutional practice", it would "set a dangerous precedent" and it would "encourage others to break the law."
  The line of reasoning which led the Attorney-General to the conclusions expressed in his opinion, with which I respectfully agree wholeheartedly, surely leads to the same conclusion and to the same answer, namely, that disqualification should not be removed.
  124
  The Attorney-General has served the law with honour and distinction. Now he serves also this House not merely the Government of which he is a member, although he has duties to it. Tonight he has the opportunity to perform a very real service to the House and to save the law that he has honoured, the country he has served and democracy wherever it may be practised, from the disgrace it will suffer if the Bill is passed. I beg him, even at this late stage, to take that opportunity.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. John Dunlop: I wish to deal with Clause 4 and to say something about the consequences of political action. Any man, whether he is a Member of Parliament, a district councillor or a member of a political party, should be ready and willing to accept the consequences of political action. When people take political action, whether it is inside or outside the law, they should be ready and willing to accept the consequences of that action. For that reason, Clause 4, dealing with the termination of disqualification, is entirely unjustified and unreal. If the clause has not been removed in Standing Committee we shall vote for its removal on Report. It is incorrect, undemocratic and anti-social. The consequences of political action should be borne by the individual or the party concerned, and for that reason the people affected by that clause should be ready to bear the consequences of their action.
  We do not believe that the general ratepayers should have to suffer the consequences of rent being charged at a level below that required by the law. The burden should be placed where the law at the relevant time intended it to be placed. It has been suggested that there should be a five-year spreadover period during which the rent could be recovered from the ratepayers. This is unjust It would be better if the rent payers who were originally intended to pay the increased rent were to pay a small increase for whatever period was required to recover the lost rent. That would be a fairer approach to recovering the money, and the burden would be borne where the law at the relevant time intended it should be borne.
  There is no analogy here with the Northern Ireland rent strike, since the

  125
  Clay Cross tenants were not in default. The Northern Ireland rent strike has been operating for years and has cost the Housing Executive millions of pounds. It was supposed to have been an ideological stance taken up in response to the introduction of internment and detention without trial. However, a large percentage of those engaged in the rent strike are, I believe, hugging to themselves the fact that they have been relieved of a financial burden. They believe that at some time in the rosy future, when the troubles of Northern Ireland are sewn up and the present rebellious state of affairs has been ended, they will get an amnesty. They expect that all the money that has not been paid in this rebellion against the law and against authority will be written off and they will gain financially.
  The other day I heard a man admit that he owned the Housing Executive £458 for rent alone, excluding rates, and so on. He said that he did not know when he would be able to pay. Unforunately, the rent strikers were encouraged by men who should have known better. In the early days of the crisis I witnessed a scene in which a man who later became a member of the Executive, with responsibility for housing and local development was haranguing the crowd, encouraging them to break the law and march on Dungannon in defiance of the law and the authority of the State. In the course of his speech he said something that gives a key to part of the rent strike in Northern Ireland. He said "Take every bloody penny off them." That seems to be the attitude of a number of people who are often called the downtrodden minority in Northern Ireland. The idea is to get everything possible from the State— to rob it to the hilt. That sort of action is considered to be a form of patriotism in some quarters.
  There is therefore no analogy between Clay Cross and Northern Ireland. The people in Clay Cross are not personally responsible, and we believe that the general ratepayer should not have to pay the burden that has been created. Since large sums are involved—as yet not fully determined—and since they are not recoverable by surcharge, we believe that the Government are entitled to legisiate for the extinction of the deficit. They are
  126
  within their rights, and therefore we shall not vote against the Second Reading.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. John Horam: We have heard some fascinating speeches today. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) will consider it no reflection on his speech if I say that the most fascinating speeches came from the Government side of the House. We had a magisterial speech from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We had a triumph of endeavour and sincerity from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—atour de force. We had a very fine contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). His speech was in the ultimate sense unanswerable. The general principles he outlined about the rule of law must in the final analysis be valid. I criticise what he said in one respect, however. I think he pitched his speech far too much in black and white terms.
  That may be because he is a lawyer, and we have heard a little too much from the lawyers during this debate and perhaps we should now hear the views of someone who is not a lawyer but who none the less took part in the Standing Committee that considered the Housing Finance Act and the subsequent debates in local councils about whether to implement that Act. I speak as someone passionately interested in whether the rule of law was involved in this issue quite as centrally as some Opposition Members have maintained.
  It is not quite as black and white as my hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth put it. As the issue came up in the long summer that preceded the implementation or non-implementation of the Act, it was not to the councillors involved quite such a black and white issue, quite such a stark issue. They did not see it in terms of defying the law or the courts. They saw it as choosing between two alternatives in the Act—between applying the law themselves as ordinary councils, or asking the Government to apply the law by means of a Housing Commissioner.
  There were the clear alternatives set out in the Bill, and the councillors—and I remember many discussions—regarded themselves as choosing between two

  127
  alternative legal forms of applying the rule of law, between whether it was to be done by them as councillors violently opposed to the Act, or by a housing commissioner sent down from Whitehall. That was the context in which the arguments throughout the country went on. With certain exceptions, it was not at any stage regarded by the vast majority as involving any defiance of the rule of law.
  Not only that. For the 400 councillors with whom the Bill is mainly, indeed, almost exclusively, concerned, the situation is even more complicated. This is because of the changes relating to the so-called Newcastle amendment. As a result of that, it seemed to me, as a member of the Standing Committee, that the calculations were changing from day to day or at least week to week, and those calculations decided the financial effects for council tenants.
  The Newcastle amendment meant that rents could not be put up in October to a point beyond that which the Act defined as a fair rent. Once it became clear, as it had first become clear in Newcastle—where rents had gone up remarkably over the past four or five years under a Conservative-controlled council—that there was need for an amendment, the Government had to act. But they acted very late in the day, at a very late stage in the Standing Committee. They had to put through amendments that changed the calculations in the Bill and enabled almost every council to entreat the Secretary of State to treat it as a special case, and consequently most councils did. My own council at Gateshead put in its claim, as did most others.
  All the calculations in about July and August of that year, only six weeks or two months before the Act had to be put into force, had to be made again. I would not put the blame, as the Economist did, on the dilatoriness of the then Secretary of State, but on the sheer confusion he caused. The resulting delay could be blamed on the Bill.
  On those grounds councils felt not that they were involved in a clear defiance of the law but that they were dealing with confusion resulting from the implementation of the Act, and the constant changes in calculation led to this situation. Many councillors and councils found themselves
  128
  technically and almost accidentally in defiance of the law, but finally many of them deferred to the law and put the Act into operation.
  I do not think therefore that the Opposition have sustained their case on the major part of the Bill. Those of my hon. Friends, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who have objected to Clause 4 agree with the Government case for the major part of the Bill. I find it strange that the only specific argument that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) could introduce on behalf of the Opposition was that produced in the leader pages of The Times this morning, namely, that we should go through the whole procedure of calculating for each individual case what the surcharge would be.
  I find no practical purpose in that. What is the point of calculating as a matter of history whether a particular councillor should be subject under this now dead Act to a surcharge of £10,000 or £5,000? What will be done if we have that information? Is it proposed that there should be means-tested indemnities, so that one person who is surcharged £10,000 will be let off £8,000 while another who is surcharged only £2,000 will have to pay the full amount? If the point of principle is accepted, which is that the whole episode should be closed, surely it must be agreed that the Bill is entirely appropriate. To go further would be pointless, and making the calculation would be a waste of time.
  We come to the point where some of my hon. Friends have objected, namely, the position of the Clay Cross councillors who are dealt with by Clause 4. We say frankly that this is a compromise. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover would agree that it is a compromise. He would say that it leans in one direction and others would say that it leans in another.
  First, the Clay Cross councillors have not escaped a penalty under the law. They have incurred and will continue to incur a penalty of £7,000, which is the surcharge that they face, and they have been disqualified. They have already sustained a period of disqualification, which I understand to have been about two years, and, taking into account the fact that one is not automatically re-elected to a council

  129
  immediately disqualification ceases, it will probably be three or four years more before these individuals will be able to return, if they wish, to the council from which they were disqualified. So it is not true that they have not suffered any penalty as a result of their defiance of the law.
  Secondly, looking at the matter from a common sense point of view and not trying strictly to define the legal niceties of the situation, but accepting that one is dealing with 400 councillors who remain to be surcharged, it is a matter of political wisdom to rub out the whole episode at once. I find it interesting that the Economist, which is not normally a magazine to adopt this rather compromise approach and which tends to deal in black and white and the rule of law and a particularly stark juxtaposition of principle, says in its leader of last week:
  "Not what it seems.
  The former Clay Cross councillors deserve little sympathy, but the Attorney General and other ministers should not be pilloried for their new attempt to end an unhappy chapter of confrontation."
  In conclusion it says:
  "the bill is a reasonable, if belated, attempt to close an unhappy chapter in the relations between government and local authorities."
  That is a sound and common-sense judgment, if not a legal judgment. I believe that it wraps up an unhappy episode in the history of housing without in the final analysis doing any great harm to the principle about which my hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth spoke, namely, the rule of law. I do not believe that that has been damaged beyond repair in the Bill, while we are achieving a small measure of good. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will vote for the Bill.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Leon Britton: Among hon. Members who defend the Bill are those who put it forward on grounds of high Socialist principle and others who put it forward, as the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) has done, as a commonsense solution to a practical problem. lf, when looking at it in that way, I come to a different conclusion from him, it is not because I reject the principle of common sense but because I believe that on this occasion the attempt to reduce the matter to common sense and practicality
  130
  is something to be contrasted not with a concern for legal nicety but, rather, with a belief in principle. Principles are involved, and we ignore them at our peril.
  It is significant that the Secretary of State did not put the matter in the way that the hon. Gentleman did. He did not regard it as being a purely practical problem, about which a few lawyers have unnecessarily got excited because they are so concerned about the legal niceties. He regarded that as a clash between competing principles. He tried to put it in a more reasonable context than one of pure practicality, saying that there was a balance between competing values—the value to society of mercy and the value to society of the observance of the rule of law.
  It is right that the Secretary of State sought not to decry either value, but, rather, to strike a balance between the two. To see whether the balance that he has struck should find favour with the House, it is appropriate to ask two questions. First, are the people on whose behalf we are asked legislatively to show mercy proper objects for the receipt of that mercy in so exceptional a form? Secondly, is the infringement of the rule of law really minor—one with plenty of precedents—or is it, in the context of today's society, a serious one that must be considered as something to embark upon only in the most exceptional circumstances?
  The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Gateshead, West have this in common, in seeking to show that the objects of this exercise of legislative mercy are appropriate, they put everything in terms of confusion and muddle, to use the words of the Secretary of State, or, in the words of the hon. Gentleman, to say that the choice is not between black and white, and that everything is a murky shade of grey. The Secretary of State says that the councillors concerned were moderate but sorely tried men.
  It is difficult to come to that conclusion. It is apparent that not every councillor who failed to implement the Act comes into the category of those who are obtaining relief today. To quote the Secretary of State's own figures, approximately 35 of the authorities persuaded the district auditor that their breach of

  131
  the law was inadvertent and not deliberate, but he estimated that about 20 would be likely to be regarded as having been guilty of misconduct. Therefore, the people with whom we are dealing in the Bill are those who are, by definition, guilty of misconduct, because those who can show that they acted inadvertently would be relieved of the consequences which would otherwise fall upon them.
  In the Clay Cross case, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, said that the councillors concerned were unfit to hold public office. Those were strong words from a liberal judge, unlikely to be applied to those who merely walked through a mire where it was difficult to see what was lawful and what was not. Therefore, these are not truly worthy objects of mercy, but rather, on the facts, people who deliberately chose to break the law and stay in breach of it.
  Then it is said that in considering the balance between mercy and the rule of law one must also have regard to the practical side. We are asked what we would do instead. If 1 may conflate the approaches of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), I think that there is a practical solution to the undoubted problem.
  With regard to the surcharge, there is no reason why the procedure should not be gone through in its entirety. An assessment of what, if anything, should be done to relieve anyone, if the procedure is gone through in its entirety, would not just be—as the hon. Member for Gateshead would suggest—a pointless, academic exercise to solve a defunct problem. It would enable us to see the dimensions of the problem, both financial and —dare one say?—moral. One would see how much money was involved and just how great a degree of culpability there was, because those who were not culpable would not be surcharged. At the end of the day, the sum that emerged might be substantially less than the Secretary of State envisaged. Certainly, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West thought that that would be so.
  If it emerged that a small number of people really had acted inadvertently, but had none the less been surcharged, it
  132
  would be possible to consider a form of relief. But it would surely not be a form of relief on the lines of the Bill, which leaves it open to local authorities to place the burden wholly on the general body of ratepayers in a local authority area which may not be coterminous with that where the ill deed occurred, or, still worse, to put the financial burden upon a body of tenants who may be quite different from those who were concerned at the time. If any relief is to be obtained, the right thing to do is to put the burden solely upon the rates in the area concerned. Practically, the problem is not insoluble, and the practical solution is very different from that in the Bill.
  Everyone will appreciate that there is no practical problem over disqualification. All that one has to do is to allow it to stand. That may or may not be a good thing, but it certainly does not present a practical problem. So no insuperable practical problem is involved, and the objects of mercy are not worthy ones.
  One must look at the other side of the scale and see how grave a breach of the rule of law is proposed today. In support of the argument that it was not very serious, we had from the Secretary of State a golden treasury of irrelevant, inappropriate and misleading precedents. Even for a Secretary of State in the present Government, it will not do to say that the five dockers present a precedent for the Bill. Beyond introducing a vague note of suspicion about the activities of the previous Conservative Government, what on earth has the subject of the five dockers to do with the Bill? The Secretary of State is far too intelligent a man to be taken in by his own deliberately misleading smile. There was no question of introducing retrospective or quasi-retrospective legislation, or legislation of any kind, concerning those dockers. They have nothing to do with this case, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it full well.
  As for the other so-called precedents, stretching back into the past, all I would say is that much has been said about the Attorney-General's celebrated opinion in this matter. I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, knowing what feeling in the Labour Party was like, would, if he had found it humanly possible in accordance

  133
  with his conscience and knowledge as a lawyer, have wished to be able to call on many precedents to support the Bill.
  If the Secretary of State is able to produce precedents galore to support this legislation, is it not, at the lowest, somewhat surprising that the Attorney-General, fumbling with this dilemma, could not find it in himself to quote one of those precedents as being relevant to the problem? There may be some precedents from the murky past, but they are not good ones. I am not concerned with the question whether Lord Birkenhead—or F. E. Smith, as he was at the time—misbehaved in 1912. I am concerned whether that is a precedent which should be followed today.
  In considering whether we should follow the precedents—if there are any—or establish one now of giving those who knew what the law was subsequent relief from the consequences of their acts, I suggest that we must look at the matter in the context of today. If this were a period of tranquility in which there were no threats to the rule of law and in which this was an exceptional matter, in which passions were aroused for special reasons in different places, it might be merciful and wise to introduce legislation. However, today there are threats of all kinds to the rule of law from the Left and, potentially, perhaps. from the Right.
  I propose to tell any of the groups with which I am identified, whether it be the self-employed or the fishermen of Whitby, that they shall have no support from me for any breach in the rule of law, however great my sympathy with their case. However, it is increasingly difficult to maintain that stance if a precedent of this kind is set. That is a stance which we shall need all the more in the future.
  The Secretary of State concluded his speech by saying that it was healthier to forgive. It might be healthier to forgive in some societies, and on some occasions, but in the sick society of today we cast aside the prop of the rule of law at our peril.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): As hon. Members know, the concluding speeches are due to begin at 9 o'clock. About six hon. Members are
  134
  still anxious to catch my eye. The occupant of the Chair cannot regulate the debate, since that is a matter entirely for hon. Members. In my opinion, all who are anxious to take part can do so before 9 o'clock if they are reasonable.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), in an admirable speech, put a poser to the Opposition. I want to repeat it. He said that 400 councillors might well be liable to find £1,500,000. What would the Opposition have done about that problem? Many of the cases involved do not resemble that of Clay Cross, because there was no deliberate defiance of the law, although there might have been inadvertence or fault because of a technicality. What would the Opposition have done with regard to those cases? The Opposition would have had to take some step. The Opposition have failed to show any way in which they would have dealt with that problem.
  The attitude of the Opposition is one of synthetic indignation. They suggest that the defiance of the rule of law involves a tremendous principle, and that if we dare to pass the Bill we shall create a terrible precedent with dire results for the country. That is astonishing rubbish.
  I should like to make three points. What is the position of Clay Cross under the Bill? The financial burden—the surcharge of £7,000—remains. It is not interfered with under the Bill. There is no breach or defiance of the law there.
  What has the Bill done about the inability to act as councillors? These people have suffered a certain period of suspension. The Bill is not retrospective in that regard. All it does is to say that these people, having suffered a penalty to the date set out in the Bill, will receive an indemnity against suspension after that date. What is wrong with that? Why all this cry about defiance of the law? Have not Conservative Members heard about mitigating a penalty? Does not one take account of the circumstances? After all, whatever may he said, there can be no doubt that there was tremendous indignation over the passing into law of the Housing Finance Act and that there was sincere opposition to it.

  135
  I agree that there must be no defiance of the law, and the Bill will not approve any such defiance. The financial penalty is not removed, but the penalty of suspension is to be removed. Why should not all the circumstances be taken into account and the penalty mitigated by removing the suspension on the right to be a councillor after a certain date? Why on earth should the Opposition think that by doing that one is defying the rule of law and creating a tremendous principle that will continue through the years to the detriment of Parliament? I say again that to take that view is a lot of rubbish.
  What is the other provision in the Bill? Councillors other than those at Clay Cross are granted relief. Why is this being done? I put this to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) but he did not answer my question. Under Section 62(4) of the Act it was open to any local authority to maze an application to the Secretary of State to reduce the amount of increased rents. Many housing authorities made such an application but received no reply. The Secretary of State even refused to meet a deputation. The result was that when the time came to serve notice of the increase of rents they had not received a reply to their applications. A certain amount of time passed, they realised that as the law stood they were required to serve a notice, and this they did.
  If that be correct—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall quoted the Economist which set out the facts on this matter—these people have been guilty of inadvertence, or they have committed a technical offence, but certainly there has been no deliberate defiance of the law. What does one do in the circumstances? Why should not they be indemnified? A number of councils did not serve notices in time because of default by the Secretary of State in the then Conservative Government, or by his Department. In a matter of this kind, it is right that the Bill should contain provisions to relieve them of any liability.
  I have dealt with the three points in the Bill. What would the Opposition have done in these circumstances? This is a real example of the Opposition seizing hold of a false point and endeavouring to build it up into a great argument about the Government being against the
  136
  rule of law. It is—as I have said—synthetic indignation. I am surprised at the Opposition. Perhaps I should not be surprised. They may be right to seize upon any weapon that is available to them. However, I say that there is no justification for the attitude that they have adopted. The Bill is perfectly justified.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) asked what the Opposition would do. It is right that we should assess the arrears which are unpaid and the degree of culpability of each defaulting councillor. It would then be proper not to be vindictive but to assess the degree to which each councillor should take the consequences of his or her deliberate breach of duty under the 1972 Act.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether there was not ground for mitigation. In these circumstances, there can be no ground for mitigation by reason merely that the 1972 Act was the subject of much indignation. It is only in the case of an Act which is the subject of much indignation that we are likely to have the risk of councillors seeking to defy it. The greater the indignation, the greater the need to establish that no condonation goes forth from Parliament for breach of the law, because only Acts which arouse indignation will give rise to the risk of the example of councillors who get away with defiance of them being followed by others.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that some councillors were innocently waiting for the Secretary of State to make up his mind. If that were so, they could never have been surcharged because. under Section 230 of the Local Government Act 1933, there is a way out. If the Minister feels that councillors have acted reasonably, he may relieve them from any surcharge. Presumably the Secretary of State felt that there was no way out on the ground of reasonableness, and that is why he has not felt able to overcome the surcharge imposed on the Clay Cross councillors.
  I want briefly to examine the Secretary of State's claim to take credit for the fact that no councillor is relieved from a surcharge which has already been

  137
  imposed. The right hon. Gentleman concedes that that would be wrong. Indeed, he concedes that because the Attorney-General has told him so in the advice about which we have heard so much. But by pretending to strain at a gnat the right hon. Gentleman hopes to distract attention from the fact that he has already swallowed a camel. The Secretary of State rightly said that a surcharge is not intended to be a penalty but only a means of collecting money.
  The disqualification is quite different. Its purpose is to penalise, but only where there is no excuse of the kind that I have already mentioned. The Secretary of State can let the councillor off if he believes that the councillor has acted reasonably. So it is that the law imposes disqualification only where the Minister cannot bring himself in all conscience to say that the councillor has acted reasonably and that he ought to be excused. If that is the case, disqualification is surely just, because then it is as a councillor that the councillor has broken the law—as Lord Denning said, by infidelity to the oath that he took on taking office —and it is in his capacity as a councillor that he ought to be penalised.
  Viewed in that light, there is no distinction at all in point of principle between relief from a surcharge already imposed, at which the learned Attorney-General strains, and relief from a disqualification which by law that surcharge attracts.
  The Attorney-General, by his office, is the leader of my profession and the impartial legal adviser on points of law to the Government and this House. I hope also that I may say that he is my friend and an opponent of long standing. I grieve greatly for him and for his office because he has strayed to the point at which he and his conduct have attracted the criticism of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) and others. I shall listen with the deepest personal anxiety to the grounds on which he feels it proper to defend his continuance in office.
  When a councilor is elected to serve, he is elected to serve his people. These councillors have been bad, unfaithful councillors and servants, and yet the Government are saying to them, "Well done." I believe that the results will be disastrous.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I appeal for five-minute speeches.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. John Watkinson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put to the Opposition the prime question, "What would you do in the present circumstances?" and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who led for the Opposition, mumbled something about seeking out the facts of the case. Speaker after speaker on this side of the House has put that question to the Opposition, and their own answer has been, "Let the legal process take its course and then we shall decide what to do".
  I take it from that that the Opposition at least concede that they, too, could be driven into passing an Act of indemnity. It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) wished to weigh in the balance the degree of money involved—how much was lost, what was the size of the total—and then the Opposition would decide whether to go ahead with disqualification and the rest of the legal processes—or, if the amount was too great or too many people were involved, they would pass an Act of indemnity.
  Hon. Members opposite have conceded in principle that they would have to consider introducing an Act of indemnity in these circumstances. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), if he can spare time from attacking the Attorney-General, will address himself to this point, which has been made over and over again.
  According to Dicey, an Act of indemnity is a retrospective statute which frees persons who have broken the law from responsibility for its breach and thus makes lawful acts which when they were committed were unlawful. The Bill seeks to say to councillors in areas other than Clay Cross that they will be free from the process which could take place in the courts. It frees those councillors in other areas from the risk of a surcharge being placed on them and from the risk of disqualification. It does not remove from the Clay Cross councillors the £7,000 burden placed on them, nor does it in toto remove the disqualification. Hon. Members opposite may disagree with the

  139
  removal of the disqualification, and 1 can understand their reservations, but there is logic in what is being done. If the risk of being surcharged and disqualified is being removed from councillors in other areas, is it not logical to say that the disqualification of the Clay Cross councillors should now cease?
  Mr. Peter Rees: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in their statement of appeal to the Court of Appeal, the counsel on behalf of the councilors—l would remind him that junior counsel was the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) who is presently at the Home Office—did not press their application for relief under Section 230? I would remind him that the grounds for relief are that a councillor acted reasonably or in the belief that his action was authorised by law. If that point was not pressed on their behalf, may we not take it that they regarded their action as unreasonable and not authorised in law?
  Mr. Watkinson: I am dealing with the problem of the disqualification resting on the councillors in the context of this Bill. I am not concerned with the matters which were before the Court of Appeal.
  The rule of law is obviously of prime importance to the survival of this nation, but equally there will periodically be breaches of that rule of law and very difficult decisions have to be taken about how those breaches should be dealt with. In the circumstances, the Government are right to bring in the Bill. Otherwise, the cancer created by the Housing Finance Act would continue to fester. It is now time to bring a conclusion to this matter. In that sense, I entirely agree with the step which has been taken.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rost: I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the first Member representing Derbyshire to speak from this side. Although the arguments have been forcibly put, there are a few local comments which need to be made. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has also been sitting here waiting to speak, and if I am brief I hope that he will be able to add to my comments.
  140
  People in Derbyshire are seething mad with anger, particularly in North-East Derbyshire, because their case has not been heard; it has gone by default. Despite considerable numbers of demonstrations and petitions, they feel that their Members of Parliament in North-East Derbyshire have not represented their views. That is one reason why some of the ratepayers of that area have come to my surgeries and written to me. This point should be made by those hon. Members opposite who have expressed much more passion and bogus indignation than they have logic in trying to justify this disgraceful Bill.
  The truth is that many people are ashamed and embarrassed to claim to be residents of North-East Derbyshire because of the disrepute into which the area has fallen because of the Clay Cross scandal. If evidence is needed, we had it last week when the local Labour Party lost a seat in North-East Derbyshire on the Derbyshire County Council to an independent Conservative by a substantial majority of over 500 votes, in an area which has been traditionally inclined not to vote either independent or Conservative. This is evidence of how people are feeling there.
  Mr. Skinner Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Rost: I will not give way. The hon. Member took 50 minutes and I am allowed three.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made an impassioned defence of this legislation, suggesting that it was necessary to disobey the law because the local council was anxious to spend money on useful purposes. I should like to quote an extract from a letter which I received from a resident in that area. He probably wrote to me because he had not had much satisfaction from his own Member of Parliament. He said:
  "Clay Cross is perhaps the only small town in England that does not possess an adequate public toilet. The one remaining toilet is in such a derelict and filthy condition that most tramps decline to use it."
  That is the sense of priority of the Clay Cross council. There are in Clay Cross 4,000 properties of which only 1,400 are council owned. The rest are privately owned or rented. Therefore, the suggestion that under this legislation the ratepayers of North-East Derbyshire should

  141
  foot the bill for the non-payment of rent by 1,400 council house rent payers is quite disgraceful and unjust. The House ought to prevent it happening.
  The people in North-East Derbyshire are not merely angry because of the proposal to penalise them. I assure the House that they will resist it and that there will be further illegalities by a large proportion of the population, who will refuse to pay this surcharge. The question that one has to ask the Government is this: if that should happen, will the Government introduce further legislation to let off the next group of law breakers? Penalties for the non-payment of rent should be imposed upon those who did not pay the rent, and not on the rest of the law-abiding community. If that cannot be done, the penalties should be paid by the Labour Government and by Labour Members of Parliament who deliberately incited the disobedience.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The hon. Member for Bolsover is not the only person who feels passionately or personally about this matter. There are plenty of Members on this side of the House who feel passionately and personally about the need to uphold the rule of law, and there must be plenty of ratepayers in the Clay Cross area who feel passionately about the fact that the Clay Cross Council has for many years penalised the ratepayers for the benefit of the council house tenant.
  It is not only just under the Conservative Government's Housing Finance Act that there has been trouble. As the Secretary of State will bear witness, for many years under Labour administration the Clay Cross Council was taken to task for failure to implement a fair-minded assessment of rents and rates so that they were not grossly weighted on the side of the council house tenants, with the result that by 1970 the contribution by the rates to the housing revenue account, although it was 3 per cent. in the country as a whole, was about 18 per cent. in Clay Cross. Therefore, much of the emotion on the other side of the House is falsely charged.
  142
  I want to mention one or two points which have arisen in the debate and which seem to me to be important. One in particular concerns the Attorney-General, who, at one stage, rose to his feet and said that it was quite wrong to suggest that the Labour Government had given any sort of encouragement to the Clay Cross councillors. The motion introduced at the Labour Party conference on 3rd October 1973 said that
  "…upon the election of a Labour Govern ment, all penalties financial or otherwise should be removed retrospectively from councillors who have courageously refused to implement the Housing Finance Act."
  Mr. Watkinson: They have not been removed.
  Mr. Lawrence: The Leader of the House said:
  "We want to go further than that."
  He had been discussing the question of assisting councillors in their financial difficulties. He said:
  "I am going to recommend Conference to accept Agenda Motion 191 with amendments."
  To some degree, this is precisely what is happening. It lies ill in the mouths of Government Members to pretend that it is not. The setting aside of the disqualification is in accordance with that resolution, and the setting aside of any financial provisions which would otherwise have followed had the auditor been able to make the assessment during the course of the year—
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lawrence: —from the introduction of the Act is fulfilled in this piece of legislation. It is precisely that subject which concerned the Attorney-General. In his advice to the Government. the Attorney-General was concerned that
  "it could only be construed as incitment to those concerned to refuse to obey the law"
  It is for these reasons, and not just because—
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lawrence: I am sorry, I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman will see that it is 9 o'clock. I have been present all day. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can say that.

  143
  It is not just because of the realities of the matter, which are often portrayed as unfair, and not just because the rule of law is a matter of importance to my right hon. and hon. Friends; it is because the rule of law is important to the continuance of democratic government and the whole of our political system.
  If the hon. Member for Bolsover feels passionately that the rule of law ought to be set on one side, I ask him to consider what may happen here. The injustices that we see in some Eastern European countries will prevent the freedom of speech that allows the hon. Gentleman to exclaim so passionately his point of view.
  It is not only the Attorney-General who ought to resign; it is the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Lord Chancellor—
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Bunkum!
  Mr. Lawrence: —because if those who are responsible for enforcmg and upholding the rule of law do not do so it will be a very sad day for the future of government in this country.
  9.2 p.m.
  Sir Michael Havers: The speeches we have heard during the debate have been in general fairly predictable. The Secretary of State did his best to find some precedents. In the Temple we call it scraping the barrel. The barrel was fairly thin anyway, and I think that most of the precedents have been dealt with. However, I shall take up some time to deal with the Poplar precedent.
  Before doing that, I remind the House that the most offensive feature of the Bill is Clause 4. That has become apparent from the speeches of a number of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side of the House. The Secretary of State did the House less than justice in the cursory manner in which he dealt with the question of the lifting of the disqualification.
  The Poplar precedent is the only one which even starts to be relevant to the Bill before us, and it is worth spending a little time upon that precedent. Poplar Council insisted on paying a minimum wage to its employees of a sum far greater than the average across the country, at a time when wages and prices —perhaps
  144
  there is a lesson to be learned from this today—were falling. The district auditor disallowed £5,000 of the total wage bill and surcharged the councillors accordingly. The question of that surcharge went to the House of Lords, which upheld the district auditor's decision. But Poplar councillors carried on with this, took no notice of the surcharge and went on paying high wages for year after year until the surcharges amounted in all to about £86,000. Neville Chamberlain, realising that in those days, there being no question of disqualification, there was nothing to do in respect of councillors who were paying no regard to the law, introduced a Bill which at the same time as lifting the surcharges created for the first time the penalty of disqualification in respect of any councillor who was surcharged by a figure of £500 or more. Thus, for the first time we were able —not by giving in to pressure—to clear up an anomaly and to strengthen the necessary control over defiant councillors in the future because those who persisted would then be surcharged and automatically disqualified.
  The Secretary of State spoke of disqualification being a judgment on the conduct of councillors. I agree entirely with that. It is a judgment that they, by their conduct, are not fit to carry out the duty. It is a duty not just to look after one section of the ratepayers to the council of which they are members. They are trustees for all the ratepayers.
  In reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the Secretary of State said—and it was perhaps a Freudian slip—that this was an Act of partial amnesty. If "partial" means "not impartial", I entirely agree.
  My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) revealed some extremely important information. He said that he knew of five councils which had been late in implementing the Act and which were not being surcharged. He said that some had been 13 weeks late and some 14 weeks late. The argument that has been put forward time and again today and which was put forward in last week's edition of the Economist—that th., Bill protects those who, by inadvertence or because there was not enough time, would otherwise be unfairly surcharged —has thus been demonstrated to be false.

  145
  I hope that when the Attorney-General replies he will answer the question which my hon. Friend asked him, namely, what are the likely sums involved in the other councils where the district auditor has not agreed that there has been no negligence or wilful default. We have always maintained that the Bill has been brought forward prematurely. We would greatly appreciate an answer to this question, especially in respect of councils where the councillors were in default for a short time only. I appreciate the difficulty of councils which have a large housing stock and which have to be in default for a comparatively short time before the £500 would be reached. Other councils with much smaller housing stocks maintained their rebellion through to the bitter end.
  I agree with the argument of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) on Clause 4. He described Clause 4 as unnecessary and undesirable and asked that it should not be passed by the House. He said that the councillors knew exactly what they were doing. They had defied the law and were defying an Act of Parliament, a democratically elected body. He said that they were self-inflicted martyrs. I find it inconsistent that he should then say that he will support the Bill tonight. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Attorney-General a question to which I hope we shall receive an answer. He asked for an assurance tonight that the Government will withdraw Clause 4. We hoped that at least Clause 4 of this squalid little Bill would be seen to be what it really is and would be dropped.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) described the Bill as a "sorry Bill for a shabby purpose". He asked, why should those who have no voice today run the risk of being forced to pay sums because of other people's mistakes? That is well worth remembering.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) was the most remarkable speech I have heard since I have been in the House. However, I have been here only a short time. The hon. Gentleman asked how many of the 400 deserved sympathy. That is a question to which we still await an answer. He complained of a lack of leadership from the Labour Party, saying that many councillors were encouraged
  146
  by the leadership of the Labour Party to defy the law. The hon. Gentleman spoke, perhaps in teasing fashion, of the so-called tacit agreement to which the Secretary of State referred in that mysterious manner in November of last year.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill discredits the Labour Party. He said that the Secretary of State did not sound very convincing. The spokesman for the Liberal Party described the Secretary of State as choking over the speech he had to make. The hon. Member for Toxteth repeated a question which he had asked during the course of the Secretary of State's speech, namely, whether if these were Conservative councillors the Government would be putting this Bill before the House. I greatly hope that that question, which is pertinent and clearly demands an answer, will receive a reply from the Attorney-General.
  The hon. Gentleman made a final observation the significance of which the Attorney-General as a lawyer will realise. He asked what will be the attitude of the Labour lawyers in the House when they vote tonight if they have ambitions to sit later on the Bench and thus have to uphold the rule of law.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) raised yet another hare. Dealing with the Home Rule Bill of 1912 the hon. Gentleman appeared to argue that, because F. E. Smith on that occasion then returned to Ireland and there were armed riots—I am not able to deal with the matter at greater length—that was a precedent which justified the Bill. It is dangerous to argue as if anything of that kind justifies the House acting in a similar way 60 years later. It is exactly the point that we are making. Any precedent of any kind can be used later, and used not only against those who introduced it but against Parliament in general.
  It is necessary in those circumstances to identify what the Bill is about. It is, in reality, a Bill of indemnity designed to relieve of the consequences of their acts all those councillors who deliberately and without any justifiable excuse broke the law, and not only those at Clay Cross but those in the other areas where the district auditor would not be able to find a reasonable reason for it. The Bill will prevent a surcharge from being made against them and thus it would prevent

  147
  the inevitable consequences of disqualification from operating in each case and, again. not just in the case of Clay Cross councillors.
  We must identify what the Bill is about, because we must see what up to now has been meant by a Bill of indemnity. We must see what the precedents are. In the aftermath of a war or other national emergency, or where the safeguards of habeas corpus have been suspended, it was usual—in fact, inevitable—to find an Act of Indemnity which was intended to protect by means of retrospective legislation those who had acted bona fide in the public interest, perhaps in the arrest of someone wrongly believed to be a danger to the safety of the State, or perhaps on another occasion to indemnify a public official who had innocently and unknowingly acted in excess of his powers, just as the House has been known to indemnify one of its Members who unwittingy as a doctor had kept in his partnership some minor appointment which was an office of profit under the Crown. In these cases there has been an essential element, the person indemnified must have acted in good faith: Dicey described this power of Parliament as a supreme instance of parliamentary supremacy. He added:
  "Any suspicion on the part of the public that officials had greatly abused their powers might make it difficult to obtain a parliamentary indemnity."
  What are we being asked to do today? What justifies this supreme instance of parliamentary sovereignty? We are being asked to free certain councillors from all liability from pending but inevitable surcharges. We are asked to do so not for actions bona fide and honestly done in the pubic interest in a national emergency, not for actions done innocently and in good faith by Ministers or public officials, but in order to change the whole tradition of the constitution. We are asked to do that because some councillors, in breach not only of the law but of their clear duty as councillors to act fairly towards all ratepayers, decided to change the law by defying it regardless of the loss to those they were elected to represent. What they did was clearly a reflection of the increasing turbulence and aggression by minorities which is now sapping the foundation of our society.
  148
  Society can operate only by consent. Group interests must accept that they are only one part of a free and ordered society. By all means campaign and fight for change, but that must be done within the framework that makes a parliamentary democracy work and survive. Any act, and particularly collective acts, of deliberate law breaking for political reasons must be resisted. To condone, to encourage and finally to indemnify is the beginning of the end of Parliament and thus of democracy. In an age where contempt for the law and for Parliament has increased out of all recognition, at a time when big battalions flex their muscles against Governments and when unions call strikes to force Home Secretaries to free convicted thugs, in a climate in which the bomb and bullet are preferred to the conference table, it seems astonishing that the Labour Party not only in Opposition encourages these councillors but in Government seeks to indemnify them.
  The attitude of a Government to those who deliberately break the law, democratically passed and enacted in full knowledge of the consequences, is of major importance when we consider that Government's attitude to the whole issue of the rule of law. Can they not see that the writing is now on the wall? Do they care so little for the future of this place that they are prepared to put short-term political expediency before responsibility to the House, to the nation and to the future?
  Let there be no mistake about this: once this bastard has been conceived and delivered, it will not curl up and die after the Clay Cross champagne party. It will be the uninvited guest at more parties, particularly political party meetings and meetings of power-struck groups which want the publicity and adulation of martyrdom without the pain.
  The principle is clear but it obviously needs to be restated—namely, Parliament makes a law and citizens obey it until it is changed. Any other rule means disorder. We must all face that situation even if it means that the Leader of the House, whom I am pleased to see present, must also be brave enough to say so at a party conference. If he is not brave enough to do that he should go.
  How do the Government seek to justify the Bill? We are told that as

  149
  public money will not be used, all is well. We are told that since the Clay Cross surcharge will remain, all is well. We are told that no retrospection is involved. However, all is not well. What about the £100,000 which the district auditor is investigating this very week? That, as night follows day, must involve a further surcharge on the Clay Cross 11 unless the Bill becomes law. Is that not retrospection? We are told that no public money is involved. What about those tenants who were deprived of their rent rebates and had to be helped by supplementary benefits to make up some of the difference? That was taxpayers' money. The district auditor has assessed this charge upon the taxpayer at Clay Cross to be more than £16,000. Who will repay the taxpayer? Who will make up the £100,000? Even if we exclude the interest which has accrued, that sum will inevitably fall upon those who did not have their rates kept down. They will have to pay over the odds whilst those responsible have the further surcharge and disqualification removed. I doubt that the ratepayers of North-East Derbyshire will echo the words of the Leader of the House in that deplorable speech in 1973,
  "Clay Cross was certainly rather special"—
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Quote the whole of it.
  Sir M. Havers: I continue:
  "Everybody in the Labour movement and outside was full of admiration and sympathy for the stand Mr. Skinner arid his colleagues had taken."
  Where is the sympathy now for those whose rates will be forced up even more by the actions of those who are not themselves prepared to bear the cost of what they deliberately did?
  This is undermining the rule of law for selective political reasons. Where does it stop? Why should there be an indemnity only for these councillors? Why not for all supporters of the political party which gains power? Why not for all those who defy a law which they dislike so long as it is passed by their political opponents?
  This doctrine seems to be based upon some theory of the Secretary of State's that some Acts are less binding than
  150
  others. Let us examine that for a moment. The next step could be for Parliament to decide that an act was an offence at the time it was committed but not an offence later on after all. Or —unthinkable as it may be now be but, once one sets the pattern, who knows——Parliament could one day decide that an act which was innocent when committed was in retrospect an offence for which people could be punished.
  Is that a precedent which the House would like? Let us recognise the path on which we are starting tonight, and where it may lead us.
  The justification for the removal of the disqualification was given by the Seccretary of State on 6th November in these terms:
  "The Government do not intend to rescind this surcharge retrospectively, or to use public funds to discharge the financial liabilities incurred by those councillors. Any funds for this purpose must come from private subscriptions, organised by those associated with the decisions taken at the relevant party conferences."
  We should like to know whether any such fund has been found, for the Secretary of State went on to say:
  "I understand that a fund for this purpose is likely to be set up. In view of this…"—
  that is, the setting up of a fund—
  "we shall end the disqualification already incurred by any councillors as a direct result of …the Act."—[Official Report, 6th November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 1079.]
  What does that mean? Because a private fund has been set up to pay the surcharge properly incurred as a result of the district audit, does that then justify the lifting of the disqualification? Is that the reason which the Secretary of State put forward on 6th November? He hardly gave us any explanation today.
  It may well be that there will be enough hon. and right hon. Members on the Government benches who will put their principles and their belief in the rule of law above their personal ambitions and kill this squalid Bill tonight. But it seems that there is one right hon. and learned Gentleman who, in spite of being on record as a strong upholder of the constitutional position, now supports the Bill. The advice which he gave as shadow Law Officer was the only advice which a reputable and responsible lawyer could give.

