Sitting of 15 October 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PORT ASKAIG PIER ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. William Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Port Askaig Pier; and the same was read the first time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 233.]
  ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF EDINBURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. William Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 234.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Municipalisation (Expenditure)
    Mr. Macfarlaneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of expenditure on municipalisation, including the cost of improvements, in 1974–75; and what is the expected level of expenditure in 1975–76.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The total cost of municipalisation by local authorities in 1974–75 was about £200 million, including expenditure on initial repairs. The public expenditure provision for 1975–76 is approximately the same.
    Mr. Macfarlane: Will the Secretary of State tell the House exactly why the Government are still continuing to waste taxpayers' money in this direction when it does little to provide additional home accommodation? Does he accept that it seriously affects any future house building programme? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Greater London Council is wasting ratepayers' money and is doing nothing to add to the new houses being built in Greater London?
    Mr. Crosland: The next Question on the Order Paper concerns the amount of additional new housing that we are providing. As to why we go on spending substantial sums in this direction, I can give three brief answers. We do so, first because it brings empty properties into use. Secondly, it enables the most substandard property to be improved. Thirdly, it retains badly needed property in the rented sector.

    House Building
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the house building programme.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for house building in the public and private sectors.
    Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the

    1335
    latest figures available for housing starts in both the public and private sectors.
    Mr. Crosland: This is also the answer to part of the Question asked by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane). Comparing the three months June-August of this year with the same three months last year, on a seasonally adjusted basis, public sector starts were up by 14 per cent., private sector starts by 61 per cent., and total starts by 32 per cent. Public sector completions were up by 24 per cent., private sector completions by 28 per cent., and total completions by 26 per cent. We have thus made an encouraging recovery from the disastrous situation which we inherited when we took office. But I still want to see the figures substantially higher.
    Mr. Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend now support the call made by the TUC last month for a massive housing programme, which would help to kill two birds with one stone—unemployment and homelessness? Secondly, will he resist any further cuts in housing expenditure and, indeed, the drastic cuts in other public expenditure with which we are now threatened?
    Mr. Crosland: As to the latter part of the question, I think my hon. Friend is well aware of my views on public expenditure. I favour the highest possible level of public expenditure. It is a view that I have held for very many years. As regards the first part of the question, there is nothing that I would like better than more money for housing. But this is not a question of housing policy; this is a question of general reflationary policy. The Government's policy, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Labour Party conference, was endorsed by an enormous majority.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the figures which he has mentioned would have been even better were it not for the fact that many local authorities—they are mainly Tory-controlled but not always; in Liverpool they are Liberal-controlled—are claiming that the Government cuts are preventing them from building the houses that they would like to build? This is complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain the matter more fully, but will he take it from me that
    1336
    there are many people in the Labour Party—not necessarily inside the Tribune Group—who feel that every possible resistance must be offered to any cutback in public expenditure, with particular reference to housing. We need to ensure that when we have to go to the country again at least we can say that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not yet at that stage of speech-making.
    Mr. Crosland: Tribune Group or no Tribune Group, I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. I have said many times that I think the sensible course for a Government, given the present economic climate, is to take out a limited number of priorities. In my view housing should be one of those priorities. That should be done so that when we go to the country again we can say that even though we could not do everything we would have liked to do, at least in some limited areas, such as housing, we made a success.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not the fact that in the quarter May-July this year there was a 12 per cent. fall in the orders for new council houses? Does this not show what many people suspect, namely, that the council housing increase has its peak because many councils are finding it too expensive to build houses?
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I have given the figures for the past three months both for starts and completions. If I were to have given the figures for the first eight months of this year they would have shown an equally favourable picture. Of course, from month to month, starts, completions and orders invariably fluctuate. That is why one can never take a single month but must always take—as I have this afternoon—a three-months' period.
    Mr. Gould: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although industrialised building techniques have always been viewed with suspicion by the British construction industry they have made a notable contribution in other countries, such as Norway, which has been rather more successful than we have in dealing with housing problems? What consideration is being given to the direct encouragement of industrialised building, in view of the fact that in this area of the construction industry there is a growing level of unemployment?
    Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend has been good enough to write to me on this subject and, as he knows, I have said that I should be very pleased to talk to him about it. Incidentally, different views are held amongst experts about the precise rôle that industrialised buildings should have in the house-building programme. However, in our circular "Housing Needs and Action" we stress the part which industrialised building could play and, even more strongly, the part which the standardisation of components could play, because that may prove to be the most fruitful and productive line of advance.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that in absolute terms the number of homes he is producing at present is an absolute disaster in human terms? Is he aware that in respect of improvement grants, which are equally a part of the house-building programme, the figure of 37,700 for the latest quarter is about 10,000 down on the previous comparable quarter? What action is he taking to ensure that the improvement grant programme is moving ahead?
    Mr. Crosland: If the hon. Gentleman considers that the present house-building figures are an absolute disaster, being about one-third above what they were under the Conservatives, I should be interested to know what word he would apply to the house-building record of his own party when it was in power.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: I compliment my right hon. Friend on the increase in the figures that he has announced today. However, what action does he propose to take to stop the eroding of the benefits of these increased figures in cases where council houses are being sold by Conservative-controlled authorities in stress areas at a far higher rate than that at which the waiting lists are growing, thus exacerbating what is already a very serious problem in stress areas?
    Mr. Crosland: I am aware of the problem and I have it closely under review. To put the picture into perspective, the sale of council houses at present compared with what it was five years ago is a mere trickle.
    Mr. Raison: Is the Secretary of State aware that in his answer to my hon.
    1338
    Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) he was clearly trying to duck the issue, no doubt as part of his campaign to please the Tribune Group? Why else did the right hon. Gentleman answer a question about public expenditure in terms which clearly carried no conviction? Will he acknowledge that the prospects for council housing are extremely uncertain, because of the high cost of interest rates to which my hon. Friend referred? Is he aware that in the private sector the future is much less sure and confident than he has implied? The fact is that all this depends on a worsening economic situation.
    Mr. Crosland: As to my desire to please the Tribune Group, I am sure that its ex-chairman will bear me out when I say that of the present members of the Front Bench I am the main target of hostile criticism by the Tribune Group.
    On the point raised by the hon. Member, I point out that there has been an encouraging and important improvement. It is deeply depressing and cynical to find no acknowledgment of that fact coming from the Opposition.

    Local Authorities (Direct Labour Departments)
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will recommend local authorities to increase the proportion of competitive tenders for major works in direct labour departments, in the light of the report from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The efficiency of direct labour departments should be tested in competition with private contractors. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced yesterday that we are establishing a departmental working group on the organisation and operation of local authority direct labour departments. It will consider the report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister accept that it is the ratepayers or taxpayers who pay if the use of direct labour departments results in increased costs? Does he not, therefore, agree that there

    1339
    is no need to delay the implementation of the proposals in the report by appointing an inter-departmental working party?
    Mr. Armstrong: My Department has always ensured that there has been competition. Direct labour departments have operated in the competitive sector and, indeed, saved ratepayers a great deal of money.
    Mr. Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Liverpool, at present, there is a vast amount of overspending on a number of sites which have been in the control of private enterprises and not of direct works departments? Is he also aware that the direct works department in Liverpool has accomplished much for the building programme of Liverpool, to the satisfaction of the authorities?
    Mr. Armstrong: Yes, I accept what my hon. Friend said. We are anxious to see the maximum possible expansion of efficient direct labour departments.
    Mr. Speed: Will the Minister say which of the main recommendations in the report he does not wholeheartedly endorse?
    Mr. Armstrong: As the working group was set up only yesterday, the hon. Gentleman is expecting a lot when he asks me to comment.
    Sir W. Elliott rose—
    Mr. Speed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has not replied to my question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
    Sir W. Elliott: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the present high level of spare capacity in the building industry in the north-east of England. Therefore, will he use his maximum persuasion on local authorities in that region to put out major contracts for competitive tender?
    Mr. Armstrong: I am aware of the situation. I visited both Newcastle and Sunderland during the recess. We are doing what we can to encourage an expansion of work, and it is being done in accordance with the guidelines, which insist on direct labour organisations competing with the private sector.

    Construction Industry (Output)
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now give a specific figure for the estimated percentage decline in new construction output in (a) 1975 com pared with 1974, and (b) 1976 compared with 1975.
    Mr. Armstrong: Specific percentage estimates of construction output are not published by the Government. However, I expect the significant decline forecast for 1975 compared with 1974 to be followed by some recovery in 1976.
    Mr. Latham: In view of the disastrous decline in both improvement work and private industrial construction, does the Minister accept that the industry is now in its worst recession since the 1930s? If so, why does he go on spending money on municipalisation and land nationalisation which could be more productively employed?
    Mr. Armstrong: The allocation of resources between the varying needs in the housing area is a matter for discussion. We have made decisions—which I certainly should defend in the House—concerning the priorities between municipalisation, new building, and so on. In view of our disastrous inheritance in the housing field—I am certainly not complacent, I recognise what has to be done—substantial improvements have taken place during the past 18 months.
    Mr. Watkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware of recent reports of major brick shortages? Is it not time seriously to consider some form of stabilisation programme to ensure a steady supply of building materials to the construction industry?
    Mr. Armstrong: I have had discussions with the brick industry. We are well aware of the difficulties, and any Government help that can be given will be given.

    Housing Waiting Lists
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up a central register of the number of people on the housing waiting lists of each local authority in England and Wales.
    Mr. Armstrong: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that such a central register would be helpful in formulating the Government's housing policy by illustrating particular areas of considerable stress at this time of high unemployment, when mobility of labour is essential?
    Mr. Armstrong: The evidence is that waiting lists are not an accurate indicator of real housing needs. The practices of different authorities vary greatly. This matter has been given serious consideration. If we believed that a central list of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is proposing would make a real contribution, we should certainly undertake it. We have considered the matter carefully and, quite frankly, it is not an accurate indicator.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that conscientious local authorities concentrate very much on their waiting lists? What they cannot understand are the policies of the Liberal and Conservative Parties, which would deny them the land, not allow them to have any money, do away with their direct labour forces, and then complain that they are not building houses.
    Mr. Armstrong: I agree with my hon. Friend. The great contribution that we can make is the contribution that we are making, to devote extra resources to housing so that people can be well housed.
    Mr. Jessel: Will the hon. Gentleman go further than his original reply and say that council house waiting lists are practically useless as a measure of housing need, because large numbers of people not in need of rehousing are on the lists and at the same time substantial numbers of people in need of rehousing do not qualify to get on the lists?
    Mr. Armstrong: I would not go as far as that. I have great confidence in local authorities, but practices vary throughout the country. Therefore, I see no great merit in the hon. Gentleman's proposition.