  151
  The Attorney-General holds a unique position of responsibility in our constitition. He is responsible to the House as well as to the Government. This is one of the reasons why the Attorney-General has not since 1928 been a member of the Cabinet. No question of collective responsibility—for what that is worth today anyway—applies in his case. In 1964, Professor Edwards wrote a book entitled "The Law Officers of the Crown", and in it he said:
  "The general conclusion favours the Attorney-General accepting the duty of manifesting publicly the independence of his office, a duty splendidly examplified by recent holders of the office."
  He went on:
  "To me, the ultimate strength of the office of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General in all their various activities rests primarily on a firm adherence to this long fought for principle of constitutional independence."
  It is of paramount importance that the independence and detachment necessary to the proper discharge of the Attorney-General's responsibilities are maintained. There must be no blurring of this in decisions that are policy decisions rather than legal advice. In 1973 the then Attorney-General, who later became Lord Chancellor, speaking of the Attorney-General's responsibilities, said:
  "If anything is recommended to him which is thought by other persons to be for the good of the country but which he thinks is not for the good of the country, no man ought to be in the office who would hesitate to say My conscience must direct me. Your judgment shall not direct me'."
  If the Attorney-General heeded this advice tonight he would resign and vote against the Bill.
  What has happened since 1973? The law has not changed and the constitution has not changed, but the advice has changed. Why? The only change is that the Labour Party is now in power and is therefore not courageous enough to go back on the promise it made so unwisely in 1973. It would be interesting to know whether the Leader of the House had this legal opinion when he made that speech at that conference.
  Why does the Bill, to quote the Attorney-General, not
  "contravene all constitutional practice and set a dangerous precedent".
  How has it suddenly become so harmless that the Attorney-General can support
  152
  it? In 1973 the Bill was such that the Attorney-General then advised,
  "No Law Officer of the Crown of any political party would be likely to advise the Government of which he was a member to initiate such legislation."
  What has changed? Are we to be told that leaving out the trivial sum of £7,000 whilst excusing surcharges of Eli million makes all the difference? Will the excuse be that these people are not being recompensed? What is the difference? The audit will still go through, but instead of being paid back they just will not be charged.
  What will be the Attorney-General's excuse for the disqualification? Does he disagree with Lord Denning that
  "Each of them deliberately broke the solemn promise which he gave when he accepted office. Each of them flagrantly defied the law … they were not fit to be councillors … the sooner they are disqualified the better."
  Does the Attorney-General disagree with those words of the Master of the Rolls? How can it be argued that the retrospective removal of a penalty which was applied only after the inevitability of disqualification was made totally and absolutely clear does not contravene constitutional practice or set a dangerous precedent.
  What about the ratepayers of North-East Derbyshire who will resent being made to pay for others' wrongdoing? What if they refuse to pay to relieve these councillors? What about those professional advisers who are forced by the Finance Act to disclose confidential information about their clients? They may feel as a matter of conscience and professional integrity that this is a breach of—and I quote the Secretary of State—
  "the tacit agreement as to what is permissible."
  What about the self-employed who feel that the new imposition for national insurance contributions for which they receive no benefit is so unfair that they may refuse to pay it?
  If a Conservative Government sought in future to indemnify such people would the Attorney-General support the Bill or oppose it? The Bill is a charter to those who obey only the laws they like. The House tonight is sending out the message —"If you do not like the law defy it". My duty to criticise the Attorney-General tonight gives me no pleasure, but my duty is clear both as an ex-Law Officer and—

  153
  a lawyer dedicated to the maintenance of the rule of law and of Parliament. I must ask the Attorney-General how he can justify this not only to the House but to his colleagues in the Temple where he is the Leader of the Bar. How can he justify it to the Director of Public Prosecutions and his staff for whom he has ministerial responsibility? How can he justify it to the police who so frequently seek his advice? How can he justify it to the country which is entitled to believe that Law Officers of the Crown are fair and impartial and fiercely proud of their independence?
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Rubbish.
  Sir M. Havers: The hon. Member says "Rubbish", but it is time this issue was made clear to all. This is the most serious threat to our constitution. Those charged with enforcing the law, not only the police but those in local government and those charged by Parliament to administer laws which are unpopular to some sections of the community, will wait with the deepest anxiety on what we do tonight.
  If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, today will be a watershed in our history, a day which future historians will mark, a day which Law Officers of the Crown will remember with cringeing shame.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): The debate is one in which strong conviction strongly expressed has been predominant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] I hope that Opposition Members will at least do me the courtesy of listening in the same way as we have listened to the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), the more so because—I do not complain—I have been the subject of an attack, and a serious attack, both in the speech of the hon. and learned Member and in many previous speeches, and I have the right to ask the House to listen to my reply.
  I certainly do not make any complaint, either, of the strong convictions that have been expressed, because the issue, I agree, is a fundamental one. But to portray it, as some have in the course of the debate and before, as a battle between those who uphold the rule of law and those who would suppress it, is
  154
  misconceived and unworthy. I wish, indeed, that it were as simple as that, because I yield to nobody in my conviction that the rule of law is the life blood of democracy and, like my predecessor, like his, and like the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, I have had to take decisions unpopular with some of my right hon. Friends because of that conviction.
  I feel that the hon. and learned Member the former Solicitor-General did himself less than justice when he suggested that we or I or any of us would be likely to have acted differently if we had been dealing with councils of a different colour. The issue is a different and more complex one. It is, rather, how we are to apply the rule of law with fairness and compassion and yet without weakening its strength in circumstances in which many responsible citizens have, without doubt, acted unlawfully—not, I believe, for their personal benefit, but rather under the pressure of opinions deeply and sincerely held, and in the deep and sincere belief that the law that they were called upon to administer was a bad law and an unfair law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am speaking about their beliefs. Bad and unfair in particular they regarded it, rightly or wrongly, because the long-established power of local authorities to fix rents for their own tenants was removed from them all, good and bad councils alike, and handed to an unaccountable body.
  It is paradoxical that one of the major criticisms of Opposition Members is that the Bill treats good and bad councillors alike. As democrats believing that democracy and respect for the law must go hand in hand, we must understand those feelings, however much we may disapprove of the manner in which some have given expression to them. We must understand that respect for the law is based fundamentally on consent, and that if in the House we encroach beyond the borders of consent, we risk disorder and endanger respect for the law.
  Mr. Buck Mr. Buck rose—
  Mr. William Clark Mr. William Clark (Croydon, South)rose—
  The Attorney-General: Last July, in the debate on public safety and the decline in respect for the law, hon. Members on both sides of the House made that point

  155
  —none more clearly and forcefully than the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon.
  Mr. Buck Mr. Buck rose—
  The Attorney-General: That was the first consideration—the bitter resentment of local councillors at being made the tools of a policy they regarded as forced upon them by a Government—
  Mr. William Clark Mr. William Clark rose—
  Mr. Grieve Mr. Grieve rose—
  The Attorney-General:— whose philosophy went far outside the boundaries of consent.
  Mr. Grieve Mr. Grieve rose—
  Mr. Buck Mr. Buck rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When it is clear that the Attorney-General will not give way, hon. Members must keep their seats.
  The Attorney-General: There was not only resentment; there was also undoubtedly some confusion. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained the causes of that confusion: the Newcastle amendment; the birth of the housing commissioner, waiting like some Official Solicitor in the wings but only rarely emerging; the deplorable shortness of time allowed for the carrying out of measures which the Ministers concerned knew to be highly controversial as well as complex.
  If councillors believed that the Act entitled them to wait for a housing commissioner to be appointed for their area—from personal experience I know that many did, because many asked me about it—their understanding of the law was no doubt wrong, but I cannot think that their laymen's belief was entirely unreasonable. We know that several invited the then Secretary of State to send a housing commissioner in.
  Mr. Buck: As I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he is basing his argument on the suggestion that the Bill deals with an intolerable law. I remind him that the Law Journal said:
  "If any, high or low, believes that the Housing Finance Act, 1972, was an intolerable law
  156
  his judgment is so warped as to disqualify him from public office."
  Surely this must be so.
  The Attorney-General: The only thing that is warped is the hon. and learned Gentleman's power of comprehension, because I have said nothing about its being intolerable law. It is irrelevant whether the law was a good law or a bad law. I am describing the feelings of the councillors who had to administer it. I am describing those feelings as. in many cases, a combination of resentment and Confusion—an explosive mixture distilled by a Government who made a virtue of their unwillingness to govern by consent. Those are the circumstances in which the rule of law is most in peril—
  Mr. Grieve Mr. Grieve rose—
  The Attorney-General: —and those were the circumstances in which the law was broken, in which perhaps some 400 councillors stand in peril, and in which the possibilities of surcharge amount to as much as £ ½ million.
  That was the situation we inherited a year ago. Whatever the criticisms made by Conservative Members, I hope that it is not seriously contended that any responsible Government could, when such circumstances came to light, have simply sat back and done nothing, leaving the processes of audit, surcharge, bankruptcy and disqualification to take their predestined course, until the statutory pound of flesh had been carved, slice by slice, from the erring councillors.
  I do not wish to judge Opposition Members by what they have said during this debate, except for the one or two hon. Members who clearly recognised that there was a practical problem that had to be dealt with. I do not wish to judge them in that way, because I hope and believe that that would be to misjudge them. But I cannot believe that even a Conservative Government, even the last Conservative Government, if they had remained in office, could or would have taken that course.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should wait until he sees the next one.
  The Attorney-General: That will be a long time.

  157
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) who opened for the Opposition, seemed to base his case not on principle but on timing and method, and his line was followed by one or two other Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman left a strong impression that his party felt precisely the difficulty that we feel, but that instead of meeting the problem squarely, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it preferred to drag its feet and rely on timing. We believe that the Government could not have waited longer, and that we now have enough information to enable and require us to take action to avert great potential damage to local authorities.
  Mr. Raison Mr. Raison rose—
  The Attorney-General: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who made a very fair speech, obviously realised that some remedy and relief was desirable, but he was unable to propose anything other than the wait-and-see policy of his hon. Friends. He was wrong in his belief that the surcharge figures would be much lower than my right hon. Friend's estimate of a total of £1½ million, with a possible average of £10,000. I have gone into the matter closely, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that that is so.
  The possible Exchequer contribution is not relevant for the purposes of surcharge. One could obtain the more precise information for which the Opposition have asked only through the auditors' completing the audits and making their surcharges, with all the accompanying appellate procedure. When would Parliament have been able to act, and on what evidence would Parliament have decided to remove the surcharge or the disqualification from some and not from others? It could not be done in that way, however desirable it might be.
  My belief is that a Conservative Government would in the end have acted in a similar way to that in which we are acting now. I believe that that can be tested not only by what was said by the Opposition but also by what was omitted. I believe that the Conservative Government, when in office, acted. in this and in analogous cases, in a similar way.
  158
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred to the action in 1973 of the Secretary of State for Scotland in refusing to surcharge Glasgow Council. He refused to surcharge although he held that that expenditure was unlawful.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire)rose—
  The Attorney-General: But a more telling example is the one he gave when he referred briefly to Wales. That was a case relating not to housing but to school milk. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition should recall that. She will remember the intense opposition to that Act and how the rule of law was interpreted in the case of Merthyr Tydfil when its councillors rebelled against the Education (Milk) Act 1971. The councillors persisted in defying the law and in providing free milk for schoolchildren when her Act had removed their power to do so. There was an extraordinary audit. The council treasurer refused to sign further milk cheques, and of course the defaulting councillors were liable to surcharge and disqualification.
  But what happened? In the very course of the audit a fairy godmother appeared, not on this occasion the Official Solicitor, but a most distinguished lawyer none the less. He was none other than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the then Secretary of State for Wales. What did he do? Did he say "The audit has begun. I cannot intervene. That would be a dangerous breach of the rule of law"? He did nothing of the kind. What he did reflects credit on him for his prudence and common sense, which he also showed in relation to the Housing Finance Act. By then the rebellion had ended. The Act, however obnoxious to many, was being administered. Instead of allowing the law to take its course with the surcharge and disqualification of councillors, the right hon. and learned Gentleman stepped in and made use of his power to sanction unlawful expenditure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Within the law."] I am not suggesting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman acted outside the law. He stepped in and used his power to sanction, to prevent surcharge and disqualification, at a time when he believed that to do that was in the best interests of the community. Indeed, he was so anxious to cool the

  159
  atmosphere that he did it without having been invited to do so by the council concerned.
  Mr. Raison Mr. Raison rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): We can have only one speaker at a time.
  Mr. Raison Mr. Raison rose—
  The Attorney-General: No.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It must be within your recollection and that of the rest of the House that the Attorney-General said he would give way later to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). What is this but later? Surely he should give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I cannot decide when the Attorney-General gives way. It is up to him to decide. I call the Attorney-General to continue his speech.
  Mr. Raison Mr. Raison rose—
  The Attorney-General: No.
  Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If, as the Attorney-General says, ignorance of the law is an excuse, are we entitled—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that nobody will try to get me into this argument.
  The Attorney-General: That was the way in which the rule of law was interpreted by a Conservative Government and a Conservative Secretary of State in circumstances which constituted deliberate defiance of the right hon Lady's Act. I do not know what the right hon. Lady thought about it, or whether the Ministers concerned objected. They did precisely what the Opposition are objecting to Parliament doing through this Bill.
  Mr. Grieve Mr. Grieve rose—
  The Attorney-General: No.
  Surcharge and disqualification, which would inevitably have followed, were pre-empted by retrospective ministerial action. That action placed the unlawful expenditure fairly and squarely on the backs of the Merthyr ratepayers.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the Attorney-General give way?
  The Attorney-General: No.
  It is said against the Bill that it will incite others hereafter to defy the law. I do not underrate that argument. It is, of course, a weighty consideration in the balance which must always be struck, but if that argument is used it is fair to say that the Conservative Government which dealt in the way that I have described with Merthyr must surely have taken that consideration into account. The date was 1st February 1972, shortly after the introduction of the Housing Finance Bill.
  It may be said—indeed, it has been—that in the Merthyr case the Minister already had statutory power to do what he did, even in the course of an extraordinary audit, and that in contrast we are seeking to take new powers. If the Opposition rely upon that argument they must look still further back, to the actions of another Conservative Government, which my right hon. Friend described, in bringing in the Audit (Local Authorities) Act 1927.
  Sir M. Havers Sir M. Havers rose—
  The Attorney-General: No.
  The 1927 Act is an important precedent, because it goes very much further than we propose in this Bill. It is an important precedent, because we have been told that at this time of strikes and lawlessness it is particularly wrong to promote a measure of this kind, but the period leading up to 1927 was partly a period of strife.
  In that case, 97 councillors and others had been surcharged for illegal payments to council employees. The councillors fought the surcharge through the courts and lost. As the law then stood, all 97 were not only surcharged but were in peril of going to prison. The Poplar Council appealed to the Minister—Mr. Chamberlain—to remit the surcharges.
  Sir M. Havers Sir M. Havers rose—
  The Attorney-General: The Minister purported to remit them after the courts had upheld them, but the courts held that he had no power to do so. [Interruption.] So he brought in the Bill retrospectively to remove the surcharges and to remove

  161
  the threat of imprisonment. [Interruption.] It is instructive to see what he said in order to see the close parallel to this Bill. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what the Attorney-General is saying.
  The Attorney-General: Do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think that Mr. Chamberlain was wrong? Do they think that in taking the course that he took he was destroying the rule of law? If not, how can they make those criticisms of this Bill which involves a far less radical solution to a similar problem?
  I ask the House to compare the two in a spirit of fairness, not of party politics.
  Mr. Brittan Mr. Brittan rose—
  The Attorney-General: In both cases, those who erred did so because of deep political feelings and of some doubt or confusion as to the law.
  Mr. Brittan Mr. Brittan rose—
  The Attorney-General: Let me come on to the advice that I gave—
  Mr. Fairbairn Mr. Fairbairn rose—
  The Attorney-General: —in the summer of 1972, before the Housing Finance Bill became law, in the letter that I wrote in reply to a member of the staff of Transport House. Although until this minute I have not attempted to reply to the publicity which it received,
  others have been less squeamish. They have guessed at what my reply would be and, having guessed, have condemned what they guessed at.
  The question which I was asked appears clearly from the whole of my reply and, in particular, from the first paragraph. I said:
  "You asked for my considered opinion on the possibilities and difficulties of a future Labour Government initiating legislation to recompense trade unions, councillors, or both, who suffer financial loss in consequence of the operation of the Industrial Relations Act or the Housing Finance Bill."
  I was concerned with the question 01 those who had suffered actual loss and whether it would be proper for a succeeding Government to pay them back. My reply was a decisive "No". 1 gave the reasons, and I stand by them.
  If I had been asked a wholly different question—if I had been asked whether a future Government could bring forward legislation of the character of this Bill—
  Mr. Bob Cryer Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)rose—
  The Attorney-General: —how could I possibly have said what I did? How could I possibly, in my answer, have failed to record that the 1927 Act went retrospectively so far as to remove from—
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 267.

  Division No. 165.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cronin, John

  Allaun, Frank

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Anderson, Donald

  Buchan, Norman

  Cryer, Bob

  Archer, Peter

  Buchanan, Richard

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

  Ashley, Jack

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Dalyell Tarn

  Ashton, Joe

  Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Campbell, Ian

  Davles, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Davles, Denzll (Llanelli)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cant, R. B.

  Davles, llor (Gower)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Carmichael Neil

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Bates, Alt

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Bean, R. E.

  Cartwright, John

  de Freltas, Rf Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Delargy, Hugh

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Clemltson Ivor

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Dempsey, James

  Blenklnsop, Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dolg, Peter

  Boardman, H.

  Coleman, Donald

  Dorniand, J. D.

  Booth, Albert

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Concannon, J. D.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Conlan, Bernard

  Dunn, James A.

  Boyden James (Blsh Auck)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edln C)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Bradley, Tom

  Corbett, Robin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bray, Or Jeremy

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Eadie, Alex

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Eds man, Maurice

  Edge, Geoff

  Lee, John

  Rooker, J. W.

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Roper, John

  Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Rose, Paul B.

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  English, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ennals, David

  Lipton, Marcus

  Ryman, John

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Litterick, Tom

  Sandelson, Neville

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  l.omos, Kenneth

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Selby, Harry

  Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)

  Luard, Evan

  Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  McElhone, Frank

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Flannery, Martin

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Short, Mrs Ren6e (Wolv NE)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Sllkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ford, Ben

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Sillars, James

  Forrester, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Silverman, Julius

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Small, William

  Freeson, Reginald

  Madden, Max

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Magee, Bryan

  Snape, Peter

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mahon, Simon

  Spearing, Nigel

  George, Bruce

  Marks, Kenneth

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Marquand, David

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ginsburg, David

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Golding, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stoddart, David

  Gould, Bryan

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Stott, Roger

  Gourlay, Harry

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Strang, Gavin

  Graham, Ted

  Meacher, Michael

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Mlkardo, Ian

  Swain, Thomas

  Grocott, Bruce

  Millan, Bruce

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Hardy, Peter

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertlllery)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, lichen)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Molloy, William

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Thome, Stan (Preston South)

  Hatton, Frank

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Hayman, Mrs. Helene

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tinn, James

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Moyle, Roland

  Tomllnson, John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Tomney, Frank

  Hooley, Frank

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Torney, Tom

  Horam, John

  Newens, Stanley

  Urwin, T. W.

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Noble, Mike

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Walnwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Huckfleld, Les

  Ogden, Eric

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

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Walker, Harold (Doneaster)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Walker, Terry (Klngswood)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Ward, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Watklns, David

  Hunter, Adam

  Ovenden, John

  Watklnson, John

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Owen, Dr David

  Weetch, Ken

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Padley, Walter

  Weitzman, David

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wellbeloved, James

  Janner, Greville

  Park, George

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Jay, Rt Hn Douglas

  Parker, John

  White, James (Pollok)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Parry, Robert

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pavilt, Laurie

  Whltlock, William

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  John, Brynmor

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Perry, Ernest

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Prescolt, John

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, C. (Lewlsham W)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Woodall, Alec

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Radlce, Giles

  Woof, Robert

  Kelley, Richard

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Wrlgglesworth, Ian

  Kerr, Russell

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Kllroy-Silk, Robert

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Kinnock, Nell

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lamble, David

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Lamond, James

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Banks Robert

  Blggs-Davison, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Beith.'A. J.

  Blaker, Peter

  Alison Michael

  Bell, Ronald

  Body, Richard

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Boscawen, Hon. Robert

  Arnold, Tom

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Benyon, W.

  Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Baker, Konneth

  Bitten John

  Brittan, Leon

  164

  165

  Brotherton, Michael

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Percival, Ian

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Holland, Philip

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Buchanan-Smith Alick

  Hordern, Peter

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Buck, Antony

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Budgen, Nick

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Raison, Timothy

  Burden, F. A.

  Hunt, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Carr, Rt Hon. Robert

  Hurd, Douglas

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Channon, Paul

  Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Churchill, W. S.

  James, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Jesse), Toby

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Clegg, Walter

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rlfkind, Malcolm

  Cockerel!, John

  Jopllng, Michael

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cope, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Cordle, John H.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Keilett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Corrie, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Costain A. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Critchley, Julian

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rest, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Crouch, David

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kirk, Peter

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Kitson, Sir Timolhy

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Scott, Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lamont, Norman

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Langford-Hoit, Sir John

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Durant, Tony

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shepherd, Colin

  Eden Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shersby, Michael

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Silvester, Fred

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lester, Jim (Beeslon)

  Sims, Roger

  Emery, Peter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rut.and)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lloyd, Ian

  Skeet, T. rt. H.

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Luce, Richard

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Speed, Keith

  Farr, John

  McCrlndle, Robert

  Spence, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  MacGregor, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Sproat, lain

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Stainton, Keith

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNalr-Wllson, P. (New Forest)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Madel, David

  Stanley, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Marten, Neil

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Freud, Clement

  Mates, Michael

  Stokes, John

  Fry, Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Galbralth, Hon T. G. D.

  Maude, Angus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Maudllng, Rt Hon Reginald

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Cheiham)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Milter, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Godber, Rt Hn Joseph

  Mills, Peter

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mlscampbell, Norman

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke;

  Trotter, Neville

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Moate, Roger

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Gorst, John

  Monro, Hector

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Viggers, Peter

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Walnwright, Richard Coine V)

  Gray, Hamish

  Motgan-Glles, Rear-Admira!

  Wakeham, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Walters, Dennli

  Grylls, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hall, Sir John

  Neave, Airey

  Weatherlll, Bernard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, John

  Hampson, Dr. Keith

  Neubert, Michael

  Whltelaw, Rt Hon William

  Hannam, John

  Newton, Tony

  Wlggln, Jerry

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Normanton, Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Nott, John

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Onslow, Cranley

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally

  Younger, Hon. George

  Hawkins, Paul

  Osbom, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Adam Butler and

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pattle, Geoffrey

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

  Hicks, Robert

  Penhallgon, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee
  of the whole House.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
  The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 295.

  Division No. 155.]

  AYES

  [10.14 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Altken, Jonathan

  Galbralth, Hon T. G. D.

  McNalr-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Alison Michael

  Gardiner, George (Relgate)

  McNalr-Wllson, P. (New Forest)

  Ameryl Rt Hon Julian

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Madel, David

  Arnold, Tom

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marten, Nell

  Awdry, Daniel

  Godber, Rt Hn Joseph

  Mates, Michael

  Baker, Kenneth

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mather, Carol

  Banks Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maude, Angus

  Beith.'A. J.

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maudllng, Rt Hon Reginald

  Bell, Ronald

  Gorst, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Maxwell Hyslop, Robin

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Biffen John

  Gray, Hamlsh

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Blggs-Davlson, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Peter

  Blaker, Peter

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Mlscampbell, Norman

  Body, Richard

  Grist, Ian

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Boscawen, Hon. Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemplown)

  Hall, Sir John

  Molyneaux, James

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Monro, Hector

  Bralne, Sir Bernard

  Hampson, Dr. Keith

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Brittan, Leon

  Hannam, John

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morgan, Gerairt

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Harvle Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Buchanan-Smith Allck

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Buck, Antony

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mudd, David

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Neave, Airey

  Burden, F. A.

  Heseltlne, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hicks, Robert

  Neubert, Michael

  Carr, Rt Hon. Robert

  Hlggins, Terence L.

  Newton, Tony

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Holland, Philip

  Normanton, Tom

  Channon, Paul

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Nott, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hordern, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Osborn, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Clegg, Walter

  Hunt, John

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Cockcrott, John

  Hurd, Douglas

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Cope, John

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Penhaligon, David

  Cordle, John H.

  James, David

  Perclval, Ian

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Corrie, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Costain, A. P.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Crltchley, Julian

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Price, David (Eastlelgti)

  Crouch, David

  Jopllng, Michael

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Crowder, F. P.

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Raison, Timothy

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rathbone, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rawllnson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Durant, Tony

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ronton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirk, Peter

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Eden Rt Hon Sir John

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rldsdale. Julian

  Elliott, Sir William

  Knox, David

  Rlfkind, Malcolm

  Emery, Peter

  Lamont, Noiman

  Rlppon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Eyre, Reginald

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Falrbalrn, Nicholas

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Falrgrieve, Russell

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Farr, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)

  Fell, Anthony

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Salnsbury, Tim

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lloyd, Ian

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Luce, Richard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)

  McAdden, Sir Stepher

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Fox, Marcus

  McCrlndle, Robert

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shaw, Michael Scarborough)

  Freud, Clement

  MacGregor. John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Stokes. John

  Wakeham, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Silvester, Fred

  Tapsell, Peter

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Sims, Roger

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Walters, Dennis

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Tebblt, Norman

  Weatherlll, Bernard

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wells, John

  Speed, Keith

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Whilelaw. Rt Hon William

  Spence, John

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Wlggln, Jerry

  Spicer. Jim (W Dorset)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devonj

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Sproat, lain

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Stainton, Keith

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Younger, Hon. George

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Stanley, John

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. W. Kenyan and

  Stewart Ian (Hltchin)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Mr. Michael Roberts.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dempsey, James

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Allaun. Frank

  Doig Peter

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Anderson, Donald

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Janner, Grevllle

  Archer, Peter

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jay, Rt Hn Douglas

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dunn, James A.

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Ashley, Jack

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwynefh

  John, Brynmor

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Eadle, Alex

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Edelman, Maurice

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Edge, Geoff

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Bates, All

  Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bean, R. E.

  Ellis, Tom (WrexKam)

  Judd, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  English, Michael

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Ennals, David

  Kelley, Richard

  Bishop, E. S.

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Kerr, Russell

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Kllroy-Sllk, Robert

  Boardman, H.

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Kinnock, Nell

  Boolh, Albert

  Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)

  Lambie, David

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Fautds, Andrew

  Lamborn, Harry

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Lamond, James

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Fitch. Alan (Wlgan)

  Lee, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Flit, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Lestor, Miss Jean (Eton & Slough)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Flannery, Martin

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Ford, Ben

  Lipton, Marcus

  Buchan, Norman

  Forrester, John

  Litterlck, Tom

  Buchanan, Richard

  rowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Lomas, Kermeih

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Carllfl SE)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Luard, Evan

  Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Campbell, Ian

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Canavan, Dennis

  George, Bruce

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Cant, R. B.

  Gilbert, Dr John

  McElhone, Frank

  Carmlchael Nell

  Glnsburg, David

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Goldlng, John

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Cartwrighl, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Mackenzie, G.egor

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Clemitson Ivor

  Graham, Ted

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Coleman, Donald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Magee, Bryan

  Concannon,J. D.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Mahon, Simon

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hardy, Peter

  Marks, Kenneth

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Harper, Joseph

  Marquand, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhlll)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cronin, John

  Hatton, Frank

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Hayman, Mrs. Helens

  Meacher, Michael

  Cryer, Bob

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hcffer, Eric S.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

  Hooley, Frank

  Millan, Bruce

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Horam, John

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride]

  Davidson, Arthur

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm K)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Davles, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Molloy, William

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Huckfleld, Les

  Morris, Alfred (Wytnenshawe)

  Davles, llor (Gower)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Moyle, Roland

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hunter, Adam

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Dell. Rt Hon Edmund

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Newens, Stanley

  170

  171

  Noble, Mike

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tomlinson, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Ryman, John

  Tomney, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

  Sandelson, Neville

  Torney, Tom

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Urwin, T. W.

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Selby, Harry

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

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

  Ovenden, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Owen, Dr David

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Padley, Walter

  Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

  Ward, Michael

  Palmer, Arthur

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Watkins, David

  Park, George

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Duiwich)

  Watkinson, John

  Parker, John

  Sillars, James

  Weetch, Ken

  Parry, Robert

  Silverman, Julius

  Weitzman, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wellbeloved, James

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Small, William

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Perry, Ernest

  Snape, Peter

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Whitlock, William

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Prescott, John

  Stallard. A. W.

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Stoddart, David

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Radice, Giles

  Stott, Roger

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Woodall, Alec

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Swain, Thomas

  Woof, Robert

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle '-)

  Rooker J. W.

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Roper, John

  Thome, Stan (Preston South)

  Mr. Thomas Cox and

  Rose, Paul B.

  Tlemey, Sydney

  Mr. J. D. Dormand.

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Tinn, James

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 Committal of Bills).
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just before the first Division this evening I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) call my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General a liar. I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman should be asked to withdraw such disgusting language.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Is the hon. Member for Ching-ford (Mr. Tebbit) in the Chamber?
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: No. He has withdrawn.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This matter should have been raised when the hon.
  Member for Chingford was present. I realise that it was an exciting moment. For the record, I remind the House that to call any right hon. or hon. Member a liar—[HON. MEMBERS "A lousy liar."] —Any such word is a serious breach of order.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ching-ford (Mr. Tebbit) usurped what should be the right of the medical profession.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a realm beyond me.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the District Courts (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Miss Boothroyd.]

DISTRICT COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 1

  ABOLITION OF EXISTING INFERIOR COURTS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT COURTS.
  10.30 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'stipendiary magistrate' and insert 'justice of the peace'.
  Perhaps I should explain the effect of the amendment before dealing with the principle of the matter. The effect would be to provide that, on and after 16th May 1975, all functions of burgh magistrates not otherwise provided for shall be exercisable by a justice of the peace and not by a stipendiary magistrate only.
  The office of burgh magistrate disappears with local authority reorganisation, and it is necessary to provide for the undertaking of functions which these magistrates presently perform. Their functions are of three types. First, there are the powers of the burgh magistrate when acting as a court of summary jurisdiction. Clause 3(1) of the Bill transfers these powers to the new district courts. The second is the burgh magistrate's function as an element of civic government. Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, all such administrative powers are transferred to the new local authorities. Thus, both of these functions are otherwise provide for, and Clause 1(2) does not therefore apply to them.
  However, the third function is the power of the single magistrate out of court acting as a judicial officer. There are numerous statutory provisions empowering a magistrate to grant warrants of search, entry, arrest and the like. It is these powers which will be transferred by Clause 1(2).
  Clause 1(2), as introduced, transferred these powers to the justices of the peace who exercise similar powers at present, but in Committee the clause was amended
  174
  to permit only stipendiary magistrates to exercise these powers. Irrespective of one's views on the relative merits of lay justices and stipendiary magistrates on the bench, that amendment made no sense whatsoever. Even with a wholly stipendiary magistrate system of summary justice, there simply would not be enough stipendiary magistrates in Scotland to cater for the number of warrants which have to be signed in all parts of the country. The enforcement of the law cannot be delayed while policemen travel 30, 40 or perhaps even 50 miles to get a signature from a stipendiary only to find that he is away on holiday, thus requiring them to go on to the next one, who may be a further 50 miles away.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Have they not learned to use the telephone yet?
  Mr. Ewing: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have never known of anyone with the ability to sign a warrant by telephone. Perhaps that applies in his northern part of the country.
  The situation which I have just described is not one which anyone could reasonably contemplate. Under the provisions of Clause 5(7), stipendiary magistrates will be ex officio justices. The present amendment, therefore, secures that both they and the lay justices will be empowered to carry out the warrant signing duties of the existing burgh magistrates.
  In view of what I have said about the severe practical problems which would inevitably arise if Clause 1(2) remained in its present form, I trust that the House will accept the amendment.
  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: This amendment, and the one immediately to follow, strike at the very kernel of the disagreement between the two sides of the House on the Bill. The Minister would have us believe that the prime significance of this amendment has to do with the signing of warrants and other technical matters. It may be of interest to those hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee to know that the vital matter which the Minister felt it necessary to inform the House about this evening was not mentioned to the Committee until after the Government

  175
  had been defeated on this very question, and throughout the course of the debate on the amendment in Committee the hon. Gentleman accepted, as did all his hon. Friends and every member of the Committee, that the point at issue was not a technical matter of warrant signing but was one of general principle whether there should be lay justices in the reformed system of district courts in Scotland.
  It is perhaps also significant that owing to the convictions of one Labour Member in Committee it was not until the third sitting that the Government managed to win their first vote. It is because of the humiliation that the Government suffered in the first two sittings of the Committee that this pathetic amendment is now brought before the House.
  The amendment strikes at the whole question of lay justice in Scotland. It is necessary for the Minister to inform the House why the Government have reversed the view of the previous Conservative administration and believe that lay justice is desirable and should be continued in Scotland. He has not yet commented on this vital matter. The matter was commented on in the Second Reading debate by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and was referred to in detail in Committee, but the points made then have not been dealt with by the Minister.
  We have heard in successive debates that the Government took a different view to the previous Conservative administration because of the advice they had received from certain quarters. The Secretary of State informed us on Second Reading that the only person who had advised that lay justice should be continued so far as he was aware was himself, and he had listened to that advice very carefully. In Committee the Under-Secretary gave additional information.
  Mr. John Robertson: Surely the amendment we are considering has nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can he not address himself to the amendment?
  Mr. Rifkind: It is interesting that the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) should make that comment because in Committee when the amendment was being considered he made a speech on the matter I am now considering. The
  176
  Minister may have had a change of heart after the vote in Committee as to what he considered the amendment to be about. It would be quite clear to anyone who examined the proceedings on the amendment in Committee that all the hon. Members there did not refer to the interpretation the Minister now seeks to offer to the House and considered that the matter under discussion was the general principle of lay magistrates in Scotland. I therefore make no apology for concentrating my remarks on that point.
  The Minister informed us previously that in addition to the Secretary of State's views, the view of local authorities, and of un-named bailie from Greenock and an un-named professor from Dundee University led to the Government changing their mind. The contrary argument is supported not only by the Conservatives, but by the Liberals, the Scottish Nationalists, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and bodies other than those purely of the legal profession. We know that the British Association of Social Workers has made representations to the Government not to persist with this policy. The Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, that well-known repository of reactionary Tory views, has made representations to the Government to accept amendments in Committee and not to stick with the system of lay justice.
  The reason is simple and straightforward. Irrespective of the arguments put forward by the Under-Secretary this evening, it is well-known that the system of lay justice has not proved as desirable and attractive as many hon. Members would have liked. This opportunity to dispense with the system of lay justice and to concentrate on a fully professional system is being sadly missed by the Government.
  The arguments usually put on this point concentrate on the supposed personal touch that the lay magistrate, the bailie or the other form of justice has in dealing with issues that are before him. It has been suggested that somehow he is better able to understand the issues involved. But, of course, the important and only controversial question before the district court or any magistrates' court is simply that of innocence or guilt. To suggest that a lay person is better qualified to deal with the basic matters of innocence or

  177
  guilt is as absurd as suggesting that a lay person is somehow more suitable to carry out a surgical operation or something else of equal complexity.
  I appeal to the Under-Secretary, and particularly to his hon. Friends who have expressed grave reservations about the whole principle of lay justice, to use this opportunity, even at this late stage, to concentrate on whether it is in the interests of justice to pursue the Government's present policy. When a combination of forces as disparate as the Conservative Party, the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, the British Association of Social Workers and the whole legal profession, which has far more experience of these matters than the vast majority of other groups and organisations in our society, are virtually unanimous in believing that the system should not be changed—
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): Is the hon. Member seriously maintaining that all those bodies have made submissions to him that lay magistrates are not fit to sign documents?
  Mr. Rifkind: I expect slightly better than that from the Lord Adovate.
  The Lord Advocate: That is what the amendment is all about.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Hon. Members should allow the hon. Member to deal with one point at a time. That is the way in which it is usually done in court, I believe.
  Mr. Rifkind: I understand that the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) wishes to support the Lord Advocate. It is a pity that neither was present in the Committee when this subject was being debated. If they would care to read the report of the debate, they would see what the view of the Minister was when these amendments were being considered.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The hon. Member used the words "when these amendments were being considered". Do I take it that this amendment was taken along with others in Committee, whereas tonight it stands on its own? Should we not therefore be
  178
  directing ourselves to the effect of this amendment?
  Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Had he read the report of the proceedings in Committee, he would not have to ask such questions as that. This amendment was taken together with a series of others. Had there been any crucial difference between it and those others, the Government would have objected to their being taken together, or at least the Minister would have pointed out the differences. What he said was,
  "This series of amendments"—
  including this—
  "strikes at the very heart of the Bill. I believe that it is important that we should dispose of these amendments in the way I have suggested••".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 13th February 1975; c. 20.]
  At no time before the vote in Committee was taken did the Under-Secretary make one reference to what he now claims to be the purpose, significance and effect of the amendment. The whole Committee knew, as the House now knows, that what we were debating was the principle of lay magistrates. I urge the Under-Secretary even at this late stage to address himself to the basic issue not simply between the two sides of the House but between Government supporters and the Government. It is not too late for the Government to change their minds.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Robertson: In Committee I accepted some responsibility for the rather sloppy way in which a series of amendments was dealt with. There was a wide-ranging discussion of amendments that were not as closely related as was at first thought.
  However, tonight the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) has spoken for some time without saying a word about the amendment on the Notice Paper. He has not said a word that is relevant to the Bill or the amendment. It is probably asking too much of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you should have followed all the complications of this issue. The amendment would restore the Bill to its original shape, allowing justices of the peace to sign warrants

  179
  and other documents. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, the only people who could sign them would be stipendiary magistrates. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman does not want, and what the stipendiary magistrates would not want.
  The hon. Gentleman gets carried away. He pours forth a flood of words and forgets where to stop. I ask him and other hon. Members to address themselves to the Bill and the amendment and to follow the rules of order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to do what he has just done. The hon. Gentleman, better than most, knows that what I say is true. When dealing with a specific amendment concerning one aspect of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to bring in everything under the sun. If the Bill is not restored to its original form, the Opposition will create a situation that they and every stipendiary magistrate will be sorry about.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: It is commendable of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) to strive for perfection, even in the lower ranks of the legal system. I wish that he would carry that commendable attitude into other spheres of his political activity.
  I am taking advantage of the fact that the hon. Gentleman widened the issue, and did not confine it to the amendment, which concerns the right of lay justices to sign warrants. The hon. Gentleman widened it into the question whether lay justices were good.
  The hon. Gentleman made a number of mistakes, if I may be so bold as to say that a legal luminary can make mistakes in legal matters. Such people are just as likely to make mistakes in legal matters as medical men are to make mistakes in medical matters.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Would the hon. Gentleman be happy to be operated on by any unqualified member of the public?
  Dr. Miller: If that were the exact analogy, I should not mind, but I shall not be drawn into the peculiar areas in which the hon. Gentleman often gets involved.
  There is no perfect system. I served for some time as a lay magistrate. The
  180
  system of lay justices has worked reasonably well, even if there are faults and blemishes. The lay magistrate is not called upon to make difficult, abstruse legal decisions. He always has a legal assessor with him. I know that we are talking about signing warrants, but the hon. Gentleman widened the discussion, and I am taking advantage of that.
  The lay magistrate is asked, as an independent person, to make an appraisal of a situation. To a great degree, that appraisal is decided from a legal point of view by the legal assessor. I do not think that it is necessary for anyone to have had up to five years' legal training to make an assessment which is well within the ability of the average person of intelligence and common sense. I therefore commend the action of the Government in bringing forward these amendments to rectify the situation or at least to enable us to return to the situation which existed in Scotland for a long time.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Following the important earlier debate, it is important to note why this amendment stands alone on Report stage. In Committee we debated amendments which were grouped with the agreement of all parties. We voted on that series of amendments. Not one hon. Member doubted that that was the case.
  The words of the Under-Secretary of State have already been quoted. He need not smile, since this is a matter of principle.
  Mr. William Ross: Nonsense.
  Mr. Fairbairn: The Secretary of State may regard principle as nonsense, but I am not sure that I do. This is a matter of principle.
  Mr. Ross: Are we dealing with the amendment before the House, which makes one change, or are we dealing with the question of principle?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I think that the point is well taken. Whatever happened in Committee does not concern the Report stage of the Bill. The selection of amendments by Mr. Speaker puts Government Amendment No. 1 on its own. The general principle will be discussed under Government Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I hope that hon. Members will respect the selection of amendments.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I appreciate that we are dealing with one amendment. That is the matter of principle.
  The Secretary of State may grunt, wriggle and laugh as much as he likes, because he does not like the principle. As hon. Members who were in Committee know, the point of principle is whether we should have lay justice. In the face of probity, honour, civility and sense of law, the Under-Secretary of State pretended that we debated a subject which neither he nor anyone else mentioned. Since that is what he now pretends we were debating, this is not a matter in principle of any less importance.
  A warrant, whether to search or apprehend or for any other reason, proceeds upon the judgment of the judge who has to grant the warrant. If anything, he has greater difficulty in judging this matter since he has to accept or judge the say-so of those who put the warrant before him. The legend of the warrant demonstrates that he has been satisfied on sufficient evidence that there are just grounds why he should grant this warrant. The Under-Secretary now says that the layman should judge these matters even though there are no witnesses to help him form a judgment. The hon. Gentleman may not know what I am talking about, but when he has a warrant granted against him to search his house or to arrest him without reason he will perhaps discover.
  What is important is that this is a matter of supreme principle which has not been argued by the Government in Committee. Perhaps the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but this was not considered when the amendment was allegedly being debated. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Under-Secretary of State did not mention the matter at the time? If he can, it will perhaps demonstrate how incompetent a layman is to deal with an issue which he does not understand. It is important that the House should reject the amendment.
  Mr. James Sillars: I had no intention of intervening, until I heard the debate, because I was unlucky enough not to be a member of the Committee. If I had been there in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) we probably should not have been having this trouble this evening.
  182
  I have almost become convinced by the arguments advanced by the Opposition. They are not arguing the principle whether there should be a lay magistrate. They are arguing about the ability of a layman, as opposed to the superior ability of a stipendiary magistrate drawn from the legal profession, to sign a form.
  Thinking back on my experience, I can recall some of the railwaymen who have done a hard shift, gone to bed at 2 a.m. and then been knocked up by the police to sign a warrant. It is difficult for a man after a hard shift on the railways to bring his mind to bear on a problem laid before him by a sergeant of police, or perhaps a constable. The same could be said of a fireman, or someone from a stamp works. He may spend the day operating a heavy hammer, and, having had two or three pints of beer and a whisky or two, he might not feel like signing a warrant at midnight.
  I am three-quarters of the way towards being convinced by the arguments of the Opposition, but I shall listen to what the Minister says. I think that we should leave this important and onerous task to the full-time professional people. This does not mean that I want to rule out the lay justice in the lower courts. One can accept the amendment and later vote for a continuation of lay participation in district courts. If the House accepts the amendment, it does not preclude us from debate the other point of view in principle. It means only that the legal wizards whom the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) was promoting several minutes ago will have the discretion on their shoulders and on no one else's. I am three-quarters of the way towards being convinced that we should concede the amendment to the Opposition.
  11.00 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I have no intention of conceding the amendment to the Opposition. I always understood it as one of the principles of law that to reopen a case one had to submit fresh evidence. If I may say so, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), his speech tonight, which was made not the first, second or third time but for probably the fourth time, was no better for having been taken out of a pigeon hole, dusted down and delivered on Report

  183
  because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) said, nothing that he said was related in any remote way to the amendment.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says that to reopen a case one has to submit fresh evidence. Given that the Minister was defeated on the amendment in Committee, can he say, what fresh evidence he wishes to bring before the House to justify his reopening the case?
  Mr. Ewing: The fresh evidence of the people of Scotland. As I explained in Committee, if Conservative Members ever find themselves in one of the district courts and treat them with the contempt with which they treat the House of Commons they will find themselves in serious trouble.
  Mr. Fairbairn Mr. Fairbairn rose—
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. and learned Gentleman should sit down, because I have no intention of giving way to him. I am being as friendly as possible. I do not want the hon. Members for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) or Edinburgh, Pent-lands to find themselves in serious trouble when they appear in the district courts. I plead with them not to treat the courts with the same contempt as they treat the House of Commons.
  The evidence that we have is from the people of Scotland. They do not feel like travelling 50, 60 or 70 miles every time they want passport photographs signed. I am sure that no political candidate, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, if he stands at the next election and asks for his election expenses or any other official election document to be signed by a justice of the peace, will feel like sending his election agent 50, 60 or 70 miles to have those documents signed. We must have a sense of realism in the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) talked about legal
  luminaries making legal mistakes. The fact is that only legal luminaries are qualified to make legal mistakes, so my hon. Friend should not be surprised at that.
  No one on the Opposition benches has spoken to the amendment.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I have been looking at the proceedings of the first sitting of the Scottish Standing Committee seeking to establish whether Amendment No. 1 was considered then or in subsequent proceedings in order to judge the arguments being made by the Minister for the amendment. I believe that the crucial amendment is No. 2, relating to whether stipendiary magistrates or lay justices should officiate at district courts, not Amendment No. I which relates to the signing of certain documents. Am I correct?
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is perfectly correct. Government Amendment No. 2 deals with the principle concerning stipendiary magistrates or lay justices. The point is that none of the speeches that have been made by Opposition Members has related to Government Amendment No. 1.
  At the second sitting of the Committee upstairs I went out of my way to explain that the amendment on which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands rightly said we were defeated did not in any shape or form alter the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is whether lay justices or stipendiary magistrates should preside in the district courts. This amendment does not deal with that principle. Therefore, I urge the House to accept the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 140.