    Motorway Building Programme
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will commission an independent assessment of
    1342
    the current motorway building programme.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): No, Sir. Every motorway scheme receives an exhaustive assessment before it is built.
    Mr. Hurd: Does the Minister agree that there has been serious criticism of the assumptions of fact on which these schemes are based, in particular on the assumptions of industrial growth, population growth and fuel costs contained in the laboratory report produced by his Department last year? At this time of great stringency would it not be sensible for someone with a fresh eye and unbiased approach to take a new look at this expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds each year?
    Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the Department is continually under pressure from hon. Members and other bodies. We are continually reassessing and re-examining the road programme. At present we are assessing the effect on the levels of traffic of the new fuel prices, the different rates of economic growth which are now forecast, and the latest population forecasts. The present indications are that the new forecasts will not differ significantly from the existing ones.
    Mr. Whitehead: When are we to have a definitive view from the Department on the consultative document on heavy lorry routes, as in the Midlands, at least—and probably in many other areas—we are having a duplication between proposed heavy lorry routes and proposed motorways? We do not mind a duplication of paper, but we do mind a duplication of concrete.
    Mr. Carmichael: I do not like the duplication of paper, either. My hon. Friend should realise that the full programme of lorry routes—this is perhaps a reflection of the pressure to which we are subject—is unlikely to be completed as was originally envisaged when the Private Member's Bill went through in 1972.
    Mr. Fox: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us cannot accept what he said? His Department's figures, issued recently, show a decline in traffic in 1974 compared with 1973, which is the first time that has happened in nearly 20

    1343
    years. In view of that fact, will he assure us that he will look at the projected traffic figures on which new roads are based?
    Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman, of all people, should know that we look at projected traffic figures. Some time ago it was intimated to my right hon. Friend that the standard of roads would be adjusted because of this trend. In many cases we are now building dual two-lane instead of dual three-lane roads. Nevertheless, the figures seem to bear out firmly that the traffic on the roads is related more to economic growth than things like the cost of fuel.
    Mr. Jay: Will my hon. Friend consider making a statement on the legal powers of the so-called road construction units, as there is a feeling in many areas that these are in danger of becoming local dictators, with no clear responsibility to anybody?
    Mr. Carmichael: If my right hon. Friend has any specific information that he can give me on this matter I shall be only too pleased to examine it and put it to my right hon. Friend for further consideration on the lines which have been stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

    Substandard Housing
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the total number of people lacking adequate housing accommodation.
    Mr. Crosland: The best information available, derived from the 1971 national house condition survey, is that there were then 2·9 million out of 17·1 million dwellings in England and Wales lacking one or more basic amenities. Further more detailed information will come forward as a result of the current review of housing finance and the 1976 house condition survey.
    Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this problem is to be tackled with urgency in the present economic situation, greater emphasis and resources must be placed on the rehabilitation of derelict property? Does he further agree that amongst the homeless the development of squatting, which we may regret, is none the less related to the amount of empty, unrehabilitated and,
    1344
    in some cases, sound property in the hands of local authorities, Government Departments and nationalised industries?
    Mr. Crosland: I think that the better use of the existing housing stock—after all, whatever the level of new house building, it can add only a small amount each year to the total housing stock—should have a higher priority than it has been given by successive Governments. As far as I am concerned, this is easily now the top priority for housing policy.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: We all want to build more houses, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern in some rural areas about the density of buildings in the proposals which are being put forward? Will he examine again the yardstick which the Department requires of local authorities in this matter?
    Mr. Crosland: I shall certainly examine the yardstick, although it is now true that, generally, it is not a constraint on local authority house building. On the first point, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will write to me, I shall certainly send him an answer.

    Local Government Finance
    Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any indication of the date when the report of the Layfield Committee of Inquiry into local government finance will be presented to him.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): No, but I understand that the committee is working to the original target date of the end of this year.
    Dr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the general public is looking to the Layfield Committee to advocate a thorough radical reform of local government finance and that if the Committee merely recommends complicated tinkering with the present system it will be up to the Government to put forward proposals at an early date for an entirely new system?
    Mr. Oakes: I cannot anticipate the recommendations of the committee, but it would be foolish to set up a completely independent body to look at the rating system and then tell it how to do it.
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if cash limits were discussed at the last meeting of the consultative council on Local Government Finance.
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir, but I shall have such discussions before any cash limits come into operation.
    Mr. Durant: I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not had this discussion. Does he agree that the only real way to deal with the whole question of local government expenditure is to put a moratorium on capital expenditure. Some authorities are still going ahead with expensive capital schemes, and these should be stopped.
    Mr. Crosland: The Government's views about the future of local government expenditure have been made repeatedly and exceedingly clearly. The question of cash limits, as normally discussed, would tend to cover current rather than capital expenditure, but I hope that it will be only a comparatively short time before I am in a position to make a very detailed statement about our view of cash limits.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the discrimination which exists in local government finance against the Greater London area—discrimination which is causing great difficulties? Since there has been a promise that an attempt will be made to remove this unfair and unjust discrimination, may we be told when that is likely to happen?
    Mr. Crosland: I cannot give details until we come to the actual rate support grant settlement, but I can repeat what I have said many times in public—that, on the whole, London had rather a rough deal in last year's settlement.
    Mr. Raison: In his discussions with the consultative council has the right hon. Gentleman considered what he will do about local authorities which defy Government policy on expenditure, for example, the South Yorkshire Council, which is apparently to defy his policy on bus fares?
    Mr. Crosland: We shall have to wait and see what the South Yorkshire total comes to. I have merely seen a report
    1346
    in the Press about one segment of that total expenditure. However, at the end of the day the Government is not in a position to impose legal sanctions on local authorities. Unless the hon. Member is suggesting that we should move over to the French type of prefectorial system, the Government must depend—and I depend willingly—on the sense of statesmanship and discretion in the local authority.

    Seat Belts
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of people liable to be killed or severely disabled each year if the wearing of seat belts in cars is not made compulsory.
    Mr. Carmichael: I estimate that the belts worn by drivers and front-seat passengers in cars and light vans in 1974 prevented about 400 deaths and nearly 4,600 serious injuries. If all fitted belts had been worn, another 14,000 serious or fatal casualties would have been avoided.
    Mr. Ashley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the death and disablement of so many thousands of people is far too high a price to pay for the dubious luxury of allowing people to travel in cars without safety belts and that although the compulsory wearing of safety belts will not be a popular measure it is necessary? Is it not time that the Government stopped dodging this issue and took action to make the wearing of safety belts compulsory?
    Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend will know that a Bill was introduced earlier in the Session but that because of the pressure of business we have not been able to complete it. We hope that it will be reintroduced in the next Session. We are anxious that there should be a free vote. Therefore, we want a full debate before that vote is taken.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: If the Government really believe what they are saying, why do they not reintroduce or find time for the Bill which they say will save lives, instead of wasting the time of the House to save the faces of Labour councillors all over the country who broke the law as laid down in the Housing Finance Act?
    Mr. Carmichael: There was a general desire in the House that the Bill should be given proper time for debate but, unfortunately, on the night that it came up for consideration, because of the state of business we could debate it for only a short period. The Government intend to introduce the Bill in the coming Session, provide the House with a full opportunity to debate it, and then have a free vote.
    Mr. Hannam: In view of the alarming increase in the number of coach accidents recently, will the hon. Gentleman also consider the provision of seat belts in motor coaches?
    Mr. Carmichael: This matter is being examined. The whole question of coach safety and better safety in coaches is being considered. There has been a spate of accidents and, naturally, they are spectacular and extremely regrettable, but it appears that the lap belt that might be fitted would not be an economically viable proposition.

    M16
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress with the planning of the M16.
    Mr. Carmichael: The order to establish the line of the A13-A12 section of M16 is to be made shortly, and a letter announcing this will be sent to objectors within the next few days. A public inquiry into the proposals for the A10-M11 and M11-A12 sections was held between December 1974 and July 1975, and the inspector's report is awaited.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is the Minister aware that the Greater London Council is considering the designation of a heavy lorry route through suburban Chingford, through residential and shopping areas, and that the reason for this is the lack of the M16? Does he agree that there is no need to worry about traffic forecasts in respect of this motorway? It is an historical fact that for many years the lives of thousands of people have been made miserable by heavy lorries using unsuitable roads.
    Mr. Carmichael: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have on several occasions looked at the road that he mentioned. I think he will realise that the Department and all the Ministers who
    1348
    have been dealing with this matter are very much aware of the urgent necessity for this road but, as I said in my original reply, the public inquiry took a long time—exceptionally long—and we cannot expect the inspector's report this side of Christmas.
    Mr. McCrindle: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is still the intention to proceed with that part of the M16 from the A13 to the A12 during the financial year beginning next April? The present congestion on the A128 trunk road is causing considering concern to my constituents.
    Mr. Carmichael: I should not like to give a definite date for the start of this work, but it is interesting to note that those who live in areas of heavy road traffic know that they need such a road, and those who consider such roads academically decide that they do not need them. In this case we shall be pressing ahead as fast as we can but I should not like to commit myself to a date now.

    Unoccupied Council Houses
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of unoccupied council houses at the latest available date.
    Mr. Armstrong: The Department's last survey showed that at 31st December 1973 the percentage of council dwellings in England and Wales which were vacant and available for letting remained—as in previous years—under 1 per cent.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whether it is 1 per cent. or not, it means that there are thousands of empty council houses? Does he agree that the Department's time would be better spent urging local authorities to fill these empty council houses, rather than continue the massive programme of municipalisation?
    Mr. Armstrong: It is true that even if the figure is below 1 per cent. it still represents a large number of houses. We do not want to see any left empty for longer than is necessary. Local authorities all over the country are discussing the matter with us and are doing all that they can to see that houses are occupied as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Loyden: When my hon. Friend is considering this matter will he also consider the problem of the number of properties owned by private enterprise that are lying empty and ensure that local authorities take the necessary power to acquire these properties in order to deal with the urgent housing shortage in many areas?
    Mr. Armstrong: Yes, Sir. Any house that is empty causes us concern, and this matter is under consideration.
    Mr. Steen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why some council houses are unoccupied is that the environment is so seriously blighted that there are no community facilities—especially on new housing estates—and people do not want to live there? Will he ensure that in future when local authorities build new council estates they are given adequate funds by the Government to ensure that community facilities are provided at the outset, and not five years later?
    Mr. Armstrong: That is a problem that has taxed successive Governments through the years. We try to ensure that amenities and facilities are available on these estates. I understand the urgency of the situation. If the hon. Gentleman has particular cases in mind he ought to make the strongest possible representation to the council concerned.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: When dealing with the private sector, the greatest thing that the hon. Gentleman can do to relieve housing need is to allow the owners of empty properties to let them today or tomorrow, before he brings in any scheme for requisition. That is the first thing that he ought to be ready to do.
    Mr. Armstrong: That is one suggestion that we are considering urgently.

    Tramways
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies his Department is making about the contribution that the tram can make towards the solution of urban transport problems.
    Mr. Carmichael: The character sties of tramways are well known and the prospects of introducing them have been studied in a number of cases
    Mr. Adley: I understand the difficulty of merely returning to the old system, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that because of the fuel crisis and fears about urban pollution, major cities such as Amsterdam, Zurich and Melbourne may have something to teach us about the way in which we disposed of our trams and trolley buses so quickly. Does he also agree that the advent of bus lanes in so many British cities is a tacit acknowledgement that reserving traffic accommodation for public service vehicles is something that should be given further study by the Government?
    Mr. Carmichael: I think the hon. Gentleman should know that the last matter to which he referred is continually being studied and that as new transportation studies come forward from local authorities the provision of segregated public transport lanes, particularly in the crucial areas, is given a great deal of priority. It is for local authorities to decide which transport system best meets their needs, but, as a general point, it is one thing to retain and improve an existing tram system in some cities and quite another to reintroduce it on existing streets. A segregated system is being built on Tyne-side and Clydeside. The Tyneside metro is to use an extension of the British Rail tracks, and this could be done in many cities in Britain.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: May I urge the Minister, nevertheless, to consider favourably the reintroduction of an improved tram system, bearing in mind the fact that trams were replaced by buses when petrol was cheap and when pollution was ignored, and also the fact that studies on the introduction of electric traction in urban areas by means of battery cars show that they are much more expensive and less efficient technically than overhead wires would be?
    Mr. Carmichael: On the question of the buses being introduced because of cheaper petrol, one of the other reasons was that in the expanding towns buses provided greater flexibility than tramcars. The points raised by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are being studied not just in Britain but throughout the world, because we all realise that the question of urban transport will need to be considered in great depth and all new systems will

    1351
    require thorough examination. We are trying to do that as fast as resources and ability allow.
    Mr. Fry: I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), but does the hon. Gentleman agree that a far greater contribution could be made to solving our urban transport problem by two other means—first, a good look at the way in which schoolchildren are transported to school and the more effective use of such transport, and, secondly, a look at the whole question of licensing public service vehicles? It is obvious that in many parts of the country the National Bus Company is failing to meet public need.
    Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Member is now moving on to rural rather than urban transport. There are historic reasons as between the National Bus Company and local authorities concerning the provision of the services. It is a question that we are always considering.
    On the general question of schoolchildren, one of the real problems of modern society is that almost everyone wishes to travel between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock in the morning and 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock at night, and this puts an intolerable strain on any public service.
    Sir John Hall: As it is now three or four years since the Select Committee on Expenditure published its report on urban transport planning, with strong recommendations about the use of special traffic lanes for public transport, will the Under-Secretary say why it has taken so long to implement those excellent recommendations?
    Mr. Carmichael: A great deal of this is ultimately the responsibility of the local authorities, and whenever possible the Department encourages them. We have made a number of studies—for example, in South Hampshire, Sheffield and Rotherham—on the question of segregated services, trams, and so on. It is an easier problem to state than to solve. It is not easy to go into an existing urban area and say that a particular area shall be totally segregated for public transport. It can be done only on a local basis, with as much encouragement from Central Government as possible.