  Division No. 156.1

  AYES

  [11.3 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Anderson, Donald

  Bishop, E. S.

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Archer, Peter

  Blenkinsop, Arthut

  Campbell, Ian

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Boardman, H.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashton, Joe

  Booth, Albert

  Carmichael, Neil

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cartwright, John

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood'

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Bates, Alf

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Buchan, Norman

  Coleman, Donald

  Conlan, Bernard

  John, Brynmor

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Radice, Giles

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Judd, Frank

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Cryer, Bob

  Ketley, Richard

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Kerr, Russell

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Daiyell, Tam

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Davies, Denzil (Lianeill)

  Lambie, David

  Rooker, J. W.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roper, John

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Lamond, James

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Doig, Peter

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dormand, J. D.

  Litterick, Tom

  Ryman, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Luard, Evan

  Selby, Harry

  Dunn, James A.

  McElhone, Frank

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne]

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Eadie, Alex

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sillars, James

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Silverman, Julius

  Ennals, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Madden, Max

  Small, William

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mahon, Simon

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Snape, Peter

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fernyhouoh Rt Hon E

  Meacher, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fitch Alan (Wigan)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Stewart, Rt Hon M (Fulham)

  Flannery, Martin

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stott, Roger

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Millan, Bruce

  Strang, Gavin

  Ford, Ben

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Molloy, William

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Thinn, James

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Urwin, T, w.

  Golding, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Moyle, Roland

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

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Ward, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Newens, Stanley

  Watkinson, Jonn

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Noble, Mike

  Weetch, Ken

  Hardy, Peter

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wellbeloved, James

  Harper, Joseph

  Ogden, Eric

  White, James (Pollok)

  Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Whitahead Phillip

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Ovenden, John

  Williams Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Hatton, Frank

  Owen, Dr David

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Horam, John

  Park, George

  Wise Mrs Audrey

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Parker, John

  Woodall Alec

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Parry, Robert

  Woof Robert

  Huckfield, Les

  Peart, Laurie

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hunter, Adam

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Prescott, John

  Mr. David Stoddart and

  Janner, Greville

  Miss Margaret Jackson.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael

  Cockcrott, John

  Hall, Sir John

  Arnold, Tom

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speithorne)

  Cope, John

  Hannam, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Corrle, John

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Costain, A. P.

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Banks, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hawkins, Paul

  Beith, A. J.

  Durant, Tony

  Heseltine, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hicks, Robert

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Biffen, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hordern, Peter

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Elliott, Sir William

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Blaker, Peter

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hunt, John

  Body, Richard

  Fairbalrn, Nicholas

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Britten, Leon

  Fox, Marcus

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Freud, Clement

  King, Tom (Sridgwater)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Kirk, Peter

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Goodhew, Victor

  Knox, David

  Burden, F. A.

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Lamont, Norman

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gray, Hamish

  Lawson, Nigel

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Grist, Ian

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  186

  187

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Nott, John

  Sims, Roger

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sinclair, Sir George

  MacGregor, John

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Speed, Keith

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Madel, David

  Penhaligon, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Percival, Ian

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Mather, Carol

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Maxwell.Hyslop, Robin

  Raison, Timothy

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tebbit, Norman

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Monro, Hector

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Viggers, Peter

  Morgan, Geraint

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mudd, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Younger, Hon George

  Neave, Airey

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Neubert, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin

  Mr. Adam Butler and

  Normanton, Tom

  Silvester, Fred

  Mr. Richard Luce

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2

  DISTRICT OF, AND EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY, DISTRICT COURT
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 31 after 'magistrate', insert
  'or by one or more justices'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may take Amendment No. 3, in Clause 5, page 3, line 39, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
  Mr. Ewing: The effect of this Amendment is to provide that the jurisdiction and powers of the district court shall be exercisable by a stipendiary magistrate or by one or more justices. The effect of the amendment is to restore a provision which was in the Bill as originally introduced, which was in the Bill as it came to us from another place, and which was in the Bill which received an unopposed Second Reading in this House. The words to be restored were removed during the Committee stage.
  As the Bill stands at present, no justice of the peace could sit on the bench of the district court. The present amendment provides for the bench of the district court to be constituted by one or more justices but does not remove the provision which empowers a stipendiary magistrate, where appointed, to adjudicate in the district court. Much of the
  188
  discussion on this Bill has centred on the relative merits of lay judges and professional stipendiaries.
  I think it is inappropriate to attempt to make a judgment on the value of the contribution which a properly trained and experienced justice can make to the administration of justice in the future courts on the basis of what appears to an onlooker to have happened in a very small number of cases dealt with in the existing courts. Over the last decade the burgh and justice of the peace courts have dealt with over three-quarter of a million cases and I think it is both unjustified and unfair to dismiss the whole concept of lay summary justice simply because a few cases appeared to be wrongly dealt with. To proceed universally on that basis would produce some very odd results. Clearly what is required—and this is what the Government have done—is to examine the structure of the courts and see what improvements can be made to remove the deficiencies and defects.
  We have made provision for the Lord Advocate to assume responsibility, on a progressive basis, for prosecutions in these courts. He will, as already announced, take responsibility for prosecutions in more than two-thirds of the district courts from 16th May 1975 and in the remaining two-thirds will assume responsibility from 16th May 1976. This will have the result that before a case is brought before the court, careful consideration will be given to whether a prosecution is in the best interests of justice and, if so, to its proper preparation.

  189
  We have made provision for the bench of the district court to have advice and guidance from a legal assessor, and we have required that assessor to be legally qualified. Legal aid will be made available to accused persons in the district courts. We have made provision for the proper training of those justices who are to sit on the bench. These are the important features which will distinguish the district courts from the courts they will replace. They have been warmly welcomed on all sides.
  Given these improvements, I simply cannot accept the view that there is no place whatsoever for the layman of Scotland in the administration of justice in a local court which deals with minor infringements of the criminal law. The lay judge has a practical everyday knowledge of the way of life and social conditions in that local community and, when decisions have to be made on how to deal with offenders, that knowledge is as valuable as legal training in securing that justice is done. Acceptable standards of behaviour in a community and the punishment or treatment of those who breach the code are matters of rightful concern not just to one profession but to all members of that community. It seems right, therefore, in principle, that given proper training and access to legal advice, selected laymen, and women for that matter, should be involved in the administration of justice.
  As it stands, the Bill provides for full-time stipendiary magistrates and only stipendiary magistrates to man the bench in the district court. But, so far as I am aware, no one has carried out a feasibility study of a system of lower courts in Scotland staffed exclusively by stipendiaries and administered by local authorities. Some things are already clear, however. A stipendiary magistrate is able to dispose of a very substantial number of cases per year, of the order of 10,000 to 15,000.
  Outwith the largest centres of population it would be necessary for one stipendiary to do all the work for five or six districts or islands authority areas if he was to have a worthwhile job. The difficulties are obvious. What is to be done where a custody case has to be dealt with in one area and the stipendiary has a scheduled court sitting in another of his districts, perhaps 100 miles away? What is to be done if a stipendiary magis
  190
  trate falls ill? Who will do the work of the court the next day or the next week, or perhaps even the next month? lf, as the Bill provides as it stands, it is only a stipendiary magistrate who can sit on the bench, then the problems would be so immense that the system would be quite impossible to operate. There must also be doubts whether there would be sufficient people with the right qualities attracted to a career dealing with the types of cases coming before the district court. This matter is important when we are attempting to attract people of quality. But a system of lower courts has to come into operation in less than two months' time when the existing lay courts disappear.
  The provisions of this Bill were designed and prepared on the basis that the bench of the district court would normally be manned by lay justices, with provision for the employment of stipendiary magistrates where this was considered appropriate. Accordingly the Bill contained and still contains a substantial number of provisions relating to the appointment of justices, to existing magistrates and justices, to ex officio justices, to the disqualification from sitting on the bench in certain circumstances of certain categories of justices, to the Supplemental List and so on. This amendment restores consistency and completeness to the Bill.
  The passage of the Bill through the House has served to show that there is no doubt that on this issue of stipendiary magistrates or lay justices we are certainly divided. That is on the record. In considering the present amendment the issue before us, because of the time factor, is totally different. In effect, the issue is that which has been put before us by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson). That is whether on 16th May there will be a workable system of lower courts of any kind to take over the work of the existing courts. Those who may be inclined to reject the amendment must accept that to do so would be to run the risk of a breakdown in the administration of justice in Scotland.
  This is an issue of principle. It is the heart and kernel of the Bill. This is what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) referred to. This is the issue which has divided us, sometimes very passionately, on Second Reading and certainly in Committee, and will perhaps

  191
  again tonight—although we have heard the speeches already. This is the issue about which we have been talking since the Bill was introduced in another place. I urge the House to resolve the issue once and for all by accepting the Government amendment and rejecting the Opposition's Amendment No. 3.
  Mr. Hector Monro: The Minister is beginning to sound quite like a lawyer—finding a difficulty for every solution. Whether or not the amendment is carried, I cannot accept that we could not produce a system of justice by the middle of May. It cannot be beyond the wit of the Government to provide an adequate number of stipendiary magistrates by then without any difficulty.
  The Minister is misleading the House by over-emphasising this matter time and again. As he knows, and has said in the debate, the kernel of our differences in Committee was this matter, and subsequently the automatic appointment of justices. The clause and the issues involved were a complete nightmare for the hon. Gentlemen in Committee. His own side proved to him just what dangerous ground he was on. He lost Division after Division. Tempers flared. Filibusters were organised. I have never known anything like it in Committee, not even when the Secretary of State was accustomed to serve on Standing Committee.
  Tonight the Under-Secretary put on a brave smile after suffering crushing defeats in four sittings in Standing Committee. He knows that if Part I were to be implemented as it is—that is, as amended by the Committee—it would be the democratic wish of the majority of the members of the Standing Committee. Because Part II is in terms of lay summary justice, the Bill is in technical terms a shambles. It is no credit to the Government that they have brought a Bill from Committee in this state.
  The Minister is going back to the Government's original policy on which they decided after a lengthy delay between March of last year and when the Bill was introduced into the Lords last November. It still seems to be against the weight of evidence that the Minister brought forward his proposals. He calls in aid the magistrates and the police
  192
  judges of the cities and burghs. It is very much their wish to perpetuate a system which has been seen to be less efficient than that of the stipendiary magistrate. Before any hon. Member leaps to his feet in horror, let me hasten to make it clear that I am not saying that lay justice is bad.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Gentleman is saying that.
  Mr. Monro: I am not. That is typical of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). He chatters away behind the Government Front Bench for all the world as though he were Lord God Almighty. He does not know what he is talking about. We have made it clear in Committee and now on Report that we are not denigrating what lay summary justice has done in the past. We are saying that stipendiary justice is better.
  Dr. Miller:How does the hon. Gentleman know that?
  Mr. Monro: Because it has worked better. The hon. Gentleman should know that from experience in his own city of Glasgow before he ran off to East Kilbride. He should not keep on chattering from the second bench. He can make a speech later.
  The Opposition believe strongly that in May a step should be taken towards providing better justice than we have had in the past. Not one atom of evidence was produced by the Under-Secretary in Committee, nor was any produced by the Secretary of State on Second Reading, to indicate that what is about to be perpetuated will be more efficient than a system of stipendiary magistrates as the Opposition propose.
  The Under-Secretary should tell us when he replies whether he intends on 16th May to introduce stipendiary magistrates in the city of Edinburgh, which will obviously be the second city where they will be required if he uses the option he has in the Bill.
  Secondly, has the hon. Gentleman carried out a survey to determine the extent of the increased work load in district courts arising from the availability of legal aid? This is important in relation to the number of stipendiaries or justices of the peace who will be needed.
  We shall divide against the amendment.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I suppose that in a sense I have an interest to declare in that I was trained to be a lawyer. I have now given up practice and I have no specific professional interest. Nevertheless, I think that one of two lessons can be drawn from my experience. I do not wish to become involved in a high-flown and impassioned debate. The purpose of this debate is to determine the best format for obtaining justice in the lower courts for the members of the community brought before them.
  Had the Minister come before the House and suggested that there may well be room for the presence of lay magistrates during the sentencing process I think that I would have had a lot of sympathy with him. One of the advantages of the lay magistrate is that he probably has deep roots in the community and the ability to weigh local conditions against the offence which a person may have committed. Of course, we are dealing not only with sentencing but with the determination of guilt and innocence. I am sure that the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary of State would be ready to declare that there is a need for training and a need for experience on the part of lay magistrates if they are to deal with certain judicial functions.
  In my experience I have found the sifting of evidence and the determining whether somebody is guilty or innocent to be difficult matters. It is easy when prosecuting or defending to take a one-sided view of the guilt or innocence of an accused. A magistrate has to make that difficult decision. I welcome the proposals for the giving of training and for the supplying of legal assessors to help the magistrate in sifting the evidence.
  I appreciate that the Government have come part of the way towards providing some acceptable solutions. The difficulty is that at the end of the day it is the magistrate himself who has to take a decision. It is not the case that a person who has been trained in law takes a decision on guilt or innocence and then decides on sentence in company with a lay assessor who has been in attendance during the proceedings. It is the layman or amateur—I say that without wishing to cause offence or to place any imputation
  194
  upon such a person—who has to decide whether somebody has been guilty of an offence and what punishment has to follow. That is one of the most crucially serious matters to decide in any society.
  There is a safety net given to the ordinary citizen if he comes before someone who has been legally trained. I am not necessarily suggesting that a lawyer is completely right in every decision that he or she might take as a magistrate. Upper courts have overturned decisions by sheriffs on sufficient occasions in tile past to suggest that they are fallible. However, I suggest that a lay magistrate is likely to be more able to make a mistake than someone who has been professionally trained, and particularly when that lay magistrate is commencing his judicial career.
  I found very good lay magistrates who were the equal of good stipendiaries or sheriffs. I have also seen very bad lay magistrates. On occasions I have also seen some rather poor professionals. When I have seen someone who is new to a judicial office making elementary mistakes I have wondered whether his experience will be gained at the expense of somebody's reputation.
  At the end of the day that is perhaps where I differ from the Government. I appreciate that an experienced lay magistrate is capable of taking decisions on guilt or innocence, but I fear that the time he or she takes to gain that experience may be at the expense of an innocent member of the community. The expense of appeal, the difficulties of appeal and the limitations of the stated case procedure, which makes appeals difficult, also weigh the balance in favour of the professional magistrates. I also think there have been recent movements towards professionalism.
  Members of the Scottish National Party have no real vested interest in the continuation of a system of justices of the peace, perhaps because we are a fairly new party and we do not seem to have many. But that is not a factor which should come into this debate.
  The Minister made the point that by the time we reach 15th or 16th May—the operative date of the measure—there may be some confusion unless the provisions of the amendment are accepted. I am prepared to consider that there may

  195
  be some confusion, but it is open to the Government to take care of that possibility by putting forward an amendment in the other place—if that is still possible at this stage—to deal with the question. If it is not possible, because the Bill has already been to the Lords, that is not a valid reason for blackmailing the House of Commons into accepting a situation which the Government have created by not having made interim arrangements which could have taken care of the situation beyond 16th May until sufficient magistrates have been appointed on a stipendiary basis.
  There is still time for them to rush through an uncontested measure providing such interim arrangements, and there is no argument—they having failed to take care of the possibility of confusion —for their now contesting a decision reached by the First Scottish Standing Committee in relation to these matters.
  Mr. William Small: I shall not take very long. This is not a question of guilt or innocence it is a question of staffing the district courts with lay magistrates or stipendiary magistrates, as I read the amendment. Sentencing is a different matter, and does not come within the terms of either amendment.
  Essentially, the position is that many people are crying "Fire", and nobody here would cry "Fire" where no fire exists. To that degree there has been an upsurge towards having stipendiary magistrates alone, and cutting out lay justices. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and to that degree those sitting in district courts over a scattered community are more likely to have an identity with the nature of the environment and with what is and what is not a crime, in terms of the cases that come before them. I could give many exotic examples of what constitutes a crime.
  I am all for local knowledge and local thought, and I am not in favour of stipendiary magistrates. I do not want to see a Soviet style duma introduced into our district courts.
  Mr. James Dempsey: I have been waiting here this evening in the hope that the Opposition would give us facts and figures explaining why the office of lay magistrate
  196
  should be discontinued. Not even the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who is asking why stipendiaries should not be appointed, has made an effort to convince us why the office of lay magistrate should be discontinued. It would be very unwise to take such action unless we can be given some indication of the extent to which lay magistrates have not been a success in the administration of justice. We should be told what is wrong with the present system. Why should it be dispensed with? We have been given no such information.
  Perhaps I should declare an interest. I have done it before. I am a justice of the peace. I was shocked to hear the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) saying that people such as myself are not even capable of knowing what it is about. If a policeman calls at my home he tells me what it is about and asks me whether I will give him an authority—which I duly do. I do not need an academic degree to decide that sort of thing. I have never heard so much rubbish in my life.
  What about the fellows with academic degrees? I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman of one of his own kinsmen whom I saw at a football match. During the game, in the excitement, a lad threw a pie at the referee, and then, when the police went to pick the lad up, the one who jumped up and said, "That is the wrong man you are picking up the wrong man", was the sheriff, yet that sheriff fined the same poor blighter on the Monday morning £25 for throwing the pie. I shall be frank about it. I could not imagine a lay magistrate committing an error of that sort.
  We hear a lot of praise for the fellows with academic qualifications. In all modesty, I must say that I should be willing to take them on in court at any time. I have no academic legal qualifications, but I pride myself on having some jolly good sound common sense, and that is all that is necessary, especially when one is dealing with minor offences.
  The attitude of lay magistrates can be far more understanding and more humane, and more in keeping with the needs of justice. I remember the ease—I shall not mention the name—of a fellow who had fallen out with his wife and

  197
  had given her a bit of a hammering. It all happened because he refused to take the wife and kids to Ayr on Fair Monday. Without consulting that fountain of wisdom from Central Ayrshire who sits on the bench behind me here, we decided what to do. We said: "You take the wife and kids to Ayr, and come and report to us tomorrow night that you have been there". We did not expect to hear from him, but, lo and behold, the door bell rang at 10 o'clock and there he was with his wife and three kids, with their spades and pails, as happy as the day is long. Needless to say, that particular charge was dismissed.
  Is not that common sense? But would a stipendiary do that? What is more, how on earth are we to get at these fellows at the weekend? Who does the sheriff court work on the Saturday?— the laymen. The ordinary sheriffs are not there. I think that they go boating or golfing. That is a matter of fact. Where would one find a stipendiary at the weekend? Would he be available? I am sure that he would not.
  Only recently, on a Sunday morning as I was coming back from church with my daughter, some CID men chased after me to get me to sign search warrants. I am sure that they would not get a stipendiary magistrate on the Sunday morning—
  Mr. William Ross: Or coming back from church.
  Mr. Dempsey: Or coming back from church. There are, it is said, two persons God never made—one a contented farmer, and the other an honest lawyer. We have been given no evidence to support the discontinuance of lay magistrates. By and large, they do a jolly good job. We have our black sheep—the academic chaps have their black sheep, too—but, on the whole, we do our utmost to administer the law of the land without fear or favour.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: The debate has become polarised between those who think that the professionals are the answer to the whole question and those who think that lay magistrates are the answer. I served for 15 years as a magistrate, and, unless the law has been changed, I am an honorary sheriff still. I take great pride in such time as I had on the bench. I never thought that I
  198
  was the fount of all wisdom, but I certainly can say, with the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), that at least I knew the people and perhaps was able on that account to temper justice with mercy, and so on.
  But we must confess that it is much better to have professionally trained people in that kind of situation. I would prefer to go to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) than to a man selling herbs or to a faith healer, but whether that would be a wise decision would remain to be seen. The fact that he is a MB, ChB would give me that extra confidence. I think that the public are entitled to the same confidence in people on the bench.
  11.45 p.m.
  The stipendiary might be called from 100 miles away if the amendment is insisted upon. That is the situation at Stornoway sheriff court where the travelling sheriff is shared. In Committee the Under-Secretary did me an injustice—I am sure inadvertently—when he said that I was opposed to the views of the rest of my party on this issue. On Second Reading I interrupted the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) to ask whether he thought that there were sufficient trained men to take over if the amendment were passed. However, I prefaced that comment by saying that I went along with his argument and that he had proved his case.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I am tempted to rest the Government case on the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and leave it at that. However, I have a commitment to deal with points that were raised.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) rehearsed the arguments we have been over so often and I think that he must now accept, as I do, that there are these differences between us, that the Government side believe that we should put lay magistrates into the district courts and the Opposition believe that these should be stipendiary magistrates. We shall have to agree that this difference exists. I am certain that no answer I give tonight will satisfy the hon. Member for Dumfries in believing that the Government are justified in introducing these courts staffed by lay magistrates.

  199
  He asked a specific question relating to the City of Edinburgh. This is primarily a matter for Edinburgh District Council and to date we have had no request to the Government that we should introduce stipendiary magistrates in Edinburgh. The provision we inserted in the Bill was that the Secretary of State would have this flexibility if a request was submitted for the appointment of a stipendiary, that it would be considered by my right hon. Friend with various other factors to be taken into account, and that a decision would be made against that background.
  On the question of increased workload, I said in Committee that it was about 5 per cent. of the cases that were granted legal aid. I think that I am right in saying that the financial resources we have made available here are an indication of the number of cases in which we expect application for legal aid. We have no reason to believe that the percentage will be higher in the district courts than is the case for the sheriff courts, and that is about 5 per cent. of the total case load.
  I turn briefly but not discourteously to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). There are three important features of the new courts. First, for the first time lay magistrates will have training, and that is a vast improvement. Secondly, the Government intend that no inexperienced justice should sit in court on his own. There will always be an experienced justice present and in that way the inexperienced will gain experience and be involved in the work load and the various facets of court work.
  Thirdly, and probably even more important than that, the Lord Advocate, through the procurator fiscal, will take over the prosecutions in these courts. It is therefore reasonable to assume that cases
  will be allocated to the proper court in the first place. When in the wisdom of the procurator fiscal it is thought that a case should appropriately be taken in the sheriff court, that is where it will go, and if it is thought that it should go to the district court, that is where it will go. That, too, is a vast improvement and should remove the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
  Our researches show quite clearly that Dundee does not have the work load to justify a stipendiary magistrate, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Dundee, East shares with me the hope that it never will.
  There is nothing to take the place of the district courts if the Bill is not passed. We should be left without courts at this level and the work load would have to go to the sheriff court, with all the consequences of such an action. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that that would be a serious situation.
  If I misrepresented the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), I apologise to him. I understood his remarks to mean that he was supporting lay magistrates, and I know that he has wide experience of this work. If I misrepresented him, I apologise and withdraw.
  I shall not reply in detail to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) save to say that I understand that there is now only one person who attends the Albion Rovers' matches, so there should be no difficulty in picking out a person who threw a pie. I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 132.

  Division No. 157.1

  AYES

  [11.54 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Conlan, Bernard

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Archer, Peler

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Corbett, Robin

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Buchan, Norman

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Ashton, Joe

  Buchanan, Richard

  Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P)

  Cryer, Bob

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Campbell, Ian

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

  Bates, Alt

  Canavan, Dennis

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Carmlchael, Nail

  Davles, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cartwrlght, John

  Davis, CHnton (Hackney C)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Clemltson, Ivor

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Dempsey, James

  Boardman, H.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Doig, Peter

  Booth, Albert

  Coleman, Donald

  Dormand, J. D.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lamond, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Dunn, James A.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Hoper, John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rose, Paul B.

  Eadie, Alex

  Luard, Evan

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  McElhone, Frank

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Ryman, John

  Ennals, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Selby, Harry

  Evans, John (Newton)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Ewlng, Harry (Stirllng)

  Madden, Max

  Sillars, James

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mahon, Simon

  Silverman, Julius

  Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Small, William

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mikardo, lan

  Snape, Peter

  George, Bruce

  Mlllan, Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Golding, John

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M (Fulham)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Molloy, William

  Stoddart, David

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Stott, Roger

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Strang, Gavin

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Hardy, Peter

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Newens, Stanley

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Noble, Mike

  Tinn, James

  Hatton, Frank

  Oakes, Gordon

  Urwin, T. W.

  Horam, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Ovenden, John

  Ward, Michael

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Owen, Dr David

  Watkinson, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Weetch, Ken

  Hunter, Adam

  Park, George

  Wellbeloved, James

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Parker, John

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Parry, Robert

  White, James (Pollok)

  Janner, Greville

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'rb)

  John, Brynmor

  Phlpps, Dr Colin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Prescott, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Woodall, Alec

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Radice, Giles

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Judd, Frank

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Kerr, Russell

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

  Lambie, David

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  NOES

  Alison, Michael

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Arnold, Tom

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mlscampbell, Norman

  Baker, Kenneth

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Banks, Robert

  Gray, Hamish

  Monro, Hector

  Beith, A. J.

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Benyon, W.

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Bitten, John

  Hall, Sir John

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mudd, David

  Blaker, Peter

  Hannam,John

  Neave, Alrey

  Body, Richard

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Nelson, Anthony

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hawkins, Paul

  Neubert, Michael

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Brittan, Leon

  Hicks, Robert

  Nolt, John

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Onslow, Cranley

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hunt, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Burden, F. A.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Penhaligon, David

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Raison, Timothy

  Churchill, W. S.

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rees, Peter (Dover S Deal)

  Cockcroft, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Reld, George

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Knox, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Cope john.

  Lamont, Norman

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Corrle, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Costam, A. P.

  Letter, Jim (Beeston)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Luce, Richard.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Macfariane, Nell

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Durant, Tony

  MacGregor, John

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Eden Rt Hon Sir John

  Macmllian, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Edwards Nicholas (Pembroke)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Eyre, Reginald

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Silvester, Fred

  Falrbairn, Nicholas

  Mather, Carol

  Sims, Roger

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Freud, Clement

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  202

  203

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Speed, Keith

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Welsh, Andrew

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Thompson, George

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Younger, Hon George

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Stradllng Thomas, J.

  Viggers, Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Tebbit, Norman

  Watt, Hamish

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4

  PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE DISTRICT COURT
  Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 28 at end insert
  "and the power to increase the limit set by section 3(3) in so far as that is necessary to take account of the inflation of the currency.".
  I take the view that long-windedness at this hour of the night is unforgivable. The amendment provides for the indexing of penalties, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I trust that I can convince the House to reject the amendment. The maximum fine presently imposed by a burgh court for a common law offence is £50. It has been at this level since it was last reviewed in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963. The fine is most commonly used in the burgh courts. It is important that we should not take such an important step as is suggested by the amendment within the context of this Bill.
  Parliament has always jealously guarded the right to determine fines. The effect of the amendment would be to give to the High Court the right to determine the level of fines. I do not think that such a step would be acceptable to the House. The decision on this should be left with Parliament.
  I hope that with those remarks I have convinced the House that the amendment ought not to be accepted. It may be that I have even convinced the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that he should withdraw his amendment and not put it to a vote.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

  APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF JUSTICES
  Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 10, at end insert "sheriffs".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take the following amendment:
  No. 13, in Clause 11, page 8. line 26, after "him", insert
  "other than the office of sheriff".
  Mr. Steel: It is important to preserve the status quo here. The sheriff is entitled to sit in the existing burgh courts if no magistrate is available. This is a valuable fall-back position.
  A short time ago we heard the Minister arguing about what would happen if no stipendiary magistrates were available or were sick on a certain day. The reverse is also true. In landward areas where we are not likely to have stipendiary magistrates this will be an additional help in the staffing of the court. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the amendment.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Again I hope to convince the House that the amendment should be rejected. There has been no demand from the sheriff in Scotland to sit in these district courts. We are anxious to retain a good relationship between sheriffs and lay magistrates, and the sheriffs have given a clear indication to the Government that they would be interested in and willing and able to assist us with the training of lay magistrates, and lay magistrates courts and the rotas that have to be drawn up will be the subject of jurisdiction by the local justice's committee. If we were to accept the amendment, sheriffs would not only on many occasions have to sit in the courts but would also have to take part in the other committee work, which they have said they are not desirous of doin

  205
  Having said that, I again indicate to the House that the sheriffs are most anxious to retain a first-class relationship between district courts and themselves. We do not see this amendment as lending anything to that relationship. We do not see it is as necessary within the context of the Bill, and again I ask the hon. Gentleman either to withdraw the amendment or not to put it to the vote. But if the matter is pressed, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 11

  EX OFFICIO JUSTICES
  Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 8, line 30, leave out subsections (2) to (8).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendment:
  No. 5, in page 8, line 30, leave out 'third' and insert quarter'.
  Mr. Mourn: This has become what we call the shuttlecock amendment. It was in the original Bill. When the Bill went to another place it was removed by their Lordships. It was reinstated in Committee by the Government, and now we have every intention of removing it again.
  This is the second most crucial amendment to the Bill and we feel very strongly about it. We are still totally opposed in principle to the automatic appointment of new justices just because they are elected to a district council. That is for the very good reason that they are elected to adminster local authority work, not necessarily justice on the bench.
  Should be we lose the amendment, we are grateful to the Government for their amendment which changes the automatic appointment from one-third to a quarter. That at least reduces the number who will receive promotion to the bench by agreement. election or however it may come about within the district authority, but not through the ballot box.
  In Committee upstairs it was generally agreed that there were at present 4,500 justices of whom 800 or 900 would be automatically appointed to the bench because of their positions as magistrates
  206
  within existing burgh councils. We cannot see why, with this substantial number of justices, we need to appoint 300 more. The Minister said that it was a small number. That argues against his case. If it is so small, why are these 300 extra magistrates necessary?
  If we spread those 300 magistrates over the district court areas, it means that the Lord Lieutenant's Committee, which works admirably at present, will have to appoint only seven or eight on average per area. It would seem better to continue that excellent system than to introduce the new one of automatic appointment.
  In any event, without the 300, there would be an average over Scotland of about 60 justices per district court. I know that more are bound to be required in the big cities than in rural areas, but that shows how the situation is covered without the addition of these 300 automatic appointments.
  I believe that only justices who have something special to give to the bench, whether through experience, personality or the time that they have available for training, should be appointed. This consideration must be taken into account far more than their election for the administration of local government.
  The Minister has so far failed to prove the issue of quantity and he has not proved quality. I realise that hon. Members are looking at the clock, but I hope that the Minister will tell us what progress has been made on training since we met in Committee. I understood that training might be able to start soon. Has training started? Will justices be trained before 16th May?
  I believe that this is a purely political decision by the Government overriding practical considerations, and we strongly oppose it.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I rule out of hand the allegation that the decision in this case is purely political. I gave a commitment to the Committee that on Report the Government would table an amendment which reduced the proportion from one-third to a quarter. Our amendment honours that commitment.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked why the Government consider this proposal to be necessary.

  207
  I have explained, particularly in Committee, that it is absolutely essential to retain a relationship between the authorities responsible for the administration of the courts, namely, the district and island councils, and the courts. We propose in our amendment that the proportion of councillors appointed by the district councils should be no greater than and could well be less than 300 of the total number of justices in Scotland. We have explained also that those appointed automatically because they hold office in existing local authorities will be short-term appointments, although some conceivably might be long term. However, the long-term appointees will be replaced as they reach the age limit and as other circumstances arise, and we shall be left with an elected participation of a quarter, totalling only 300—and that is the maximum number which could be elected—to help to staff the district courts.
  Not once but twice we have justified our argument for retaining the relationship between the district and island councils which are responsible for administering the courts and the courts themselves. I urge the Opposition to withdraw their amendment and to accept that we shall honour our commitment to reduce the proportion from one-third to a quarter.
  Mr. Rifkind: Naturally we welcome the Government amendment, which has been tabled as a result of pressure from the Opposition and from some hon. Members opposite, but we cannot withdraw our amendment.
  Our amendment is concerned not with the overall question of lay magistrates but with the question of how lay magistrates, if we are to have them, should be chosen. The basis of the Government's proposal in Committee was that they should continue to be appointed politically and that the district councils should choose from their members those who should be magistrates. This is not the system which has operated south of the Border, and it should not operate north of the Border.
  The Minister knows that, irrespective of whether the political complexion of a local authority has been Labour, Liberal or Conservative, the people chosen have been chosen not on the basis of their ability to be good magistrates but simply because of seniority or their willingness to be chosen as bailies or magistrates.
  208
  I have no objection to councillors being among those who should serve as lay magistrates, but if they have merits to serve as lay justices it should be for the Secretary of State or the appointing bodies to choose them on that basis.
  It has been made clear—and any Scottish Member present who has had experience of local government will agree—that when bailies have been elected the criterion of ability has not been relevant. No indication has been given that in future the district councils will choose magistrates on a different basis. It is absurd to assume that they will suddenly change the habits of a lifetime. Under the system which the Minister proposes, certain people may not be able to serve as lay magistrates because the local authorities in the large cities such as Edinburgh and Glasgow will almost certainly provide all that are required.
  We shall not withdraw our amendment but will seek to divide the House on it. Whether we win or lose, we think it important that the House and country should realise that a system which operated in the past has no merit which would justify its continuance in future.
  Mr. Robertson: The Opposition's argument would have more merit if they had told us what system of choosing justices they favoured. Will the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) contend that the present mysterious formula is satisfactory? Is it a test of ability? In my experience, that is the last thing it is in the county areas, where retired colonels, do-gooders and county types are appointed. They objected to having to sit in court, and that was the thing we feared they would do. It was obvious that they had no concern for justice but thought only of the social position involved.
  The hon. Member could have proved his concern by putting down an amendment providing for a method of choosing justices. His real concern is to perpetuate the social system in county areas. I wish that the Minister had not compromised. There is more to be said for someone who is publicly elected than someone who is mysteriously appointed.
  Mr. Rifkind: The public elect them.
  Mr. Robertson: The public elect councillors who become bailies and magistrates. I do not know who elects Jps—

  209
  [Interruption.] If any hon. Member wants to intervene, he can.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is rather late. Let us just carry on.
  Mr. Robertson: I am always prepared to listen to the experts about how these JPs have been chosen. The elected councillors have put up a far better show than have the appointed JPs.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: There appears to be an impression that the only justices
  appointed from a background of politics are councillors. That is not so. As I have said, the commissions of the peace have political constitutions. They make recommendations about the appointment of JPs. Through the ages they have represented the political views of their districts. So in this context, all justices are appointed from a political background.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:
  The House divided: Ayes 112,Noes 161.

  Division No. 158.]

  AYES

  [12.23 a.m.

  Alison, Michael

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Arnold, Tom

  Heseltine, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Awdry, Daniel

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Banks, Robert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Beith, A. J.

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Bitten, John

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Biggs-Davison, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Blaker, Peter

  Kirk, Peter

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Body, Richard

  Knox, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shepherd, Colin

  Brittan, Leon

  Lawson, Nigel

  Silvester, Fred

  Brotherton, Michael

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sims, Roger

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Luce, Richard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Burden, F. A.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  MacGregor, John

  Speed, Keith

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mather, Carol

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Cockcrott, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Cope, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Durant, Tony

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Monro, Hector

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Viggers, Peter

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Mudd, David

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Neave, Airey

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Nelson, Anthony

  winterton, Nicnolas

  Gray, Hamish

  Neubert, Michael

  Younger, Hon George

  Grieve, Percy

  Normanton, Tom

  Grist, Ian

  Onslow, Cranley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grylls, Michael

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Russell Fairgrieve and

  Hall, Sir John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Mr. W. Benyon.

  Hannam,John

  Penhaligon, David

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Eadie, Alex

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Bates, Alt

  Coleman, Donald

  Ennals, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Conlan, Bernard

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Flannery, Martin

  Soardman, H.

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Booth, Albert

  Crawford, Douglas

  Freeson, Reginald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cryer, Bob

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Golding, John

  Buchanan, Richard

  Dempsey, James

  Gouriay, Harry

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Doig, Peter

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Campbell, Ian

  Dormand, J. D.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hardy, Peter

  Cartwright, John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Harper, Joseph

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Millan, Bruce

  Sillars, James

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Silverman, Julius

  Hatton, Frank

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Horam, John

  Molloy, William

  Small, William

  Hoyle, Doug (Neison)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Snape, Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hunter, Adam

  Newens, Stanley

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Noble, Mike

  Stewart, Rt Hon M (Fulham)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Stoddart, David

  Janner, Greville

  Ogden, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  John, Brynmor

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Ovenden, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Owen, Dr David

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thompson, George

  Judd, Frank

  Park, George

  Tinn, James

  Kerr, Russell

  Parry, Robert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Pendry, Tom

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Lambie, David

  Prescott, John

  Ward, Michael

  Lamborn, Harry

  Radice, Giles

  Watkinson, John

  Lamond, James

  Reid, George

  Watt, Hamish

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Weetch, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Luard, Evan

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  McElhone, Frank

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  White, James (Pollok)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rooker, J. W.

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Roper, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Madden, Max

  Rose, Paul B.

  Woodall, Alec

  Mahon, Simon

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Ryman, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Meacher, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Laurie Pavitt and

  Mikardo, Ian

  Selby, Harry

  Mr. James A. Dunn.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 5, in page 8, line 30, leave out "third" and insert quarter".—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Clause 13

  DISQUALIFICATION OF SOLICITOR WHO IS A JUSTICE
  Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 9, line 39, after "pro ceedings" insert:
  'in which the said solicitor is participating in his capacity as a justice of the peace".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 7, in page 10, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert:
  "for a licensing division, being a division in which the solicitor does not ordinarily exercise any functions as a justice of the peace in a licensing court".
  Mr. Rifkind: An amendment in these terms was proposed in Committee and the Government then said that they would be prepared to consider the matter before Report. Sadly, though the Government have considered the matter, they have not chosen to table an amendment to meet the
  212
  point, so it is necessary for us to press the matter.
  The clause would secure that where a solicitor happened also to be a justice, neither he nor anyone employed in his firm would be able to participate in any of the proceedings that might come before the district court. Although clearly no one would expect it to be right or proper that a solicitor who was a justice of the peace should participate through his firm when he was sitting on the bench, this prohibition or restriction should not apply when the solicitor in question was not even sitting on the bench—in other words, when the solicitor or justice of the peace was not involved in a matter before the court. There should then be no prohibition or restriction affecting any persons employed by the firm for which he worked.
  This is important because, unless the amendment is accepted, there could be serious consequences, especially in rural areas. In many rural parts of Scotland there is only a small number of solicitors' firms. In many places such as Stornoway there are only two firms of solicitors operating. If a solicitor belonging to one of the firms were also a justice of the peace, it would mean in effect that the other firm would have a complete

  213
  monopoly of legal work before the district court. Clearly this is not the Government's intention, but it would be the automatic consequence of the Bill as it stands.
  The Minister will doubtless say that the restriction in the Bill is similar to restrictions which have existed for a long time, apart from the fact that the restriction is now extended to cover people in the firm who may not be partners. However, there is a very important distinction as a result of local government reform. Whereas the burgh courts and many county courts served only a relatively small geographical area, with the creation of the new local government units encompassing much greater areas we have a situation in which, because one solicitor happened to be a justice of the peace, his firm would be unable to participate in any legal work before the district courts in an area of hundreds, if not thousands, of square miles.
  In an area where there is a large number of solicitors' firms this will not matter, but where there is only one firm or two or three firms the public will effectively be denied the right of choice in their legal representation before district courts.
  Either the public will be deprived of choice in the way I have indicated or solicitors will feel unable to accept the responsibility of being justices because of the problems this will entail for themselves and their firms. Neither of these results is within the Government's objectives. I know that the Government have sought to meet the objective of the amendment. If for various detailed reasons this amendment is not desirable, the Government should consider, when the Bill goes to the other place for its final consideration, tabling an amendment to give the Secretary of State discretion in cases where he thinks fit to allow the prohibition not to apply.
  The Minister will know that the Law Society has made strong and repeated representations to him on the matter. It is a point which will concern only a relatively small number of people but it will be of particular importance in rural areas. I hope that the Minister will not reject the amendment out of hand but will give it the serious consideration it deserves.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) is correct in saying that in Committee I gave an undertaking without commitment to consider the clause with a view to determining what could be done against the background that he has outlined.
  Having considered the matter, I am bound to say that the contents of the amendment and the principle involved in it arc not acceptable to the Government. It is contrary to the whole principle of legal justices not only in Scotland through the ages but in England and Wales. We would have a situation in which a justice who was also a solicitor could grant legal aid to an accused and the following week a member of that justice's firm could represent the same accused. Such a situation would bring the legal profession into disrepute. The one thing that I want to do is to guard the reputation of the profession with jealous care, particularly in Scotland.
  I owe a brief explanation to the House on Amendment No. 7. The effect of the amendment is to clarify the circumstances in which the disqualification under Clause 13(1) of a solicitor who is a justice from appearing before a district court, a licensing court or a court of appeal is disapplied by Clause 13(3). The amendment makes clear that a solicitor who is a justice may act as a solicitor before a licensing court for a licensing division other than one in which he acts as a justice. The amendment also removes the reference to a court of appeal for a licensing division—namely, a court which will no longer exist after 15th May. The form of words we now insert is meant to clarify the position.
  The hon. Member for Pentlands made great play, and rightly so, of the effect in the rural areas of our rejection of the amendment. The relaxation is contained in Clause 13(2), where a legal justice on the supplemental list can have the disqualification removed should the need arise, and particularly against the background of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman outlined.
  With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw his amendment. If he does not choose to do so, I ask the House to reject it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 7, in page 10. leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert:
  'for a licensing division, being a division in which the solicitor does not ordinarily exercise any functions as a justice of the peace in a licensing court'.— [Mr. William Ross.]

Clause 14

  COURSES FOR JUSTICES
  Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 15. in page 10, line 6. after "peace", insert
  "and legal assessors appointed under section 7(1) of this Act".
  Under Clause 7(1) legal assessors are supposed to advise the district courts on points of procedure and points of law. As legal assessors may be totally inexperienced in the ways of district courts it is my view that they should be trained as provided for under the clause.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I must inform the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that the Government are not happy about the amendment. We are asking the House to reject it. We do so for good and constructive reasons.
  The legal assessor who will be employed by the district or island authority will be the responsibility of the district or island authority. The responsibility for training that assessor, should training be required, will therefore be the responsibility of the district or island authority. In the case of the justices the responsibility for training is rightly placed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland through the legal justices.
  We are dealing with two different and separate sets of people. The justices' training is adequately taken care of in the Bill. We feel that the training of the legal assessor is best left to the district or island authority in whose employ he will be placed. I ask the hon. Gentleman to agree to withdraw the amendment. If he does not choose to do so, I ask the House to reject it.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 16

  JUSTICES' COMMITEES
  Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 12, line 1, after "A" insert
  'sheriff having jurisdiction in and a".
  It is our view that a sheriff should be a member of the justices' committee, because this would provide a useful link between the two systems in the sheriff courts and the new district courts.
  During the Second Reading debate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) referred to the danger of sheriff courts and district courts suffering from a lack of co-ordination. I believe that this is a useful amendment and that it would provide closer liaison. I hope that at this late hour, seeing that this is the last amendment, the Government will be generous and accept it.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I regret to inform the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that my generosity has never been stretched at a quarter to one o'clock in the morning, and this morning will be no exception.
  The reasons why I suggest that we reject the amendment are the same as those I put forward in answer to an earlier Liberal amendment. This amendment would place an added burden on the sheriffs. The sheriffs, now having much larger sheriffdoms to cover, would be constantly on the go, visiting local justices' committees. The workload imposed on them would be unbearable. Finally, there has been no demand from the sheriffs for such a provision.
  With those remarks, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read:—
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  12.46 a.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill, on which we have spent a lot of time and over which we have had

  217
  some heated arguments, provides a workable system for the lower courts to replace burgh and justice of the peace courts, which are to disappear on 15th May.
  There is an urgency about the question, but when we recollect how well these lay courts which are to disappear have served the country over a long time I am surprised indeed that it was necessary for the Opposition to become so vehement about a relatively small number of blemishes. Considering some of the things that have been done by professional justices, I think it was unworthy of Scottish Members so to blacken something that was part of the proud tradition of Scotland. It is important that this change should be made at the right time
  The Bill received an unopposed Second Reading, and I trust that it will receive an unopposed Third Reading.
  12.48 a.m.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Secretary of State said that we have come to the end of a long road. It has been a long road since the preparation of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had now produced a workable system. I believe we have produced such a system, but the question is not simply whether, in serving the interests of the Scottish people, we have produced a workable system; it is whether we have produced the best system. On that point many Opposition Members and many people throughout Scotland have some comments to make.
  In passing the Bill as it is, I believe that we have missed an opportunity to reform summary justice in Scotland. The Secretary of State did an injustice to all those who have taken part in the deliberations on the Bill in saying that attempts had been made to blacken the reputations of those who have served as lay justices. That is not the case. I wish that the Minister had listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). There have been criticisms of lay justices, just as there have been of the professionals.
  We have sought throughout the proceedings on the Bill to provide a better system of justice. I believe that this can be done through stipendiary magistrates. We have seen how the system can work in certain areas of Scotland. It enables
  218
  us better to serve the interests of the community and those who have to come before these courts.
  The Secretary of State has missed an opportunity, in the view of the broad spectrum of informed opinion in Scotland, which believes that it would have been better to go for a professional system of justice.
  I accept that there is some urgency in terms of the introduction of the system. We have expressed our opposition to it, but, having done that, I take this opportunity of wishing the system well, with all its defects and blemishes.
  I want to do what the Secretary of State did not do—that is, to acknowledge the work of all those who have been concerned with the preparation of the Bill over a long period. I also believe that some acknowledgment should be made on behalf of all those who have worked in the background.
  To sum up, the Bill is a missed opportunity and it is a disappointment. But, having this disappointment, let us now get on, as the Secretary of State said, and try to make the system work.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed with amendments.

PETITION

  British Piano Museum
  Mr. Patrick Mayhew: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition on behalf of Mr. Frank Walter Holland and the British Piano Museum.
  It is the purpose of the petition to obtain for the use of the British Piano Museum a room known as the Science Theatre at Broomhill House, in Southborough in my constituency, built by Sir David Salomons, a distinguished Victorian electrical engineer and the first Jewish Member of the House.
  The Science Theatre contains the largest Welte electrical philharmonic reproducing pipe organ in the world, an instrument of unique interest but now in a sad state of dereliction. Broomhill House is now owned by the Department of

  219
  Health and Social Security, as successor to the Kent County Council, to which Sir David Salomons' daughter bequeathed the house "for certain uses" for the people of Kent. The Department now seeks to use the Science Theatre merely as a conference hall.
  The British Piano Museum is alone willing and able to restore the organ and to display it to the public in situ, together with its own unique collection of musical instruments.
  The intent of the petition is supported by nearly 5,000 people, among whom are many of my constituents, and it is on their behalf that I now beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

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

BRITISH LEYLAND MOTOR CORPORATION
Mr. Evan Luard: Just over three months ago the Government announced their decision to set up the Ryder Committee to look into the affairs of British Leyland and to make recommendations on its future. Since that time the committee has been meeting, and it has recently been reported that it will shortly be in a position to present its report to the Government. The Government will then presumably, within the next month or so, reach their decision on the report. It seems an appropriate time, therefore, for this debate so that we may have an opportunity to express our views on the action which the Government should take on the basis of that report.
I wish, first, to make a preliminary point which I put not so much to the Government as in relation to public opinion and the public attitude to British Leyland. Although British Leyland came to the Government to ask, first, for assistance in the form of a guarantee of its loans and, second, for consideration at least of the possibility of Government assistance for its future investment plans, it would be a mistake to gain the im-
220
pression from the Press and other sources that British Leyland is a failing company which is at present on the point of collapse. That is very far from the truth.
In fact, given the serious difficulties facing the motor industry today not only in this country but throughout the world. British Leyland has survived this difficult period much better than almost any other motor company not only in Britain but anywhere in the world. For instance, the profit situation of British Leyland is much better than that of many other companies. It made a profit before tax in its last financial year. Even after tax it would have made a profit but for substantial losses which resulted from the writing-off of its operations in Australia.
British Leyland continued to expand its exports last year at a very difficult time. It has only recently had to face the problems of a certain amount of short-time working and, in a few cases, redundancies. This must be compared with the situation of many other firms all over the world which have had to go on to extensive short-time working or make large-scale lay-offs. A number of United States firms have made redundant or laid off hundreds of thousands of workers.
The company's profit situation should be compared with very heavy losses which have been made by many firms, for example the £90 million loss reported by Volkswagon in Germany. British Leyland currently has the three top selling models in Britain. Last year all motor firms suffered from a fall in production, but British Leyland's was less than that of any other British firm and was less than the reduction in the sales of imported cars in Britain last year.
The position, therefore, is nothing like as bad as some reports have tended to suggest. The reason why the firm has had to come to the Government is on the one hand an indication that, unlike some other firms, it has sufficient confidence in its future to wish to undertake a large investment programme. On the other hand, because the Government have rightly imposed a policy of rigorous credit control, it is not possible for British Leyland to acquire the funds it requires from the banks or the market as it might do in other circumstances. It has therefore had no option but to come to the Government for assistance.

221
I think we are justified in assuming that the Ryder Committee report will recommend that there should be substantial Government assistance for British Leyland. In that case, what action should the Government take on that recommendation? There is one point which has been the subject of considerable publicity which I should like to clear up. Certain ill-informed people have suggested that one possible course of action would be the closure of whole factories, particularly Cowley.
Anyone with any real knowledge of the affairs of British Leyland would not have made that suggestion. The Cowley plant is the most modern and best equipped of any of British Leyland's factories in Britain. The company has invested more than £50 million over the last three or four years in it, and that is the lion's share of British Leyland investment in Britain. The result is that British Leyland management regards Cowley as its most modern and efficient factory at present and I am glad to say that the management has made clear that it has no intention of closing down Cowley or making substantial cuts there. That would be a totally self-defeating action because British Leyland is a highly integrated company and there are many other operations in other parts of the country which would be seriously affected if a whole plant like Cowley were closed.
There is a further factor. I believe that some people have suggested such an action because there is still a widespread impression that labour relations are particularly bad at Cowley. I admit that at certain times in the past there has been a poor industrial relations situation at the plant, but over the last 10 months that situation has not merely been very much better than at any time in the recent past but has been better than in almost any other part of British Leyland.
Therefore, if criticism were to be made on that score, it would be not of operations at Cowley but of operations at Longbridge, Coventry or in some other part of the country. This again is a fact that should be clearly taken into account, not merely by the Ryder Committee, as I hope it will be in its report, which it is now in the process of making, but by the Government when they decide what action to take on the basis of that report.
222
Even leaving aside the extreme and totally misguided suggestions such as that, what other action might the Government take? Another suggestion fairly widely made, and also, I believe, mistaken, is that it would be rational for the Government to break up the very large organisation that was put together by the merger of BMC and Leyland six or seven years ago and seek to establish two or three separate units, representing perhaps the volume car market, the Austin-Morris division, the special car market and commercial vehicle production.
I think that that, too, would be a mistake, and I know that British Leyland management believes that it would be a mistake, because production within the total British Leyland Corporation has now become so integrated that a division of that kind would be difficult to achieve. There is a great deal of common production and there are common components. For example, the body plant at Cowley produces bodies for Rover cars and other models that are not themselves part of the volume car production. There are many other examples of closely integrated production where difficulties would be created by such a division.
There are many manufacturers of components that are assembled at Cowley. If the Cowley division were in some way to be removed from British Leyland, those manufacturers would find themselves in great difficulties. There are substantial arguments for maintaining something like the present total production of British Leyland, although there may well be a case for reorganisation of particular parts of the production.
There are other actions on a lesser scale that might be taken. I should like to make one or two suggestions for the Government to take into account when they consider the Ryder Report. I am extremely pleased—I know that this view is shared by many of my hon. Friends—that throughout this operation my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has attached great importance to the maximum possible consultation with the work force of British Leyland in whatever decisions are finally taken. I know that that has been very much appreciated by the workers at Cowley and that there has been considerable activity in presenting opinions, and I hope that they will be carefully considered by the Government.

223
I should like to comment on that policy and to express the hope that in the interval between the receipt of the Ryder Report and their decision on it the Government will continue and intensify these consultations with those who work on the shop floor within British Leyland.
I very much hope that in their consideration of the report the Government will not be exclusively governed by purely economic considerations. It is obviously important that British Leyland should be made efficient, viable and profitable, and nobody disputes that, but we are considering one of the most important industries in the country, certainly the only large British firm remaining within that industry, and I hope that social considerations will be weighed in any decision.
I take the example of my constituency. Motor manufacturing is the only major industry in Oxford. There are other parts of the country and even other areas where British Leyland operates where that is not true. I hope that there will not be any large-scale reductions anywhere, but if they were in other parts of the country there would be alternative parts of the engineering industry where those who lost their jobs would be able to find alternative employment. That is not the case in Oxford. It is the only major industry. If we are to have a large-scale reduction, although I do not believe that it is likely or necessary, there will be unemployment in the Oxford area. I hope that that will be carefully borne in mind when the Government reach their decision on the Ryder Committee's report.
I hope that the Government fully appreciate that the motor industry is perhaps our most important single export industry. Last year the industry had an export surplus of £1,000 million, and British Leyland had a substantial and growing share in that. Already this year that proportion has increased. I believe that the surplus earned by the industry is increasing by 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. We are, therefore, talking about a major industry. It is important that when the Government reach their decision on British Leyland they should bear in mind the importance of the industry and of British Leyland in particular, not merely to those who work within it but to the country, in the sub-
224
stantial exports it wins for us. I hope that they will give the most favourable possible consideration to generous financial assistance to the company and taking a corresponding share in its ownership.
1.6 a.m.
Mr. Douglas Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) and to the Minister for allowing me to intervene briefly in the debate.
I endorse several of the points the hon. Gentleman made. The large number of my constituents who work at Cowley are not afraid of Sir Don Ryder but they are rather afraid of politicians. They are afraid that this may become a political rather than an industrial decision. They fear that in the political balance the influence of the Midlands will outweigh the influence of Oxfordshire and Oxford.
Can the Minister ensure that after he receives Sir Don Ryder's report there will be no undue delay before the Government announce their plans? The need for consultation is clear. It would be damaging if there were in the motor industry the kind of delays that are still dragging on in the steel industry.
Will the Minister recognise that the work force at Cowley, and probably throughout British Leyland, recognises the need for radical change? There has been a considerable change in attitude, even in the short time that I have been listening to members of the work force. It would be a great mistake to invest large sums of taxpayers' money in present management and trade union practices, and in present manning levels, but it is not necessary because there is now a recognition of the need to change.
If the Government decide to give help which will achieve change and help to bring about a healthy and profitable company, the ending of this story might still be a happy one.
1.8 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Meacher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) on a lucid, well-balanced and carefully-argued speech, delivered without a note, on the Government reaction that he would like to see to the Ryder Report.

225
The subject of the debate is of great importance. I am glad that it has offered the opportunity to clear the air about some of the specific anxieties that have been generated about the future of British Leyland.
The House is well aware that the Government have appointed a team led by Sir Don Ryder to look into all aspects of the company's present situation and future prospects. The Government have not yet taken any decision about the company's request for support for its longterm investment programme. Clearly, no decisions will be taken until the report has been received and its recommendations have been carefully considered.
I hope that the delay will not be great, but the important thing is to make sure that we reach the right conclusions. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that this means that it is not possible for me to reply tonight by lifting a corner of the veil. I am not in a position to do so. At this point no member of the Government knows what the contents of the report will be. It should be equally obvious that therefore I cannot issue specific guarantees about the future. To do so would make nonsense of the whole intention behind the Government's decision to set up a highly-qualified and independent team.
Having said what I cannot do, I think that I can usefully clarify some points about the Government's broad intentions. There can be no doubt that they have not been fully understood in all quarters.
In December, when the news first broke that British Leyland was talking to us about the possibility of long-term help, the Government made it immediately clear that their response would be a constructive one. It was the corporation's own view that the only short-term commercial solution to the company's problems was immediate substantial retrenchment. The company explained that this meant that the question of current market forces offered no option to the closure of plants and consequent redundancies among the company's employees and those of its suppliers. A commercial solution at that stage would also have involved an immediate and probably irreversible reduction in the export performance of the corporation which is, as my hon. Friend said, the country's largest net exporter. It was clear
226
then that these courses of action would lead swiftly to irreparable damage being done to exports, production and employment—all of them important national objectives. If the Government had not responded quickly and sympathetically, market forces could have brought about some of the very circumstances that my hon. Friend has voiced his fears about tonight.
While I cannot anticipate the solution that will emerge, I can state again the Government's requirement for a solution that would maintain the company as a major producer, exporter and employer. Our aim has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as the highest possible level of production, exports and jobs on a secure and profitable basis.
We have also made it clear that we do not regard this aim as something that the Government alone can achieve. Everyone concerned must play his full part, and this will rightly also be a requirement if there is to be public participation in the company. The Government have said that there can be no question of accepting a situation where the taxpayer is required to foot the bill for continual and avoidable loss-making.
Although we are debating the problems of British Leyland, I think it is important to realise that these are to a large extent the problems of the car industry as a whole. The problems of British Leyland must, I think, be seen in this perspective. So far, a total of 25,000 British Leyland employees have been affected by short-time working this year. The highest figure in any one week has been 15,000. Since the beginning of this year the company has announced the need for 4,205 redundancies of which the great majority are to take effect on a voluntary basis. The problems elsewhere are in many cases more acute.
British Leyland is not only an important case but it is becoming widely regarded as something of a test case of the Government's approach to industry's problems. I think it is clear from what has already taken place that this approach will be to make deep appraisal of the situation and to tackle the underlying problems and not simply to go for short-term panaceas of one kind or another.
Looking at the future, of course, the planning agreements system will provide

227
a means whereby the Government can keep in close touch with major companies, their plans and their problems on a systematic and continuous basis. I have every reason to believe that these procedures will prove relevant and acceptable to British Leyland, as they will to other major companies.
But discussion of British Leyland's problems should also be balanced by some reference to British Leyland's recent achievements. I am glad that my hon. Friend emphasised these. During the month of February British Leyland's share of the United Kingdom market rose to nearly 45 per cent. This figure has only been exceeded once before—in April 1971 —in the corporation's history. The Austin-Morris Division, about which much of the debate this evening has concentrated, achieved its highest share since January 1966. For the first time its three top selling models—the Mini, Marina and Allegro—filled the top three positions in the United Kingdom market, which is a remarkable record. During this month the share of the United Kingdom market attributed to imports fell to 28 per cent. I should also mention that the company will shortly be launching a new model, which will be made in Cowley,
I would also remind the House that despite the many problems that the United Kingdom motor industry has faced over the past year its achievements have been considerable. The industry's own statistics show it managed to earn a record £1,871 million in exports in 1974. This was more than twice the value of imports, which stood at £812 million. This is an achievement to which I am sure the House would want me to pay tribute. And it is an achievement in which all those who work at British Leyland have played a very important part.
Many of the points raised by my hon. Friend this evening have naturally focussed specifically on the position of those employed by British Leyland in the Oxford area. The point has been made that Sir Don Ryder has paid two visits to Cowley, where he has met both the trade unions and the company management. I
228
am sure there can be no doubt that he has been made as aware of the views of those who work there and others also in the company on the importance of Cowley, as we have seen from what my hon. Friend has said tonight.
Nevertheless I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the House such a thorough account of so many aspects of British Leyland's activities at Cowley. I assure him that I was already well aware of many of the points he made. I might say that I have read the local Press very carefully in recent weeks and I am familiar with the points that the company's Cowley management has repeatedly made in public to press its view of the importance of Cowley in the wider British Leyland context. I know that it has stressed the interdependence of the Cowley plant and the rest of the company's operations. and the amount of new investment, which has been considerable, that has gone into the plant. The management says that during the last five years about £51 million has been spent in modernising the plant including £20 million on tooling and facilities for the Marina and £15 million for a new car which British Leyland is just about to launch, and which is being produced at Cowley. Last month the Marina was the country's second biggest selling car.
But I still feel that it would not be appropriate for me to offer comments on these facts and viewpoints about Cowley before the Government have had a full opportunity to give careful consideration to Sir Don Ryder's report and recommendations. It would certainly be wrong for me to offer comment before the Government have even received the report, though we expect to receive it shortly. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) that the points which have been made in this debate will be noted and taken into account by the Government in reaching their decisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteeen minutes past One o'clock.

  TUC LIAISON COMMITTEE
  TUC LIAISON COMMITTEE
  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY
  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY
  EEC (BRITISH MEMBERSHIP)
  EEC (BRITISH MEMBERSHIP)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Pay)
  Civil Servants (Pay)
  Government Advertising
  Government Advertising
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Meals
  School Meals
  School Leavers (Examination Results)
  School Leavers (Examination Results)
  The Arts
  The Arts
  British Library
  British Library
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Works of Art
  Works of Art
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Development
  Overseas Development
EMPLOYMENT
  Halesowen and Stourbridge
  Halesowen and Stourbridge
  Docks
  Docks
  Aircraft Officers
  Aircraft Officers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Standing Conference of Women's Organisations
  Standing Conference of Women's Organisations
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  United Nations (Human Rights Convenants)
  United Nations (Human Rights Convenants)
  European Court
  European Court
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Finance Act
  Finance Act
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Nationalisation
  Nationalisation
  Road Deaths
  Road Deaths
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Postmen
  Postmen
  Members of Parliament (Police Protection)
  Members of Parliament (Police Protection)
  Harland and Wolff Ltd.
  Harland and Wolff Ltd.
SCOTLAND
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  School Transport
  School Transport
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Mental Hospitals
  Mental Hospitals
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Herts and Essex Hospital (Maternity Unit)
  Herts and Essex Hospital (Maternity Unit)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Radiotherapy Centre (Newcastle-upon Tyne)
  Radiotherapy Centre (Newcastle-upon Tyne)
  Children (Day Care)
  Children (Day Care)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Assault
  Assault
  Murder
  Murder
  Rape
  Rape
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Race and Sex Discrimination Legislation
  Race and Sex Discrimination Legislation
  Police (Bournemouth and Dorset)
  Police (Bournemouth and Dorset)
  Urban Aid Programme (Merseyside)
  Urban Aid Programme (Merseyside)
  PROJECTS APPROVED FOR MERSEYSIDE UNDER THE URBAN PROGRAMME
  PROJECTS APPROVED FOR MERSEYSIDE UNDER THE URBAN PROGRAMME
  Dogs (Experiments)
  Dogs (Experiments)
DEFENCE
  RAF St. Mawgan
  RAF St. Mawgan
  Royal Air Force (Cyprus)
  Royal Air Force (Cyprus)
  "Raleigh" and "Fisgard"
  "Raleigh" and "Fisgard"
  Early Warning System
  Early Warning System
  Irish Regiments
  Irish Regiments
  Personnel
  Personnel
  Staff College, Camberley
  Staff College, Camberley
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Public Expenditure (Subsidies)
  Public Expenditure (Subsidies)
  Tax Avoidance (Insurance Funds)
  Tax Avoidance (Insurance Funds)
  Petrol (Rural Areas)
  Petrol (Rural Areas)
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Tax Collection (Inquiries and Searches)
  Tax Collection (Inquiries and Searches)
  EEC Funds (South-West England)
  EEC Funds (South-West England)
  Employment (EEC Funds)
  Employment (EEC Funds)
  EEC Budget Rebate
  EEC Budget Rebate
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
ENVIRONMENT
  Motor Insurers' Bureau (Injury Accident Claims)
  Motor Insurers' Bureau (Injury Accident Claims)
  Derwent Housing Society
  Derwent Housing Society
  Housing Costs and Rents
  Housing Costs and Rents
  Local Authorities (Concurrent Powers)
  Local Authorities (Concurrent Powers)
  Railway Freight
  Railway Freight
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Housing (Local Authority Purchases)
  Housing (Local Authority Purchases)
  Greenwich (Rates and Housing)
  Greenwich (Rates and Housing)
  Water Charges (South West Water Authority)
  Water Charges (South West Water Authority)
ENERGY
  EEC Policy
  EEC Policy
  Oil Imports
  Oil Imports
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
TRADE
  Bankruptcy Law
  Bankruptcy Law
  Companies Acts (Breaches)
  Companies Acts (Breaches)
  Re-exports (USSR)
  Re-exports (USSR)
  Imports
  Imports
  Chipbord
  Chipbord
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Food Imports (Expenditure)
  Food Imports (Expenditure)
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
INDUSTRY
  Steel Exports
  Steel Exports
  Motor Vehicles (Multinational Manufacturers)
  Motor Vehicles (Multinational Manufacturers)
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Valves
  Valves
  EEC (British Membership)
  EEC (British Membership)
  EEC Investment
  EEC Investment
  EEC Grants and Loans
  EEC Grants and Loans
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
WALES
  Public Boards (Staff)
  Public Boards (Staff)
  Welsh National Assembly
  Welsh National Assembly
  Industrial Injuries (Quarrying)
  Industrial Injuries (Quarrying)
  EEC (Membership)
  EEC (Membership)
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Housing Purchases (Local Authorities)
  Housing Purchases (Local Authorities)
  Countryside Officers
  Countryside Officers
  Industrial Output
  Industrial Output
  Tourist Board's Funds
  Tourist Board's Funds
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beef Prices
  Beef Prices
  Cereals
  Cereals
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Fish Fillets
  Fish Fillets
  Horticulture (Fuel Costs)
  Horticulture (Fuel Costs)
  EEC Grants
  EEC Grants
  Quarantine Regulations
  Quarantine Regulations
  Imports (Volume and Prices)
  Imports (Volume and Prices)
  Animals for Slaughter (Export)
  Animals for Slaughter (Export)
  Seeds (Regulations)
  Seeds (Regulations)
  Broccoli
  Broccoli
  Cauliflower
  Cauliflower
  Food Import Levies
  Food Import Levies

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

NORTH SEA OIL: TAX PROPOSALS
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: 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 how their proposals to tax production by licensees of the British sector of the North Sea compare with those in operation in the Norwegian sector.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Balogh): My Lords, this is a difficult Question to answer. The final details of the new Norwegian tax proposals are not yet available. The two Governments have, however, kept in close touch at official level and our aims are the same; each country wishes the maximum benefits to accrue to its people from the North Sea without deterring the companies who must be given a fair return. The problem is very much complicated by the great differences in cost which have been experienced. What is clear is that the Norwegians have rejected the notion of an excess profits tax on the lines canvassed by the noble Earl and his friends opposite. Instead, the Norwegians propose to introduce a special tax which will impose an extra band of tax on profits computed broadly in accordance with the corporation tax rules, but with an additional allowance for depreciation. Under the general corporation tax law relief for depreciation is not given until an asset comes into use, which means that relief for the development of a second field cannot be set against receipts from an earlier field until the second field comes into production, a result substantially the same as the
964
United Kingdom's field by field basis of charge to PRT. The Norwegians also propose to put a ring fence around their Continental Shelf, as we did. A comparison of the two sets of tax proposals shows a marked similarity. The total percentage Government take from tax and royalties in the two countries is broadly comparable, the United Kingdom Government take being perhaps a little higher and accruing a little later.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply and congratulating him on the flexibility of judgment which enables him to say that the two systems are broadly comparable, and therefore congratulating him on the breadth of his vision, may I ask him whether it is not the case that the Norwegian system enables an exploration or production company to put together its operations in more than one field for tax purposes, and does not separate off one field from another?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, it is not quite like the noble Earl suggests, because the Norwegians cannot begin to depreciate in the second field until the second field has come into being; and that, broadly speaking, is the same as the situation here. On the whole, the British taxation will accrue to the Exchequer a little later, thereby freeing the companies from risk earlier than the Norwegians.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree, however, that although the depreciation impact is timed to occur differently, the effect of the Norwegian system is to give a greater incentive for exploration?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I should not like to inquire into the very complicated minds of the oil magnates, but I should have thought that the fact that we can depreciate earlier, with no tax being payable until the depreciation has been completed—and even then there are, as the noble Earl knows, certain alleviations—means that our system is, on the whole, more likely to stimulate exploration, and I assure the noble Earl that exploration activity is at its maximum and is increasing.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to hazard a forecast as

965
to the percentage which the United Kingdom will receive of the total revenues from oil?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. However, this is an extremely difficult subject on which to forecast because, on the one hand, costs are increasing and, on the other, we do not really yet know what the alleviations will amount to under the new system. However, I should have thought, on the whole, that over the next ten years the Government's take will amount to 70 per cent. of the profits, with the bigger fields paying rather more and the smaller and more difficult fields paying rather less than that.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask a further supplementary question? Can the noble Lord say whether it is the case that under the Norwegian system corporate tax is chargeable before the special tax, unlike PRT?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I think the noble Earl is ill-informed on this point. On the contrary, the Norwegian system is 75 per cent. straight, whereas in our case the system is such that PRT is a prior charge against corporation tax; that is to say, while the Norwegian system en principle would represent 75 per cent., with certain alleviations for depreciation and with various other measures it is decreased well below that figure.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. May I ask him whether he will be so kind, now or on another occasion, to arrange to circulate in Hansard the substance of what he has said in language which we can understand?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, the language which the noble Earl did not understand was not mine. I am responsible only for the pronunciation.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that, on the figures he has given this afternoon, we have been rather more generous to the oil companies than have the Norwegians?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say very clearly that exploration is at
966
a maximum at the present time. Could he use this occasion, or any other occasion, to make some general observations as to the position in regard to production?
Lord BALOGH: On another ocasion, my Lords. If the noble Lord puts down such a question, I shall certainly be glad to answer.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much.

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL
2.42 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in the interests of public safety, they keep a register of tips upon which, or into which, toxic wastes are poured or deposited and what precautions are taken to prevent the death of lorry drivers or others, who unwittingly may have to transport highly toxic liquids or materials.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, under the Deposit of Poisonous Wastes Act 1972 the deposit of toxic wastes has to be reported to local waste disposal authorities. As waste disposal is a local authority function, no central record is maintained. It is an offence to dispose of toxic waste in a way which creates an environmental hazard. Controls will be extended by the Control of Pollution Act and from 1st April the Health and Safety at Work Act will apply at waste disposal sites and also to workers transporting materials to them.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether she is aware that I have read both the Deposit of Poisonous Wastes Act and the Control of Pollution Act and that, having looked at the penalties therein for a breach of the regulations, I believe they are completely out of proportion to the importance of the offence when toxic wastes are deposited? Finally, may I

967
ask my noble friend whether any further action has been taken on the Press notice which was distributed last October regarding the establishment at Warren Springs Laboratory, Stevenage, of a waste materials exchange, and what progress has been made in making a register, as was then suggested after the distribution to firms of some 25,000 to 30,000 leaflets? What steps have been taken to make a central register of these noxious, poisonous and corrosive wastes which menace local populations, and, eventually, mankind?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, so far as the penalties are concerned, I think my noble friend will agree that the relevant matter is to try to prevent tragic accidents such as that which occurred at Pitsea. As he rightly said, this has rather more to do with the Health and Safety at Work Act than the Control of Pollution Act. What happened here was that, although the Health and Safety at Work Act will not come into force until 1st April, the Department of Employment set up an investigation. It is also true that—apart from the fact that there will always be a measure of human error —when this Act is in force, the kind of accident which happened at Pitsea ought, one hopes, to be prevented.
So far as the establishment at Warren Springs and the register are concerned, I think that I shall have to ask my noble friend to write to me about that matter and I shall let him have the up-to-date facts. My recollection is that it is not strictly relevant to the terms of the Question, but I should like to let my noble friend have the information. So far as a register is concerned, this really would not meet the point which my noble friend is making. Some local authorities have taken on rights under local Acts, and Essex County Council is one which has done so. These councils can take action themselves. Under the Control of Pollution Act, this will extend to local authorities with no private Acts themselves and will also extend to the whole area. The keeping of a central register will not, I think, deal with the question in the way my noble friend wants.
Lord HATLSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness develop what she has said about the Pitsea investigation? What type of investigation is it to be? Are its
968
proceedings to be public? Will its Report be published? Will it simply be internal to the Department or will it be a public investigation of some kind?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as I understand it, the inquest has been adjourned and the results are awaited. Redland Purle, the firm concerned, is holding its own investigation and the Department of Employment has already set up an investigation. I cannot go any further than that at this moment, mainly because I do not know what is further contemplated and I shall be unable to comment until the results of the adjourned inquest are published.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether very strict measures are taken at the point where the waste is deposited?—because many of us have been told of waste dumped on ordinary refuse tips which is not ostensibly toxic but which contains this type of material.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, there has been up to now—this is controlled by the local authorities. But nevertheless when the Health and Safety at Work Act comes into operation, the controls both on employers and employees will be very much stronger. Furthermore, when the Control of Pollution Act becomes implemented, this again will reinforce all the points my noble friend has raised.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can the noble Baroness reassure me in regard to one word in my noble friend's Question which frightens me rather badly? He talks about drivers "unwittingly" having to transport highly toxic liquids and materials. Is there a possibility that drivers can be taking this material around not knowing what they are carrying? Is the knowledge of what they are carrying given not only to those drivers but to other people concerned in the matter—the road authority and the rest—so that they will know what is in these big tankers and thus, if something goes badly wrong, something can be done about it, and the drivers themselves protected?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. At the present moment this matter should be covered both by the operators and the local authorities responsible for the tips. But the point about the Health and Safety

969
at Work Act is that it will make reinforcement very much stronger indeed. The point is not, I think, that the driver should necessarily know the very technical contents of what he is is carrying, but that he should know exactly what he should do with it, and there should be control at the tip. These matters will also be the subject of the investigation.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, finally—not to try the patience of the House—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): And mine!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: —and the patience of the Leader of the House, may I ask one more supplementary question? Is my noble friend aware that some people consider that the accident at Pitsea was nothing more than an
" incident that has no wider significance than an accident at work"?
Is my noble friend aware that that kind of attitude is one that we deprecate, and one that is not conducive to a healthy nation, or to a decent Britain?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, I also read the piece in the Economist, but it went on to say:
"… and that means plenty."
The point being made was that this was a question of an accident at work as contrasted with an environmental hazard. I do not think for one moment that it detracts from the tragedy of the whole accident. One only hopes that because of this accident more precautions and restrictions will follow in the future.

PORTUGAL: BRITISH INTERESTS
2.53 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lady Elles, who is detained abroad, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in her name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are taking to ensure the safety and protection of British persons and interests in Portugal in view of the current situation.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord GoronwyRoberts): My Lords, recent events in Portugal have been watched closely by all who wish to see democratic forces prosper there. I am not aware of any incidents that have directly endangered the British community or British interests in Portugal.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can give me any feeling of confidence that Her Majesty's Government realise that if matters get a great deal worse there is a risk to the confidential side of NATO which will affect us all?
Lord GORONWYROBERTS: My Lords, we shall, of course, watch the situation carefully with a view to protecting, if necessary, British citizens and British interests. On the question of NATO, following the attempted coup on 11th March the Portuguese Government reaffirmed their loyalty to NATO and to other international organisations of which they are a member.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, while appreciating the Minister's answer—which was only what I expected—may I say that it is the confidential side of NATO that I think is alarming, and it is a question of whether Her Majesty's Government have that side of the matter in view?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can give that assurance.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, although I recognise that this may be a little wide of the Question, would the noble Lord and the Government not agree that there are a large number of people in this country who are watching with some anxiety the personal and political freedom of those members of the Centre and Right of Centre political Parties in Portugal?
Lord GORONWYROBERTS: My Lords, I take full note of, and express full agreement with, what the noble Lord has said. I hope that these expressions of our concern from both sides of the House, for what is happening, as well as our hope for democratic progress in Portugal which is a very old friend and ally, will be conveyed to Portugal.
Lord ORREWING: My Lords, has the Minister read on the tape that it is forecast that a new Government is to be formed in Portugal with increased Communist influence, and is it not very alarming that there is being set up another one-Party State in Portugal? Do Her Majesty's Government think of taking action at the United Nations, with a possible view that some measures may be taken in that Organisation? If not, is this not further evidence of the two-standard system, whereby Rhodesia and South Africa are condemned and action is taken against them, while no action at all is taken by the United Nations against the single-Party State emerging in Portugal?
Lord GORONWYROBERTS: My Lords, I do not see that action in the United Nations is indicated, at least at the present time and in present circumstances. Indeed, what has happened since the attempted coup of 11th March, with the enlargement of the revolutionary council, would indicate to many of us that there has been a certain strengthening of moderate elements.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the addition of a Communist partner to the NATO Alliance would make it neither more nor less fatuous than it is at the moment?
Lord GORONWYROBERTS: My Lords, that is a matter of interesting, and perhaps eccentric, opinion.