    M67
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when a decision is likely to be made about the route of the proposed M67.
    Mr. Carmichael: The M67 motorway as at present planned consists of two schemes, the Denton relief road and the Hyde bypass. The routes for both schemes were fixed in 1972.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that these are just preliminaries to a much less desirable scheme for driving a motorway through the Peak District National Park? Is he further aware that he could make a handsome contribution to the saving of public expenditure by scrapping this scheme altogether, and is he prepared to talk about the eventual route from the Denton relief road and the Hyde bypass, if this is ever completed?
    Mr. Carmichael: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interests in this matter. There have been a number of Adjournment debates on it. I assure him that the Denton relief road and the Hyde bypass do not by any means commit us to the Manchester-Sheffield road, and I assure him that before any final decisions are made on the question whether there should be a road through the Longendale corridor, there will be very wide-ranging discussions within the House and very far outside it.

    Land Acquisition
    Mr. Graham Pageasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total cost of land acquisition in the first five years of the Community Land Account; and how soon he expects the fund to show a profit.
    Mr. Oakes: The memorandum to the Community Land Bill sets out fully the costs and receipts that will save about £700 million a year when the scheme is in full operation. The costs at the end of five years in individual land accounts will vary widely between areas with some in profit and some on the way there, according to the demands of their programmes to cater for local needs.
    Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman must be kidding himself if he thinks he will

    1353
    save £700 million. Bearing in mind that the Financial Memorandum gives certain figures, has he reconsidered those figures at all, such as the £400 million a year which is to be spent foolishly on this stupid enterprise?
    Mr. Oakes: We have spent many hours on this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that you do not want any further time to be spent on it. The figures are accurate, and we are not reconsidering them.

    Council House Tenants
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government intend to review the conditions of tenancy of council house tenants.
    Mr. Armstrong: Conditions of tenancy are a matter for the local authority concerned, but the need for further guidance is being considered.
    Mr. Watkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are wide discrepancies in conditions of tenancy from authority to authority, and that there is growing resentment at the one-sided nature of the obligations? When will the Government give further consideration to security of tenure for council house tenants?
    Mr. Armstrong: I am aware of the wide variety. We are anxious to get rid of any fussy and restrictive regulations affecting tenants.
    With regard to security of tenure for council tenants, we have given the commitment and we shall honour it, but we have been urgently busy on what we regard as the most critical issues, and concentrating on them. We shall certainly honour our commitment concerning security of tenure for tenants.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the Minister aware that hundreds of thousands of tenants living on council estates, particularly in large towns and cities, are very critical of the bureaucratic way in which their lives are dominated by council officialdom? Is he further aware that those tenants need and would welcome a tenants' charter which set out their rights on basic matters—the Minister mentioned crucial matters, but did not specify them—such as transfers, decorations, and so on, and give them a greater say in how their lives are run?
    Mr. Armstrong: The problem of management of housing is a topical issue, and we want to involve tenants to a much greater extent. That is why we are now advertising for a new housing management adviser who will give advice so that we can involve tenants far more in the running of their houses and the environment around them.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend encourage local authorities when granting new tenancies, to grant them in the name of both husband and wife? In cases where existing tenancies are issued simply in the name of the husband, will he encourage local authorities to translate these, similarly, where both husband and wife have an equal right to the tenancy?
    Mr. Armstrong: My hon. Friend has mentioned the kind of detail that we are considering. We issue guidelines and are in consultation with local authorities, but we have to preserve a balance. We believe that members of local housing authorities are the people who really understand the needs of their tenants, and therefore much more of the initiative will come from them.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to local authorities on enabling council tenants to transfer from one town to another.
    Mr. Armstrong: General guidance on the removal of obstacles to mobility was given in a report of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which was commended to local authorities in 1969.
    We are considering whether further steps are needed as part of our general review of housing management.
    Mr. Finsberg: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. Will he develop it one stage further and accept the complaint which many of us receive from our constituents about the stupid bureaucracy in which local authorities, irrespective of their political control, seem to indulge when tenants wish to transfer within the authorities' areas? Will the hon. Gentleman consider meeting some of us to discuss this point?
    Mr. Armstrong: I should be prepared to do that. There is a demand which is not being met. We are considering all

    1355
    aspects, because we want to offer proper facilities so that proper exchanges may take place.
    Sir John Hall: In considering the guidance that the Minister might give to local authorities will he consider also the related problem of applicants for council housing being forced to move into a neighbouring area in order to find temporary accommodation, and because of that being taken off the first local authority list and having to start at the bottom of the list operated by their new local authority? Surely this is undesirable, and surely there should be much greater interchange between neighbouring authorities.
    Mr. Armstrong: Local authorities have been advised many times to remove the residential qualifications, but this is a matter for each local authority, and practice varies throughout the country.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the Minister aware of a problem which exists in Devon, where people deliberately move into holiday accommodation with the intention of having to be evicted, thereby jumping the queue for local authority accommodation in the area? This is a very real problem in certain areas, and the practice is grossly unfair to many families who have been on the waiting list for local authority housing for many years.
    Mr. Armstrong: I am aware of that point. That is why we are conducting such a thorough review. In removing one anomaly it is possible to create three others.

    Building Societies Association
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he had any discussions with the Building Societies Association during the parliamentary recess.
    Mr. Crosland: My Department has continued the regular contacts maintained with the Building Societies Association over a wide range of subjects.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does the Secretary of State agree that it has become clear that the building societies, with their more stringent lending requirements, are proving incapable of taking over from the local authorities in the way that the Government required? Has the Secretary
    1356
    of State any advice to give to people who wish to buy older property, or whose income is below the requirement of the building societies, for clearly the Secretary of State has led such people to believe that with the ending of local authority lending, the building societies would be able to replace them?
    Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman has referred to what appears to be a perpetual misapprehension. There is no question of ending local authority mortgage lending. It has been reduced, but will continue, and at a rate which, by historic standards, is not unsubstantial.
    On the major question of what I might call the £100 million transfer from local authority mortgage lending to building society lending, this is going ahead well, and I very much hope that the first advances under the scheme will be made by the building societies in the next few weeks, if not days.
    At the request of the local authority associations, discussions are now taking place with building societies on the question whether the £100 million transfer may be substantially extended.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Although I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask him to explain why he thinks that the offer of funds made by certain building societies to major local authorities to assist in further local authority loans should not be accepted, as some of the local authorities wish?
    Mr. Crosland: I should like to have details of that question, but I must emphasise that it looks as though the entire £100 million which we wanted building societies to take over from local authority lending will, in practice, be taken over by the building societies.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the building societies have now paid back the loan that the Government gave them last year? Will he also say what plans and what developments are taking place concerning the setting-up of their own stabilisation fund?
    Mr. Crosland: I am glad to say that the whole of the £500 million loan has now been repaid to the Government by the societies.

    1357
    Concerning the stabilisation fund, we have achieved a stabilisation policy, because the amount of mortgage lending is now determined not solely by the building societies but by the societies and the Government in co-operation and consultation.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Although he says that the policy does not mean a cessation of local authority lending, is the Secretary of State aware that in practice it has meant that in many areas no local authority lending has been possible for a considerable time? Is he prepared to risk the displeasure of the Tribunites, to whom he recently referred, by having a rational look at the means of making better use of existing accommodation, and considering whether local authority lending is more effective than municipalisation?
    Mr. Crosland: I do not think it is a question of saying that one or the other is the more effective. In the case of the £100 million switch, given that building society lending was running at a record level at the time, it appeared to me, to most of my hon. Friends—and, I should have thought, to most hon. Gentlemen opposite—to make sense to transfer a certain sum of money from local authority improvement and municipalisation.
    Certain local authorities have now run out of their quota for the year, but that is only because they had the good sense to foresee what the Government might do, and lent the whole of their quota in the first three months.

    Squatting
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussion he has had with local authorities on the question of illegal squatting.
    Mr. Armstrong: My Department has recently consulted the local authority associations, and is considering their replies. Authorities themselves are aware of the policies and action they can—and should—pursue in respect of squatting, and of the problems which give rise to it.
    Mr. Costain: In the course of the discussion, did the Minister bear in mind that the law, to put it mildly, is a little confused? Will he give local authorities
    1358
    an assurance that during the next Session new legislation will be brought in to clarify the situation? Has it yet become apparent to him that a lot of this squatting is due to the stupid rent controls introduced by the Government?
    Mr. Armstrong: If the hon. Member has any direct evidence, my Department will be very pleased to consider it seriously. A change in the law would be a matter for the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that many local authorities have been able to reach commonsense and acceptable arrangements with squatting groups, particularly in cases where large amounts of property, available on a short-term basis, exist? Does he agree, having considered the replies from local authorities, that clear guidance should be given to them so that the open warfare which exists in some areas can be stopped as soon as possible and we can return to commonsense co-operation between local authorities and squatters' groups?
    Mr. Armstrong: This is an urgent and serious problem. My Department is anxious to make the best possible use of housing stock, and our talks with local authorities are designed to speed up procedures so that empty properties are properly taken over and used for people in real housing need.

    Local Government Staffs
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with procedures for controlling staff numbers in local government.
    Mr. Oakes: Each local authority is responsible for the numbers of staff it employs to carry out its statutory functions. But, as part of the measures needed to limit public expenditure, local government has established new machinery for collecting quarterly returns of staff numbers. These figures are being closely scrutinised by central and local government, acting jointly and against the background of national economic policies.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister referring to the Joint Staff Watch Survey, which shows an increase of 10,785 full-time and more than 15,000 part-time employees over the revised figures for March? In the context of local government expenditure, will the

    1359
    Government be prepared to support local authorities who consider it necessary to secure staff reductions?
    Mr. Oakes: Two quarter's figures have been collected and published. The comparison shows an increase of under 1 per cent., counting full-and part-time equivalents together. However, two quarters' figures are not a sufficient guide to current trends. The association is, however, having a word with the local authorities about this.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend accept that local authority salaries now constitute a significant part of public expenditure? In most years there is no Central Government control over the number of staffs and wage levels, but that is punctuated by a year—like the present one—of ferocious restraints. Would it not be better to devise a system in which Central Government had a greater measure of influence on local authority numbers?
    Mr. Oakes: It may be that the Government have no formal powers over individual authorities about the employment of staff—nor should they have, in respect of individual staffs. On wage levels, local authorities are subject to the Counter-inflation policy and the £6 a week limit, with severe repercussions for authorities which go against that policy.
    Mr. Speed: Much has been made of the need for local authorities to hold down staff and expenditure levels, but when will there be comparable manpower savings and programme savings by the Department?
    Mr. Oakes: We watch our staff in the Department equally well.