AGRICULTURAL LOANS POLICY
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider the current lending policy of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation is in accordance with the duty laid down under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928; why their present interest rates are far above those of other financial institutions; and whether they will encourage the Corporation to have a more flexible approach in their future leanding policy
972
in the interests of the fanning community and food production.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the lending policy of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation fully meets the requirements of the Agricultural Credits Act 1928 to lend on terms most favourable to borrowers. The Corporation's current lending rates reflect the cost of their borrowings from the market and bear favourable comparison with lending rates generally. In recent years the Corporation have extended their facilities and now offer a range of loan options and of repayment terms.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the present bank lending rate is far below the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation's rate, and that therefore it is difficult to understand how he can say it is in comparison with other financial institutions? May I further ask the Government what communication they had with the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, and what responsibility the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has as well with regard to the lending policy of the Corporation; and whether they take this into account in their Price Review?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, on the first matter raised by the noble Earl, if he were to go to one of the clearing banks for a loan of up to 30 years, he would be unlikely to get that money, either for that period of time, or at the short-term lending rate of the banks. There is a difference here, as the noble Earl would recognise. With regard to the connection with the Department—I think I understood the noble Earl correctly when he asked about this, although there was some conversation taking place and I did not quite hear— there is a close understanding. Indeed, I understand that some three or four years ago a Working Party was established to reconsider the lending policy of the AMC, and it came to the conclusion that the policy was correct in the circumstances. As to the situation regarding the Price Review, the kind of business which the AMC are doing—namely, the purchasing of land at long-term lending rates—is not

973
something which one would take immediately into account in fixing current prices.
Lord ROYLE: My Lords, could my noble friend tell us what is the usual lending rate charged by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation?
Lord BESWICK: Yes, my Lords ; the rate is 14¾ per cent. on long term loans and 14½ per cent. on certain variable loans.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, would the Minister accept that a lower mortgage interest rate to farmers would be conducive to encourage them towards extra food production, which the whole country requires, and would help offset in some way the massive production costs that farmers faced in the past 12 months?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I have no doubt that it would, but the question is: where is the money to come from? It is, as I have said, raised in the open market and because of the Government guarantee, the money is raised as cheaply as possible, and is consequently lent as cheaply as possible. That does not mean that this is necessarily the best way of helping the farmer, and there are other ways in which the Department, the Government, and previous Governments have helped the farmer, by, for example, various capital grants.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that we might well take the example of France, where the French Government arranges very cheap loans for farmers? I believe the rate is something in the region of 4½ per cent. or 5 per cent. Would not the Minister further agree that the agricultural industry is the most highly capitalised industry per worker in the country, and that therefore farmers must have the capital to buy modern machinery which, of course, is now very expensive?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I doubt whether the British farmer would do better if we had the system which appertains in France. It is true that there is a subsidised lending rate there, but the farmers do not get the capital grants for land drainage, farm buildings and the provision of equipment, for example, which
974
successive Governments in this country think is a better way of helping them.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that the price of money and the cost of borrowing were not taken into account in the Price Review?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I said that the long-term purchase of land, the long-term purchase of a farm, is not necessarily the sort of factor which is taken into account year by year when fixing the current price of products.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that it is somewhat incongruous that Her Majesty's Government provide loans free of interest for several foreign countries and yet charge the farmers through the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, I think he said 14⅓ per cent? Is that not an obstacle to anything in the nature of prosperity for the fanning community?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if my noble friend is saying that 14¾ per cent. is a modern version of usury I accept that; it is too high. But of course it is related to the current rate in the market. I think everyone would like to get that rate down.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, could the Minister explain to the House why it is that if a building society lends on long-term interest on a house mortgage at, I think, now 11 per cent. to 11½ per cent., the AMC have to lend on long-term interest at 14¾ per cent.?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, personally I think that is a very relevant question, but I have to give the answer which I gave earlier, that there are various ways of helping the fanner, one of which is by subsidising the money lent to the farmer; the other is by various schemes—capital grant schemes of one kind or another— which have been held to be very useful and effective. There is a certain amount of money available and it is a question of how we use it. The Government's view is that the present method is the better way.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation on the whole in its independence serves

975
the farming world well, and that the system of financing itself is to go to the market from time to time to raise this money, and therefore it has to pay the interest according to the cost at which it raises this money? There is a certain historical element here—that the independence it gains from this method on the whole has served the agricultural world well.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who has put my case much better than I could have put it myself. All I have to add to what he said is that it is of course a non-profit-making establishment. I agree with him that it has served the farming community very well.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have had 27 minutes for four Questions. I hope the House will consider that to be long enough and that we may now move to the next Business.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.6 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, before we pass to the first Amendment I want to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether he has any Statement to make on the
976
business for today. When we were inquiring about the business for today we understood that substantial Amendments would be dealt with on Third Reading. We have seen many of the new Amendments for the first time this morning, and have had little opportunity to study their full impact or, indeed, to consult colleagues about them. May I ask my noble friend whether he will make a Statement about the business for today.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the business is very much a matter for your Lordships' House. I appreciate that there were difficulties last week in terms of printing, but the Amendments were put down according to our normal procedure. It is a matter of regret that some of the Amendments would be known to certain noble Lords only today. So far as I am concerned, I had certain knowledge of some Amendments only late on Friday, and knowledge of other Amendments only this morning. The Amendments were put down; there can be no criticism as to the timing according to which they were put down, and it is a matter which your Lordships' House must decide. They are the controllers of their own business. If there are difficulties, we have overcome them in the past, but I would suggest that we see how we proceed in that sense. I appreciate the difficulties, but they were very difficult to overcome last week.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Report of Amendments received accordingly.
Clause 3 [Amendments of the principal Act]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I should explain that the reference for the first Amendment should be page 3, line 43, and not line 44.
3.8 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 44, at end insert ("or is nominated for specification by members of an identifiable class (whether or not parties to the agreement) indicating their desire to be so specified by a majority vote cast in a secret ballot of members of that class conducted under the supervision of an independent agency jointly agreed by all the parties ".)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 which I have the honour of moving today replaces the

977
manuscript Amendment tabled during the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and subsequently withdrawn after a short debate. I hope that the wording of the Amendment as it now stands will meet the objections raised about the drafting problem involved in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I have no hesitation in tabling it in its revised form in view of the general support it received in Committee, particularly from the Benches opposite.
Before we deal with the merits of the Amendment I think it would be useful for the purposes of the debate to say what the Amendment does not do. First, it does not conflict with the Government's Election pledges. Secondly, it in no way resurrects any part of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Thirdly, I believe it does not provide a means for employees to avoid belonging to a union. These are three things it specifically does not do.
Let us look at what the Amendment attempts to do, at its positive aims. Its major aim is to enable employees in a common interest group to be represented by a union of their own choice. Employees pay union subscriptions out of their own earnings, and for that reason alone they should be entitled to have a major say in whom should represent them. In addition, we have in our society groups of people, groups of employees, who have particular skills, training and aptitudes, who feel that they cannot be adequately represented by large, multidisciplinary unions. This applies in particular to the professional engineers and scientists, as was pointed out on Committee stage, who feel strongly that they cannot be adequately represented by unions dominated by either clerical grades or craft workers. This is not a theoretical objection. There are sufficient examples of professional engineers and scientists represented by conglomerate unions who feel that their special interests are not receiving the kind of attention they should.
We must also remember that among this group of people union representation is a fairly new phenomenon. They tend by nature to be individualists, and they have taken rather slowly to the
978
idea of collective representation. Many of them subscribe to a code of practice or code of professional conduct, and prefer to be grouped together with people of their own kind and their own beliefs. None of us believes that there is something wrong in this: it is a natural instinct of human nature to group together with people of like minds.
Over the last few years the drive towards collective representation of employees has increased, and, incidentally, this is a principle with which I agree. The passage of the Amendment Bill now before the House will give further impetus to the drive towards collective representation. This is why the problem so far as this group of employees about whom I am speaking is concerned is a new problem in 1975; it did not exist to the present extent in 1971. I am speaking about a minority group of people, but they are important and are people who are entitled to look to Parliament for the protection of their interests. If they cannot look to Parliament for that protection, where can they look and where is there another institution to guard the liberties of individuals in this country?
I believe there are some noble Lords who see this Amendment as an opening for the creation of splinter unions. That is certainly not my intention, and I do not think that noble Lords need fear it will give encouragement or protection to splinter unions. The safeguard against the danger is contained within the new Clause 5A to Section 30 of the principal Act, which was moved during the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. Lord Jacques's Amendment ensures that the parties to a union membership agreement have a major say in identifying the classes referred to in my Amendment, and the parties to the membership agreement would have no difficulty in stopping the creation of splinter unions.
It might also be said by Members of this House that my Amendment is duplicating the safeguards already achieved by those who sponsored the addition of Schedule 4A to this Bill. My answer is that this Amendment seeks to put the decision-making where it should be; that is, with the groups of employees primarily concerned. The implementation of the procedure in my Amendment may render

979
the procedure of Schedule 4A less necessary, but surely we would all hope that referrals to the Secretary of State are kept to a minimum. I believe that my Amendment could ensure that. On the other hand, Schedule 4A will still provide the very necessary and useful long stop safeguard for people within the trade union movement, and it will certainly be a most useful final reference in any cases where the parties to an agreement do not allow the professional groups to have a vote on whom they wish to represent them. So I do not think that my Amendment and Schedule 4A impinge on each other but are complementary, and I believe that the rather laborious procedure covered by Schedude 4A will have to be resorted to less frequently if your Lordships should see fit to accept my Amendment. I therefore strongly commend this Amendment to your Lordships' House, and beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has indicated, this Amendment is similar in intention if not in drafting to that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, at the Committee stage. The intention, as I understand it, is to allow professional and technical employees a right to say that they will be represented under any closed shop arrangements only by unions representing professional and technical employees. We do not dissent from the idea that it is often best that professional or other specialist employees should be appropriately represented by a separate union. But our major difficulty is that this Amendment does not deal only with the question of professional or specialist workers; it extends a unilateral right to opt out of collective bargaining arrangements to every single small union or splinter group, or group of employees of any kind.
Before developing my main argument against the Amendment, I would deal with some of the drafting difficulties. The Amendment refers to "an identifiable class", but does not say who is to do the identifying. By implication, it is of course the employees who will form the class. But, if this is so, it will be confusing because elsewhere in the Bill, especially in the definition of a "union membership agreement", an identifiable class is a class which is specifically identified by
980
the parties to the union membership agreement. Furthermore, the Amendment provides for an independent agency to supervise a ballot of the self-identifying class of individuals. It says that all the parties have to agree who shall be the independent agent to conduct the ballot, but says nothing about what happens if there is no agreement. Presumably it comes to a full stop. The Amendment does not say what will happen if there is no agreement; and if there is agreement can it not then be reasonably presumed that if the parties can agree upon this matter they could have agreed upon special accommodation for the people concerned, without this Amendment?
Those are genuine difficulties in drafting. But the major difficulty is the question of confining this Amendment's effects to the bona fide case where separate representation is needed. We cannot accept an Amendment which enables any splinter group to perform a unilateral declaration of independence, and to overthrow established free collective bargaining procedures; and that is what this Amendment does. I should have thought that our recent experience on the railways would be sufficient warning against this kind of Amendment. There we had a restructuring of railway workers' wages dealt with by arbitration. Some signalmen were dissatisfied. There was an immediate review by the employer and the official unions concerned. They went as far as they possibly could to appease the signalmen and made improvements in their wages.
Nevertheless, the members of a splinter group of signalmen were able to close lines week after week and gravely to inconvenience the public, render other employees, representing more than 90 per cent. of the labour force, unable to do their duties, and lose British Rail millions of pounds and impair their ability to pay decent wages. If this Amendment were accepted, then the railwaymen working in the Greater London area, or in Kent or on the Birmingham line, the railwaymen in big boxes or in small boxes, could all identify themselves as separate classes and claim to be treated separately in the union membership agreement.
In every one of our industries there are numerous classes of people, each of whom

981
have different duties and different responsibilities. It is natural that they perhaps tend to value their contribution a little higher than their colleagues or their employer might value it. This Amendment would encourage them to insist upon recognition in a union membership agreement, and that is one step towards recognition by the employer for negotiation purposes. A small group could hold the public to ransom until they got what they wanted; and what they usually want is to get, to maintain or to increase a wage differential. This Amendment could create chaos in our industrial relations and could do grievous harm to our economy.
Noble Lords may ask: why should we not take this Amendment and try to confine it to professional bodies representing professional workers? This is just not possible. There is no definition so far of what constitutes a professional employee, and certainly none which would make any kind of sense in legislation. The last Administration had the same kind of difficulty and eventually resolved that it could not be put into legislation, so they adopted a non-statutory code of practice.
In this connection, I would direct the attention of the noble Baroness to paragraphs 21 to 23. That was the solution adopted by the last Administration; it is also our solution. That solution still holds good, but we have gone further and amended the Bill so that, on almost any grounds, almost any group of people can be excluded from a union membership agreement. We have amended the Bill so that any union which is not a party to a union membership agreement can be specified as a union to which the workers can belong. Any union within an establishment can ask an employer to be specified within the union membership agreement. We have made it possible for both the employer and the union to act in this way. The question then is: will they do so? I would suggest to your Lordships that the professional employees are those closest to management. A good professional employee is scarce, and consequently there is not the slightest likelihood of an employer alienating his professional staff; he is more likely to be acting strongly on their behalf.
982
Furthermore, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the Employment Protection Bill, for which a consultative document has been issued. We expect the Bill to be published some time this week, and it is specifically provided in it that a union which cannot get recognition from an employer will have the right to appeal to the Conciliation and Arbitration Service. We feel we have gone a very long way to meet the point of view of the noble Baroness, but we are not prepared to invite the chaos which this Amendment would invite. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will see her way clear to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation and for confirming, as I hope he did, the point made by my noble friend Lady Robson that this is not in any way a wrecking Amendment or one designed to create splinter unions. It represents a genuine desire to get protection for professional unions, and I gather that the noble Lord does not dissent from the idea of separate unions for specialist purposes. May I ask the noble Lord this question before the matter is taken any further? Does he consider that, with the Employment Protection Bill and the other measures that he has outlined, the specialist unions are properly protected in the sense that we wish to achieve? I quite understand the difficulties of drafting—and of course we have no drafting facilities at our disposal—but all we seek to do is to ensure that there is not likely in future to be a conflict of interest between the ethical standards of the professional unions and others with whom they have to work.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, I listened with interest to the mover of this Amendment and could see very little change from the Amendment which was put forward at Committee stage. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for his explanation of the real desire behind this Amendment. He will remember that none of us in this House could define a "professional", and until we get deeper into this subject we shall not really understand what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve.

983
I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Houghton said about the lack of time available to discuss these Amendments, or even to understand some of them, because there is not enough time even to understand the good things in them—and there are some good things in this Amendment. For instance, it is suggested that there should be a secret ballot. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would develop that point, because I should like to know how she wishes to see a secret ballot conducted. At the present time there is a proportional ballot. I am never quite sure how secret it is, whether it is conducted in the right way, whether it could be improved, whether a union ought to carry the fairly heavy cost of running a postal ballot, whether the Government should conduct the ballot, or at least pay for its cost if it is independently conducted, and whether at the place of work there should be a really secret ballot, and who would supervise it. I should be very interested to hear from the noble Baroness on these and similar points, because I should like to support her concerning many aspects of trade union life. But can she define what she means by "a secret ballot" and suggest how it is to be conducted?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should like to add my support for the noble Baroness, because I moved a similar Amendment on Committee stage. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was possibly a little less than fair to the noble Baroness regarding the Amendment. It was said that this Amendment might have three effects, but one thing the Amendment would not cause is fragmentation. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, mentioned the example of the National Union of Railwaymen and the signalmen who are members of that union. I think that is a totally different example, because the signalmen were, and still are, members of the National Union of Railwaymen and they were a splinter group, which is a concept which leads to much confusion for many of us. As I understand it, the purpose behind this Amendment is not to force under the umbrella of a larger union a group which is already in existence. The example presented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was of a group which was already within a larger unit; namely, the National Union of
984
Railwaymen. In conclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that a union could be excluded from a union membership agreement. I wonder whether the assurance given by the noble Lord covers this Amendment. Perhaps he could explain that to us.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, I spoke in Committee on what seems to me to be a simple principle. My concern was local government. As I see it, the simple principle is that there are certain minority unions which are an essential part of management—for instance, the chief executive officers of local authorities and similar bodies. My purpose then—and I think it is the purpose now—was to secure that they should not be put into a position in which they are compelled, without an option, to belong to a larger union; namely, NALGO, but it would apply in other cases also. If a closed shop were established, it would put them into an impossible position. If I have understood correctly the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, he said that he accepts this principle. Therefore, may I ask him how the Bill provides for the protection of these people?
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, if I may comment on the last remark of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, for years every town clerk has been a member of NALGO. There is no conflict here; men are capable of doing their job of management and squaring it with their trade union responsibilities. The people for whom these pleas have been made are those in professional organisations who have not had trade union representation. They are now raising the point because this Bill is being considered. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said that it was a case of people seeking to maintain representation. The truth is that the people who are pressing for this Amendment have never had negotiating representation. They have been members of a professional body and have done a first-class job of work as a professional body. To the extent that those in local government have been represented in the past, they have been represented by NALGO and they can continue to be represented by NALGO. The facilities for their representation are available. If the Amendment succeeds, it will be a case of fragmentation.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, by leave, if town clerks, who are usually chief executive officers, were members of NALGO and if in an authority NALGO called for a closed shop and NALGO then went on strike, what would be the position of the town clerk? If he went on strike, he would be utterly in conflict with his professional responsibilities, which would be destructive of local government. If he refused to go on strike, would it not be true that NALGO could expel him and that therefore he would be dismissed without compensation? It is a simple, direct question.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to be very careful about accepting the principles behind this Amendment. My noble friend has pointed out the principles which are embraced so far as drafting is concerned. However, from time to time in industry a section of men may be rate-fixers for a job, or they may be supervisors. Instead of being classed just as ordinary employees, sometimes they feel that the nature of their job gives them a certain professional status; they feel that their skills are such that they are a little above those of ordinary working people. If, however, one accepts the principle of small, fragmentary groups who feel like this, one will certainly make it extremely difficult for the employer, because he will have many different organisations to meet when he wishes to enter into negotiations. May we take as an example the mineworkers and their deputies. They are very skilled, professional people. Their union, the Union of Deputies, is accepted by the National Union of Mineworkers. Arrangements are made so far as negotiations and ordinary trade union activities are concerned. They represent a major group within the industry, and no difficulties are encountered. However, one knows of small sections of people who feel from time to time that they are entitled to be graded in a different way, some of them equal to professional status. While one can understand that, unions make allowances for these people so far as conditions and wages are concerned.
In the interests of peace within industry, may I ask the noble Baroness not to press her Amendment. I am sure that in the case of good employers and good relations, where these difficulties arise they
986
are reasonably dealt with under a code that is understood by the people who are engaged in the day-to-day operation of keeping peace within industry.
3.38 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, from my very long experience of trade unionism among the professional classes, I can assure your Lordships that, on the whole, they are able to look after themselves. However, we are dealing with a closed shop situation. I must emphasise once again that this Bill is not changing the rules or the law regarding closed shops. A closed shop can be brought about under this Bill or by any other Act of Parliament only by agreement between the employers and the representatives of the staffs concerned.
Therefore, if in the case cited a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, a local authority agreed to a closed shop situation among the employees, both professional and otherwise, in its service, it would reach agreement about the conditions of that closed shop; who should be included within it and who should be excluded from it. If the staff asked the employers to agree to a closed shop which should cover the whole of the supervisory, administrative and executive staff of the local authority and the local authority conceded a closed shop situation to the union, it would do so in the full knowledge that the closed shop would cover its senior officials. It would have to weigh up in its mind exactly what obligations it was placing upon its employees and the consequences which the local authority and public business might suffer in the event of a dispute. Moreover, there are statutory safeguards of the position of senior officials of local authorities. Some of them cannot be dismissed without the sanction of the Secretary of State.
Therefore, I do not believe that this is a situation about which your Lordships need feel any anxiety. It is not a new problem. With great respect, in debating this Bill I think that we are in danger of raising issues as though they were new issues when, in fact, they are old issues that have been dealt with for many years by traditional and conventional practices through the normal negotiation machinery. If a professional group in any organisation seeks to identify itself for separate organisation—for example,

987
to belong to a professional body or an organisation catering for professional classes—it is very unlikely indeed that any closed shop situation would seek to compel it to join another union if it wished to exercise its right to belong to another one. Indeed, I think many of these difficulties—if they have arisen at all— have been overcome in an amicable way.
My final caution is this. The 1971 Act was an attempt to deal by legislation with many things, and we know how disappointing, to put it mildly, that attempt was. Let us be careful that we do not introduce into this Bill new causes of difficulty, new causes of conflict and provide another experience of how mistaken we can be in trying to provide, by statutory means and by legislation, for all situations in industrial relations, because I am sure that if we do we shall fail again.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, when the noble Baroness moved her Amendment I thought she was underrating the progress that professional and white collar workers in general have been making in the last few years. She suggested that there are now different conditions from what there were in 1971. In fact, I should be very surprised indeed if the white collar and professional workers had not expanded more rapidly than any other single section of the working population of this country. Certainly, the affiliations to the TUC are far and away greater in the area which the noble Baroness was discussing than in any of the manual sectors. Therefore, I think she tends to underrate their ability to organise and the fact that they have been making enormous progress, which I am very pleased to see. I believe that the TUC Congress benefits from the new affiliations.
Another vital issue which we should look at is the fact that within the last few years one of the greatest curses in our industrial relationships—namely the demarcation strike—has practically been done away with. At one time the issues raised when, for instance, one raw material was exchanged for another and an argument arose about who should drill a hole and so on, presented fantastic problems which were irritating in that they did not contain any very great principles, and yet they plagued us enormously. I should have thought that
988
if we introduced the kind of Amendment which we are now discussing we would again encourage the kind of sectionalism which would result in a resurrection of the demarcation dispute, with all the background that goes with it.
Again, on this same theme, sectionalism is becoming utterly rampant. To take the car industry as an example, because of the peculiarities which we now see in the productive processes 20 men can hold up 20,000 others. This sectionalism is spreading and we should try to find an answer to the problem, because a lot of these small sections are now using powers in a disgraceful way and are thereby causing hardship to huge numbers of their colleagues, over whom, by the nature of their operation, they are able to hold these powers. If we do anything to encourage that kind of sectionalism we are taking a retrograde step, because without any doubt those peculiarities, which arise from the new engineering developments and productive methods which are now coming into operation throughout industry, will give to small but vital sectors enormous power over huge numbers of people. In fact, to accept this Amendment will encourage that kind of sectionalism which is at present causing great distress throughout many of our industries.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I doubt whether it was the intention of the noble Baroness to cause confusion when she moved this Amendment, but having heard some of the speeches of my noble friends it seems to me that we are quite capable of causing confusion without her assistance! I have listened carefully to the speeches made by my noble friends Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Lee of Newton. I am open to correction, but my noble friend Lord Houghton seemed to indicate that if there is an agreement about a closed shop, it is possible to have members representing what might be called the lower grades as well as people associated with professional organisations, such as architects, accountants and the like. In other words, within a closed shop one can have dustmen alongside architects and accountants who all belong to different organisations. My noble friend Lord Lee seemed to indicate just now—and he will correct me if I am misinterpreting his remarks —that such a situation might lead to

989
demarcation disputes. Of course we are anxious to avoid such disputes, because demarcation disputes—otherwise known as interunion disputes—are often the cause of turbulence.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I do not know of a demarcation dispute involving an architect and a dustman, but my noble friend recalls as well as I do the problems of the shipbuilding industry, where we have practically obliterated the demarcation dispute by an amalgamation of trade unions and they agree internally as to who does which job.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, it seems to me that everything depends on the definition of "closed shop". What is meant by a "closed shop"? First, as my noble friend Lord Houghton remarked, there has to be an agreement between those who are regarded as employers, be it a local authority or an industrial concern, and the representatives of the trade unions engaged in the local authority or industry. I see no difficulty if there is a closed shop and an agreement has to be reached, and problems occur because some who occupy what might be called the higher grade positions object to joining, say, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers or the Transport and General Workers' Union and prefer to remain in the professional organisation with which they became associated immediately they became qualified in that profession.
Let us be quite clear what we mean by a "closed shop". There have been voluminous arguments and debates on this subject, and I always understood that it was a closed shop where agreement was reached and where a number of trade unions could be associated with that shop—not one single union. I am as much concerned as anyone about the trade union movement and its progress, although it is a long time since I was officially associated with it. But it would seem to me invidious to demand that somebody occupying, say, the position of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, as town clerk should be compelled to join the National Union of General and Municipal Workers.
If I may say so with respect to my noble friend, there appears to be no
990
affinity, and if we want to avoid turbulence and disputes and disharmony there must be affinity of some kind. One can obtain much more affinity by reaching an agreement so that the dustman belongs to the Transport and General Workers Union—I am handing over an additional member to my noble friend!—whereas the town clerk can be a member of a professional organisation or NALGO if he likes. So I ask my noble friend Lord Jacques, who knows all about these matters—or so I gather from his innumerable speeches on the subject— and he happens to be the Minister in authority on these matters at the moment, to define as accurately and meticulously as is possible in the circumstances, what is meant by a "closed shop"?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not want to intervene at any length, but wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House would agree that on Report stage we need not have a repetition of the entire debates we had on Committee. The Amendment moved so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, is a variation on a theme which we discussed rather fully on Committee. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will wish to reply to the debate, if he gets leave from the House. I rather understood from the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that it was possible, at any rate, that there would not be a Division on this particular Amendment. I am wondering whether we are not making rather heavy weather of this.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is not for me to say whether we are making heavy weather of this matter. I see the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who have been Leaders of your Lordships' House for quite a number of years. They know the difficulties we always reach when we take Report stage on contentious matters. I am not certain that we have made heavy weather of this. I certainly want to make progress. If the House so wishes, perhaps my noble friend Lord Jacques could now deal with it, but I would not wish to deny any Members of your Lordships' House the opportunity of putting points of view on matters of great moment.
3.53 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall deal only with the questions directed to the Government. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, questioned whether the Amendment in fact encouraged splinter groups. One must distinguish between the intention and what an Amendment actually does. This Amendment encourages splinter groups, because it allows any class to identify itself and to insist on being recognised in the union membership agreement. The noble Lord then said, "But what if they are also members of a bigger union?" My answer to that is that the Amendment discourages them from being members of a bigger union, and says, "You will be able to get all you want in your own little splinter group. You will get recognition in the union membership agreement".
My Lords, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, how this Bill protected professional employees. It protects them in two ways. It is provided in the Bill that the parties to a union membership agreement can exclude any identifiable class they wish, and it goes on to say that they shall determine what shall be identifiable. For example, they can exclude all who do a certain kind of work, or who are members of a certain association, or members of a certain union. They are left completely free to identify the class. Secondly, the Bill provides that the parties to a union membership agreement can agree that some other union, not a party to the agreement, shall be recognised for the purpose of the union membership agreement. In that connection we feel that we have gone a long way.
My Lords, I come now to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I think the noble Lord put his finger on the hub of the matter. I believe that the best protection is in the Employment Protection Bill. We say there that if any trade union cannot get recognition by an employer, it has the right of going to the Conciliation and Arbitration Service to get a decision. That is going as far as one can go. Between now and Third Reading, the noble Lord should have access to the Bill itself.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, despite the fact that some of
992
the debate this afternoon on this Amendment centred on the wording of the Amendment itself, I felt that I was entitled to raise it again, and that I was right to do so. I feel this because of the interest generally in this problem that has been shown in this House, and it is a difficult problem to solve. I should like to say a special word to the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, who seemed to have some problem about a secret ballot. To most of us living in this country, the secret ballot is a perfectly comprehensible system. I believe that in industry it would be difficult to find an independent body whose integrity was doubted by the members themselves, such as the Electoral Reform Society or the Industrial Society. I can see no problems arising from the secret ballot.
My Lords, I am heartened by the promise of the Employment Protection Bill which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, when he assures us that some of these problems which have been raised in the debate today will be taken care of. In view of the fact that this Bill will be with us within a very short time, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.55 p.m. Lord GOODMAN 3.55 p.m. Lord GOODMAN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert—
(" ( ) After section 29(7) of the principal Act (meaning of trade dispute) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section a dispute over the publication or non-publication of an article (whether for reward or otherwise) shall not be a trade dispute." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the leave of the House, and particularly the noble Lord the Leader of the House, as to the mechanics of moving these various Amendments. I put down one substantial Amendment in one piece. The skill of the officials of the House neatly divided it up into various sections. I think it would be convenient if I address my remarks to the various Amendments reconsolidated as one piece so they will at least be spared the possibility of my making more than one speech. If that is a convenient course to adopt, I should like to adopt it.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is it not a fact that, if this is a paving Amendment in a series, it is convenient that they be discussed together and any Division should be taken on the paving Amendment. On the other hand, if the Amendment is separate, and deals with a separate subject matter, then it ought to be moved, debated, and if need be, divided on, separately.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is quite correct. I have looked at these Amendments. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I must say that Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 can hardly be construed as paving Amendments to Amendment No. 5 which. I think, is the first of the paving Amendments to the substantial Amendments Nos. 23 and 11. Therefore, I would suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if we first dispose of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and then deal with the remainder separately.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I cannot say that these are paving Amendments. It would require a committee of constitutional lawyers, sitting for some months, to determine whether or not they were. But it would be extremely convenient if I could deal with the Amendments, other than Amendment No. 2, for a rather special reason. If in consequence of what happens to the other Amendments, there is a certain result ensuing, it may well be that I should wish to withdraw Amendment No. 2. So if it is convenient to take Amendment No. 2 last, this might mean a saving in time.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, may be well used to having the best of both worlds, but in this House I do not think he can so do. We should be in an impossible position if the noble Lord were to select which Amendments he decided to discard according to the way the debate takes place. The noble Lord is aware that there is yet another stage to this Bill; namely, the Third Reading. He can review the position after Report. He can leave his options open, and then decide what to do on Third Reading. But I do not think the noble Lord can ask the House to depart from our regular practice of taking those Amendments together.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I think that is correct, if I may just say so. If the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, wants to air his Amendments and then withdraw them at this stage, he can do so, but I suggest the right course would probably be to wait till Third Reading.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I fear that this precise legalism—which does not arise in the slightest degree from my desire to have the best of all worlds, a desire shared, 1 may say, by everyone present, but simply arises from a desire to adopt the most convenient course— means that what I shall now be driven to do is to move Amendment No. 2 and, if necessary, press it to a Division. I then find myself in a position where I unnecessarily move an Amendment and press it to a Division. If this is what the Rules of the House enjoin, I must obviously conform with the Rules of the House, and there it is.
On that footing, may I make a few remarks relating to Amendment No. 2, which I shall do as briefly as possible. I should like to make a few general observations which relate to everything I want to say this afternoon. The first is that when we adjourned at the last instalment of this discussion it was, of course, known to the House that there were to be discussions between those of us who support the viewpoint I am expressing today and the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I do not intend to say a word about what transpired, because those discussions were, naturally, confidential. I would only say that the highest degree of courtesy was extended to myself and my friends when we saw the noble Lord the Leader of the House; he listened most patiently to our viewpoint. But, unhappily, it has not been possible to reach an accommodation. I do not think I ought to say more than that. We are indeed most grateful to him for the attention and the meticulous care he gave to the arguments which were presented.
The second thing I think it is important to say is this. These Amendments are moved in no spirit of hostility to the Government. Nobody believes—at least, I do not, and I do not think any of my colleagues do—that the Government are animated by any vicious, undesirable or dangerous motives, or are in any way enemies of freedom of speech. What we

995
do believe is that there is an irreconcilable difference between us as to the effect of this legislation and what dangers might ensue if it is passed unamended. That is really the difference between us. It is not based on a belief that we are dealing with anybody but people who are as much concerned for liberty as we are. We are convinced that there is a profound difference of view as to what might happen if this legislation passes unchanged. That is why we have persevered in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty and circumstances which are extremely painful, in urging changes. In circumstances where we know that the people against whom we are urging these changes are our friends and have over years been likeminded, it becomes extremely disagreeable, if I may say so, to have to move something which we believe to be a matter of high principle. I should not like it to be thought that we have any mistaken view about the intentions of the Government in this matter, or any suspicion that they are animated by motives which could be designated as improper or contrary to democratic principles. What we believe is that there is the deepest possible difference between us, as has been demonstrated by the discussions, which makes it necessary to press this point as hard as we have pressed it.
The final remark I should like to make arises from the slightly unfortunate observation which the Secretary of State made in the House below, which I did not take too seriously, that we were to keep our lordly noses out of this matter. The reason why I did not take offence is that I do not possess a lordly nose. Those with more patrician organs might possibly have been more offended than I was. But I think he was mistaken in the principle of what he was saying. We have a perfect right to introduce our noses, whether they be plebeian or lordly, into this discussion, because what we hope to do is to give the other place an opportunity to reconsider something where we believe they have made a profound error. That is our constitutional right. That is not the intrusion of our lordly noses into anything. We should be failing in our duty if we did not give them the opportunity of reconsidering the matter, when we are so firmly convinced that they are in error and are mistaken. We may well turn out to be wrong. History will deter
996
mine this matter; we shall not. In the light of history, it may turn out that no more foolish activity than the one I have been engaged in for the last few weeks can be found in the pages of the history book. I do not believe it. Hence I think it is of the greatest importance, and I think this is an extremely important day in the history of this House, that we should try to retrieve from this legislation, which has nothing to do with this matter and was not designed to have anything to do with this matter, the possibilities of profound danger which we sense and believe could come into operation.
Amendment No. 2, upon which I shall be a model of brevity, is simply to secure that no industrial action can be used in order to coerce into a newspaper, into a magazine, into a publication, something that would not otherwise be there according to the notions and ideas of the person who controls publication, and that no industrial action can be used to take anything out. This is a very simple proposition. I should have thought in ordinary terms that it was an unarguable proposition. I say this not in the least degree disrespectfully to the immensely senatorial figures who have operated as trade unionists for years and are now in this House. It has absolutely nothing to do with trade unions. It is not a matter that has any bearing on trade union law. It has to do with that principle of freedom of speech, the right to express what you want to say, which is the touchstone of a civilised nation, and which has been the pride of this country over generations and over centuries.
I would simply invite your Lordships to say that there is no possible objection in principle to the introduction of this particular Amendment. It is a simple Amendment. It will possibly cause some problems in industrial negotiations in the newspaper world when people are anxous to make use of what, in my view, would be an improper power to seek to coerce the contents of a newspaper for the purposes of wage negotiations or conditions of employment. That, I think, is totally wrong. I think whatever coercive methods are available, whatever methods of argument or discussion are available— and heaven knows there are enough of them! —they do not need the addition

997
of a method whereby the newspapers can be prevented from publishing something or compelled to publish something. I beg to move.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I hope that when my noble friend Lord Jacques comes to reply he will advise your Lordships as to whether this Amendment is already covered by Section 29(1) of the principal Act. If your Lordships will look at the seven paragraphs in Section 29(1), you will see that set out there are the occasions upon which a dispute is an industrial dispute or trade dispute within the meaning of the Act. Looking at that from a layman's point of view, it seems to me that the circumstances with which the Amendment deals are outside the list of matters which would constitute a trade dispute. If I may say so with many lawyers in your Lordships' House, I think we might know what their construction of Section 29 in the principal Act would be. I have gone into this matter myself and have had assurances from the Department that Section 29(1) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), exclude the circumstances which are referred to in Amendment No. 2, and therefore such matters would be outside the definition of a trade dispute. I think it is important to know that before we are asked to pass this Amendment.
It may be of course, that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, feels that to remove any doubt at all it would be better to have it clearly stated, as it is in the Amendment. Well, that is a matter of opinion, and I think we might resolve that matter by a little debate. Certainly from my point of view—I speak only for myself in this matter—it would be undesirable to include in the definition of "trade dispute" matters which are referred to in the Amendment. I think they are properly excluded.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, need fear that we shall tire of hearing him on successive Amendments to this measure. It would, however, be convenient, I suggest, if we could deal with the substantive ones separately and not get horribly mixed up trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff. It has been said that editors separate the wheat from the chaff and then print the chaff, but we want to separate the two. I hope that not
998
every Amendment on the Order Paper will be dressed up in the raiment of high principle, about the freedom of the Press and the basic freedoms of the British people —
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell me why not?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I do not want to dwell unduly on the philosophical background to a number of the Amendments which we shall be debating, but we might look at some of them as quite practical questions of trade union organisation and administration, because that is what they are, although they may be a little more sensitive because of this sphere of editorial freedom and the freedom of the Press. It is a pity that while the Newspaper Publishers' Association has such an able spokesman in your Lordships' House as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, the National Union of Journalists, against which all this is aimed—
Lord GOODMAN: Oh!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Yes, my Lords. All this is aimed at the NUJ. Of course it is. It is aimed against the possible abuse or misuse of a closed shop situation by the NUJ and there is nobody in your Lordships' House to speak for them, and that is a great pity.
4.12 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it might be helpful if I were to intervene at this point, and in doing so I accept the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to deal with the aspect to which he referred. But first let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that all of us are fully aware of what he has in mind. I think it would be a little more helpful on other occasions when we are debating further Amendments if the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would go into a little more of the meat and detail of what individual Amendments are likely to do. I have been in your Lordships' House long enough to know that the simplest Amendment, the one which has the most clear interpretation, is the one that is the least acceptable to the Government, not because of what it is seeking to do but because it is badly drafted and perhaps raises other matters which its mover had never intended; and in the course of these

999
debates I may be able to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, some of the significant consequences of his proposals which he may not have had in mind when he drafted them.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and his friends for coming to see me. We had a useful discussion and I do not think that in practice and in purpose there was a great deal between us. The noble Lord differed from us in that he wished to see the full rigours of the law in dealing with this matter. We feel that in present circumstances, in the present light of knowledge and our confidence in those who operate on all sides of the Press— proprietors, editors or journalists— they are today the guardians of the freedom of the Press and that the full rigours of the law are not required— and heaven forbid we shall ever need them!
The two Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, do not deal with the closed shop at all. They seek solely to exclude certain types of dispute from the protection afforded by immunities if they fall within the definition of a trade dispute. First, I must make it absolutely clear that the Amendment before the House would deal with censorship, and the Government's attitude to this Amendment is not determined by a wish that industrial power should be used to determine what shall and shall not be printed. The Government certainly do not wish to appear to condone action designed to censor the Press. What has to be examined is whether the problems about which so much concern is expressed are sufficiently great to require a legislative remedy and, secondly, whether the remedy proposed would be appropriate.
The NUJ has a good record on censorship. It has its own code of professional conduct. Moreover, the NUJ has recently reaffirmed its total abhorrence of censorship in any form brought about by improper pressure from any source, and it has also reaffirmed its total commitment to the defence of the union's longstanding code of professional conduct. It has said that it would support the setting up of machinery within the industry, possibly with the Press Council, urgently to deal with complaints concerned with censorship or any other contravention of their declaration on Press freedom which
1000
was issued on 8th March in the form of a resolution by the National Executive Council. The Government's view is that this is an extremely helpful development and that others involved in journalism ought to consider seriously whether this is not the better way forward rather than the amendment of the law.
Secondly, this Amendment could deal with the problem of access in that disputes over particular articles may arise not because of the context, but because of their authorship This is a complex area, but the Secretary of State in his speech on Report in another place recognised that there could be problems of access, but that these were extremely difficult to deal with in legislation. He pointed to a passage in the draft charter drawn up by Mr. Hetherington, editor of the Guardian. Clearly, this has no formal status, but it is encouraging in that it points to the direction in which the Government think it right to go. This draft said that while normal newspaper work must be reserved for trained journalists, access ought not to be barred to any citizen or group of citizens. Editors ought to give fair representation to opposing and minority points of view. While the unions are entitled to protect their members' earnings, restraints must not be placed on the rights of editors to publish contributions from a wide range of authors. The NUJ's statement of 8th March was on rather similar lines.
The approach of this Amendment is very different and it is questionable not only whether it is the right way to secure what all desire, but whether it might not, at least in some instances, prove a positive hindrance. I ought to point out— the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred to this—that the Amendment is not strictly necessary to deal with the problem of disputes over particular articles or their content. The definition of "trade dispute" in Section 29 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act covers disputes which are connected with what are broadly regarded as terms and conditions of employment. This is particularised in some detail in Section 29(1), but there is nothing there which would seem to bring a dispute purely and simply relating to the content of an article— say, one which the union did not like on political grounds— within that definition, just as political disputes themselves are outside the definition.

1001
However, disputes over articles may arise in other circumstances. There could be a dispute over whether the article should appear because the author was not a member of the union, although the NUJ has said that it will not repeat action taken to black nonunion copy except in the context of industrial disputes. There could also be disputes over whether the author was a trained journalist. Such disputes might well fall within the definition of a "trade dispute".
The question has to be asked whether the remedy proposed would help. What it would do is enable the employer to take legal action against the officials of the union or other individuals concerned. In some circumstances at least, the employer would be able to sue for damages and seek an injunction restraining the union from taking industrial action in pursuance of the dispute. The Government have made it quite clear that they do not consider that legal action of this kind contributes to good industrial relations. This has been said time and time again not only in relation to the provisions of the Amendment Bill, but in respect of changes to the principal Act proposed by the Opposition.
Moreover, the Amendment might well give rise to some complicated legal questions. The situation in which a dispute arose over an article might well be clearcut, but what would be the position in relation to industrial action arising over a pay claim where attempts to suppress articles, perhaps because they were not written by members of the union, were an incidental feature? I should not wish to condone the use of this tactic in pay disputes of the newspaper industry, but I do think that there is a problem here unless we are going to say that journalists unlike any other group of workers, will have their right to take industrial action circumscribed. In addition, is giving to the employer the right to take legal action over an incident in a dispute which otherwise falls within the definitions of Section 29 really likely to lead to a helpful solution to that dispute? It seems preferable to rely on other means of protecting the freedom of the Press. My Lords, I really need to ask the House whether newspaper proprietors— on whom the initiative to take action to protect the freedom of the Press primarily lies—
1002
really want to place this trust in the law to that extent?
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, referred to the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act and said that they were never used so far as the Press was concerned. I hope the noble Lord will agree that there may be other means open to us. I hope he will feel that what I may be able to propose later on, when we discuss his Amendment No. 5, will show that there are other ways open to us. We can do much by definition, but I have to say to the noble Lord that we cannot subscribe to the view that the law has an early or even a significant role to play. In the defence of the freedom of the Press, there is nothing between us. If at some stage it became clear that that freedom was under threat, the noble Lord would be well aware of the assurances which the Government had given and of the fact that we ourselves set up a Royal Commission on the Press to look into all these matters. In the light of that and of what I think the noble Lord and all sides of the House recognise to be the real desire in regard to the freedom of the Press, I hope he will agree that, while there may be disagreement as to the means, we are all seeking ways of maintaining and, above all, improving it. I can say to the noble Lord only that the Amendment which he has moved will, in my view, not be helpful and could well be unhelpful.
4.24 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I want to intervene for only a very few moments on this Amendment in order to make a number of short and distinct points. First, it is of course entirely for the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to decide what he does with the Amendment. But, speaking for myself, and since he indicated that it might in a certain contingency become unnecessary, I hope that he will not on this occasion press it to a Division, remembering, as he will, that if for any reason he is dissatisfied with the result of today's discussions, he can put down the Amendment or something similar for discussion on Third Reading.
Secondly, in relation to the question posed at the outset by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—and I speak subject to correction by the noble and

1003
learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack—I had, broadly, come to a rather similar conclusion to that just put forward by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I do not think one can say without qualification that the kind of action postulated in the Amendment would, or would not, come within the terms of Section 29 of the principal Act. I can well understand circumstances in which such action would be a trade dispute if the Act were not amended. For instance, under Section 29(l)(c) or (e), I could well construct a set of circumstances in which the courts would be likely—and, again, I speak subject to correction—to find that a dispute was a trade dispute within the meaning of Section 29 of the principal Act. On the other hand, I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the House, that a mere act of censorship directed towards the content of an article, as distinct from the authorship, might very well be held by the courts not to be a trade dispute within any of the provisions of subsection (1). Therefore, there is a certain amount of ground which I can certainly share with the noble Lord the Leader of the House in this matter.
Thirdly—though I cannot, of course, speak for the noble Lord, Lord Goodman —I do not regard this Amendment as an attack on the NUJ. Both the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and possibly the noble Lord the Leader of the House rather acted on the assumption that it was such an attack but, so far as I know, by far the worst—and it may be the only—cases of censorship which have taken place have been the work not of the NUJ, but of the printing unions. Therefore, I think it would be quite wrong to represent this as an attack on the NUJ as such. On the contrary, I regard another group of unions as much more likely to offend were this Amendment to be carried into law.
My Lords, I think that on one point I parted company with the noble Lord the Leader of the House. In the event of a pure act of censorship by any union taking place—be it a printing union, the NUJ, the Institute or any other union connected with the Press—based on the content of an article, rather than its authorship, and in the event of the courts being likely to hold that it was not a trade dispute, I think that the law is both
1004
a necessary and an important weapon to defend the freedom of the Press and I hope that it will not go forth from this House that it ought not to be used. The only other point I want to make is that of course I do not wish to reduce the length of the debate if noble Lords want to enlarge it, or to dictate in any way to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, as to what course he should take. However, I suggest that, in the light of what I have said, it might be possible for him to withdraw the Amendment at some stage.
Lord SNOW: My Lords, I think I made it clear at the Committee stage that I was deeply distressed by this whole business. Listening to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, my distress has become positive incomprehension. We all know that he is extraordinarily conciliatory and that he has done his best and, in a certain rather abstract sense, shares our views. But it seems a most peculiar chain of argument to suggest that the Amendment is not strictly necessary, but that, if it is necessary, it ought not to be moved. That is a most extraordinary way of attacking the matter. I have no conceivable objection to the NUJ, as I do not have to almost any other combination of men. But this beautiful, idyllic faith in the collective virtue of any body of men— the Vatican, the Royal Society— seems utterly unreasonable. It is perfectly true that the NUJ made a statement of intention, with which almost every Member of your Lordships' House would associate himself. But no such body can possibly bind its successors. It has not the slightest idea who its successors will be.
I feel that there is a potential danger here— it may be small— which no serious body of men should risk. I further believe that it may be a much greater danger because of possible changes which could, within five or ten years, be quite close. Here I wish to say one word to my noble friends, to whom I listened with immense respect, with regard to labour relations and trade union matters. We have listened to, and respect and follow my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland. If the Amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, had been pressed I should, on the advice of my noble friend Lord Douglass, have voted against it. On the other hand, there are amateurs, and there are professionals, and many other noble Lords, like the

1005
noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, are professionals, too. Here I must ask some noble Lords to believe that on one wing of this matter we are professionals, and they are amateurs. We know how fragile is the written word. We have lived all our lives with it, we have made our livings out of it, and we have seen it go like a pack of cards when libertarianism conflicts with collective force. That may be our problem. That is why I regard the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, as of such importance.
4.32 p.m.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, throughout all the process of the Bill I have been arguing with myself whether or not to intervene, but have wished to suspend judgment as much as possible. I am not quite sure whether this is the right moment to intervene in any case, but since the noble Lord who has just sat down has talked in terms of doctrine, I thought that perhaps I might make my contribution regardless of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, decides to do on this Amendment. Frankly, I share his reaction to the suggestion by Mr. Michael Foot that your Lordships should neglect your duty. I am glad to say that in this respect we are not doing so. I should also like, lest I later forget, to express the appreciation which I think many of us feel for the efforts made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, at the earlier stages, to bridge the gap which has existed between well-intending people on both sides of this argument. Mr. Hetherington of the Guardian has by now been quoted on both sides. I might add my quotation. He said on the radio not many days ago that he was looking forward to the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. That perhaps also weighs in the argument.
My Lords, the one basic question here is: is freedom different? In other words, people who have their worries about the powers of trade unions have in the end, in the context of this Bill and its history, broadly conceded the principle of the closed shop, and that affects whether you can do a job or whether you cannot and many other things. Surely, with great respect to the noble Leader of the House, one can and must dissociate the freedom
1006
to say and write things from any of these other rights. It is different and basic, and it has been fought for in this country for over 700 years. We must consider it in its unique light. As the noble Lord who has just sat down said, and knowing the noble Lord, Lord Goodman— though I have not discussed this point with him— this is not to my mind an Amendment against anybody; it is against continuancy. We in this country run our affairs a great deal on the basis of case law, but this line of thought which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, represents is perhaps the rarer procedure of making a law in case. It is much more like the law which was passed by Parliament in the 1930s to prevent people from wearing uniforms and marching in processions, before they had actually started to do so in any great measure.
We must now express appreciation for the NUJ's resolution, and appreciation also of the understanding by Mr. Kenneth Morgan of what is the duty of journalists towards one another and towards editors. But a time could come when somebody less statesmanlike, less thoughtful, and less liberal should exercise decisive power— not necessarily in the NUJ ; but in some other context—which could result in interference in the freedom of an editor to write what he likes. If that proposition is accepted, which I think it must be, the question then is: should that situation be dealt with by law? I know that it is possible to argue that it would be better for industrial relations if it were kept out of the law. This is a possible generalisation. But I leave your Lordships with the thought that if Parliament feels itself unable to put into legislation a clause which explicitly protects freedom of thought and expression of our people, then are we not perhaps locking up the democratic shop and throwing away the key? Those are the thoughts I have had in long thinking about this problem.
As regards this Amendment, I am entirely in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in the sense that he will no doubt decide from his consideration of the arguments which have been used, whether it will be wise to press this Amendment. That I will entirely accept. But I still think we should be unwise if we spent today accepting assurances, accepting that something is not in Article 29 and therefore it is all

1007
right. We should do something a little more positive, not from the point of view of proprietors or of any particular class of citizen ; but we should be wise in the interests of citizens as a whole to state something which can be referred to as a matter of law in whatever part of the Bill is ultimately chosen.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I shall take only a minute or two in order to support the two noble Lords who have just spoken, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. The whole opposition to the Amendment appears to be on the assumption— which is a correct assumption at the moment — that the National Union of Journalists is a very reasonable body of men. We know that. On Second Reading I said that Mr. Kenneth Morgan was a most reasonable and excellent man. But what happens if he is knocked over by a bus and an unreasonable man takes his place? I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord the Leader of the House say at the start of his speech on the Amendment, if I quote him correctly: "Save us from the rigours of the law ". You can have as many codes of practice as you like, but, especially in these modern times, if you do not have them enshrined in the law they are not worth the paper they are written on, because if militants get into power, as might happen, those codes become mere scraps of paper, and (he militants will tear them up.
As an occasional contributor to the Press, I believe that many of us are frightened of this Bill. I quite agree that it may be perfectly all right for ten years, or even for fifteen or twenty years. But one day it might not be all right, because militants may get into power. I will place myself in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and do as he does. One cannot compare the National Union of Journalists— writers— with other sections of society or with other workers in other unions, because they are different in every way. Writers come from every section of society, but they are completely different. Here the Government must make an exception.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Snow and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, made substantially the same point; namely, that there is not at the
1008
moment much danger—my noble friend said there is very slight danger—of anything happening. It seems to me, if the doctrine is adopted, whenever there is the slightest danger of something undesirable happening, of providing against it in a Statute, that our Statute Book will be overladen. Noble Lords are not really saying that whenever there is a slight danger you must protect against it; they are saying that in this case there is a slight danger and therefore you might protect against it. They are not making a generalisation ; they are stating a proposition which relates to this matter. My noble friend said that he was not against the Bill; he feared— and many noble Lords also feared— that there would be changes in the NUJ. It is substantially a feeling against the NUJ that motivates many of these—
Lord SNOW: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? I made it clear that that is not the case. I would say the same of anybody who has this chance or power.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, I do not know what body of men other than printers would have this power except, perhaps, editors themselves. Editors might suppress things, of course, and there would be no remedy in any Bill against that. Although it may be said this is general in one sense, there is no other body of men who can exercise this kind of power if they go wrong; that is if the NUJ goes wrong. My noble friend Lord GoreBooth said—and we all agreed with him—that the right of free speech and free writing is absolutely essential, and if there is any danger to it in this or any other Bill we must be alert to it and stop it. But I suggest that there is also an inescapable trade union aspect in this same problem. This is the dilemma that we are in.
We want to preserve liberty and proper treatment of trade unions, with equality as between one trade union and another. We must not, I suggest to your Lordships, allow ourselves to discriminate against one trade union and say that that trade union cannot have a closed shop because of all these dangers, while all other trade unions may have a closed shop if they reach agreement with their employers. This is something which the union that is discriminated against will

1009
never accept, and will always take opportunities to protest against and break. It is setting out a prescription for bad labour relations in the newspaper industry.
Lord GOREBOOTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for one moment? I can see his difficulty, particularly in the context of this paragraph and where it comes. None the less, he is not arguing that a matter of extremely important tactics and sensitiveness is equal to a fundamental point of principle?
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, all fundamental points of principle have to be applied. We cannot just forget that we have to apply them ; we have to think of their consequences upon all sorts of people. We cannot legislate simply in terms of fundamental principles, but that must underlie legislation. I am dealing with the problems of applying this fundamental principle, which can be taken so far and made so absolute that it treads upon proper trade union rights.
I should like to say a word about the position of law and trade unions in this field as this has been raised in this debate, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will raise it again. Of course nobody is saying that offences against the law by trade unions or anybody else should not be punished. We have just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that in his view courts could now, without any change coming through this Bill, decide what is a trade dispute. There are now many cases where the law, quite acceptably, can affect trade union matters. But the objection to the Amendment, to my mind, is that the trade unions bitterly oppose any specific special statutory discrimination against themselves, creating new offences which were not offences before and which bring the law in a new way into trade union matters. That was the objection to the Industrial Relations Act which brought new laws to bear on who was entitled to pass such things; a great argument of principle was stated, but in practice the trade unions would not accept a new discriminatory statute against them.
In this case, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is seeking to enact a special new statutory offence which is aimed at one union—whatever he may say and however much he may shake his head—
1010
leaving all others free from this new penalty which he is creating for the members of one union. I hope your Lordships will not— either in this or later Amendments— involve our House in a clash with another place, in effect, for a second time. This Bill has previously been before this House; it became a Statute and then another Bill. In effect, if this Bill was so amended that the other place rejected it, there would be a second clash, and that is something, I suggest to your Lordships, about which we should think three, four, five times before we engage upon it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, replies may I ask him one point: does his Amendment apply whether or not there is a closed shop?
4.46 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, since I received a quantity of most valuable advice—and the Commander in Chief and half my troops have indicated that they may not be there—I intend to withdraw this Amendment. If need be, I can put it back on the Third Reading. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that this Amendment is designed because of the closed shop situation; it does not necessarily relate to the closed shop situation.
May I take the opportunity to reply to what I regard as the most preposterous argument of all, which makes me wonder at times whether we are really sitting at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. It is apparently seriously suggested that, in order to maintain the industrial rights of 27,000 gentlemen who are not in the remotest degree oppressed at this moment, who have splendid industrial rights and have negotiated excellent agreements for themselves, we should entrust to them the right to say who is to write even a single word in every newspaper and magazine. If that is a serious contention, I can say only that I am totally bewildered and unable to believe that it is presented seriously to this House. As to the question of whether these 27,000 gentlemen should be included in industrial negotiations one way or another, it must be for the wisdom of trade unionists to determine as to how best to enable them to do it.
The suggestion that has been put in the balance on one side is the advantage

1011
they will get by retaining this Bill, and, on the other side, the apprehended threat to liberty, which is something of such consummate importance that no words of mine can exaggerate it. The bang with which the right hand side of the scale would come down would injure the table. Yet we hear seriously suggested as a main reason for preserving this Bill that it would be unfair to the NUJ, or whatever union it is ; but nobody utters a single word on behalf of another union, which is less than a quarter its size and is apparently to be obliterated by this legislation. Nobody says a word on their account and yet it is suggested that this is a major reason for preserving this legislation. I can say only that I do not believe—and I hasten to say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that I am no enemy of the NUJ, and they know it quite well—that if you balloted the NUJ on these proposals that there would be a majority in their favour. I cannot begin to tell your Lordships the number of members of the NUJ who have spoken to me and to my colleagues expressing the greatest disapproval of this legislation. Photographers come up to me— when they are ill advisedly seeking to photograph me on some occasions— and say, " I am a member of the NUJ and I support you ". The same is true of all of us who are fighting against this legislation.
There is not a shred of evidence to show that this legislation has the support of the NUJ so far as the bulk of its membership is concerned. To drag in the NUJ in terms which are calculated to suggest that this is a battle on their behalf and terrible things are being said about them, that they need to be defended by members of this House, of whom there must be at least a dozen to my knowledge, and to suggest there is ,not a spokesman for them in the House when two have already spoken and declared their membership of the NUJ, is, if I may say so, making use of arguments which are not only irrelevant but faintly discreditable. I propose to withdraw this Amendment, because there are other Amendments that are more relevant, and I would say in the words of Kai Lung:
"To a deaf ox a whispered word is as efficacious as a detailed memorandum."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord GOODMAN Lord GOODMAN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) In section 30(1) of the principal Act (interpretation) after the definition of ' " act " and " action"' there shall be inserted the following definition—
"article" means any printed matter or any radio or television broadcast; ".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to deploy all the arguments that your Lordships heard on Second Reading, on Committee stage and again this afternoon. I will recapitulate them very briefly, and I should like to tell your Lordships what this Amendment is about. In many discussions we have had with the Government, the one question we have repeatedly asked them is; Why are they pressing on with this legislation? The answer is—
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is not a little bit ahead of himself. My understanding of Amendment No. 3 is that it is consequential on Amendment No. 2 ; and it seems to me that the noble Lord is launched on a speech regarding another Amendment.
Lord GOODMAN: I am sorry, my Lords. My handling of this situation, in terms of technique, is very fallible. I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which is linked with Amendment No. 4.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Lord was about to say that he was not going to move Amendment No. 3 because it is consequential on Amendment No. 2, which he has withdrawn.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, with the assistance available to me, I cannot go wrong! I shall not move Amendment No. 3.
Clause 4 [Code of practice on freedom of the press]:
4.52 p.m.
Lord HILL of LUTON Lord HILL of LUTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 22, after (" employers,") insert (" employers and broadcasters, or employers' associations representing such employers,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I will, if I

1013
may, cover in a single speech the other Amendments standing in my name—Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 24. They all cover the single and circumscribed point I wish to put to the House. It stems from something which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the second day of the Committee stage, Tuesday, 11th March, in column 197:
"This new clause relates to the written word ; not at present to broadcasting and not to the printing unions. Broadcasting could be brought within the scope of this new clause if it were thought desirable, but at present my judgment is that the problems of the newspaper industry and of journalists could be distinguished from those of the broadcasting authorities."
In that tentative way he sought to explain how it was that the new clause that he moved, and which the Government had accepted, related only to journalists and the Press.
I should like, in a partly exploratory way, to discover what led the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, so to confine his Amendment and for the noble Lord the Leader of the House to accept it in that form, by putting a question about the code, the scope of the discussions about it and the scope of the consultations that the Secretary of State will have, if it goes beyond the six-month period for voluntary agreement. I should like to be perfectly clear why this should not apply to broadcasters and broadcasting. I make no comment on the code itself and the code proposal, except to say that I hope it will be strengthened subsequently either at this stage or on Third Reading. But one must contemplate the possibility, depressing though it may be for certain of your Lordships, that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and accepted by the Government, will appear in its present form in the Bill as it finally goes for Royal Assent. Therefore, I should like to seek, if necessary, to move its strengthening, and in any case to understand the limitation.
I have heard it argued— and this may have been in the noble Lord's mind— that as the Governors of the BBC, on the one hand, and the Members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, on the other, are made responsible by the Charter and the Acts respectively for what is broadcast, nothing can be done or said to lead them to divide that res-
1014
ponsibility with others. I have heard that argument used, and I have heard it argued also that the BBC, for example, have always resisted the closed shop. Incidentally, it is of importance to note that the Beveridge Committee recommendations included the recommendation that the specialist unions, including the NUJ should be recognised ; and i; was recommended by Lord Beveridge, and accepted by the specialist unions and the BBC, that the closed shop should not obtain. It may be that that position will not be sustained in the future: it may be that industrial pressure upon the broadcasting authorities may lead them to depart from the position they have hitherto adopted.
The Amendment I put forward in this tentative, exploratory way, extends the scope to broadcasting and broadcasters. It is important to realise that there are broadcasters—not members of the NUJ, and indeed not eligible for memberships— who are involved in the field we have in mind, the field of publication of comment and argument as well as of news. So, in putting forward this series of Amendments aimed at this circumscribed purpose, I should be very grateful to know what has been in mind in excluding broadcasters. If there are to be discussions such as are provided for in this new clause, and if after six months there are to be consultations by the Secretary of State, the issue being the freedom of information, should not broadcasting be covered by the procedures laid down in this new clause? That is my point. I want to keep it circumscribed and not to roam over the larger field. It may be there are good reasons for this exclusion. There may well be some reluctance on the part of broadcasters to be involved in what might be called the second phase, which is the consultation by the Secretary of State, following the end of the sixmonth period without agreement having been reached. Whatever the reasons, I think this matter ought to be discussed so that one may secure such modest protection as is achieved in relation to the Press for the other not unimportant medium of broadcasting.
5.0 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has asked me what I had in mind at the Committee stage of the Bill

1015
in using the words I did in my speech on this new clause. The answer is that the words I used were used on the advice of the Secretary of State whose view I invited on this point. So what I said was in his mind. I must not add to that. For my own part, I was unaware that matters were raised in connection with broadcasting that had been so clearly raised in relation to the newspaper industry. I was more familiar with the latter's problems than I was with any comparable problems which might have arisen in the field of broadcasting. Moreover, I was unaware of what the appropriate trade union might have to say on this matter, whether it was the NUJ, which I believe has an interest in some of the staffs of the broadcasting authorities, or the Association of Broadcasting Staffs, or whoever might be involved in a union sense. I was not in touch with them and did not know their views. That is why I was tentative.
All I need say is that if it is the desire of the House to include broadcasting then I would respectfully suggest that perhaps a little more thought would have to be given as to the way in which it was to be brought in. My own view would be that broadcasting would need a separate code and would not necessarily be covered by the same code as is stipulated in the Bill at the present time. It is entirely a matter for consideration as to whether the various parties connected with discussions on a code for newspapers would necessarily be the same parties as those to discuss a code for broadcasting. There might be some overlapping, but there might be separate considerations leading to the use of different words. That is why it is not easy just to graft broadcasting on to the Bill merely by adding to what is already there the words, "broadcasting and broadcasters".
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the House in this matter. My advisers think that the wording of the new clause already covers broadcasting despite the reference to journalists and to the Press, because matters relating to the freedom of the Press are defined without limitation in subsection (2) of the new clause. However, there may be presentational and legal reasons why we should make this matter clear. The advice I have is that the noble Lord's Amendments should be accepted in principle, but 1 would ask him not to press
1016
them and we would undertake between now and the next stage to see what drafting is required for the matter to be put quite clearly.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, 1 am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for so frankly describing what led to the inclusion of the paragraph which I quoted. I am also grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for what he said. I do not agree that broadcasters are already covered, if only for the simple reason that if broadcasting is to be covered by a code it must go beyond journalists. Others are involved in this same field who would not respond to that description. In view of what has been said, and bearing in mind particularly the wise point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that it might well have to be a different kind of code in a different kind; of language providing for consultation with another Minister— the Minister who sponsors broadcastng—I ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4 and I do not propose to move Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 24.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN Lord GOODMAN moved Amendment No. 5 :
Page 5, line 22, after (" employers") insert (" editors and such editors' organisations").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, might I mention in my fumbling fashion the mechanics of this particular situation. I should like to address myself to Amendments Nos. 5, 7, 11, 13, 14 to 23, and No. 26 which go to make up the original single Amendment which I put down. If 1 might make a few remarks, they would relate to all of these Amendments because they are part of one indivisible whole.
The Amendment we are seeking to amend provides for the creation by some means of a code of conduct or behaviour for journalists—and that has become known as the Houghton Amendment. It involves and implies discussions between the various sections of the industry which will finally embody in a single document, which we have called a charter, the conditions, circumstances, canons under which newspapers are to be published. It also provides that in the event of agreement failing to be reached between the various

1017
negotiating elements, such a document shall be prepared by the Secretary of State for (for some reason) Employment. It is not made clear why it should be the Secretary of State for Employment who is producing a newspaper code, but that may be explained in the course of the debate.
I would say in the most forthright fashion, first, that the notion of an elaborate code which is to determine what goes into newspapers and what does not go into them; which is to state what standards of taste and behaviour are to operate ; which is to state what news is fair and what news is unfair, must be the conception of someone who does not live in this world—certainly of no one who has the faintest acquaintance with how a newspaper is produced. It is a code of such unreality as to be one of the most mammoth essays in absurdity in which human beings could engage—but I do not want to overstate the position.
The second point I would make is that I know of no civilised free country which has a code for its newspapers prepared by the Secretary of State for anything— be he the Secretary of State for Employment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other Minister. I should like to be told of a free Western community which has a State imposed code as to how newspapers are to be produced. I do not believe that a few years ago we would have contemplated this proposal without the utmost derision and indignation. It would remove us, not to the second league, but to whatever is the lowest football league that may exist, in terms of being a free nation enunciating free notions in publications which exist for that purpose. We have been told—we were told I think by the noble Lord who has just sat down—about editors having no control over their activities. I think the implication was that while we are trying to trammel the unfortunate journalists we are allowing the editors to ride free to do exactly what they like. Well, that is quite right. An editor should have no control over his activities. The appeal from an editor is to another editor. There are 1,300 provincial newspapers in this country and 12 national newspapers, to each of which people can turn if they cannot find a place in any particular one
1018
or have been rejected by any particular one. That is the only freedom of the Press that is a possibility. There is no other freedom of the Press.
One cannot create a freedom of the Press by codes, by legislation, by Acts of Parliament or by Bills. All one can do is to have enough newspapers controlled by the people who own them or run them or edit them, according to whoever is decided to be the controlling body, and that is the freedom of the Press. The way to achieve major fresh Press freedom is to create more newspapers. The fact today that a newspaper costs a fortune to produce; that all the conditions, some of which are labour conditions, some of which are print conditions, combine to make it an impossibility to produce a newspaper other than as a matter of great difficulty and danger, is of course the major enemy to the freedom of the Press. Once we can get back to a situation where newspapers can be published for the investment of a reasonable amount of capital, we shall be back to the certainty that we have a free Press. However, we shall not achieve a free Press by means of codes; we could sit down and negotiate with each other for months, years and decades and never achieve agreement on these matters. Hence, I have discouragingly to say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, as I have said to him before, that the idea that we shall produce a code that solves this problem is based on two misapprehensions: one that there is a problem, because there is not; secondly, that if there was a problem it would be solved by the production of a code, which it will not.
Having said that, we turn to the question of what we have done, because the noble Lord has asked me to address myself with greater particularity to the contents of the Amendment. He found my broad brush approach to the matter one that was perhaps a little unhelpful to the House, and I am anxious to be very helpful to the House. May I refer to a question which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker. He asked why should it be that legal rights are created for the first time to victimise the National Union of Journalists when no such rights have been created against anybody else. This is completely to

1019
reverse the position. There is no question of legal rights being created against the NUJ; it is a question of seeking to rectify positions which have been created by this legislation which did not arise before. The newspapers are challenged; freedom of speech is unquestionably challenged at this moment, and it will be increasingly challenged as time goes on. What we are seeking to do is to rectify that position. It is not a question of discriminatory legislation. It is a fact that this legislation is discriminatory, and there is this mild effort to rectify the situation. This, if I may say so, is the answer to the noble Lord who said that we are seeking to discriminate against newspapers by introducing legal rights that did not hitherto exist.
If I may make one final general observation about the law, we have got into a most astonishing situation where we are told that it is impossible for us to seek to obtain any legislative protection against undoubted dangers if this involves an appeal to the law. I can only say that that is an unacceptable position to me, and I hope that it will be an unacceptable position to most of your Lordships. If the trade unions decide that the only way in which they can achieve a proper working relationship is to have no resort to legal remedies, that must be a matter for them; but where their deliberations involve a result that may affect, and injuriously affect, the rights of other people, then it is quite impossible to ostracise and boycott the law on the basis that the law is an abomination to which we may not refer.
I doubt whether there have been many Members of this House who have been more critical of aspects of our law than me; there are many parts of it which I find antediluvian. There are many conceptions of it which I think ought to be reformed. However, the fact remains that it is the solitary bastion of liberty which we possess. If we proceed to throw it overboard, we are back to a state of anarchy. It is as simple as that.
I do not wish to touch on discussions, but we have strained our imagination and our legislative resources to see whether we can find some alternative by way of a private tribunal that would operate to enforce the rights of the people who might need to enforce them if those rights
1020
were invaded. It is a complete impossibility. There is no machinery which one can devise to replace the law in this matter unless one places oneself wholly in the hands of the people who, unhappily, may in the event constitute the danger. Hence, we do not accept—indeed, we are not prepared to accept—the suggestion that anything that happens must involve a total rejection of any appeal to the law or to the courts. If I may say so, I do not believe—I said this previously, and I noted that one very distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, the previous noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, nodded his head in assent— that the history of the behaviour of the law in relation to trade unions has been so obnoxious that after careful scrutiny of it, one will find that it has not held justice between the parties. If you look at the crofters' case, if you look at the Ford case, if you look at any number of cases, you will find that the courts have come down on the side of the unions. You will find that sometimes they go one way and that sometimes they go the other; but always their decisions are based upon honest judgments. We may think that they are mistaken judgments, but I do not know of any tribunal to which you would go which would give you fairer treatment.
I think it would be very helpful if somebody on the Opposition Benches produced a monograph on the subject of the trade unions and the courts, because there appears to be a deep-seated misapprehension that the courts have behaved horribly so far as trade unions are concerned. Although I do not profess to be an expert on trade union law, from my meagre knowledge of that law I believe that this is totally without substantial foundation. We know about the difficulties over the Industrial Relations Act and the problems which arose from it. Although I would not utter a single word in criticism of anybody who is not here to answer, we know that if a judge is appointed who has an established political allegiance, it is a mistake in a matter of this kind and, without any question of impugning the integrity or the honesty of the man concerned, may well do damage. However, that is quite a different question. What I am convinced about is that nothing can happen unless, in the event, we have the right of appeal to the courts.
What we have done in this Amendment is, briefly, this. We have adopted the principle of a charter. We are anxious to go as far as we can with the Secretary of State. It is a little disingenuous to suggest that we have gone a great distance, but at least we have adopted the format which he thought was appropriate and acceptable. In that charter we have entrenched four provisions. One is the independence of editors. The second is that editorial material shall not be the subject of a trade dispute. The third is that a journalist may join the union of his choice. Here I am not sure that we have been splendidly heroic or that we have not been a little pusillanimous. On the other hand, we are anxious to have something which will be found to be acceptable to the other place. Therefore, we have accepted the principle of the closed shop. We have said that a journalist must belong to a union. But why should we stand by and see the Institute of Journalists destroyed, obliterated, pulverised, simply because a union not much greater in terms of numbers has decided that that is to be the union preferred? Hence, we have said, "If you want to belong to the Institute of Journalists, you can belong to it. If you want to belong to the National Union of Journalists, you can belong to that. But you must belong to a union". We have accepted the principle of the closed shop.
The fourth thing we have accepted is that there should be the right of appeal if a man is thrown out of a union. Again, one of the weird aspects of this astonishing piece of legislation is that it has been offered to trade unionists as a boon, a benison and a blessing that they can be expelled from a union without reason and without appeal. It is suggested that this was inserted in the Labour Party's Manifesto as one of the things which would win them votes. Apparently, it is presented as an advantage and a benefit to the members of the trade union movement that they are to have this unquestioned boon. I must confess that I thought for a long time about what the boon is. If I was told that the Law Society to which I now belong had suddenly, for my benefit, passed a rule to say that hereafter I could be flung out without any reason being assigned and without any right of
1022
appeal, I think I should start to question whether they had taken leave of their senses. Certainly, I do not think I would accept it as a boon or a benefit. But certain equally it is that it is an impossibility to allow unchallenged and without argument that who shall write in the English Press, who shall write in magazines, who shall write in periodicals, shall be determined by a union of 27,000 people whose dubious record in democratic voting I instanced to the House at Committee stage.
Then I pointed out exactly what had happened when, having taken a ballot of their members about whether they should register or deregister and 6,000 odd having said that they should register and 3,000 odd having said they should not register, at an annual delegate meeting 270 said that they should not register and 190 said that they should, and as a result they did not register. When they went to appeal on the matter they had a further delegate meeting, or its equivalent, and decided by 11 votes that they should not register. I should be extremely interested to know how it can be suggested that the fate of everybody who wants to write in a newspaper can be left in the hands of any group of 27,000 people. This is not an attack on the National Union of Journalists. It is an unthinkable possibility. The noble Lord mutters that this is not the case—that it is not being left in their hands. But it is being left in their hands.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, what I was muttering about was that it was being left in the hands of a very small number of editors.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, may I say that that is an unfortunate argument, because it goes on being repeated in order to erect an enormous smoke screen as to the reality.
Several Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, it is not left in the hands of a collective group of editors, and it is no use your Lordships saying, No. Each decision is left in the hands of each individual editor. There is no other means of procuring how this matter is to be decided. But if it is said that it is preferable to have one monolithic organisation controlled by 11 people

1023
determining what should appear in all the 1,300 regional papers and in the 12 national newspapers, I can say only that there is something very faulty in your Lordships' arithmetic. However this must be a matter for the Government to decide. They must go away and work out what it is that provides greater freedom of choice— 1,300 free individual editors each making his own decision, or 11 gentlemen controlling one union who will make one single decision. If it is true that it is a bad thing that the matter should be controlled in the way it is, is it any better to add this single, unified dictatorial control to replace the dictatorship which it is suggested exists on the part of editors? Can that be a better situation?
In this charter we have inserted these four rights. For practical purposes, that is all that this Amendment boils down to. It boils down to taking a position created by the Government, which we think is a dangerous position, and seeking to amend it so as to retain as tolerable the position of people who are going to write. I should warn the House of one fact. The National Union of Journalists is now making inroads into the publishing world, and has been doing so for a long time. Quite a number of publishers have been asked to have closed shops in relation to the National Union of Journalists, and have been asked to give recognition to that union. Publishing means book publishing; book publishing means every idea or notion that occurs in the mind of a free man. The risks that we are creating here extend not only to newspapers and periodicals, but to literature in its broadest sense and I am inviting your Lordships to say that this is not a risk that we ought to take.
When I ask the Government, "Why do we do it? What is the point of it? Cui bono"—as I say in my indifferent Latin—"Who is going to benefit from it?", there is no answer, except the ridiculous one that it provides a better negotiating weapon for the 27,000 journalists who are not asking for it. There is no other answer to explain why we should take this risk. If the risk were 1 per cent. of 1 per cent. of 1 per cent., if it were a one-millionth chance of a possibility, we would have no right to take it. We have no right, in regard to either our history or our future, to endanger
1024
the right of free men to say what they want to say and to publish what they want to publish. Hence I commend this Amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he be kind enough to explain to the House—
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I intervene here. If the Question is put, I think the House must presume that the noble Lord has sat down. I suggest that my noble friend might make a short speech later, in which he could make the point and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would then reply to it.
5.23 p.m.
The Earl of DROGHEDA: My Lords, I was hoping that as a cosignatory of these Amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Goodman, and others, I might be able to say a few words, although I cannot speak with the noble Lord's great eloquence and I shall be very brief indeed. First, I should like to say that I thought it was a little hard on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for whom I have the highest regard, to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is here as the spokesman for the Newspaper Publishers' Association. It is of course true that he is the chairman of the NPA, but he speaks from deeply felt personal convictions which have nothing whatsoever to do with his chairmanship. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, also said that the newspaper publishers were in an unfair position because there was nobody here to speak for the NUJ, although we had the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, here the other day giving us a moving address. Unfortunately, he is not with us now, although he has the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his place.
I think all of us in your Lordships' House agree with the general feeling towards the Press and broadcasting; that it is a special category, that it cannot be treated like any other form of industry and that it is very much a special case. We sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his efforts to get some compromise proposal, but we do not feel at all happy about the idea of a code of practice, particularly one which might

1025
be imposed by the Secretary of State for Employment, or indeed by any other Member of the Government. In our view, it would not be suitable. There has been a lot of talk about the threat of the closed shop. We in the newspaper business are very conscious of this threat, and we have been told that by passing the legislation we are only reverting to the position before 1971. But even if that were completely true, I think there has been a tremendous change in the whole climate since then. Certainly, before 1971 nobody would ever have spoken of the possibility of a closed shop among journalists; it simply did not enter into our thoughts. So we hold that there are certain rights and liberties which have to be protected and we think they are so important that they need protection under the law.
In particular, the role of the editor and of his deputy must be specifically recognised. Editors have the most difficult job in the whole newspaper business. They are like designers who engage their specialities to design some great construction, but the editors have to take the ultimate responsibility. An editor will listen to his colleagues but, in the end, the responsibility for what appears in his newspaper must be his, and he would be placed in an absolutely intolerable position if his decisions could be called in question by a union meeting. We believe that the fact that there is more than one union to which journalists can belong should be specifically and unequivocally accepted, and we should remember that the Institute of Jouralists, which is much the smaller of the two unions, was formed long before the NUJ and is a registered union. We also believe it right that it should be a clear and indisputable right of newspapers and broadcasting services to carry contributions from non-journalists. I am sure that many of your Lordships will have seen a letter signed by a number of well-known publishers the other day, expressing grave concern about the potential threat to the publishing business of the closed shop as it might apply to newspapers.
I think we all recognise that there is a tremendously strong depth of feeling among the editors of newspapers— a very heterogeneous body—all speaking with individual voices except on this one issue where they have come together as I have
1026
never seen them do before. It is, of course, true that the other day, a little late in the day, the NUJ had a special meeting on a Saturday and they agreed that editors—although not, I fancy, the deputy editors—could be released from any obligation to belong to a closed shop. Also, they agreed that contributions from nonunion contributors would be admissible, except during a purely industrial dispute. Although the General Secretary of the union said that these concessions would go a long way towards settling some of the more extravagant fears— I suppose that is the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and myself—he said nothing about recognising the existence of the Institute of Journalists. I wish to assure your Lordships that very real fears are felt by those mainly responsible. I think this question goes much deeper than a mere matter of industrial relations. If those fears are groundless, then no one is giving away very much by allowing them the protection under the law which they feel they need. I hope Her Majesty's Government will find some way to meet us, before it is too late.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, said that it would not do to have a clash with another place over this matter. I entirely agree with him. Nevertheless, I hope that in a matter affecting the freedom of the Press, where our convictions are so strongly held, that does not mean that we cannot see which body has the final say in this great affair.
5.30 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may be helpful to the House if I were to intervene here to give an indication of what the Government have in mind, and perhaps to deal in a little more detail with the Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We have given careful thought to the proposals put forward in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which he withdrew. Secondly, we have given careful thought to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, which has now become the present Clause 4. I have acknowledged that in our view broadcasting is already covered in the new Clause 4. This is a matter which we can put beyond any question on Third Reading. I can also say that we will be prepared to accept the principle behind

1027
Amendment No. 15, which would ensure that editors and editors' organisations are to be parties to the code or charter. But I hope we can avoid anything which suggests that each and every editor had to be a party.
Thirdly, it may be desirable to describe a little more explicitly the ground to be covered by the code without going so far as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in his Amendment No. 11. I am prepared to look at the drafting of Clause 4(2) to see whether we can insert a reference to the position of editors and a reference to other aspects of labour relations in journalism in relation to the freedom of the Press.
Fourthly, the Amendments of the noble Lord would enable any charter, whether prepared by the Secretary of State or by industry, to be amended by agreement between the parties without reference to the Secretary of State. In Committee I mentioned that I did not think that making a charter of this kind was a function really appropriate to the Secretary of State, I must say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was very unfair to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby for this particular provision. Certainly, it was not the desire of my noble friend Lord Houghton that this matter should go to any Minister of the Government. It was a means of setting at rest some of the concern expressed about the freedom of the Press. The provision dealt with the question that if industry were not able to do it within six months, then the Secretary of State would be required to do it.
Before I sit down to allow the noble Lord to intervene, may I say that if it is the wish of the House I am quite willing to see that the six months be extended for a longer period in order that industry should have sufficient time to be able to complete their own discussions, and bring forward their code or charter.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I want only to say that I would not wish to be unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I did not entertain the faintest suspicion that anything that is wrong with this Bill derives from him. He has been most strenuous in his efforts to put the Bill right. I take the first oppor-
1028
tunity to say this. That he has not been able to do so is not his fault.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the utmost respect, I do not know what that intervention was about. However, I have indicated to your Lordships how far I can go at this moment. I regret to say that the remainder of the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, are unacceptable. They are indeed complex and I think the noble Lord would agree with that. At present, Clause 4 is quite clear in its purpose; that is, the establishment of a code to be used in evidence, but which would not in itself be a ground for proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, replaces the general description of the code set out in Clause 4(2) with a list of rights which are to be included in the charter. These have to be read in conjunction with his later Amendment which states that while,
"No criminal proceedings shall lie against any person on account of a contravention of the charter …",
there is an obligation to comply with it, and a breach of that obligation would be actionable. I must ask the House to appreciate what the noble Lord is doing here.
First of all, although certain rights are listed in the Amendments of the noble Lord, they are presumably not exhaustive, and a breach of other provisions of the charter would presumably be actionable. In my view, the whole proposal is extraordinary, in that the effect would be that statutory duties would be imposed, not by Parliament, but by parties to the charter. It would seem to be undesirable —indeed, quite wrong—to have provisions, a breach of which is actionable in the courts, in a document of this nature rather than in a Statute. Whatever may be the strength of feeling towards the Government or to the problems inherent in these Amendments, I would appeal to noble Lords to ask themselves whether, as a House which seeks to maintain personal freedom, we are justified in including provisions which include matters which may be actionable in the courts when we have no idea of their extent, and which, if presented to Parliament, we should have no means to amend, should Parliament see fit. Moreover, in order to stress the unusual nature of what is proposed, I must point out that

1029
the freedom of the Press is not a subject on which we in this country hitherto have seen fit to legislate. Surely this should make us doubly hesitant before legislating in such a curious manner.
My Lords, it would be quite unacceptable to this Government—and I suspect that this attitude may well have been shared by previous Administrations—to agree to the creation of statutory duties by an industrial agreement over which Ministers and Parliament have so little control. Quite apart from the means adopted to impose statutory obligations, the rights specifically set out in the Amendments are unacceptable. The Government do not take the line that editors should necessarily be included in the closed shop. It may well be best in the circumstances of journalism that they should not be included. Certainly I can see that there is often a need for some special arrangements for editors. The difference between the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the Government is as to whether these special arrangements have to be enshrined in a Statute.
We believe the Bill—particularly as amended during its passage through Parliament—will give sufficient flexibility to ensure the coverage of closed shops, by negotiating sensibly for industry, having regard to the special circumstances of groups, including editors. Moreover, the NUJ itself in its statement on 8th March said that it would allow newspaper editors a free choice of whether they wished to be a member of a union. It also reaffirmed that in an industrial dispute editors would be free to continue with their normal work.
Secondly, the Amendment gives journalists the right to join a trade union of their choice. This will undoubtedly be seen by trade unionists as an attempt to make the closed shop ineffective. Although I question whether at the end of the day this provision is likely to be more effective against pressure for closed shops than the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, that is not my main argument. Again, the Government think it much better to rely on agreements within industry making, where necessary, use of the flexibility of the law. The definition of "union membership agreement" has; now been amended to allow unions other than the union which is a full party to the
1030
agreement to be specified in it. In addition, the NUJ have said that the policy of the union is, while seeking 100 per cent. post entry closed shop, not to insist that persons already working in the office who are not members should become members.
My Lords, I do not think it is necessary to spend much time on the right not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably expelled from a trade union, because we have previously debated this extensively. Such a provision would, of course, duplicate Section 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. We believe that the procedures of the unions, strengthened by the TUC independent review committee, will suffice to meet the admitted need for safeguards in the rare cases of abuse. It is unnecessary, in our view, to single out the procedures of one union for special statutory provision.
My Lords, while the Government are certainly not prepared to condone industrial action directed at attempts to suppress news or comment, we do not believe that to establish a right of this kind will really help preserve the freedom of the Press, which in this respect, as in the case of other rights listed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has to depend on many factors, one of the most important of which is the tolerance and understanding within the whole industry; I repeat, the whole industry. The definition of "industrial action" in the Amendment is even more far-reaching than the very wide definition in the 1971 Act on which it is based. Are we really intending to say that any action in breach of a charter agreed by industry, even if in contemplation or furtherance of a genuine trade dispute, as a union in any other industry would be able to maintain, is to be restrainable by injunction and punishable in damages?
My Lords, before concluding, I should like to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the House. Although I have been critical of Amendments moved, there is, I believe, nothing between the noble Lord and the Government in wishing to see, in maintaining and in determining to improve, the freedom of the Press. I have tried to meet the wishes of the House by finding ways of bridging the gap, but I regret very much that the gap is so big, so fundamental, that I have not been able to meet the noble Lord. On Third Reading, if Lord Houghton's

1031
Clause 4 is still in the Bill, the House will then have an opportunity of seeing the type of Amendments I have in mind and which I have already indicated to your Lordships' House. I hope the House will appreciate that this Bill touches only on the very edges of the Press. The noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, says that things are very difficult, indeed. The noble Earl knows that as employers they are not required by law to sign any closed shop agreement; they know that. They know that if they wish to sign an agreement they can make conditions to it. All the conditions which noble Lords are asking be put into this piece of legislation they can put in those agreements that they enter into with the journalists. I cannot help but feel that they, the great guardians of freedom, the editors and the proprietors, are unable to guarantee freedom for themselves within the Press, whether it is weakness or whatever it may be. But I believe that they underestimate the spirit of the 27,000 journalists about whom the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, spoke so disparagingly. If there are any guardians of the freedom of the Press, I suggest they are the men and women who write for the Press and not solely those who edit it and own it.
5.46 p.m.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, this is a deeply-felt issue, and we should be false to our whole history if it were not debated with very considerable passion. I agree entirely with Lord Goodman when he says that you cannot reduce the argument to trade union rules, and that there are great principles at stake. In return, I hope that Lord Goodman and Lord Drogheda, who put their case so passionately, so genuinely and with such feeling, will realise that there are others of us who may not agree with them in method but who feel just as strongly about this issue of the freedom of the Press.
It may be that some of the differences between us are rooted in history. It is not an accident that it was in the turbulent years of the early 19th century, not way back in the dark ages but, in particular, in the years between 1819 and 1831, when great men and women—I include women because Mrs. Carlile was as much involved as her husband, and the John Hunts and others—cared so passionately
1032
about the right to publish that again and again they found themselves prosecuted, sent to jail, fined, ruined, their characters denegrated in every possible way. There was no hardship that these men would not stand up to when they found themselves faced with a court and with powerful vested interests who would not even allow the poetry of Lord Byron, now considered quite innocuous, we should not take our poets quite so lightly. It was a struggle to have anything printed that was even a satire on George III, George IV, and the rest of them, a struggle to publish anything that seemed in any way to be a reflection on religion. They felt that this was an inalienable right, the right to publish.
It was in those same years, and it was not an accident, when this fight for the right to publish was being fought with such intensity, that you had the agents provocateurs out in Scotland in 1820 against the weavers. I shall not detain your Lordships with these events, but they tell why we, too, on this side feel so passionately about freedom. We do not forget 1820, we do not forget 1848 and a great deal more besides, because what we were fighting for was freedom of expression, freedom to organise; and, of course, we on this side of the House have the most to lose if we lose the freedom to publish. But it is one thing having the freedom to publish and it is another thing having the cash to be able to publish.
I have not at any time been a member of the NUJ, but I have in my time been a part newspaper owner and part newspaper director, and, believe me, my Lords, if you are seeking to publish views that do not command the support of wealthy vested interests, looking for advertisements and the rest is no easy business. So one may have the right to publish, but not the resources to do so. It is a good thing that at the present time we are having a more even balance between employer and employee—between newspaper owner and newspaper employee. I cannot accept that history is completely standing on its head, and that noble Lords opposite—who, if the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is reckless enough to take us into the Division Lobby, will follow him to a man—are the great champions of freedom of organisation, freedom of expression, and so on.