    Rent Act 1974
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects of the Rent Act 1974.
    Mr. Armstrong: The Act was intended to provide security of tenure for furnished tenants of absentee landlords. It has been successful in this.
    Mr. Morris: We recognise that part of the aim was to provide security of tenure, but will the Government now recognise that another effect has been to dry up the
    1360
    supply of furnished accommodation, with an estimated loss of nearly 1 million units? Will they now address themselves to this problem and devise a form of tenancy agreement which will allow landlords to let their properties?
    Mr. Armstrong: Despite the request from this Box for hard evidence, there is no hard evidence that we have had as yet—
    Mr. Morris: Yes, there is.
    Mr. Armstrong: If the hon. Gentleman has any, he can submit it, and I assure him that it will be seriously considered. We have no hard evidence that the Act has caused a significant acceleration of the housing shortage.
    Mr. Rossi: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have now entered the second academic year with many hundreds of students disadvantaged and without proper accommodation, because of the effects of the Rent Act? When will the Minister introduce the legislation, long since promised to me, to exempt all student accommodation from the effects of the Act?
    Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Member will know that this matter has had serious consideration in my Department, that we have had discussions with the Department of Education and Science and with the National Union of Students, and that they were reluctant that we should proceed with legislation. Again, we have no evidence that the kind of assertion that the hon. Gentleman has made is true—
    Mr. Morris: Rubbish.
    Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Member must contain himself.
    We have no evidence of any kind, yet, that the students feel that the situation is being made worse by this Act.

AGRICULTURE (EEC MINISTERS' MEETING)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the House on the results of the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 13th and 14th October.
The Council agreed that the representative rate for the pound—the green

1361
Pound—should be adjusted by 5·8 per cent. This will raise support prices for United Kingdom producers by about 6·2 per cent. in sterling terms. The change in the green pound will generally take effect from 27th October but will be deferred for certain commodities. For wheat the date of implementation will be 1st July 1976; this will defer any effect on the price of bread. For beef the date of implementation will be 5th January; this will avoid any incentive to put beef into intervention in the autumn period of heavy marketings.
The agreement reached in Luxembourg will be of real benefit to British farmers. It should be worth about £90 million to them in a full year, after taking account of its effect on feed costs. Of this sum, over £50 million will go to our milk producers. We shall now increase the guarantee for milk by an extra 2·3p a gallon from November, which will mean that the effective guarantee over the winter months will now be over 40p a gallon. The average guaranteed price for the year will be 37·04p.
I announced in the summer that the retail price of milk would have to rise by 1p in the autumn. Following this increase in the producer guaranteed price and the adjustment I announced on 29th September, the retail price will now rise by 1½p per pint to 8½p per pint from 2nd November.
I am sure that this settlement will help to meet the milk producers' difficulties. It comes on top of the increase of 2·2p per gallon decided in July, making 4½p per gallon altogether. There will be scope for a further increase at the beginning of the next milk year. This will be for the Government to decide after the Annual Review.
There will also be a useful increase in the producer price for sugar beet. For beef the new buying-in price will put a higher floor in the market in 1976. The cereals grower should also benefit in due course. Pigmeat processors, who have been in difficulties, will greatly welcome the reduction in monetary compensatory amounts.
We have agreed to these changes in the interest of our agriculture industry and in order to safeguard our food supplies. We have sought to keep a balance with consumer interests. The main effect on
1362
the consumer is on milk, which I have already mentioned, and butter and cheese, on which there may be increases of about 2p a pound depending on the market situation. Otherwise the effect is expected to be less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. on the cost of living. It will be postponed for bread and flour until July next year. This is a very considerable benefit. Even when everything is taken into account the total effect in a full year is expected to be less than 1 per cent. on the cost of food and less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. on the total cost of living.
Finally, I am glad to say that the representative rate for the Irish green pound has been devalued less than the United Kingdom green pound. In consequence, it will be possible to end the monetary charges which are at present applied to agricultural trade between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. This will be very welcome both to farmers and to traders, particularly in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Jopling: I thank the Minister for making this statement and should like to begin with a crucial question. Will this action be enough to halt the decline in the livestock industry?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, it will not.
Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that he is once more bringing forward proposals that the food-producing industry has already denounced as too little and too late? Does he recall that, when he made an announcement in the House on 23rd July of a 5 per cent. devaluation, we told him both before and after the event that it would not be enough to stop this decline? Is he aware that events have proved us right and that, in milk-producing alone, 270 producers went out of business in August and 300 in September?
Will the right hon. Gentleman get it into his head that this sort of patchwork policy is just not good enough and that the industry must have long-term policies and not these hand-to-mouth, short-term, shoring-up jobs which in the end will damage the interests of the housewives of this country?
Finally, is the Minister aware that last week we announced that, unless he did something quickly, we would put down

1363
a motion to reduce his salary? In future, will he start thinking ahead rather than waiting for us to light a bonfire under him before he does anything?
Mr. Peart: I had hoped that the hon. Member would be more constructive. It is true that people hoped that I would get a 10 per cent. change in the green pound last July. I was able to get 5 per cent. This time, I have got 5·8 per cent.—altogether, 10·8 per cent. in a short period. I believe that this will be welcomed by the farming community despite what hon. Members say.
The hon. Member should appreciate that this is an uncertain and difficult period for everyone in the country. The battle against inflation is of concern and must be won, but I have kept the dairy farmers ahead of inflation—
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Nonsense.
Mr. Torney: Shut up. The hon. Gentleman knows nothing, anyway.
Mr. Peart: Let me give the figures. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) should listen. The average guaranteed price for the whole of 1975–76 will now be over 40 per cent. above the price set at the 1974 annual review. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will realise that the effective guarantee for the winter months from 1st November will be over 50 per cent. above the level of guarantee fixed at the 1974 annual review. I believe that this award is a positive contribution, and it has been recognised as such in the Council of Agriculture Ministers.
Mr. Torney: I should like to welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and to congratulate him. While helping the milk industry, which needed help, he has man aged to keep the increase in price to an absolute minimum. That is very good. Does he agree that much of the situation in the farming industry, particularly dairy farming, cannot have been caused since February last year when this Government came to power, but that many of the troubles caused must be due to actions or lack of action by the Tory Party? I should like to say that it is a great pity—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members want to ask supplementary questions.
1364
I cannot allow this to go on very long. I hope that questions will be short.
Mr. Peart: It is true that the decline in production took place a long time ago. In fact, the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) knows that his own Government encouraged people to go out of the dairy industry.
Mr. Geraint Howells: On behalf of my Liberal colleagues and myself, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his efforts in Luxembourg and on achieving a little extra financial aid for the agriculture industry. Does he not agree that stability and confidence will not be restored in the agriculture industry until producers have adequately recouped their costs like any other industry in Britain? Does the Minister agree that the conversion scheme has had a disastrous effect on milk production in this country and that the sooner we do away with the green pound the better it will be for all concerned? Will he give an assurance that he will do everything in his power to retain the guaranteed price system that we have in this country?
Mr. Peart: I am grateful for what the Liberal spokesman has said on this matter. This must be seen in the context of what I achieved for the livestock industry. I have stated over and over again that the variable premium system has been welcomed by the industry and has strengthened the market. That has been appreciated by the farming community.
Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will firmly resist the present efforts being made in the EEC to dishonour the agreement reached on New Zealand dairy products last spring?
Mr. Peart: I raised the position of the New Zealand dairy industry in a speech to the Council of Ministers yesterday. There was no major debate, but they have taken note of what I said. I am watching the situation very carefully. The promises made at the summit meeting, and what was agreed there, must be fulfilled.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since every forecast the Minister has made to this House, since taking office 18 months ago, about the results of his policies has been proved wrong, will he tell us whether he believes that the measures he has just announced

1365
will check the decline in the milk industry? Is he aware that, as the Transport and General Workers' Union is finding that some of its members are losing their livelihoods through the closure of milk factories, it is now belatedly backing a sane policy? Does the Minister honestly believe that the measures announced today will check the decline in milk output and the increases in imports, with the flow of currency across exchanges which that implies?
Mr. Peart: It will make a contribution. I wish that hon. Members would praise what we have done instead of talking down the industry.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Answer the question.
Mr. Watt: While congratulating the Minister on his comparative success in Europe, will he not agree that the year-round figure of 40 pence a gallon which I gave him in July is the only sort of figure that will inspire the confidence of milk producers? Does he realise that it takes more than one man's lifetime to establish a dairy herd and that his Government have done more to destroy what has been built up in many lifetimes than any other Government in history?
Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. If the hon. Member reads a very fine article in the Economist this week, he will see a graph which shows that the trend has been continuing for a long time. I hope that the measures which I have anounced today will help to arrest it.
Mr. Hardy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dairy farmers were in despair and that this was little eased by the electioneering gimmick of a small price increase during the February 1974 General Election campaign, but that he has now given them more than enough to meet their increased costs since then? Could he increase the assurance that dairy farmers need to feel at the present time by saying a little more about the possibility of increases in their returns in 1976, if this should be necessary, so that they can maintain the supply not only of liquid milk but of milk for manufacture.
Mr. Peart: We shall look at returns and the state of the industry and consider
1366
this in the annual price review negotiations which will be starting soon.
Mr. Biffen: Referring to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), will the Minister indicate how, in the light of the new financial arrangements for the dairy industry, he thinks dairy herd inseminations for December and January will compare with the corresponding months of a year ago?
Mr. Peart: I believe they will show not as much improvement as they should show. What I have done cannot stop the drift downwards in a month or two, but for the long term we have shown that we believe that the dairy industry must be adequately supported. I am glad that the announcements have been welcomed by the spokesman for the Liberal Party.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I congratulate him on the statements he is continually making because they prove the correctness of the speeches he made for many years when he said that if we joined the Common Market food prices would rise drastically? Is he aware that telling pensioners and those on fixed incomes that a halfpenny, a penny or twopence on eggs, butter and cheese represents only a fraction of a per cent. on the cost of living is no help to them at all? Does he realise that the people of this country are getting fed up with the large increases in the cost of living, particularly in food prices, that he is having to announce almost monthly from that Box?
Mr. Peart: The figures I gave show that the effect on the consumer is quite small. Producers deserve a fair and adequate return and that is what our measures will achieve.
Mr. Molyneaux: While welcoming the reduction in the differential between the British and Eire green pounds, can the Minister indicate when we might expect the two pounds to be in parity?
Mr. Peart: I cannot say. There is still a difference. This will have to be considered at another meeting.
Mr. Swain: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his statement, may I ask whether he is aware that there are