1033
I ask your Lordships to consider the four parts of Amendment No. 11. It begins by talking about:
"… the rights of editors and other persons exercising editorial responsibilities to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union".
We agree on that. The only point on which we disagree is whether this can most effectively be done by a strict legal code or by our traditional British way —the way we got the right to publish— of advancing tentatively and empirically. Anyone who knows anything about the trade union movement and the problems a trade union leader has to face, with all the differentials in his own ranks, knows that a great deal can be done patiently, tentatively and empirically that cannot be done by rigid codification. Thus, we are discussing not whether we agree with that part of the Amendment, because we do, but only how it can be more successfully protected.
The Amendment goes on:
"… the right of journalists to join a trade union of their choice".
We have to be careful here. The industry that I knew most about was coalmining. For generations the curse of that industry was the way in which one coalfield was pitted against another, and there was never any hope of improved working conditions until we had the formation of the National Union of Mineworkers, which brought the exporting pits of Fife, the Rhondda and the rest into one union. I am sure that no noble Lord would want to have that kind of fragmentation again. In that journalists want to protect their working conditions and wages—and they have been quite good about doing that so far—they are as entitled to resist fragmentation as is any other union. Where I definitely would not want the NUJ to advance beyond its right to negotiate wages and conditions would be in dictating the policy of a newspaper. That is an entirely different matter and is something we must carefully safeguard. The Amendment goes on to refer to
"… the rights of editors to commission, publish or not to publish any article free from pressure by industrial action".
That is all right so far as it goes, but what about pressure from advertisers and owners? I can imagine the late Lord Goodman—
Lord GOODMAN: Not quite.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, who is late only in keeping appointments and in no other sense.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I know what the noble Baroness means. She is breaking my heart.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I was thinking of the late Lord Beaverbrook. Noble Lords can imagine his raucous loughter if anyone were to suggest that newspaper editors were not influenced by newspaper owners. It is the owner, not the NUJ who has the power to hire and fire. Indeed, one need not wait to be fired; one knows that one must trim one's sails in a certain way if one is to continue in the job. It would be splendid if we had sufficient strength on the employees' side, as well as on the employer's, because the editor would feel more free than he is at present. I agree that one cannot have absolute freedom of the Press. The nearest one can get to it is to have a diversity of newspapers; more money produces more newspapers and with less money we have fewer newspapers and so less freedom of expression. This is, of course, too serious a matter and too deep-rooted in our history for anyone to be frivolous about.
My hope—and I know that this applies to many of your Lordships—is that we may advance to a better kind of society, what I would call a Socialist society, even if that phrase needs to be carefully defined these days. But we need to progress by peaceful, Constitutional, Parliamentary means. That is what some of us have worked for and lived for all our days, for one cannot have a free Parliament without a free Press and the nearest one can get to having a free Press is to have a diversified Press, and the nearest one can come to having editors who are not unduly influenced by either owners or employers is by having bargaining power on both sides.
I am not a good Party politician. I have spent most of my life on the periphery of the Labour Party—indeed, much of it trying to keep inside it and to avoid being kicked out of it—and I trust that your Lordships will not feel that this is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. In 1932, I was asked by the

1035
Labour Party of that day to sign a code to the effect that I would never vote again unless it was in strict agreement with the majority decisions of my Party. I said that I could not do that, and I was out of the Labour Party until 1945. But I think that my Party has grown up since then; it has matured and learned the lessons of history. No longer do we make such impositions and in more recent times we have learned the lessons of, for example, the industrial disputes Bill which the present Prime Minister tried to enforce. He made a mistake and he has learned from his mistake.
What is wrong with noble Lords opposite is that they have not learned that there are some things that cannot be achieved by rigid codification. My deep fear is that if we tried to sustain by a strict legal code the precious freedoms we love so much, we would get into the same kind of difficulties that both the last Conservative Government and the last Labour Government got into with their industrial legislation. I may be wrong, but that is what I deeply fear, and I hope that when our views on this issue of the freedom to publish and the freedom to speak and organise go out from this House, the history of the Labour movement will be remembered as well as the history of the Conservative Party, and it will be understood that we both have the same objective. In any event, I do not for one moment believe that the British people would tolerate monolithic control of the Press from whatever quarter such control were threatened.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I feel as passionately about the freedom of the Press as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, but I cannot say that I feel very passionately about Amendment No. 5, which is what I thought was now before the House. Would it not expedite matters if we were to devote our attention to the Amendments seriatim, as we have had a large number of eloquent and very moving Second Reading speeches, with many of which I warmly associate myself? I therefore ask the House if we might now ask the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, whether he would be willing to withdraw Amendment No. 5, which seems much less important than Amendment No. 7 and a number of others which follow.
1036
Then perhaps we could get on and get to the heart of the matter.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not want to make a speech at this stage, but I think I am right in saying—and the noble Lord the Leader of the House will confirm or reject what I am suggesting —that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made it clear that he was discussing the Amendments as a series. That is what I hope we shall do
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is quite right. I must say that, with the number of interventions I have made this afternoon in an attempt to keep some order, and with the help that I have received from the noble and learned Lord, I have a feeling that we ought to receive some payment for a form of special duty. I should be quite willing to share it with the noble and learned Lord. The fact is that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has moved Amendment No. 5 and that it is a paving Amendment for all the Amendments now left on the Order Paper.
6.4 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, speaking also for my noble friends on this side of the House, I should like to support the Amendment and, in so doing, to keep as far as I can to the heart of the problem; that is, of course, whether measures designed to maintain for the Press that freedom which we all desire should or should not be given legal backing. As has been said in earlier discussions on the Bill and again this afternoon, there are strongly and sincerely held differences of opinion on this point. In my view, there is at least a potential conflict between, on the one hand, a freedom of expression and, on the other hand, what might, if the Bill is passed in its present form, result from union membership agreements in the field of the Press. For, in the last resort, a single union—the National Union of Journalists—might succeed in bringing enough pressure to bear on employers to mean that members of another union—the Institute of Journalists—could lose their livelihood.
My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Bill I made it plain, speaking for myself, that as a result of the experience

1037
of negotiating with trade unionists, I had come to see some of the practical advantages of the closed shop. However, I suggest that, in the case of the Press and broadcasting, the need for continued freedom of expression is of such overriding importance as to mean that there should be no question of members of the Institute of Journalists having to go in fear of losing their jobs because a union membership agreement excluding the Institute of Journalists might be obtained by the National Union of Journalists. It is for that reason that I am happy to support the part of Amendment No. 11 which seeks to give to journalists the right to join the trade union of their choice. If that were opposed by the Government on the grounds that it went further than merely to protect the position of the Institute of Journalists, then I should feel that that was a point on which—if the Amendment were in every respect otherwise acceptable to your Lordships—it might be possible to consider some redrafting of the Amendment before Third Reading. However, I understand that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has already said that the Government consider that there are many more objections to the Amendment than that.
On Second Reading, the noble Lord the Leader of the House reminded us that a Royal Commission had been set up which would inquire from all quarters into such matters as the freedom of the Press. He told us that, within their terms of reference, they would be inquiring into management, labour relations and practices within that industry and that, if the Commission gave sufficient reason, the Government would not hesitate to legislate. It seems to me that the conclusion which should have been drawn from those statements was not the conclusion which the noble Lord, in fact, drew; this was that we should wait until some other time or for another Bill.
My Lords, there will always be another Bill. The trouble is that, when it comes, it does not do what we thought it would. The conclusion which, I suggest, should have been drawn from those statements is, rather, that the Press and broadcasting should have been altogether exempted from the Bill, at least until such time as the Royal Commission had reported. The
1038
noble Lord the Leader of the House also told us that it was wrong for the question of the freedom of the Press to be debated in the context of this Bill. But it is precisely because the Government insist that the question of the Press should be included in the Bill that we are obliged to discuss the question of its freedom in this context. That is why some special arrangements need to be made in the Bill for the Press and broadcasting. In my view, we are not justified in taking the slightest risk of losing our precious heritage of freedom of expression as a possible outcome of the National Union of Journalists obtaining an exclusive union membership agreement.
I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating the reasons given on Second Reading and at Committee stage as to why we on this side of the House and some others of your Lordships on the Cross-Benches and even, in a few cases, on the other side of the House, feel that there is this risk. It may be small, but it is there, and we ignore it at our peril. It has been said that, if the law is introduced into this area, it will take away from employers and trade unions the ability to regulate their own affairs. In the field of manufacturing industry, I have already conceded that that is, for me, a very strong argument. But by no stretch of the imagination can the freedom of the Press and broadcasting be said to be the concern alone of newspaper proprietors, editors, journalists and broadcasters. It is a freedom which belongs to us all.
Then, my Lords, there is the argument that it is all too difficult and that if laws are passed which trade unions dislike it may not be possible for Parliament to make them stick. That is an insidious argument. I do not mean that it is pat forward in an insidious way, but it is inherently insidious in that it implies that it is not Parliament which is sovereign but the trade unions. May not the appetite, even of a trade union, grow from what it feeds on? If the Amendment is not passed, what safeguards can we be offered that one day the National Union of Journalists may not seek to include editors in 100 per cent. union membership chapels, to influence editorial policy, or to see that publication of material not supplied by members of that union is withheld?

1039
My Lords, I should like finally simply to ask a question of your Lordships and, in doing so, to address myself particularly to Members on the other side of your Lordships' House. The question is simply this. What principle is there which is more fundamental to our democratic way of life than freedom of expression? If there is the slightest risk to that principle, should we not all combine to support a law which seeks to uphold that principle, and thus give it support from all parts of the House, so that it has the best possible chance of being observed?
6.10 p.m.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, I express a regret, which I believe is shared by a great many noble Lords on both sides of the House, that a measure dealing with the change in trades union law should have resolved itself almost entirely into a discussion on the freedom of the Press. Of course this is a very great principle, and it behoves us all to give it a great deal of time and attention. Frankly, I feel that it is a misuse of the occasion and of the time of the House to discuss it in what must, after all, be a perfunctory way because we have no original proposals before us for dealing with the Press, except those which have come from my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who produced what we on this side believed to be the bridge between our two ideas.
I implore the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to recognise that the instigator of a charter of this kind was the much lambasted National Union of Journalists. That union, since the beginning of the discussions on this Bill and on this legislation, has on two or three occasions shown its willingness to compromise. It was that union which produced a set of principles, and it was the editors and the proprietors, around a table, who turned them down and who went away. The noble Lord can deny this as much as he likes, but those are the facts reported in his own paper, the Observer.
What, therefore, have we to say to the noble Lord who, as we all know, is everybody's favourite Peer, if he abuses that position of popularity and esteem which he has won in so many fields? What are we to say to him when he distorts the argument this afternoon, to suggesting that what we are arguing about is whether—and these were his words—11
1040
men shall control what goes into every paper? Is it the case that 11 men are sitting in all those papers—12 nationals, 1,300 weeklies—he enumerated? Eleven men, somehow, are spreading their guile over that and dictating what goes in. The noble Lord may disown the reputation he is winning for himself of being opposed to, and being an enemy of, the NUJ. But to distort an argument on the scale he has done this afternoon, to suggest a tyranny of 11 men, does not do him credit.
When, however, he returns to his proposals we have not had a real argument put forward for the proposals in Clause 11. I understand that I am in order in talking about Clause 11, because everyone else has done so—
Several Noble Lords: Amendment No.11.
Lord CASTLE: I am sorry, my Lords; I mean Amendment No. 11. The Amendment proposes the insertion of
" (a) the rights of editors and other persons exercising editorial responsibilities to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union ; "
It refers to other persons discharging editorial responsibilities. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will want to withdraw that, because he knows the office of the Observer very well. I assume that in the office of the Observer there is a setup comparable to that in the Sunday Times, and the people in the Sunday Times office who call themselves editors outnumber the reporters and the subeditors. Are we going to allow to these people the right to contract out of their union? None, or very few of them, would wish to do so. Newspaper offices I have worked in have had sports editors, a deputy sports editor, a production editor for the sports pages, an assistant sports editor, a woman's editor, a woman's page editor, a deputy woman's page editor, a foreign editor, a deputy foreign editor, an assistant foreign editor, a gardening editor and a religious editor. At this stage this is the kind of situation we have to deal with in legislation of this kind. It appears to me absurd to include a clause of the kind suggested which will remove from the ranks of the National Union of Journalists some of its best people, if they want to get out—and there will probably be pressures to get them out.

1041
As I said in earlier speeches, the editor is not as aloof and not as impregnable to pressures as some people would have us believe. When trying to find a definition of "editorial" I went to the Library this afternoon and found a book on words and phrases legally defined. I found that the mere fact that a person is appointed as an editor of a newspaper does not give him control of the paper or of matter to be inserted therein. He is subject to the direction of the proprietor. That, my Lords, is really what we should be dealing with this afternoon, if we were intent on discussing honestly the freedom of the Press.
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is completely honest in his desire to put the case of the newspaper proprietors. I congratulate him upon the excellence with which he has done it. But I cannot say that he has put the case of the editors, because the editors—the responsible editors—of the national newspapers, and the main daily newspapers outside, have no organisation other than the NUJ through which to put their case—
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, has the noble Lord never heard of the Guild of Editors, representing all the editors of regional newspapers?
Lord CASTLE: I have heard of the Guild of Editors, which lives in the home of the newspaper proprietors, or the Newspaper Society. It lives in a Newspaper Society building, and the Guild is not regarded as the voice of editors in Fleet Street. That I know! But, my Lords, are we not at this stage being misled into believing that we can get away in an other place with the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman? I think that he knows very well that unless he is prepared to make the same kind of concession, and in the same spirit, as the National Union of Journalists has, we are in for a confrontation. It may not perturb the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, but it perturbs the rest of us, because we do not believe that this is the occasion or the subject on which at this stage we should invite confrontation. I am only sorry that so much of our time has been spent—perhaps in an educational manner —on this Bill at a time when there are matters such as the whole future of the
1042
country financially, economically, in the Common Market or out of it, and that we have had to keep on bashing at the Bill without any hope of this Amendment ultimately reaching the Statute Book.
6.19 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, may I ask the Government Front Bench a question about the mechanics of the Bill? We all recall that at the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved a new clause. That was to be amended, as we thought, by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who then withdrew his Amendment, and my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby did not withdraw his new clause. There was no Division on it. Have the Government now taken over this new clause? I have read the speeches of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby and my noble friend the Leader of the House. Certainly my noble friend Lord Houghton did not assert that he was speaking on behalf of the Government—in fact he asserted the opposite.
When my noble friend Lord Shepherd spoke, he did not say that the Government had taken over the clause. If they had, the Amendment would have been moved from the Government Front Bench. My fear is that if the Government have not taken over his new clause, it could of course be refused in another place, and some of us will be in a rather peculiar position if, having supported it, as I do, it is not to be accepted there. Therefore, I should be grateful if at some stage the Government Front Bench could say precisely that this new clause, which is now enshrined in the Bill, has been accepted in its totality and that when it reaches another place the Government will not seek to amend it further.
In the course of the debate, one has heard the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, constantly affirm that the Government are in some way wrong to have produced this piece of legislation because it has caused consternation in the newspaper world. I have read in detail the debates in another place, and I agree with my noble Friend Lord Castle that I could not find anything that they were chirping about until they came to the issue of the Press. I would remind the noble Lord,

1043
Lord Goodman, that we began by eliminating the 1971 Act, and at that time the then Leader of the Conservative Opposition, Mr. Heath, pointed out that Conservatives, if and when they were in Government, would not seek to bring back the Industrial Relations Act. Therefore there was nothing in principle between the two sides in eliminating the Industrial Relations Act knowing that it would not come back again if the Conservatives came into power. To assert that in some way the Government have acted in a provocative manner in introducing this rather dull little Bill, with no real opposition in its content until the question of the Press was imported into it by others, is to stand the whole of the English language on its head.
We think in terms of the power that has been displayed. I have seen thousands of working people lobbying Members in the Central Lobby, but if half a dozen newspaper proprietors and editors decide they are going to make a huge national campaign out of something that does not even appear in the Bill, that is where the power really resides. This is the kind of lobby to which we are now being subjected in the passage of this Bill. The question of the closed shop is involved. I ventured at the Committee stage to say that I am not a great adherent of the closed shop. Although I have been in charge of rather big places I have never had a closed shop in my life. I would not concede to any employer that I needed his help to organise my shop. I think it is a weakness. If the employer had any knowledge of his business he would demand a quid pro quo for giving a closed shop which I would not want to concede to him. Therefore, the closed shop itself it not necessarily something which is even discussed at national level.
There are one or two industries where a closed shop is essential. In the coalmining industry, for instance, it is absolutely essential that there should be a closed shop because the question of safety is heavily involved. In the Merchant Navy, where men are cooped together for weeks or months, a closed shop is imperative. The Industrial Relations Act was a shocking instrument to use to break down that which, on safety grounds, was vital and essential. I have not the slightest
1044
wish to see a closed shop. We have two sides: one where a closed shop is essential and one where it does not matter. Now we are being asked, apparently, by the newspaper proprietors, to say that there shall be one industry in which it is taboo. I noticed that when the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, "we concede a closed shop," all he meant was that they conceded that they should all be members of a trade union, which is quite a different thing. A closed shop is an agreement, with conditions on both sides and acceptable to both sides. The mere fact of 100 per cent. trade unionism does not mean a closed shop.
We are treading on rather dangerous ground. If we are to concede that there cannot be a closed shop because of the implications raised here about the freedom of the Press, I believe that we must look at the peculiarities of some other industries. We have had recently, much to my dismay, a great strike of the dustmen in Glasgow and Liverpool. I shudder at the thought of what could happen in great cities with the danger of infection and so on. To me it is quite as vital as anything I have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on the question of the Press. Infection could spread through millions of people. Are we to say that there should be no right of a closed shop in that kind of area as well?
When one looks at the development of the newspaper industry, I suggest to those who are supporting these Amendments that there is far more reason to fear the activities of proprietors than a trade union in this industry. My noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge took us back a little in history. I recall that it was a Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, as he then was, who, discussing Lords Beaverbrook and Rothermere, told us that what these men wanted was power. A power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages —that is the expression of a Conservative Prime Minister about the manner in which proprietors were behaving in this industry. Did somebody say, "No"? I will give way if anybody tells me I am wrong about it.
Several Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I hope that in what some noble Lords

1045
may hope will be the concluding stages in this debate, I do not follow the path trod by the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton. If this long, and at times emotional debate, has proved anything to your Lordships—
Lord LEE of NEWTON: I was giving way.
Lord GEORGEBROWN: My Lords, as I understood it, my noble friend was kind enough to give way to me on the question of the definition of "power without responsibility" which he, as I understood it, quoted Mr. Stanley Baldwin as saying, was the position of the harlots of the ages. As I heard him, that followed straight on from his description of the situation in Glasgow. It so happens that I have just come back from Glasgow—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord GEORGEBROWN: I was going to ask my noble friend—as a matter of fact it will help the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, if he will listen to what I was going to ask. I was going to ask my noble friend whether he thinks that is exactly what Mr. Alec Kitson is doing in Glasgow —using the prorogative of the harlot, using power without responsibility, in order to put the citizens of Glasgow at an enormous disadvantage in terms of misery and health.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may I appeal to the Leader of the House that we must seek in some way to proceed according to the Rules of Order of this House and that this is getting wide of this Amendment, beyond, I believe, the endurance of the House.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have to some extent been disappointed, not so much in the quality of the debate, but how wide of the Amendment this debate has gone. It seems to me that, apart from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the one that I delivered, we have been repeating what was said on Second Reading and in Committee. It is entirely in your Lordships' hands. I have no more power than any other noble Lord, but I feel that we ought to keep to the Amendment because that is what the noble
1046
Lord wishes to put into the Bill. I think we can all agree that there is a matter to be dealt with, and whether the noble Lord is right or wrong is what should be debated—not the broad rush of principles such as we have had for the last two hours.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, with respect, I thought that that was what I was trying to do. When we began this discussion, it was agreed that a large number of Amendments had been tabled which some of us had never seen until we got here today. They open up a new field, which was certainly never debated at Committee stage. All I was trying to do was to deny the assumption that we should leave power in the hands of proprietors and editors, while we indict the trade unions for something which they may do in the next century or two. I believe it has been very wrong to widen this debate to include matter which is nowhere to be found in the Bill, in order to create fear that a trade union is trying to take certain powers which, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it has never shown any signs of trying to take.
6.32 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall make a second speech ; the first was not of great duration and neither will this one be. If this debate has shown anything, it has shown the tremendous cleavage of opinion which exists between those who wish—no doubt properly—to further the interests of the trade unions, and those of us who are worried and concerned that, as a result of the proposals in the Bill, the freedom of the Press may be endangered, if not extinguished, in the future. That, as I understand it, is what the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, at Committee stage was trying to remedy and that is the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is proposing his Amendments.
I think I speak for all noble Lords on this side when I say that we are very concerned indeed that those who seek, perfectly properly, to gain as much advantage as they can for trade unionists working within the Press are going to tip over the delicate mechanism, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, so that it is no longer equal and freedom is extinguished. There have been a number of side issues raised in this matter, and

1047
perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was himself guilty in this respect. It really does not matter what editors are free to do or not to do in relation either to their proprietors or to advertisers. If Parliament considers that they have abused such freedom as they have, or that undue pressures are being brought to bear on them, Parliament can pass the necessary legislation. With respect, I would submit that that is quite superfluous to the argument this afternoon.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, I made no such suggestion of that sort. In fact, the whole burden of my case is that this is a field in which the Government should not intervene unless they are absolutely forced to do so.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, we can all look at the Official Report tomorrow, but that is not the tenor of the record I was making at the time. The freedom of the Press and of the printed word, as we have it at the moment, as I am sure most noble Lords would agree, is a fragile thing. The question to be decided is a relatively simple one; namely, are the measures contained in this Bill of such far-reaching effect that this freedom will be imperilled? I know that noble Lords opposite say that nothing is endangered by this Bill and that the situation is merely to be restored to what it was in 1971; that closed shops are a matter of agreement as between employer and employed and no undue pressure will be brought, one hopes, upon anybody to join a union or not to join a union, or to be excluded from a union.
A lot has been said this afternoon about the National Union of Journalists. Perhaps one can make two points about that body. I do not think that we on this side of the House are nearly as frightened of what the National Union of Journalists may do as we are of what the printing unions, for example, may do. They seem to me to pose a far greater threat to the freedom of manoeuvre of the individual editor than any journalists or their union. That is the first matter that might have been ventilated at an earlier stage. The second matter concerning the National Union of Journalists is that everybody agrees that they are a thoroughly admirable body, democratically controlled, with their officers democratically elected; and
1048
that organ has recently gone on record as saying—for example, in statements on 18th March, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred—that they would do their part to see that the freedom of the Press was not imperilled in any way.
But just as Parliament cannot bind its successors, neither can the present heirarchy of the National Union of Journalists, and the question one is bound to ask is: what happens if the membership of that union in future does not take such an enlightened policy as it does today? Are we precluded from legislating for the future? I would respectfully suggest that we are not, and that we must have regard to the future and not rely on the promises and statements of intent, however well-intentioned they may be, of the present.
One can illustrate this by referring to a matter concerning company law; for instance, the protection of shareholders and policyholders in insurance companies, which I understand is to be ventilated in your Lordships' House before very long. It would make not a whit of difference to the Government's attitude if it were said that these companies are perfectly honourable, and their shareholders who elect the boards of directors are equally honourable, and they will not in the future do anything that will affect the rights of policy holders. That, I suggest, would get what I would term, "a big laugh", and quite rightly. Therefore, the present intention of the National Union of Journalists really will not wash when one considers what may or may not happen in the future.
Those of us on this side of the House anxiously examined the original Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I must say I was slightly surprised this afternoon, having read that the Secretary of State in another place had entreated your Lordships to keep your " Lordly noses" out of the matter, had then poked his "common" nose into your Lordships' discussion by using the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, as a mouthpiece.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I really must say that that is quite wrong, because I happen to know the origins of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. It came as a complete surprise to me and also to the Secretary of State. This was, in fact, private enterprise by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and

1049
other Members of this House seeking to overcome some difficulties. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will withdraw what he has said.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am very sorry, but for once I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was in his seat in this House when this discussion took place. I am never one to decry private enterprise, but I can only repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, himself said at an earlier stage this afternoon. It does not matter whence the Amendment came.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, he did say it. There is something wrong with your hearing.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I asked the noble Earl to repeat exactly what was said?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, your Lordships can ask, but I cannot answer until I see the Official Report tomorrow.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord has just made an allegation.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I think that my noble friend was simply making a pleasantry based on what he understood the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to say as to the origin of his omission of broadcasters from the Amendment which he earlier proposed. I do not think we need engender heat about this. I know that my noble friend did not intend anything which could cause offence either to the noble Lord the Leader of the House or to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—or even to the nasal organ of the Secretary of State!
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, what else can we do but respond to the most helpful suggestion of the noble and learned Lord?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, if I said anything offensive, of course I withdraw it. It would be presumptuous of me, and certainly not my intention, in the course of this debate either to say anything offensive or to hurt any noble Lord's feelings. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, knows me well enough
1050
for that. Be that as it may, it does not matter to my mind whence the Amendment came. The question to be asked is whether it will have the effect which no doubt is intended. Speaking for myself, and I also think for noble Lords on this side of the House, I fear that it will not. Excellent in intention though it may be, and obviously the product of much careful thought, work and negotiation, it has no teeth. That is really the great divide that I suggest is between noble Lords on the Government side of the House and noble Lords on this side. It is a matter of enforcement and teeth. It is for that reason that we are prepared to accept the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and also because of the thinking behind Amendment No. 28 which was originally put down in the names of my noble friend Lord Gowrie and myself. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he spoke on Lord Goodman's Amendment, described the rights as I think (and I am beginning to doubt my own note now), "open ended", and of course that is not the situation envisaged in subsections (2) and (3) of our Amendment; but that point is in parenthesis at this stage.
What neither of these Amendments does is to create what has been described by several of your Lordships this afternoon as a rigid legal code. What is done, I suggest, is to create a field in which those such as editors and journalists are free to pursue their career, free from unnecessary, possibly political, influences. That, and that alone, is the reason behind our Amendment, certainly, and I suspect is that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, also. We on this side think that the law should provide a safety net which may be used in the final event for the protection of citizens who wish to avail themselves of it. As I have said on another occasion, one hopes very much that all the workers in the field of the media of communications will, in the normal course of events, compose their differences among themselves using conciliation techniques and procedures. If, in the end, they cannot conciliate and cannot come to an agreement, however hard they try, then the mechanism which exists in subsection (9), Amendment No. 23, set out in a different way in Amendment No. 28, comes into being. With respect, this is not going to fetter

1051
the freedom of the unions. It will, however, provide a much-needed safeguard for the Press.
6.44 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with permission I will say a last few words on what is clearly an important matter, but I will be brief.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House while he is doing so to help me, at any rate, and perhaps other noble Lords. We are at the present moment debating 14 Amendments of which four are of substance. He said he accepted some, but I am afraid I could not follow clearly which Amendments the Government were already accepting of those proposed by Lord Goodman.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Amendments which we had in mind were Amendments which—I must be free and frank with the House—do not go to the kernel of the dispute between us. It is a matter of seeking to develop the extent and coverage of the code of practice and other matters. I would not say they were significant, but they would be a step forward and an effort to meet some of the genuine fears of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. My noble friend Lord Lee of Newton asked me what is the attitude of the Government to the Clause 4 Amendment by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. As I said in Committee, we gave it a cordial welcome. It is one we did not have in mind when the Bill was in another place, but we recognised it as a genuine effort of private enterprise in its best form in seeking to overcome some of the difficulties. The extent of the Government's participation was solely in the drafting. We would not oppose that Amendment if it went to another place.
We have had a debate mainly in the broad brush about the need for certain action. Before we decide on these Amendments, I think it is right for me to ask a specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, of the House, and in particular of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who is a barrister, who believes in the sanctity of the law and the preservation of individual rights. I drew attention— did I not?—to the consequences of
1052
Amendments Nos. 11 and 23. Number 23 reads as follows:
" No criminal proceedings shall lie against any person on account of a contravention of the charter but the obligation to comply with the charter is a duty owed to any person who may be affected by a contravention of it and any breach of that duty by industrial action or otherwise is actionable accordingly subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty ".
That provides for injunctions and for suits for damages in the courts. Let us accept that for a moment. If we now take Clause 4(2) as amended, or if it were amended, we should have the four rights put in, but I have to say to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that when one uses the words,
"for the purposes of subsection (1) above, matters relating to the freedom of the press include "
that does not mean it is exclusive of the terms of Amendment No. 11.
As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, it means that we are being asked to agree to a certain accountability, to the enforcement of law on matters which are not before your Lordships' House this afternoon, matters that are to be decided not by a Secretary of State accountable to Parliament, but relating to an industrial agreement. I have to say to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, a barrister, to the noble and learned Lord opposite who has been a Lord Chancellor, and to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who is a most eminent solicitor: Is that the sort of proposition that they would wish to have accepted in your Lordships' House this afternoon—that there should be this power of injunction and this power of putting penalties on actions which are not defined in the Statute but could be described as relating to an industrial agreement about which Parliament has had little or no say?
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, if I may spare the noble Lord from labouring this very bad point, I would say that in every part of this town at this moment private citizens are making agreements which have nothing to do with the Government but which are enforceable by damages and by injunction and by other means of resort to the courts. This is going on everywhere at every moment of

1053
the day, and the idea that it sounds astonishing in this Chamber surprises me.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord surprises me, because the matters which he is talking about are matters which are freely entered into by individuals. If your Lordships will look at Amendment No. 26, your Lordships will see that the provisions will apply net just to the relations between the National Union of Journalists, or a journalist, and an editor. They could apply to the whole of the newspaper industry—to the printers, to the compositors; they could even apply to those who supply newsprint. That is my understanding of what the noble Lord has in mind, and I hope he will address himself to this question when he commends his Amendment to your Lordships' House.
6.52 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, at this hour brevity is obviously humane. I have addressed your Lordships on several occasions and I apologise for doing so; but I think I can offer the House a holiday for many years, unless the Government decide to perpetrate some other outrage!
So far as this Amendment is concerned, the position is very simple. We move this Amendment because we wish to avoid the possibility that what appears in newspapers, magazines and periodicals and what ultimately may appear in books shall be controlled by any small body of men. We make no imputation against a body of men. We cast no aspersions on the National Union of Journalists. We think they are as good a body of men to control the situation as any other. But no body of men ought to control this situation. That is what we are concerned about and that is what we are seeking to amend.
May I invite the Government to consider this possibility. If we divide and if it turns out that the majority is in our favour, between now and Third Reading the Government will have to consider what they wish to do about the situation. I am revealing no secrets when I say that this particular provision has caused deep anxiety among many Members of the Government, and I believe that an opportunity for reconsideration can do nothing but good. I do not believe that the
1054
Government are unanimous on this matter; large numbers in their ranks are as anxious as I am about the subject. Therefore, I earnestly hope that they will take the opportunity to consider that this Amendment is not inspired, as has been rather unfortunately suggested, by the Newspaper Publishers' Association. They have absolutely nothing to do with the matter. They have never met to discuss it and, with the exception of my noble friend Lord Drogheda, I have never discussed it with a single member of the Newspaper Publishers' Association. I am about to resign from the chairmanship of the Newpaper Publishers' Association. As has been announced, I am to retire to " quieter places ", from which Members of your Lordships' Benches have emerged to give me support. I can only say that it is a discreditable suggestion that I am speaking for the Newspaper Publishers' Association. I assure your Lordships that I am not speaking in any sense for the Association. The fact that I am speaking for editors is demonstrated by the fact that the last time we had a meeting of the people who are concerned about the subject, the great majority of the editors of the national newspapers were present. I have reason to believe that not a single one of them dissents from the viewpoint which I am expressing tonight and that not a single one of them does not support it.
Having said this, nothing more needs to be said, apart from two matters. The first is the suggestion that one cannot introduce into a Bill the right for a private person to create a code for himself, or a right for himself, or an obligation for himself in respect of which he can be sued or not sued. That is a complete novelty. Secondly, I should like to make an offer to the noble Lord in order to ease his situation. I shall be perfectly happy if the right to sue and the right to resort to the courts is limited to the four matters which are mentioned in the Bill. I am perfectly happy to accept a compromise on that footing and on the basis that nothing will be actionable or resorted to by the courts. If that is what is worrying the noble Lord, I am anxious, as the noble Lord knows, to reach a compromise that is acceptable to the Government.
It distresses me that we have to divide. I had hoped that over these long and

1055
anxious discussions we might have avoided a Division. I still do not regard a Division in this House as the final word on the subject; but if we have to divide, divide we must. We have a duty to people beyond this House. We have a duty not only to history but to posterity to see that the rights which have been preserved by others at the
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
expenditure of their blood are at least preserved by us at the expenditure of our dinner time.
6.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 125 ; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Glendevon, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alport, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Amherst, E.

Goodman, L.

Onslow, E.

Amory, V.

Gore-Booth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Amulree, L.

Goschen, V.

Pearce, L.

Arran, E.

Gowrie, E.

Peddie, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Pender, L.

Balerno, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Banks, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rea, L.

Barrington, V.

Reay, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hanworth, V.

Rhodes, L.

Bessborough, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Boothby, L

Hartwell, L.

Rochester, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Byers. L.

Harvington, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Davids, V.

Carrington, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

St. Helens, L.

Chelwood, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hood, V.

Sandys, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Selkirk, E.

Courtown, E.

Hylton-Foster. B.

Selsdon, L.

Cowley, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Kimberley, E.

Sharp, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Sharples, B.

Daventry, V.

Kissin, L.

Sherfield, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Somers, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Stow Hill, L.

Derwent, L.

Loudoun, C.

Strathclyde, L.

Drogheda, E. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Terrington, L.

Eccles, V.

Mais, L.

Thurlow, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Trevelyan, L.

Elton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vernon, L.

Essex, E.

Merrivale, L.

Vickers, B.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Gage. V.

Meston, L.

Wade, L.

Gainford, L.

Monck, V.

Waldegrave, E.

George-Brown, L.

Monson, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Gibson, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Fallow-field, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Balogh, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Birk, B.

Gardiner, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Blyton, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Brockway, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Popplewell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Castle, L.

Hale, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Champion, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shinwell, L.

Collison, L.

Henderson, L.

Stedman, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Janner, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Darwen, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Wigg, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Winter-bottom, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

7.4 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, leave out (" code of practice containing practical guidance ") and insert (" charter containing rules of conduct").— (Lord Goodman.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out from beginning of line 30 to end of line 33 and insert—

("(a) the rights of editors and other persons exercising editorial responsibilities to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union;

(b) the rights of journalists to join a trade union of their choice ;

(c) the rights of editors to commission, publish or not to publish any article free from pressure by industrial action ;

(d) the rights of journalists not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded or expelled from membership of a trade union ").—(Lord Goodman)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, leave out (" code of practice") and insert ("charter").—(Lord Goodman.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 14 to 23 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("such practical guidance as is referred to in that subsection ") and insert (" rules of conduct designed to secure the rights mentioned in subsection (2) above together with such others matters as may have been agreed among the parties mentioned in subsection (1) hereof").
Page 6, line 3, leave out (" code of practice ") and insert (" charter ").
Page 6, line 5, leave out (" code of practice ") and insert (" charter ").
Page 6, line 6, after (" above ") insert (" or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above ").
Page 6, line 11, leave out subsection (6).
Page 6, line 21, leave out (" or (6)").
Page 6, line 24, leave out (" code of practice ") and insert (" charter ").
Page 6, line 25, leave out (" code of practice or a revised code") and insert (" charter or revised charter").
Page 6, line 28, leave out (" code or revised code") and insert (" charter or revised charter ").
Page 6, line 30, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
(" (9) No criminal proceedings shall lie against any person on account of a contravention of the charter but the obligation to comply with the charter is a duty owed to any person who may be affected by a contravention of it and any breach of that duty by industrial action or otherwise is actionable accordingly subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.").—(Lord Goodman)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
7.7 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 46, at end insert:
(" (10) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be regarded as unfair for the purposes of Schedule 1 to Act, if: —

(a)it is the practice in accordance with a union membership agreement for all the employees of that employer or all employees of the same class as the dismissed employee to belong to a specified independent trade union or to one of a number of specified independent trade unions ; and

(b)the reason for the dismissal was that the employee was not a member of the specified union or one of the specified unions or had refused or proposed to refuse to become or remain a member of that union or one of those unions; and

(c)it is established that the employee, being a journalist as defined in the next following subsection, was not or had refused or proposed to refuse to become or remain a member of that union or one of those unions because a breach or breaches which directly or indirectly affected him or which he reasonably apprehended might so affect him had been, was being, or was about to be committed of a code of conduct or revised code of conduct issued in accord ance with this section or because he reason ably apprehended that such a breach had been, was being, or was about to be committed.