1367
two very important products of the agricultural industry that he has not mentioned? Is he aware that there has been a serious shortfall in potato production in this country and that there will be a serious shortfall in brassica production? When shall we have to start importing brassica and potatoes and at what cost? As my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the prices the consumer has to pay, will he introduce legislation to give himself some control over retail prices?
Mr. Peart: We have started importing and stopped exports of potatoes because of the situation created by bad weather conditions. I will look at the points raised by my hon. Friend but I could not deal with them in Luxembourg. They were not on the agenda.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I do not wish to attack or praise him on a subject which I do not understand, but can he tell me, as the hon. Member for a city constituency—if there is likely to be a shortage of milk—whether the Milk Marketing Board is wasting money by spending a great deal on advertisements on television urging people to drink more milk?
Mr. Peart: I cannot intervene in the operations of the Milk Marketing Board. It is an independent body. I believe that the award which I have announced today will help to restore confidence.
Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dilemma which he faces and which he cannot solve, as has been shown by questions today, is how to reconcile within the Common Market structure the needs of the producers and the needs of the consumers? The problem is that the amount of money required to fulfil an expansion programme would add too much to food bills to be tolerated by the people of this country. Will he back the Germans and others who wish to oppose the present policy of cut-back in Europe and ensure that we continue an expansion programme in Britain?
Mr. Peart: I believe that the balance between consumer and producer, in the Market or out of the Market, has to be decided by individual Ministers and Governments. I am certain that even within the Market we can protect the consumer if necessary.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is necessary.
Mr. Peart: I have said that in this case I have done that. I have given a price increase to the producer. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) knows that a stocktaking debate is to take place in the Community, when the German attitude will be discussed. The Germans took the initiative on this matter and we have supported them in examining how the common agricultural policy is working. On Friday there will be a major debate in this House which I hope will be attended by all hon. Members who feel as strongly as does my hon. Friend about the agricultural policy.
Mr. Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there can be no increased production, no stopping of the slide out of milk, unless there is price parity between British farmers and European farmers? Will he also agree that it is no good defeating inflation but having no food for the British consumer?
Mr. Peart: I accept that and I agree with the hon. Member's comments about prices. Obviously we are still in the transitional period but the day will come when we shall need to have a full Community price.
Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the price of mutton and lamb is not protected at the moment by intervention buying? Can he say whether the question of a régime in mutton and lamb was discussed at the Council and what was the Government's attitude to that?
Mr. Peart: No, it was not discussed. There has been a proposal on these lines. The French and the Irish are anxious to have a new sheepmeat régime. I would rather see what the proposals are before commenting on them.
Mr. Marten: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that on the previous occasion—not this one—he asked for a 10 per cent. devaluation and got only 5 per cent.? That was the implication of what he said. If that is so, does it not show how we are increasingly losing control over our national farming affairs? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this new scheme will allow more milk to go into manufacture?
Mr. Peart: I was asked by people—including the Opposition and the NFU—to go for 10 per cent. I had discussions with my colleagues before I went to Europe and I was able to go to 5 per cent. [Interruption.] I have said that. Now we have got another 5·8 per cent. I believe that in the end this will help cheese and butter production and will arrest the decline.
Mr. James Johnson: In view of the obscurantist spleen of the official Opposition, may I ask my right hon. Friend who on earth speaks for the farming community in the United Kingdom? Is it the professional negotiators of the NFU or is it the amateurs on the Conservative benches who farm a few acres, who speak in this fashion today?
Mr. Peart: It is the Minister and the Government who make the decision and who negotiate in Brussels.
Mr. Crouch: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me my thanks at least for the result of his fight in the Commission to get a good and proper return for the milk producer in this country, which will enable him to remain viable? Will the right hon. Gentleman follow this action by dispelling any feeling which might arise from his statement that he is being complacent and has reached the end of the road in his attempts to make the farmer viable? Is he aware that he has not gone far enough?
Mr. Peart: I am grateful for the hon. Member's remarks. I am not complacent. I said so in my statement. At the annual review we have to discuss the dairy prices in the Community on a Community basis.
Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all fair-minded people will believe that a £50 million investment in the dairy industry at this time is substanstial? Will he confirm that the crunch will take place in the price review? In his conversations with the NFU, will he explain to it that some sensitivity on its part towards the needs of consumers might help to mobilise public opinion behind an expanded investment programme for agriculture?
Mr. Peart: I accept my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope that the NFU leaders in
1370
Scotland, England and Wales and Northern Ireland will accept that this is a reasonable agreement.
Mr. Boscawen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that to behave in this way, throwing a lifeline at the dairy industry every three months or so, is no way to treat a great industry? Does he not agree that what is needed is a longer-term look at the needs of the industry aimed at giving it a long-term price structure so that it is able to plan ahead for two or three years? Does he not agree that looking only two or three months ahead is useless?
Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that the price negotiations have taken place annually. We cannot help that. I believe that we should have a long-term strategy.
Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the clatter of empty cannon from the Conservative benches and instead accept that working farmers, particularly milk producers, will take the deal which he has brought back from Luxembourg as evidence of my right hon. Friend's good faith and belief in the White Paper "Food from our own resources"? May I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about the funding of this expansion and to recognise that all the money needed to obtain an expansion in home food production cannot possible come from the consumer, particularly at this time?
Mr. Peart: I believe, as I said in the White Paper, that the funding must come from the market.
Mr. Whitelaw: Would the right hon. Gentleman not think it wise to ignore some of the rather minor political points made by some of his right hon. Friends and instead recognise what is undoubtedly the fact about our farming industry—and what my hon. Friends have said all along—namely, that the long-term confidence of the industry is at risk? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman realises this. I hope that he will confirm the importance of accepting this for the future and will agree that short-term policies will not do when long-term confidence is needed.
Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks more constructively than does his neighbour, the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr.

1371
Jopling). I agree that we need a long-term strategy. I explained this in Carlisle at the annual meeting of the Cumbria NFU. It is my intention to pursue this long-term strategy.

BILL PRESENTED
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS
  Mr. Secretary Shore, supported by Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Secretary Mulley, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Mr. Eric Deakins, and Mr. Hugh Jenkins presented a Bill to make provision for payments by the British Film Fund Agency to the National Film Finance Corporation and for the application of those payments by that Corporation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 235].

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Ordered,
  That the Child Benefit (Northern Ireland) of General Grant) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee OP Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]
  That the draft Local Government (Reduction Order 1975 (S.I. 1975, No. 1504) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]
  That the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1503) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]
  That the Fishing Vessels (Survey and Inspection) (Fees) Regulations 1975 (S.I., No. 954) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

    Clause 1
    REPEALS OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 8, at beginning insert "in".
    3.55 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With that amendment, we shall discuss Lords Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, after "union" insert "subsections (3), (4) and (5)" and Lords Amendment No. 3:
    After Clause 1, in page 1, line 21, at end insert new Clause A:

  RIGHTS OF WORKERS AGGRIEVED BY EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION FROM TRADE UNION
  "A. After section 5 of the principal Act, there shall be inserted the following section:
  "Rights of workers aggrieved by exclusion or expulsion from trade union to apply to tribunal.
  5A.—(1) A worker aggrieved by his exclusion or expulsion from any trade union, branch or section may apply to a tribunal appointed for the adjudication of such grievances for a declaration that he is entitled to be a member of that trade union, branch or section.
  (2) The tribunal shall be appointed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress and the Chairman of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service and shall have an independent person with legal qualifications as chairman and two other members.
  (3) The procedure at such a tribunal shall be in accordance with rules made by the Trades Union Congress and approved by the Council on Tribunals.
  (4) If at any time there is not existent such a Tribunal and such rules, such an application may be made instead to an industrial tribunal in accordance with industrial tribunal regulations.
  (5) Where any such declaration has been made either by the tribunal or by an industrial tribunal as the case may be and has not been implemented by the union, branch or section concerned within any period specified in the declaration or if no such period is

  1373
  specified within a reasonable period, the worker may apply to the High Court, or in Scotland, the Court of Session for an injunction, interdict or such relief (including compensation) as the court may think just and expedient in all the circumstances of the case.
  (6) Nothing in this section or section 2(5) above shall prejudice or in any way reduce the common law rights of a person who has applied to join, but not been given membership of, or who claims to be and to remain a member of, or who has been expelled from, a trade union.""
  Mr. Foot: The amendment would leave unrepealed the statutory right of a worker to seek remedies against arbitrary or unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a union which is contained in Section 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. It would, however, replace the present provision for complaint to an industrial tribunal by provision for complaint to a special tribunal, appointed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Chairman of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and with the TUC, with a legally qualified independent chairman. That would be a statutory tribunal on the same lines as the voluntary independent review committee which the TUC proposed to establish.
  The right of the worker to seek redress through the High Court if the tribunal's declaration is not implemented and the legally defective subsection (5) of the original Section 5 are retained by the amendment.
  I shall try to deal succinctly with this grouping of amendments not because I do not regard the matter as of great importance but because we have had debates upon it on numerous occasions over the past 18 months. I dare say that some recollection of those debates will be forthcoming today. But I imagine that it would be for everyone's convenience that we should not lengthen the debate unnecessarily. I hope to set a good example in that respect.
  4.0 p.m.
  The amendment passed in the other place makes a concession to the view which the Government have put in the past. It recognises that unions have an overriding interest in the question of exclusions or expulsions and that any supervisory body should be constituted in a way that takes that into account. However, the amendment still does not meet the basic Government objection to this
  1374
  proposition, which we have put throughout—the objection in principle to the intervention of the law in the internal affairs of trade unions. We have also pointed to industrial relations consequences, in practice, which we believe could be serious, and we have drawn attention to many legal defects in the amendment.
  We believe that the law is an inappropriate and ineffective instrument to intervene in decisions by unions about whom they are to take into membership. Even if it were acceptable in principle that the law should tell democratically constituted bodies whom they must take into membership in this way, it would be ineffective in practice in achieving the desired result. We have worked on that principle.
  The Government have said throughout, from the beginning of these discussions—I have said it many times—that they are convinced that it is necessary to have safeguards for individuals in a closed shop situation. We have said so on many occasions, and that view derives from a common sense approach to the situation. It was underlined in the Donovan Report, which discussed the matter in this context. We wished to secure a method by which the individual would be protected from injustice and to ensure that he would have a remedy.
  The possibility of High Court injunctions and legal sanctions is likely to produce ill-will and a bad industrial relations climate, hostile to the achievement of those objectives. Therefore one of the reasons why we prefer the method which the Government suggested for this matter is that the individual will be better protected by the provisions which we suggest than by the legal provisions which were introduced in the other place.
  Apart from failing to deal effectively with the objective it sets out to achieve, the amendment has other undesirable and irrelevant legal side effects. For example, subsection (5) aims at preserving common law rights of action. That is unnecessary. Such common law rights as exist are in no way threatened. But, worse, the proposed amendment is harmful and may undermine long-standing legal immunities in respect of the purposes of the unions, and the legality of their rules, which are in restraint of trade, given by Section 2(5) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations

  1375
  Act. This point has been put to the Opposition on a number of occasions in this House and in the other place, but I do not believe that it can be said that they have made any adequate reply.
  What we have proposed to deal with the problem—and what the TUC has proposed—is the establishment of an independent tribunal or review body set up by the TUC after consultations which were proposed in the Bill as we sent it to the other place. The establishment of that body marks a new development in trade union history and it is one of considerable importance.
  It does not mean that the trade union movement is seeking to keep everything within its own boundaries. Indeed the trade union movement as a whole will have surveillance over the operations of the individual trade unions in a way that has not existed before. In these circumstances that is right, and it can also have a good effect in ensuring that the individual trade unions seek to avoid injustices to individuals and to avoid reference to the courts from arising. That development should be welcomed by the House.
  We would be most unwise to say that the independent review body proposed by the TUC does not mark a great step forward. We should also be careful not to take legal action which could prejudice the operation of this new independent review, which has a better opportunity of providing safeguards for the individual than has the legal machinery. If the legal machinery or the absolutely thorough reference to the tribunals were to be incorporated, such as is envisaged in the Lords amendment and such as the Opposition have sometimes supported, and if that procedure were to be brought into operation to protect the individual, it is unlikely that the individual could be reinstated, once having been arbitrarily excluded or having lost his job. Very often reinstatement is the aim which the individual wishes to secure, and under the arrangements of the independent review, the possibilities of reinstatement are much greater.
  I ask the House to reject the Lords amendment, so as to give a good start to the independent review procedure proposed by the TUC. I believe that that is much the best way of dealing with the
  1376
  problem, as it may exist. It is the best way of setting about it. If we found that that procedure did not work, we would have to seek other means of protection for the individual, but I think that it is much better, when we have a new proposal for dealing with it, mat we should give that proposal the best possible start. On those grounds I ask the House to reject the Lords amendment.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: My right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has asked me to express his apologies to the House for his absence today. A long-standing engagement involving other people has taken him abroad.
  For well over a generation the desirability of the closed shop has been one of the most hotly contested issues in industrial relations. Its supporters and opponents alike have been equally vehement. If that controversy could be stilled, a major source of national contention would be removed.
  During the debates on this Bill and its predecessor, the Opposition substantially altered their previous position in the hope that this end could be achieved and some sorely needed common ground reached. However great our reservations about the closed shop, we were prepared to accept that it should be permissible, subject to some limited but crucial qualifications. Those qualifications were that proper safeguards should be provided for minority unions, for freedom of expression, and for the individual who is treated unfairly by a union or who has conscientious objections to joining one.
  The Government refused to accept those qualifications and have thereby rejected the golden opportunity of achieving a reasonable compromise between our support for the rights of the individual and the strong feeling within parts of the trade union movement that the closed shop is an industrial necessity.
  Accordingly today we find ourselves supporting the amendment made in another place which is designed to protect an individual against unfair exclusion from a trade union or unfair expulsion from it. There is no dispute between the parties as to the need for protection in a situation of this kind, especially, but not only, in a closed shop situation.

  1377
  Today membership of the trade unions affects, and is likely to continue to affect, a man's livelihood, and is one of the most crucial employment matters. The only dispute between the parties is as to the form in which protection from unfair exclusion and expulsion could take.
  That does not mean to say that we consider that the trade union movement is guilty of massive abuses of power. We have made it clear in all the debates that we accept that this problem affects only a limited number of individuals, but both in principle and in practice it is none the less important. The need for the protection of the individual was recognised by the Donovan Report, which recommended that statutory backing should be provided for a review body. The need was recognised by the Government. The strongest suggestions were made early last year and since that the Government would handle the matter by legislation.
  Contrary to the fears of the Secretary of State, I do not propose to rehearse the various hints and implications in what he and his colleagues said in suggesting legislation. It was foreshadowed at one stage during the passage of the Employment Protection Bill. But nothing came. Finally, because nothing had come, Section 5 of the 1974 Act was passed handing the matter over to the industrial tribunals.
  On Second Reading of this Bill, the Secretary of State spoke of the TUC proposal for a review committee. As we pointed out, we had distinct reservations about that as a basis for proceeding in this matter. Nevertheless, contrary to what the Secretary of State has implied in his suggestion of an attempt to subvert the proposal for a TUC review committee, the Lords amendment, which we attempted to bring about in Committee in this House, is an effort to build on it and to give it a very limited degree of statutory backing.
  Mr. Sidney Bidwell: It is hard for those of us brought up in the trade union movement, with various views on the concept of the closed shop, to hear a member of the legal profession denigrating the principle of the closed shop in any shape or form, since his profession is wholly tied up with a closed shop.
  1378
  When the House was debating the Industrial Relations Bill for so long, all these matters were considered and the Conservative Government then retreated on the basis of a fair compromise on the question of the agency shop. In the end, in the Industrial Relations Act we got the stupidity of people having to pay into a charity, and other such nonsense.
  Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has had the benefit of being here longer than I. But one of the advantages of coming to these matters slightly more fresh is that one can perhaps avoid refighting the battles of yesteryear and try to produce a genuine basis for moving forward. That is what we are trying to do. The basis for this debate is the very narrow one of whether it is right that the proposal which we have reluctantly accepted as being the working proposal—to deal with a problem which the Secretary of State concedes to exist, and has done so for 18 months—should be dealt with purely by a trade union review committee or given a modest degree of statutory backing.
  The Secretary of State is familiar with the concept of a statutory back-up for what is claimed to be fundamentally voluntary procedure. He may recall that small piece of legislation last summer, the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act, which sought to implement the principle of a modest degree of statutory back-up for what was portrayed as an essentially voluntary policy. Rather in the same way, this modest Lords amendment seeks to do exactly that.
  I am seeking to persuade the House that the differences between the procedure proposed by the Secretary of State and the one which the Lords have enacted are wholly in favour of the Lords amendment for the implimentation of the principle and purpose which I have thought we all shared. There are four essential differences between the right hon. Gentleman's proposal and the Lords amendment.
  4.15 p.m.
  The first of these differences relates to the appointment of the review committee. The right hon. Gentleman proposes that it should be done by the General Council of the TUC and that there should be consultation. We believe, with the Lords, that the tribunal should be appointed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the General Council of the TUC and

  1379
  the chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. We do not believe that to be an unreasonable suggestion in the light of the reasonable maxim that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done.
  I have no doubt that if the TUC were left to this matter on its own it would operate in complete good faith, but an individual who feels aggrieved, however unjustly, will hardly be satisfied to deal with a body which appears to have been appointed by the parent body against which he is himself appealing. To suggest that it should be the other way round is surely an elementary protection for the basic principle of justice.
  Let us imagine what an outcry there would be from the Labour Party if we suggested that questions of unfair dismissal should be determined by a review body appointed by the President of the CBI. Yet it is a precise parallel, and the change we suggest is wholly in the direction of fairness and justice.
  The second change proposed is equally innocuous—that the procedure of such a tribunal shall be in accordance with rules made by the TUC but approved by the Council on Tribunals. The Council on Tribunals is not a judicial body. It is an administrative body, and it has not been subjected to criticism, as far as I am aware, from the Labour Party. We are not even suggesting that the Council on Tribunals should make the rules on procedure. We only suggest that it should exercise its basic rule as a watchdog on procedure and principles of justice and have the right to approve the rules made by the TUC. That is hardly a Draconian or hostile suggestion. It is not difficult to propose if one is sincere in desiring this limited but genuine problem to be dealt with fairly.
  The third difference between the procedure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman and the one we support is that we would make provision for what will happen until the tribunal is set up, or if it is not set up. That may seem rather unreal or unnecessary until one reads the words of the Minister of State on 17th December 1974 in Committee on the Bill. He said:
  "This tribunal should be in existence early in the new year, possibly before we have completed our Committee proceedings. We are
  1380
  not racing the TUC to see who can get there first, but the TUC intends that nothing we do in this Committee will hold up its progress towards the early establishment of this appeal tribunal."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17th December 1974; c. 62.]
  This is 15th October 1975 and the appeal tribunal has not been appointed yet. We believe that, even if it is thought that industrial tribunals are an unsatisfactory forum, until this new body is set up they should fill the vacuum, which in any case ought not to exist.
  The fourth difference between what we support and what the Secretary of State would have done relates to the important matter of enforcement. He advocates a proposal which has no means attached to it whereby to ensure that the findings of the review committee are ever implemented in any shape or form.
  We are asked to believe that the unions will implement the proposal and leave it at that. I readily concede that in the overwhelming majority of cases the unions will implement the findings of the review committee.
  However, it was not some dire Right-winger but an extremely distinguished libertarian law lord, Lord Salmon, who in another place pointed out the possibility of a union falling into the hands of those who were not prepared to implement the recommendations of the review committee and who said that there should be some fall-back procedure. If the Secretary of State is right in saying that the unions will obey the recommendations of the review committee there will be no problem. If the right hon. Gentleman had read slightly more carefully the Lords amendment he would have appreciated that if that happens none of the judicial intervention which he regards as anathema would come into existence. The implementation of the review committee's award would occur, and that would be an end of the matter.
  Therefore, subsection (5), to which objection is taken, arises only in the situation in which the review committee's recommendation is ignored. In that limited situation, in which ex hypothesi an individual has been wronged and has been found to be wronged and in which he has been adjudged right but in which his union will not implement the recommendation, is it too much to ask that he should have recourse to the courts? That

  1381
  is hardly a Draconian power. It is a reasonable one to apply as a last fallback position.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman expand a little on the enforcement aspect? No doubt he will recall exactly what the legal paraphernalia set up under the Industrial Relations Act attempted to do in the Goad case. All the legal enforcement for which the hon. Gentleman could have wished was used in that case but it failed miserably.
  Mr. Brittan: There is a difference there because—to speak candidly about the political realities—the climate has changed It is plain from this that what is being re-introduced is not the National Industrial Relations Court that has caused such ill-will. In the fall-back position which we are envisaging, in which the trade union movement's own review body has been defied, I would anticipate—I hope with confidence and conviction—that the Trades Union Congress would support its own body and would not encourage any kind of action other than action in support of its own body. That is an important difference.
  Another important difference is that recourse would not be to the National Industrial Relations Court but to the ordinary courts of the land. If the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) and the Secretary of State were to say that in no circumstances should the union member have recourse to the courts of the land, I could understand their approach, but this is not the position
  taken by the Secretary of State. Again and again during the passage of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman has said that nothing will take away the rights of the individual under common law to apply to the courts. He is there implying that if the common law rights are followed and an order is made by the courts, the trade union movement will happily accept the order. If the trade union movement is prepared to accept enforcement by the courts of the land of common law rights, surely it will be prepared to accept the enforcement by the courts of the land of a finding of its own review committee. That is irrefutable.
  The Government have proposed a solution to a limited problem but it is a matter of principle and, therefore, is of crucial importance. We have considerable reservations about it. However, we sought in this place unsuccessfully—others sought elsewhere successfully—to provide the minimum degree of backing to the proposal put forward by the Secretary of State in order to make it work and to give it effect.
  It would be a tragedy if a matter that has been so controversial for so long could not be stilled at last by the acceptance of a modest further degree of protection for the rights of the individuals whom we have all been sent here to serve.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided:Ayes 281, Noes 235.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments disagreed to.

Clause 2

  AMENDMENTS OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT
  Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, leave out lines 43 to 47 and insert—
  ""(5A) For the purposes of this Act employees are to be treated, in relation to a
  1386
  union membership agreement, as belonging to the same class if they have been identified as such by the parties to the agreement, and employees may be so identified by reference to any characteristics or circumstances whatsoever."".
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

  1387
  This was a Government amendment in another place. At that time, and when we discussed the issue previously, the Opposition welcomed the intention behind the amendment and even went so far as to assist in its wording.
  The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the meaning of the term "identifiable class" when that term is used in the definition of a membership agreement in the Bill for the purposes of identifying groups of employees who are to be covered by or excluded from a union membership agreement by the terms of that agreement. The amendment has the advantage of overcoming a serious issue which has been raised. This is whether "identifiable class" would have to relate to the circumstances of the employment of the members of that class, including such matters as the job they do or the premises in which they work and whether the way in which the union membership agreement as originally defined in the Bill would have prevented a union membership agreement from being made in a way which could have excluded people on grounds of their age, reference to their current union membership, or any grounds of conscientious objection which were agreed between the parties to the membership agreement.
  The amendment also meets a further point which has been in question—namely, whether the common characteristics by which a class of employees are identified in a union membership agreement, or the circumstances used to define that class, could be any circumstances or characteristics that those employees happened to have in common, or whether it was the case that to identify the class by characteristics would mean that the characteristics had to be agreed by the parties to the membership agreement and, therefore, included in the agreement.
  The amendment makes clear that the characteristics for identifying the class must be agreed between the parties to the membership agreement. As the amendment clarifies where clarification may be required, and makes more flexible the provisions of a membership agreement that can be made between the parties to the agreement, enabling them to accommodate it more nearly to the wishes and desires of those working in the establishment who will be affected by it, I believe
  1388
  that the amendment should be welcomed by the House, and I accordingly commend it.
  Mr. Barney Hayhoe: The Minister of State has characteristically explained the amendment clearly and has made it clear that the Opposition had some hand in its being brought on to the statute book. This matter started off with a Government amendment. We were worried about its wording and we put an interpretation upon it which I do not think the Government had thought could be put upon it. However, they realised that the points we were making were fair and redrafting has now taken place. This is a fairly technical matter, as those who have been listening to this short debate will have appreciated. Nevertheless, it is important. We are grateful to those in another place for having made this clarification. I think it right for the House to agree with them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 3, line 4, at end insert:
  "and after the word 'belief' there shall be inserted the words 'or reasonable grounds of conscience'."
  Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The effect of the amendment is to provide that it is unfair to dismiss an employee who is not a union member in a closed shop if he objects to membership of any union whatsoever on reasonable grounds of conscience. This is an issue which we have debated many times on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I have been involved in those debates on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, the Employment Protection Bill and during the passage of this Bill.
  Although the Government have given some careful consideration to this matter on many occasions as a result of issues raised in the debates to which I have referred, the Government's position has remained consistent. We have taken the view that the statutory qualification as regards the rights of unions and employers to make closed shop agreements is a matter which should be of a very limited nature. We are considering how far the

  1389
  law should provide an individual with the right to remain outside a union membership agreement on grounds which up to now the Government have resisted and will continue to resist. The question is also raised of the proper rôle of an industrial tribunal in upholding the right of an individual to remain outside a union membership agreement.
  4.45 p.m.
  As I say, the Government's position on this issue has been fairly consistent, but those who have opposed the matter and have sought to widen the protection of the individual, as they would put it, or, as we would say, to open up grounds for attacking the basic position of the membership union agreement and achieve exclusion from it on individual bases, have produced a number of formulae by which to widen exclusion or exception.
  It might be interesting to reflect quickly on some of the formulae we have discussed for widening what is probably best defined as the "conscience clause", In Committee on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act we debated the definition of religious belief, political opinion, the code of conduct of a profession of which an individual is a member and whether an individual has reasonable grounds for refusing membership of a closed shop union. We also debated yet another possible formula involving religious belief or conscience, or, alternatively, political opinion, professional codes of conduct or deeply held personal conviction as amounting to grounds for objecting to joining a specific closed shop union rather than any union whatsoever.
  On Report on the 1974 Act we debated not only a repeat of the formula to which I have just referred but another one—namely, reasonable grounds for being a member of a particular trade union. That was the one which was carried. On the Amendment Bill we also discussed a number of possible ways of tackling this matter, including placing in the Bill words to the effect that an employee may object to membership of a union on the ground that his work is different from that of the majority of union members or because he considers membership of a union is likely to hamper the discharge of his duties relating to the dissemination of news. That obviously takes in the position of a news-1390
  paper office, which we may debate at some length at a later stage.
  We also debated on Report a much shorter formula—namely, religious belief or conscience regarding membership of any union whatsoever. In another place a number of other formulations have been debated, including substituting conscience for religion or having reasonable grounds in terms of conscience, the formulation that was carried.
  It is clear that the House has not only examined the matter in broad principle but has examined very carefully the principle that should be embodied in this legislation. Although there is considerable controversy on the wider exclusions, we start from the position that there is broad agreement on the grounds for excluding the religious objector. We believe that those grounds reflect the importance which the overwhelming majority attach to the right to worship freely and to practise the tenets of an individual's faith. That leads to a tolerance on the ground of religious belief which does not attach to any of the other formulations which would seek to widen exception to the closed shop provision.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will the Minister of State tell us where we shall find the words "religious belief" defined? How does the law define religious belief?
  Mr. Booth: I do not know where we can find the definition of religious belief. I know that the practice of tribunals which I have examined is such as to relate it to the established practice of the members of one particular faith, and normally the members of one particular Church. In practice that is not a matter that has proved a difficulty for the tribunals which have had to deal with these narrow grounds. Tribunals in other circumstances have had to deal with slightly wider grounds, but certainly not on the issue of the closed shop provision in relation to conscience issues.
  Therefore, I believe that our previous debates both in Committee and on the Floor of the House have failed to define conscience in a way which is broadly acceptable to hon. Members. The addition which is proposed by the Lords amendment of the word "reasonable" makes the issue no clearer, and I would

  1391
  argue that it could make it considerably more ambiguous.
  If one is judging what are reasonable grounds of conscience there are at least two different approaches that one can take to the matter. If the word "reasonable" was put in, I suppose that a tribunal would have to decide whether this House was of the view that there were two hurdles. The first is that a man had to establish that he was doing it on the basis of conscience. The tribunal would then have to judge whether his ground of conscience was reasonable, which postulates the idea that there are unreasonable and reasonable grounds of conscience. I should not like to be a member of the tribunal that had to take the decision on that basis. I am advised by those who have greater knowledge of the operation of tribunals than I have that it might be viewed in an entirely different way and that "reasonable grounds of conscience" might be thought by tribunals to mean something much wider than "grounds of conscience". That, of course, would be the case if tribunals took the view that conscience, of itself, was a thing which could operate only in very narrow circumstances.
  Therefore, I believe that we should create a difficulty if we followed the amendment and gave the tribunal that test to make, as well as having to make up its mind whether we were intending, by attaching the word "reasonable", to qualify or widen what we had previously at least agreed to on the basis of religious grounds.
  I wish to make the plea that when we debate the matter we keep a certain perspective. Some of the contributions which have been made in previous debates on this issue have been in terms which suggested that the vote the House took on this issue would determine immediately, almost once and for all, whether people would be in or out of employment in closed shop circumstances. Of course, hon. Members who have studied this issue know that that is not the case. They know that the overwhelming majority of trades unions and employers in this country have traditionally preferred to conduct their collective agreements and bargaining arrangements on a basis other than the closed shop basis and that it is only in about 20 per cent. of cases that
  1392
  any closed shop arrangements are made. They also know that where these arrangements are made they are normally to cater for particular groups of employees. Therefore, the main determinations which in practice decide whether a person is in or out of a closed shop are those made between unions and employers.
  We are dealing with the narrow, but nevertheless important, ground of whether we interfere with the rights of those trade unions and those employers which make these agreements to include a certain category or categories of people.
  I take the view that the inclusion of these words in the statute would make the law unclear, render closed shop agreements invalid to an indeterminate extent and render employers liable to pay compensation in circumstances which they could not accurately foresee. It would encourage vexatious complaints from employees who think that they could have a right but would find too late that tribunals think otherwise. Above all, it would create uncertainty and fertile ground for industrial relations difficulties.
  We do not argue that there may not be grounds for excluding persons, other than religious believers, from closed shop agreements. However, we believe that we have ensured by the provisions of the legislation that there would be no legal impediments to any such exceptions, but that those exceptions should be worked out and agreed upon by those whose consciences and beliefs are involved, so that a workable basis for toleration is established. If this amendment were carried it would be likely to have the opposite effect. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject it.
  Mr. Brittan: It is not surprising, faced with basically so unattractive an argument as the Government are bound to deploy, that so astute a debater as the Minister of State should have felt obliged somewhat inadvertently, no doubt, to distort the consequences of the passage of the amendment.
  It simply is not right to say that if this amendment were passed it would interfere with the rights of employers or trade unions to conclude certain types of closed shop agreements. It does not stop employers or trade unions from concluding any kind of closed shop agreement,

  1393
  however unreasonable it may be, and there may be those behind me who would say "More's the pity". It does not do anything of the kind. It is not an attack or a limitation on the closed shop in any way. It does not give an individual the right to employment or the right to remain in a trade union.
  As the Minister of State appreciates, all the amendment does is to prescribe the circumstances in which a person can obtain compensation not from a trade union but from his employer if he is dismissed. It provides that a man shall be entitled to compensation if he is dismissed because he genuinely objects to being a member of a trade union on reasonable grounds of conscience. That is a matter which bites not on the trade unions but on the employers. It is perfectly open for a trade union and an employer, if they so wish, to engage in negotiations which lead to a closed shop agreement with no exceptions or exclusions at all. If the employer does that, and the trade union compels or persuades him to do so, the only person who suffers from the passage of the amendment is the employer.
  Therefore, the question is narrower and one in which the rights of the individual are not pitted against the closed shop agreement, but, if anything, are pitted against an employer. We believe that in this situation it is right that the protection of the individual against unfair dismissal or, more strictly speaking, the compensation that he can obtain if he is unfairly dismissed should not be confined to those who object to joining a union purely on grounds of religion. It is surely small-minded, illiberal and insensitive to say, in effect, that only those who object to union membership on grounds of religion should be compensated and that those who object to it on grounds of conscience should not be compensated.
  There are two questions that should be asked in considering this matter, and they are the framework within which I suggest we should consider the problem. First, is conscience or conscientious objection of sufficient importance for it to be singled out so that if a person is dismissed because of it he can obtain compensation? Secondly, is conscience a workable test to apply, or is it an unworkable one as the Minister of State would have us believe?
  Mr. John Lee: As religious grounds have been accepted for a long time as being an acceptable reason for not being a member of a trade union, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us an example of what might be termed non-religious "reasonable conscience", because these are, as he knows, very imprecise terms.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Brittan: I was about to consider whether it was a workable criterion. I thought I was indicating that there were the two tests.
  I suggest that conscience, if it exists, is indeed of sufficient importance to be singled out in this way. By definition, "conscience" involves beliefs held not merely on the balance of convenience after mature consideration of competing practicalities, but on the basis of a fundamental belief. I suggest that should be respected.
  It seems strange that the Labour Party, which has not been exclusive in its sympathies over the years, should so narrowly confine its sympathies to those who have a religious belief. Many people do not have religious beliefs. None the less, they may sincerely, genuinely and even passionately have beliefs on grounds of what they would regard as conscience.
  I come then to the question whether this is a workable test. Is it possible to determine whether a person has a genuine and reasonable belief on grounds of conscience? Before considering that, let me deal with the problem of the word "reasonable". If the only objection by the Government to the amendment passed in another place was the use of the word "reasonable" and if they had no objection to the insertion of the words "on grounds of conscience", it would have been open to them at this late stage in these deliberations to have proposed an amendment deleting the word "reasonable". That would have dealt with the problem in a satisfactory way.
  I do not think that the real issue between us is whether "reasonable grounds of conscience" is difficult to determine. The grounds of conscience are not. The real question is whether grounds of conscience are sufficiently important to deserve protection and whether they can be applied. There is a lengthy history of their application in circumstances