(11) For the purpose of the preceding subsection a journalist is an employee whether on a whole-time or part-time basis, whose livelihood is dependent or substantially dependent on the dissemination to the public by him or in which he takes part whether editorially or otherwise of news on matters of public concern or in commenting thereon or on matters of general interest to the public in newspapers, periodicals, television, radio, or other public media for the dissemination of news or comment to the public")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the last series of Amendments having been carried I should like to have

1059
the guidance of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, because it seems to me that the result of carrying the Amendment which leaves out subsection (9) to Clause 4 is to make nonsense of Amendment No. 24. Perhaps in order to make sense of the situation I ought to set this Amendment down again on Third Reading if the Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, are likely to be removed—if I may use that phrase—when the Bill goes to another House.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord was putting that to me as a question, of course his Amendment goes a little wider than that which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has successfully moved into the Bill. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend would consider leaving this until the Third Reading of the Bill, when we might have a look at the consequences of this Amendment and that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I will certainly get into touch with the noble and learned Lord before the Third Reading to ascertain whether he thinks that there is sufficient ground for moving it.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for what he has just said, and therefore I do not propose to move Amendment No. 25.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 46, at end insert—
("'(10) In this subsection—
" article" means any matter printed or intended for printing or broadcast or intended for broadcasting by television or radio;
" industrial action " means

(a)a concerted stoppage of work by a group of workers, whether (in the case of all or any of those workers) the stoppage is or is not in breach of their terms and conditions of employment and whether it is carried on during or on the termination of their employment, or

(b)any concerted course of conduct which—

(i) is carried on by a group of workers with the intention of preventing, reducing or otherwise interfering with the production of goods or the provision of services, and

(ii) in the case of some or all of them, is carried on in breach of their contracts of employment or (where they are not
1060
employees) in breach of their terms and conditions of service.")—(Lord Goodman.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY LEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY LEBONE moved Amendment No. 29 :
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
Provision us to trade union rules
" . For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in (his Act shall authorise a trade union to adopt rules or procedures which are contrary to natural justice."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Gowrie I should like to move this Amendment. I move it very shortly and it may be that I can obtain satisfaction from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—or it may be that I cannot. This Amendment was designed to secure a second debate upon a difference of opinion which arose at the Committee stage between the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, who spoke from the Cross-Benches.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, explained that one of the results of removing from the Statute Book Section 6 of the principal Act, which deals with the minimal rules required of trade unions, was to legalise, at least in theory, the insertion into the rules of trade unions, procedures or rules contrary to natural justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, went on from that premise to say that in his " considered opinion " —and in that respect I am quoting his exact words—the unexpected, and I doubt not the intended, result would be to deprive of any kind of Common Law remedy a person so expelled from a union not merely unreasonably, but contrary to the rules of natural justice if, in fact, the rules or procedures adopted by the union made use of the freedom which was given by the repeal of Section 6. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor contested that. It is fair to the noble and learned Lord to say that this has been the stance of the Government from the very start, both in another place and in Committee here.
It seemed to me and to my noble friends that one could not just leave it there, with the noble and learned Lord. Lord Salmon, saying one thing, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord

1061
Chancellor assuring the House that the consequences of the Bill being passed were exactly the opposite. I myself have not sought to take sides between two such eminent legal authorities. I think each of them probably has a good arguable case, or they would not have given expression to the opinions that they did. What I do say with great respect to both of them is that it is not tolerable that the matter should be left in doubt.
For this purpose, I will assume in the first place that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is right. If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is right, this Amendment is no more than declaratory of the existing law. It is framed in that sense so as not to give offence to the most touchy Member on the Government Benches or of the Party opposite. That is on the assumption that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is right, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, is wrong, because the effect of it is simply to give effect to the declared intention of the Government, neither more nor less, and I do not believe it does any more or does any less.
My Lords, on the assumption that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, is right, it is. of course, an absolutely essential Amendment to carry, because it must be made clear beyond peradventure that the declared intention of the Government, that is to say, the declared intention of the Secretary of State in another place, and the express belief of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as to the actual effects of it, declared in this House, should be given effect to. Therefore, whichever of the two eminent legal authorities is right, in my submission, this Amendment ought to be inserted in the Bill, and ought to arouse neither suspicion nor hostility in any breast, however tetchy that breast may be. So in the confident assumption that the Government will embrace me with open arms, and that the House will support me, I beg to move.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, this is an absolute charade. What is natural justice in this context? Why do we not have a law saying no one shall make rules contrary to natural justice—not even the Bar Council, not even the Law Society, not even the
1062
Institute of Chartered Accountants? Why do not we have a law which bans anything which is contrary to natural justice? It seems to me that if this Amendment is only about a difference of opinion between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, then I do not think we need an Amendment to the Bill to resolve that doubt. It can be resolved elsewhere if any doubt continues to exist.
My Lords, as I understand it, this Bill does not authorise trade unions to make rules about anything. This Bill deals with the principal Act of 1971; the authorisation of rules will be dealt with when we come to a later Bill. It seems to me that as a legislative Chamber, this one makes an absolute shambles of Bills. This Chamber passes Amendments contradictory to others, and it mutilates Amendments already made. So far as I can tell, the end result of what we have been doing today will be that there are no Amendments at all to the Bill, because the other place undoubtedly will take a different view from your Lordships' House about some of the Amendments that have been put into the Bill.
Moreover, I dismiss the contemptible remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, about my part in the matter. It is completely untrue that I have acted as a mouthpiece of the Secretary of State. I made my position quite clear in earlier debates, and if that is the kind of comment to be made from the Front Bench opposite to any noble Lord who tries, in a disinterested way, to find a way out of a genuine difficulty, all I can say is that I will treat it in future with the contempt it deserves. I will not tolerate that kind of observation about myself. I have never been anyone's " poodle", and I will not listen to such remarks in this House. Whether it offends anyone's taste or dignity, I do not care. I protest.
What is happening is that this Bill will go to the other place in a mutilated condition. It will come back with the verdict of the elected Chamber. One should bear in mind that this Bill comes before your Lordships' House from another place after two General Elections. It seems to me that there is now little more anyone in this House can do to help this situation. It seems to me that the

1063
noble Lord,Lord Goodman, has destroyed every possibility of achieving any purpose for the achievement of which it came to the House. If that is how he wants it, that is how he will have it. So far as I am concerned, there is no other contribution that I can make to the solutions in this House to this Bill. If the House likes to leave the matter to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, so far as I am concerned, he can get on with it.
7.18 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, it may be helpful if I were to intervene at this stage. It may well be that on this occasion I shall be able to persuade your Lordships that this Amendment should not be approved, and that it will not be necessary to go to another place to deal with the resulting situation, if it is approved. The point raised is an important one, and it has been identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in his speech. Let me say that the only thing I would feel tetchy or testy about, or whatever was the elegant word used by the noble and learned Lord, would be any suggestion that the Labour Government would encourage a trade union or, indeed, anyone else, to conduct its affairs in such a way as to deny natural justice or fair play to the individual.
My Lords, the matter arises because as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham said, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, suggested in Committee that this Bill might have the very effect of mandating a trade union to introduce rules contrary to natural justice. On that occasion, I advised your Lordships that I thought that any such apprehensions as to the effect of repealing Section 6 were unjustified. But I did undertake, out of respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, to look at the matter again, lest I might be misleading the House. I have done so, and I remain of the same opinion that I expressed in Committee, that the fears expressed by the noble and learned Lord are unjustified.
If I may briefly deal with what I see to be the legal situation, it is this. The affairs of a voluntary association such as a trade union are primarily governed by its rules, and it is against the background of the rules that complaints by an indi
1064
vidual against the trade union must be considered. It would not be desirable that the courts should lightly interfere with the rules of a voluntary body, and they have no inclination to do so. But they have shown themselves ready over the years to review the procedures of such associations, and in particular the disciplinary and appeal procedures, to ensure that the individual receives fair play. Where a person has been deprived of natural justice, either through a defect in the rules or in their application, the courts have readily provided a remedy. It is, of course, the case that it is a feature of the Common Law that it does not stand still. That has been its quality; that has been how it has survived through the ages. But it develops to meet the needs of the time, and if one reads all the cases there are decisions either way on the circumstances of the cases which have come before the courts.
I do not think it would be helpful for me to embark at this hour upon a dissertation on the decided cases, but I venture to think that the matter is conveniently summed up in the Donovan Report in these terms:
" As in the case of other voluntary associations, if the rules of a trade union are not unlawful, and if the body set up to adjudicate upon alleged offences acts within those rules, and also observes the rules of natural justice, courts of law, upon our understanding of the matter, have no jurisdiction to review its findings or to mitigate the penalty imposed. By the contract into which he has entered the member has agreed that he will abide by the rules of the association, which includes those for the enforcement of discipline. The control kept by the courts is for the purpose of ensuring that the rules are lawful, that they are adhered to, and that the principles of natural justice are observed."
That view of the law was accepted without question in the most recent case on this point which I mentioned in Committee, the Enderby Town Football Club v. The Football Association in 1970, and it is my firm opinion that this was the background against which the 1974 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act was passed. The courts were then, I believe, firmly set upon a course which enables them to review the rules and review the procedures of a voluntary body to ensure that they do not work oppression on the individual or deny him fair play.
If that was the position up to last July, when the 1974 Act came into effect, the

1065
question may be asked: what, then, was the effect on the Common Law of inserting Section 6 into the 1974 Act, and in particular subsection (13)? That subsection is in these terms:
" In making provision for any hearing or a determination of any question, whether in relation to an alleged offence, an appeal or a dispute, the rules shall be so framed as not to depart from, or permit any departure from, the rules of natural justice."
That subsection, as your Lordships will have heard, neither says that it displaces the Common Law rules which I have briefly described, nor does it declare that it is affirming the Common Law rules. Taking Section 6 as a whole, I think one can say only that subsection (13) seems to have been regarded by its author as following naturally subsections (10), (11) and (12) which precede it, and which require rules to be made on procedural matters. I think it was added to round off the section, and I do not think that it was necessary. At any rate, I do not think it had any effect whatsoever on the Common Law, except perhaps marginally to strengthen it on the question of natural justice by giving statutory support to clearly existing law.
There is a well-established principle of construction that a Statute does not alter the general law, unless it uses words that plainly point to that result. Section 6(13) contains no such words, and I do not believe it does alter the law. It follows, I suggest, that if subsections (1) to (12) of Section 6 are to be repealed, subsection (13) must go with them, because it would have no useful purpose to fill standing on its own, as the Amendment proposes it should. I do not myself believe that its repeal could be said to take away any rights which the Common Law previously conferred, nor do I believe that its omission weakens the impact of the Common Law. Your Lordships may ask, on the basis of what I have said, what harm could be done if the matter was spelled out in the Bill, and I think that was a question which the noble and learned Lord did ask. It is a question to which I have applied what I am pleased to call my mind upon this matter. I do not think it would be better to include it, and indeed I feel that there are dangers in legislating in one small corner of a large field. And, indeed, I believe that
1066
to state what seems innocent enough to state could in the context have undesirable results.
First, it might be argued with some plausibility that to legislate in the way the Amendment proposes for trade unions alone—and your Lordships will note that it is not even suggested that it should apply to employers' associations; it is only trade unions that are to be dealt with—might indicate an intention not to apply the law against many other bodies; indeed, the bulk of associations to which the same principles now apply and must, of course, continue to apply if justice is to be done. I certainly think that would be arguable. In other words, it would weaken the general impact of the principles of natural justice upon the operation and rules of voluntary associations. In my view, it would be better to have general legislation or none. My conclusion on the matter is that it is better to leave the whole matter to the Common Law and the robust approach of the Judiciary, certainly in the last 25 years, to this problem.
Secondly, the unions concerned might well ask why Parliament has picked on them for special treatment while ignoring all other associations, including employers' associations. I do not think your Lordships would have a very ready answer to that question. For these reasons, I think that Section 6 of the 1974 Act should be repealed without replacement, but, of course, I shall listen to the views of others who may take part in this debate. I think we are all of one mind as to what the legal position should be ; that, at any rate, I hope, is common ground between us, and I also hope that we can agree on what should be done. I am certainly prepared to discuss any different view which may be expressed— tonight or privately or in any way communicated to me—with those who do not accept my assurances. In any event, the drafting of the Amendment is not satisfactory and I am bound to advise your Lordships not to accept it in its present form. It is much too wide and I believe that it could result in consequences which the noble Lords who support it do not intend. I hope, accordingly, that your Lordships will be disposed to reject the Amendment.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I had no intention of intervening on this technical point, but I hope that your Lordships will indulge me if I depart a little from the rules because I am anxious to perform an act of natural justice. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, made a rather impassioned intervention and I think it would be right, if your Lordships will permit me, to say that it is very much within my knowledge that the noble Lord was invited into the discussions on this Bill by a number of us. We asked him to come in to see whether he could add to the negotiations between ourselves and the Government. He has been tireless in doing so and, although I saw nothing particularly offensive in the jocular observations that were made, as he has taken them very personally I think it would be quite wrong if I were to allow this debate to conclude without contributing that small piece of information.
7.31 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I had certainly intended to press this matter to a Division, but I was particularly impressed by the courteous and serious minded way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor addressed himself to what I believe has been a general problem. The matter was rendered absolutely essential for discussion by the difference of opinion which arose between him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, and I should not have been doing my duty as a representative of the Opposition in this House if I had failed to put down an Amendment ensuring a debate on this important topic on Report. To describe it, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did, as a charade, was doing less than justice to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, both of whom expressed strong views on the subject, diametrically opposed to one another, which demanded some form of further discussion.
As for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, of course I accept them unreservedly. It had never occurred to me otherwise than exactly what he has just told the House. I found it extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, became so excited and I was not at all sure what he became excited about, because it seemed to me that my
1068
noble friend Lord Mansfield had made a perfectly harmless jest at which no one ought to have taken offence. If they did, then the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, must have heard him make the most complete withdrawal of it the moment he realised that offence had been engendered, and that withdrawal was endorsed by its acceptance by the Leader of the House. So that to get excited about what is really an important technical dispute does not reflect as much credit on him as most of his contributions would do.
The substance of the matter is not altogether easy. Both the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor asked, " Why pick on the unions? " I must without delay disclose one error on my part. I had omitted to notice, because I was working under great pressure, that Section 6 of the principal Act, to which my Amendment relates, dealt with employers' associations and not with trade unions alone. I am afraid that this was due to a failure on my part to refer back to Section 6 when I was drafting the Amendment. It certainly would be my intention, if I were pressing this Amendment, to see that that omission was repaired before the Bill left this House. As regards other associations, I would not have hesitated to amend the law by putting before the House a proposal similar to that which is contained in the present Amendment, but it would not have been within the Long Title of this Bill, nor do I think it would have been necessary. The situation which gave rise to my Amendment, as I explained in moving it, was that created by the sponsors of this Bill, who are Her Majesty's Government, in seeking to repeal Section 6 of the existing legislation; an attempt which they brought about and which prompted from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, the very serious opinion which he delivered to your Lordships' House.
As to what I would advise the House to do with this Amendment, I have a suggestion to make which I hope may be convenient to your Lordships. As I said, it was my intention to press the Amendment to a Division, but I have been very much impressed with what the noble and learned Lord said. I should like to reflect upon it before dividing the House,

1069
and I should also like to consult, if I am able to get in touch with him, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, whose opinion really gave rise in my mind to the necessity for this discussion. So without prejudice to any right that I might have to table it again on Third Reading, I will at this stage beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope I am in order at this stage, before I put the Question, in saying that I am glad—and I say that in the absence of the Leader of the House, who might have felt disposed to intervene if he were here—that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said what he did in respect of my noble friend Lord Houghton, with whom I worked for more than a quarter of a century in another place, whose integrity and independence of spirit is known to us all. I do not think there was any intention to reflect to the contrary in any way. But I am certainly most happy to be associated with the withdrawal and to assure my noble friend Lord Houghton, on behalf of the House, of our total con fidence in and respect for him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Short title, citation and transitional provisions]:
7.39 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert—
(" (4) No provision of this Act which contravenes any Article contained in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights or the International Labour Organisation Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise shall have effect.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, since I tabled this Amendment, the Bill has been very much altered and for this reason I will not keep your Lordships long. However, I should like some clarification from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of how my Amendment would have affected the Bill if it was as it came from another place to this House. Articles 8, 19 and 20 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights guarantee every man the freedom to join or not to join an association, protects the right of every man to appeal to the law courts of his land and protects
1070
the right of freedom of opinion and expression. I also include in the Amendment the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 87, which concerns freedom of association, and the United Kingdom is a signatory to that Convention. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell me how that would have affected the Bill as it came to this House. What I fear is that when the Bill goes back to the other place they will not accept the majority of these Amendments and that the Bill will therefore come back to your Lordships in much the same form as it first reached this House. I should add here that I ought to have included the European Convention in the Amendment, as that would appear to affect the Bill at least as it first came to this House.
My Lords, I should just like to make the point here that I have owned a factory and that I have no quarrel with a closed shop, provided it is done by agreement with the employers and the unions. I should point out, however, that the closed shop could be dangerous in the future if it is set up without the agreement of the employer. It was Trotsky, I think, who said that his vision of society was that the opposition would die and fade away by slow starvation, as he put it. That is a danger, if the unions do not consider themselves to be within the law.
My Lords, I was rather amused to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, say on Second Reading that he excused the Bill as drafted by saying that we must have it because it had been promised in the Election Manifesto and was the result of an agreement made with the TUC that, if the TUC would agree to the Social Contract, the Government would have the Act. That is a very odd argument. For instance, the Social Contract has failed. One could drive a coach and horses through it. Apart from that, it is a very odd remark. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is not here, but it was strange to say that because something is in one's Election Manifesto it must necessarily become law. I thought Parliament made the laws.
My Lords, the point is surely that the trade unions of this country should follow the trade unions of other democracies. If they would only do so, the Bill and all this talk and debate would have been completely unnecessary. It is needed only

1071
because the trade unions in the United Kingdom consider themselves to be outside the Jaw. I have brought this matter up over countless years and, up to 1971, to a great extent, one could have said that the trade unions were for practical purposes above the law. If only they would follow the example of Sweden. After all, Sweden to the average Socialist is a kind of Mecca. In Sweden, however, the trade unions act within the law. If only the trade unions here would do so, they would do themselves a very great service. I am quite sure that if the trade union movement—and, after all, it grew up through the protection of the law— seeks to defy the law, whether it be our law or international law, it will lose its moral credence and eventually destroy itself.
My Lords, I shall not say anything more, but shall just ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to explain to me the bearing on the Bill as originally drafted of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which a Labour Government signed in 1948, and the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 87, which was also signed in 1948, I believe. I cannot ask about the European Convention, because I have not put it into the Amendment. This is a rather unusual request, but I should like to know whether, if the Bill had not been amended, these international declarations would have run contrary to the Bill so that we should have defied international law. I beg to move.
7.47 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, if there were more people here, I should make a longer speech on this very important Amendment. However, I have the feeling that I might be outstaying my welcome with the rather small audience to whom I shall be addressing myself.
My Lords, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clearly not enforceable at law, but whether it is declaratory of international law is a very different matter and I shall not myself venture an opinion about it. I believe that the textbook writers take somewhat divergent views, but it is not enforceable before any known tribunal, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us at Committee stage. However, I must say to him and to the House very seriously
1072
that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the most solemn declarations of honour that this country has ever entered into. I have had occasion to remind Parliament of this before in other connections. I reminded another place of it when talking about the rights of coloured immigrants coming to this country and I do not think that any Government should make light of it.
My Lords, the European Convention is enforceable because attached to it is a court and Commission. A Government who chose, as I believe this Government have done, to disregard the terms of that Convention are putting this country in an awkward position for the future until either they denounce the Convention— which I hope they will not—or somebody hauls us up for a breach of the Convention in relation to this piece of legislation. The Bill, as now amended, is very much less offensive both to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the European Convention than it was when we started. But I must say that there are two Articles which, in my judgment, are violently antagonistic, not merely to the terms, but to the whole philosophy of the Bill.
Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunal for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law. Article 6 of the European Convention says that in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge—but that is immaterial—everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable period of time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. If we have heard it once from the Benches opposite, we have heard 50 times during the course of these debates that we do not want to bring the law into the defence of civil rights. I must tell the House that in my considered opinion that is contrary both to the Universal Declaration and to the European Convention wherever a civil right is granted. The whole philosophy of Members opposite, and of Her Majesty's Government, is that in this vital field of trade union relations they are entitled to legislate in such a way as to trust individuals to give the right of expression, to give the right of association or to withhold

1073
them, if they think right, without any reference to a tribunal appointed by law. The inevitable result of repealing Sections 5 and 6 of the 1974 Act is to fly in the face of world opinion which was embodied in the Universal Declaration, and of the express legal obligations as contained in the European Convention. It is not simply that the words are irreconcilable with this piece of legislation; it is that this piece of legislation is contrary to the whole philosophy of these vital human declarations.
My Lords, the amended Bill is not so bad as was the unamended Bill. I think that Article 19 of the Universal Declaration is now cleared, because that deals with freedom of opinion and expression, and what we have just done makes the Bill compatible with Article 19. Article 20, on the other hand, is still broken, in my opinion. That article states that no one may be compelled to belong to an association. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that that is the wrong one, because Article 23(4) states that everyone has the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests. But they must be read together. Both are obigations under the Universal Declaration. What the noble and learned Lord did not tell the House is that Article 23, on which he relied, begins by stating that everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourabe conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
What has happened as a result of the Bill, even in its amended form, is that in a closed shop situation—which is the situation which we have to posit in discussing this Bill—a person can, in effect, be compelled to join an association, namely the specified trade union, under penalty of losing his right to work and to free choice of employment. Anyone who can read that as consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is obviously a disciple of Pecksniff and Uriah Heep, and not of Common Law. We hear a lot of demands—sometimes from my own Party—for a Bill of Rights in this country. The difficulties about this are well known, and I will not explore them now. A notable addition to the ranks of those who demand it is Lord Justice Scarman, a former
1074
chairman of the Law Commission, in his Hamlyn Lectures just published. But no one can pretend that any Bill of Rights which we formulated would fail to catch every one of the provisions of this Bill, even as amended, except in so far as our Amendments have rendered them compatible. No Bill of Rights that anybody could devise, which had any relevance to the modern industrial situation, would be compatible with this Bill which—if there were a Bill of Rights— would have to be declared ultra vires by the Judiciary.
If the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord the Leader of the House—whose courtesy in returning I acknowledge—really examined their consciences about the Bill, they would find that by no stretch of the imagination can what they have done be reconciled with the Universal Declaration, and that not only is it irreconcilable with the Universal Declaration, but it is also irreconcilable in the respect I have set forth, to the European Convention. I may say in passing that, but for the fact that we have carried the Amendment regarding conscience in addition to religion, it would also have infringed Article 9 of the European Convention. But we have put that right so far.
My Lords, this is a very sorry day in the history of Parliament. I am grateful to my noble friend for having drawn attention at the end of our Report stage to what seems to be the fundamental realities, and the moral and political realities of this Bill. This Government have now committed themselves to a course of policy which infringes the rights of man.
7.56 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I, too, wish that the House were fuller in order to have a full discussion of this matter which I agree is of very great importance. There are two aspects in regard to the Amendment which has been moved. The first aspect has been dealt with succinctly by the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken; namely, to point out that the Universal Declaration is not an enforceable legal instrument, nor do I think it was intended to be. To suggest now that, without embodying specifically any of its provisions into our own law, it should be applicable to our own law and our own courts would

1075
involve a new and, I think, undesirable departure in both international law and in our domestic law. Parliament can make parts of its law from provisions of conventions, like the International Labour Office conventions, and they then become part of our law. But the United Nations Declaration and, indeed, the ILO conventions themselves—save those which have been expressly made part of our law by Act of Parliament—are not part of our legal system. Indeed, by their very nature they do not present provisions which are comparable with our own domestic law.
However, I will consider the more serious aspect of the Amendment; namely, the suggestion which has been made that in the legislation of 1974, and in the new Bill, the Government have acted in defiance of their moral and legal obligations under several of the international conventions. The Government and I do not accept this. The Bill, and the 1974 Act, are designed to facilitate —after many unsuccessful attempts—the promotion of good industrial relations for the benefit of employers, employees, and the community as a whole, as an attempt to substitute conciliation for conflict. I will not go over that ground again, but that is the design, the purpose, of the legislation.
My Lords, with regard to the matters mentioned by the noble and learned Lord in respect of the Declaration of Human Rights, he identified Article 20 of the Declaration as one of the provisions which he contended was infringed by this legislation. Article 20, paragraph 2 declares that no one may be compelled to belong to an association. But even if that applied to trade unions—and I submitted in Committee that the trade union position is governed by Article 23 of the Convention—there is no legal compulsion on anyone to join a trade union. A person who does not wish to do so in a closed shop situation is free to remove himself from that situation.
In fact when this article was passed at the United Nations, the representatives of the United Kingdom Government abstained and explained that we did not think it possible to prohibit pressures to join an association or to enforce such a prohibition in practice. But as I said, the article has been interpreted as not applying to trade unions which are separately dealt with in Article 23. When
1076
Article 23 was discussed at the United Nations, the New Zealand delegate stated specifically that his country did not regard Article 20 as biting upon the closed shop and as affecting trade unions—that is the article dealing with conscience matters. The United Kingdom delegate endorsed that view which was not opposed.
With regard to Article 23 of the Declaration which states
"That everyone has a right to form or join trade unions for the protection of his interests",
we support that principle absolutely and we shall be legislating for that in the Employment Protection Bill. The closed shop does not, in our view, conflict with it. If closed shop agreements are made, they have the effect that someone must join a particular union but is not prevented from joining another union or unions as well.
The noble and learned Lord raised the provisions of Articles 8 and 10. As I ventured to say in regard to the earlier Amendment that we have been discussing, nothing in this legislation will detract from the individual trade unionists, or whoever the affected person may be, his chances of action at Common Law through the appropriate courts. Common Law has retained this power of supervision and has done so more and more energetically and determinately in the last quarter of a century and that protection for the individual will remain.
I have also looked at the European Convention, and in my view there is nothing in that Convention which conflicts with the content of the legislation we are considering. As to the ILO Convention—I imagine it is Convention 87 which the noble Lord for the Opposition has in mind—that Convention declares that workers have a right to establish organisations of their own choosing and subject to the rules of the organisation concerned to join organisations of their own choosing. I submit that there is no conflict here with anything in our legislation. Indeed, the Employment Protection Bill will establish a right to join a union. The Convention specifically does not make such a right absolute. If an organisation wishes to exclude people, it may do so. Nor does the Convention declare that workers may not be asked to join particular organisations additional

1077
to those of their own choosing. Accordingly, I have not seen anything in the ILO Convention which conflicts with our legislation or our obligation either moral or legal. Accordingly, not only for the reasons that the Amendment would create an unacceptable and indeed impossible change in our general attitude towards unenforcable international instruments on the merits of the matter, it is not supported by the facts or provisions of the Government's legislation.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that explanation. I had thought that the United Nations Declaration of Rights and other articles of the United Nations were, in fact, international law. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained to me that it is law regarding this country only if we so make it the law of the land. But there is the moral aspect and, to my mind, if you sign these declarations at the United Nations and do not uphold them in your own law, you are, as the noble and learned Lord beneath me said, being rather a Uriah Heep—or a hypocrite, anyway.
It rather distressed me that several noble Lords opposite in a sense threatened that, if we moved any Amendments against this Bill, we should be promoting a clash with the other place, and that we should not try and overrule the other place, which of course we cannot do, anyway. I think that attitude is unfortunate. What are we here for? If we are here for anything, it is to uphold the liberty of the individual, to uphold freedom. If we cannot do that, there is very little object in our being here. I do not want to delay your Lordships' House, but I shall repeat that I hope Her Majesty's Government will take notice of the debate we have had on this subject and that, when it comes to Third Reading, there will be some satisfaction—although it cannot be 100 per cent. from the point of view of the Opposition—and that the Government will genuinely try to safeguard the rights of the small man. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COMPANIES (FEES) REGULATIONS 1975
8.7 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Companies (Fees) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 10th March, be approved. As many Members of this House will be aware, there is frequent complaint that the records of individual companies which are open to inspection at Companies' House are not up to date. This situation arises from a number of causes, some of which can only be rectified by major legislation which the Government hope to place before Parliament next Session. As to the remainder, strenuous efforts have been made in recent years to effect an improvement. Extra staff have been provided, computerisation of some records has now been completed, the staff have worked up to 100,000 hours overtime a year, and as a result the situation is greatly improved. There remains, however, a problem which was recognised as long ago as 1962, in the Report of the Company Law Committee, commonly known as the Jenkins Committee. The number of companies on the register continues to grow year by year; for example, from 530,000 at the end of 1968 to nearly 630,000 at the end of 1974, and it is now nearly 640,000.
In addition to the companies which are in course of removal, this includes a number which are moribund, have long been inactive, are only marginally viable or are there purely for name protection purposes. Many such companies are included among those to whom the Registrar is forced to send a succession of reminder letters calling attention to defaults in filing statutory returns. Such default action occupies some 110 staff, together with an expensive computer operation, and during 1974 involved the dispatch of half a million reminder letters.
To cope with the problem the Jenkins Committee recommended in 1962 the imposition of an annual registration fee at a level which was—and I hope noble Lords will not laugh—moderately large, say £5. This recommendation was made
"in the hope that it would lead to the removal from the register of moribund companies, freeing space in the Registrar's office and company names for others."

1079
The new registration fee, payable on forwarding to the Registrar the statutory copy of each company's annual return, was set in the Companies Act 1967 at £3. From the figures I have already quoted, it is obvious that it has failed to achieve its objectives. In these circumstances the Government have decided that action must be taken to discourage the retention on the register of companies which arc not active and have no reasonable prospects of becoming so.
The Order now before this House seeks to raise the annual fee from its present level of £3 to £20. I recognise that no additional burden is ever welcome. I am bound to say, however, that, although this increase is substantial when expressed as a percentage, this is not in practice the realistic way of looking at the position. The additional cost in money terms will be £17 per annum and this must be considered in the context of its being the only fee which the company must pay to the Registrar after its incorporation.
The other fee, payable by foreign registered companies who establish a place of business here, is very comparable to that I have described. These two fees have previously run in parallel and it would be inequitable for them not to continue to do so. The proposals should be of considerable value in helping to maintain the efficiency of the Companies Registration Office, to the advantage of all who make use of its service and in general to the commercial life of this country. I commend the Motion to the House on these grounds, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Companies (Fees) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 10th March, be approved.— (Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord LYELL: My Lords. I should first like to thank the noble Lord for the courteous and concise way in which he set out the somewhat complicated schedule of registration. The only comment I would make is on the increase in the lodging fee for the annual return to the Registrar. The noble Lord mentioned the words "moderately large" and he has given a very full explanation of the increase from £3 to £20. In this supposedly modern era, such an increase should not be seen as too great. However, it hardly seems
1080
justified on the grounds of inflation, and a doubt arises as to whether such a method should be used first to prevent the files in Companies House from becoming too large. I am thinking particularly of the small company which would like to make use of limited liability, and might wish to invite participation by relatives and friends, or even by outsiders. In the case of a small company, this is a considerable imposition in addition to the £50 fee for registration. We have heard from the noble Lord about the continual rise in costs at Companies House and, with that in mind, perhaps one should not object too strongly to this increase.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for the way in which he has accepted my proposal. I quite agree that the size of the Register is not really the issue. It is the moribund companies that the Government really wish to shake out, because they waste time, money and so on. I quite agree that there are small companies which serve a useful purpose— namely, the safeguarding of the name of a company which might be useful in the future. But in the present circumstances I do not think the fee proposed would necessarily prohibit the continuance in existence of a company with a valid purpose. After all, £20 is not a great deal in these inflationary days. Originally, £5 was quite a lot, but in these days it does not go as far as it once did.
There is another factor. I think the whole House would agree that the Government's general attitude that costs should be covered in every operation is correct. To take the year before last and the year previous to that, the Register was in the black to the extent of about £180,000. Last year it was in the red by approximately £600,000, and in the present year—unless these charges are put into effect—it will be in the red for the extent of about £2 million. In circumstances where every loss must be avoided if possible, it is necessary to make the increase sufficient to meet the deficit and at the same time possibly to cover inflation, which I am afraid we shall not see stemmed for a year or two. It is for this reason that the fee has been fixed at the level I have explained.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REDUNDANT MINEWORKERS AND CONCESSIONARY COAL (PAYMENTS SCHEMES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1975
8.16 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payment Schemes) (Amendment) Order, 1975, be approved.
The coal industry is emerging from what has been an intensely difficult period for it. Between 1947 and the end of 1973–74, 870 collieries were closed or merged with others. This, together with improved working methods at the pits which continued to operate, led to a sizeable reduction in manpower requirements. It is to the credit of the National Coal Board and the unions that the rundown in manpower, unparalleled in any other sector of British industry, was managed with so little disturbance to industrial relations. Today the industry faces a brighter future, and since March of 1974 the rate of recruitment has risen while the rate of wastage has been lower than in previous years. For the first time for more than a decade recruitment will more than replace the number of men leaving the industry.
In the Coal Board's Plan for Coal, to which the Government gave its general approval last year, the Board forecast that average recruitment would have to reach 28,000 a year if targets were to be met. It seems that we may confidently expect that position to be reached during the year 1974–75. However, while the future prospects of the industry have changed dramatically, and more men have a secure future than they had before, there will still be unavoidable closures of exhausted collieries and perhaps of some collieries which, despite the changed position of coal, will remain or will become grossly uneconomic. Some men will, therefore, continue to be made redundant from their existing jobs.
The Redundant Mineworkers' Scheme, which the Order we are discussing amends, has played and continues to play a vital role in cushioning from the effects of redundancy workers who, often after many years of employment in it, have had to leave this highly specialised and vitally important industry.
1082
The Redundant Mineworkers' Payment Scheme gives mineworkers who become redundant at the age of 55 or over a weekly sum of money which, when added to other state benefits, gives them, after allowing for the effects of tax, an income equal to about 90 per cent. of their previous takehome pay during the first three year of their redundancy or until they reach the age of 65, if that is earlier. This weekly sum—the basic benefit—is set out in the tables at Appendix 4 of the Redundant Mineworkers' and Concessionary Coal (Payment Schemes) Order 1973, and it represents the amount which, when added to unemployment benefit, gives the intended level of 90 per cent. of pre-redundancy earnings. Clearly, therefore, if the level of benefit is to remain at 90 per cent. for new beneficiaries entering the Scheme it is necessary to adjust the basic benefit each time the level of unemployment benefit changes.
I should make clear that the Order which we are discussing makes no basic change in the Scheme. It is made necessary simply in order to take into account the increase in unemployment benefit which the Government are introducing on 7th April. When the Order was made, it was not anticipated that there would be an increase in April between the customary autumn reviews. We are also taking this opportunity to extend the table to take in pre-redundancy earnings of up to £70 per week, since the present limit of £50 per week is now too low, in view of recent increases in mineworkers' wages. So far as reemployment is concerned, a worker who is a beneficiary under the Scheme but during the first three years of benefit is reemployed in the coal industry, has his payments under the Scheme suspended. If he then becomes redundant a second time the payment of benefit is resumed and continues for the balance of the three years. However, he can elect to substitute the date of his second redundancy as his relevant date for the purpose of calculating his pre-redundancy earnings. This will bring his benefit into line with his wages at the end of his second redundancy. The purpose of the amendment to Article 6(5) is to provide a method of calculating this benefit, taking account of the April change in unemployment benefit. Finally, my Lords, there were two small technical omissions

1083
in the 1973 Order and these are being repaired by inserting references to the Interpretation Act 1889 and the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1975, laid before the House on 12th March, be approved.—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
8.22 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for his long statement on this Order which was most informative. Regarding the Order's implications, I gather that it is to improve the scale of redundancy payments on 6th April 1975. I think the noble Lord referred to 7th April, so presumably the Order operates from that day. We on this side believe that redundancies in mines need to be looked at carefully in relation to redundancy payments. Mines have been closing down for some years now and those which are still operating do so with modern machinery. It is important that those skilled men who are becoming redundant, many of whom will have worked in the mines all their lives, should receive proper redundancy payments. Therefore, this Order should go through. There is not a lot of time if it is to become effective from 6th April, and we on this side of the House do not wish to delay the Order. We feel that miners who are made redundant, whatever their age, but especially the older ones, should receive these payments. We have no grievances here; our only desire is to hurry up the passing of the Order to ensure that those in this industry who are likely to be out of a job receive this redundancy pay.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and to noble Lords opposite. I have nothing further to add.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY (MARINERS' BENEFITS) REGULATIONS 1975
8.24 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Social Security (Mariners' Benefits) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 10th March, be approved. Your Lordships will know that arrangements to cater for the special employment conditions of mariners have always been recognised as a necessary part of our system of National Insurance, and that the Regulations which lay down the rules for mariners include the special arrangements for that unique group, the share fishermen. We intend to continue distinctive arrangements for mariners, and that is the purpose of the Regulations now before your Lordships' House.
For the general body of mariners, the primary change in April is the replacement of the Class 1 weekly stamp by wholly earnings-related contributions. The new Regulations governing mariners' contributions formed part of the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1974, which were approved by this House on 2nd December 1974. Share fishermen will pay a special rate of Class 2 contributions, and will continue to be eligible for unemployment benefit as well as for the normal range of benefits enjoyed by Class 2 contributors. The draft we are now considering relates, as its title indicates, to benefits. As I informed noble Lords when moving the approval of the contributions Regulations, there has been full consultation with the National Maritime Board and with share fishermen's organisations and the new contributions and benefits arrangements have the agreement of those bodies.
There are two main changes which affect the general body of mariners. On the one hand, cover will in future be restricted to mariners who are domiciled, or resident in Great Britain—this is achieved under the Contributions Regulations; while, on the other, it is extended to include as mariners those who are neither masters nor members of the crew; for example, hairdressers and people doing other jobs. The rules for share fishermen have also been extended to cover the man who no longer goes to sea but continues to receive a share of the boat's earnings in return for work,

1085
such as repairing nets, which is done ashore.
Regulation 1 is formal. Regulation 2 defines the terms used in the Regulations, and defines "mariner" so as to include all persons employed on board ship. One result of this extension is that it is no longer necessary to refer specifically to radio operators, as they will now come within the general definition. "Share fishermen" is also defined a little more closely than before and excludes men working under a contract of service, such as deep sea trawlermen, who come under the normal Class I arrangements. The definition is, however, extended to include the fisherman who has given up the sea but continues to do ancillary work ashore and to share in the boat's profits as a self-employed earner. Another minor addition to the overall scope of the mariners' provisions is that hovercraft, previously covered by the Hovercraft Interpretation Provisions Order, are now to be regarded as ships or vessels for National Insurance purposes.
Regulations 3, 4, 5 and 6 reproduce existing provisions, with some redrafting. Regulation 7 gives legal form to a concession which has operated administratively for a number of years and avoids a difficulty which would otherwise arise with claims to benefit based on contributions paid in respect of a foreign-going voyage. Contributions are payable at the end of a voyage, and when a mariner afterwards claims benefits based on those contributions they are normally in his record; but payment of the contributions is sometimes, for various reasons, delayed. Or a mariner may return to this country in advance of his ship and need to claim benefit. This Regulation provides for contributions due in respect of such a voyage to be treated as paid, until the actual contributions are recorded, and so enables the contribution conditions for benefit to be satisfied.
Regulation 8 is the core of the benefit rules for share fishermen since it enables share fishermen, who by definition do not work under a contract of service, to receive unemployment benefit. Paragraph 1 enables the specially high rate of self-employed earners' contributions, which share fishermen pay, to count for unemployment benefit. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 apply the fundamental unemploy-
1086
ment benefit rules, which of course normally apply only to employed earners, while paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 carry forward, without any significant changes, the special conditions which a seagoing fisherman must satisfy in order to qualify for unemployment benefit. Paragraphs 8 and 9 prescribe additional conditions for the new category of share fisherman who works ashore. Paragraph 10 of Regulation 8 repeats the existing provision to the effect that share fishermen have to satisfy not only the special requirements for unemployment benefit set out in these Regulations, but also all the normal conditions for benefit.
Regulation 9 extends the normal time limits of the National Insurance scheme where a mariner, including a share fisherman, cannot comply with them because he is, by reason of his employment, outside the United Kingdom.
My Lords, that, briefly, covers the Regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Social Security (Mariners' Benefits) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 10th March, be approved.—(Lord WELLS-PESTELL.)
8.32 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord WELLS-PESTELL, for describing these Regulations so accurately and in such detail. There are two questions that I wish to ask the noble Lord. The first comes under Regulation 1 and relates to the definition of "mariner" so far as the new situation which has arisen in the North Sea is concerned. Certainly it is not clear to me—and possibly it is not clear to my noble friends on this side of the House, or, for that matter, to those outside the House—whether a person who breaks his leg while working on an oil rig in the North Sea or on a semi-submersible or jack-up, and who becomes entitled to certain of these benefits is to be classed as a mariner or is to be put into another category.
In view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord WELLS-PESTELL, referred to the new interpretation relating to hovercraft, it would be very helpful if the interpretation of "mariner" could be related to those persons who are connected with the new oil and gas industry in the North Sea. For that matter, new structures are being developed around our

1087
coasts which are not specifically connected with those two very important industries. In view of the new technology, it would therefore be helpful to know whether those who are working upon or are concerned with their maintenance and direction are included in the category of "mariner".
Secondly, turning to the question of share fishermen in Regulation 8, one general remark which I should like to make is that we bitterly regret the loss of the Boyd-Carpenter scheme which would have come into effect on 5th April. The question of the Class 2 contributions of share fishermen is in the forefront of our minds. In regard to their qualification for membership, out of some 6 million people in this country, the share fishermen represent a very small fraction. Nevertheless, they are a very important part of a large industry. Is it the case that share fishermen, who are at present part of a fishing cooperative, can benefit from the scheme which has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for telling me in advance that he wished to raise the question of people serving on oil rigs. If he had not done so, I should not have been able to answer him and I should have had to undertake to write to him. However, as he was generous enough to mention the matter to me, I can say that people working on oil rigs are not regarded as mariners and that they will not be included. The term and definition of "mariner" is not loosely defined. It is defined to mean those who are employed on a vessel, and their employment can be of any character. A moment or two ago I mentioned hairdressers. They must, however, be employed on a ship. Therefore, while those who are employed on ships serving the oil rigs will be covered by the Regulation, it does not extend to those who are working on oil rigs. Therefore, the same definition will apply to the other kinds of work mentioned by the noble Lord.
With regard to the second question that the noble Lord raised, concerning those who are working in a cooperative, although I am speaking off-the-cuff in relation to this matter I imagine that they would be in precisely the same position
1088
as those whom we refer to as "share fishermen". Therefore, what applies to share fishermen will apply also to those who are working in a cooperative, where it seems that the situation is much the same. If that is not the position, I will undertake to remedy the error and let the noble Lord know.
I do not wish to refer to the question of the contributions of the self-employed. We have been over this ground before. Perhaps I ought to mention that I said that the special rate relating to share fishermen will be £3·01 per week as against the normal £2·41 a week which the self-employed people who have an income of under £1,600 a year will normally pay. However, may I point out to the noble Lord that there will be an added advantage in the extra payment of 60p a week, in so far as those concerned will be eligible for unemployment benefit which is not normally extended to people who are self-employed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CORN EXCHANGE BILL MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL OCEAN TRANSPORT AND TRADING (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL STANDARD AND CHARTERED BANK BILL
Examiners' Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered, to lie on the Table.
  DC-10 AIRCRAFT
  DC-10 AIRCRAFT
  SERVICE PENSIONS
  SERVICE PENSIONS