  1395
  which may differ radically in content from the circumstances we are now considering but do not differ in principle.
  First, concerning the content of the matter that we are discussing, the words used in the Donovan recommendations on this question are "conscientious objection", not "religious objection". When Donovan was reporting on this matter he certainly thought that "conscientious objection" was the appropriate term and that it was not right to confine it to the narrow ground of religious objection.
  Secondly, hon. Gentlemen opposite will perhaps be more familiar than I am with the fact that until recently the Labour Party had a conscience clause, not a religious clause, which enabled or permitted Members to disagree with policy on grounds of conscience, not just on grounds of religion.
  Finally, on the history, hon. Members will know the analogy which has been drawn with conscientious objectors in time of war. When this matter was raised in Committee some hon. Gentlemen opposite got heated and said that it was monstrous to compare membership of a trade union with being compelled to fight for one's country. Many of us would agree that there are significant differences between the two. The question is not whether there are differences between the two, but whether the application of the conscientious test is viable. We had a situation where in time of war, when the country was fighting for its life, it was still thought appropriate to have a tribunal before which people could appear and persuade the tribunal, if they could, that they should be exempt from military service, not because they had a religious objection, but on the wider ground that they had a conscientious objection. Thousands of cases were determined in which people had conscientious objections, some of which were not religious in foundation.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite may recall that when we debated this matter on another occasion quotations were made from a book by a gentleman who had been a member of a conscientious objectors' tribunal in which he talked of the differing bases of objection. Some were founded on what could properly be regarded as an organised religion, but others were founded on questions of
  1396
  conscience. Those tribunals looked into the question whether a person genuinely had a conscientious objection. That is not a particularly novel matter for courts or judicial tribunals of other kinds to consider. Every day courts in this country have to consider whether somebody is being honest, sincere, genuine and telling the truth. Therefore, from the point of view of a conscientious objection to military service, a tribunal, in considering whether a person really held the belief that he claimed was so profound and fundamental, was engaging in a task which was difficult and delicate, but not unique in the operation of normal procedures in judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
  Mr. Lee: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the conscientious objection tribunals were faced with persons who raised objections which could be termed the test of moral acceptability of war. Is not that a different situation from somebody who may conscientiously object to being a member of a trade union because of a purely political objection to trade unions? He might be a supporter of Mr. Edward Martell or somebody like that. Does the hon. Gentleman regard that as a proper ground?
  Mr. Brittan: The fact that the hon. Gentleman has drawn that distinction shows that it is possible to draw a distinction between a political and a conscientious objection. If it is possible for the hon. Gentleman to draw that distinction, it is possible for a tribunal to draw it.
  I will explain the distinction. The supporters of Mr. Edward Martell would plainly have a political objection. That would, therefore, not be upheld by the tribunal applying this test.
  Taking the example given by the hon. Gentleman of somebody who held views on this question, and on this question alone, that would be the same as a man who had been a member of the Plymouth Brethren. Perhaps he disagreed with the sect, perhaps he had cast off his beliefs in many of the principles of the Plymouth Brethren and was no longer a member of that religion, but kept as a residue of his former beliefs a belief in the particular principle that the Plymouth Brethren held. That would be a belief on grounds

  1397
  of conscience. It would not be a political belief, nor would it be a religious belief. It would be a fundamentally held belief which any person who was committed to principles of individual liberty should surely support. Indeed, it is not only a question of "should support". I suggest that we would be bound to support it because the terms of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is binding on this country, state that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Conscience and religion, as far as that legally binding document is concerned, are not identical. They are similar, equally important, but different rights which ought to be protected. Therefore, if in a legal instrument of that kind the distiction is drawn, it ought to be drawn in this House. Both are equally worthy of protection.
  I ask the House to approach this matter, which is not subversive of union membership agreements, but at worst imposes a greater liability on employers, in a more large minded spirit of greater generosity, tolerance and breadth of mind than one which confines the protection to the individual who happens to come within a circumscribed and recognised religious organisation.
  Mr. William Small: I intervene for only a few minutes as an ex-convener of shop stewards with practical experience on the shop floor.
  When the expression "Plymouth Brethren" was mentioned, I recalled a certain incident. We have entered into the Continental shift system, which means that there is a demand that everybody should work on a Sunday if needed. If, on religious grounds, a man does not want to work on Sunday, what do we do? Let me give a practical illustration. One such case arose, and my tuba-playing colleague John Boyd of the AUEW was asked to intervene. I am a witness, together with the labour officer, the ICI management, and so on. We had Plymouth Brethren and two men who believed in Zen Buddism. It was a question of somebody not wanting to work on Sunday. I listened to John Boyd praying for the soul of someone of a different religion.
  1398
  I object to the use of the closed shop. There is no such thing. What is needed is a persuasive struggle and the advocacy of shop stewards to get 100 per cent. trade unionism, and not the closed shop, which is the easy way out.
  In terms of general practice, is it an unfair dismissal if a man refuses to work in a normal way in a situation where shift work has been accepted which includes working on a Sunday?
  Mr. David Madel: In opening the debate on this amendment the Minister of State reminded us that we have gone round this topic again and again both on this Bill and on the Employment Protection Bill, and no doubt we shall find a way of considering it again when that Bill comes back from the other place.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that during the Committee stage in the other place on the Employment Protection Bill the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) about Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not properly answered.
  The Government's answer was given by Lord Jacques, who said at column 206 of the Official Report for 23rd September 1975 that he would have preferred this question to have been answered by the noble and learned lord the Lord Chancellor but he, Lord Jacques, would be brave enough to give an opinion. That indicates that the Government are thinking a little more about this and perhaps want more time before giving a definitive opinion on whether what they propose is in collision with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is still time for the Solicitor-General to come to the House today and give an opinion, or to do so later, and I think that we are right to stress that a full answer has not been given to the point about Article 9.
  I am sure that in the many debates that we had on this subject the Opposition convinced the Minister that we were not seeking to pave the way for free riders by changing the rules about why someone may not belong to a trade union. I think the Minister is aware that Vauxhall Motors is now in the process of bringing about a 100 per cent. union

  1399
  shop. A draft agreement is being undertaken which provides that everbody must join a union, but there is a let-out on religious or other reasonable grounds and it says that objectors to joining a union will first face a joint committee of their own plant and that if no agreement is reached each individual case will be heard by Vauxhall's joint negotiating committee.
  5.15 p.m.
  I repeat that that is not a final agreement, but a draft, but as it has been published in the Press it invites comment when we are discussing this matter. But that which has been agreed appears to indicate that an employee may, after appeal, be allowed not to join a union on reasonable grounds other than religious beliefs, which would indicate a conscientious objection. I stress that there has to be an appeal, and I think that the appeal procedure will be eminently satisfactory.
  I ask the Government to wait and see how this agreement works out. Why not give it a year? Let us put in the amendment which their Lordships have suggested and see whether the conscientious ground is fairly applied and whether the unions find such an alteration intolerable. In view of the Government's links with the TUC, I am convinced that if the amendment goes through and the unions find that many people are trying to get by and become free riders the TUC will quickly approach the Government and say that the Bill must be amended. What I am pleading for is some time, because I think that union appeal committees will find it in their hearts to allow people not to belong to a union on other than religious grounds.
  What will determine the Government's attitude, and what ought to determine it, are the practical examples from plants and factories such as Vauxhall's as to how the arrangements are being carried out. What we are asking for is time. I am convinced that if in a year's time the Government can produce evidence of a charter for free riders having come about because of the amendment we shall consider the matter again, but in view of the cautious way in which unions and management are proceeding in this matter at Vauxhall's, and in view of the evidence at
  1400
  other factories, I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment being made to the Bill and see how we go for a year or 18 months and then consider whether it is necessary to make an alteration to what is proposed.
  Mr. Stan Throne: The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) referred to conscience and beliefs and was anxious to show that beliefs extended far beyond the range of religious beliefs. I recall a definition given some time ago of ideology. It was defined as a pattern of beliefs. Most of us have an ideological position, which emerges from time to time in this House, based upon a set of beliefs, and it seems to me that, against that kind of background, if we were to pass the amendment it could give rise to an ideological position derived from the acceptance by an employee of an employer's right to exploit an employee and the employee's decision not to join a trade union because of that belief. That would be legitimate, given the view taken by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, and, therefore, anybody who did not want to join a trade union could argue that he was against doing so on reasonable grounds of conscience.
  This is the nub of the whole question, because it is unacceptable to trade unionists that a worker can argue that he will not join a trade union, faced possibly with the continuing struggle against an exploiting employer, on ideological or conscience grounds. That is unacceptable to the majority of trade unionists, and it seems to me that on that basis the House must reject the amendment.
  Mr. Tebbit: When the Minister opened the debate he must have forgotten the events of yesterday, and the legislation which this House enacted then, when he criticised their Lordships for producing legislation which would possibly lead to difficulties in its implementation. I should have thought that that was a criticism that might well have come from the other end of the corridor rather than this.
  I take the view, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) did, that we should add the conscience clause. Religious belief is far too narrow in the way that it is put into the

  1401
  Bill, although the definition of "religious" seems to be becoming a little wider. The Oxford Dictionary says that "religious" means
  "Imbued with religion, exhibiting spiritual or practical effects of religion, pious, God-fearing or devout."
  That seems to have gone a bit by the board in the minds of some education authorities which, for example, wish to include instruction in Communism within the time given to religious instruction, so perhaps we are all becoming broad-minded about these things. None the less, we probably think that the religious ground is still a rather narrow one.
  My hon. Friend and others have referred to what happened during time of war. I should like to read a very short extract from the official History of the Second World War. In relation to conscientious objection it states:
  "Objections to taking up arms, it was recognised, might spring from a personal conviction of its wrongfulness, and should not be brushed aside or overruled just because the attitude of mind and the reasoning behind it seemed to those who thought otherwise immature or perverse."
  That was the thought in time of war. The quotation continues:
  "What did matter was the genuiness with which such beliefs were held, and sincerity must be the criterion on which claims for exemption from military service were adjudicated."
  That was good enough for many people at a time when this country was facing a possible invasion and being overrun by a foreign invader. Why cannot we be as liberal now as we were then? What is it that the Government really fear about taking as wide a view in 1975 as we were able to do in 1940? According to the Minister, it is that employers would be caught in a vice between the awkward man's conscience and the power of a trade union, and that the employer would suffer. Would that we had heard that argument a few weeks back, when we were worried about the employer caught in the vice between the trade union asking for more than £6 a week and the Government which prohibited the employer giving more than £6 a week. There was no worry then about the employer's unfortunate position. That was hard luck. But today we have the Minister sympathising with the employer. The Minister knows, and we know, that he is taking
  1402
  this line not to protect employers but to protect unions.
  I doubt whether many people outside this House today would think that it is the trade union which requires protection against the individual's conscience. Certainly in the past trade unions required protection, but I do not really believe that the massive power of the trade union movement today requires to be protected against a handful of those who are regarded as the awkward squad in the eyes of the Government and their supporters.
  What is the potential size of the problem? None of us can know. Clearly, it would not be a bad idea to let the Bill run in its present form and see what happens, but it is instructive to look back and see what was the size of the problem when the grounds of conscientious objection were drawn as widely as they were during the war.
  I looked at the official History of the Second World War to find how many conscientious objectors there were. A total of 59,192 men and women asked for relief as conscientious objectors, and 12,204 were removed from the register of conscientious objectors, so that during the whole of the war only 47,000 were confirmed as conscientious objectors.
  Are we to say that there are more people today in Britain who would say that their conscience prohibited them from belonging to a union than there were people 35 years ago who said that their conscience forbade them from taking up arms? If that is so, it is a queer commentary on how people regard unions. Or are we saying that we could not afford to have 45,000 or 50,000 men and women who were granted the right not to belong to a union? Are the unions in need of protection, with their 10 or 11 millions of members, from a mere handful, a few tens of thousands at the most? I do not believe so. If we could afford to exempt 47,000 people in our struggle against the Nazis, surely the unions can afford to go without a few people in their struggle against the employers—if indeed they still see life in terms of a struggle against the employers.
  There have recently been many voices coming from the Secretary of State's past, asking him to go back to his previous and rather broader views of the rights of the individual as opposed to the rights of the

  1403
  establishment. All we can do from this side of the House this evening is to echo those voices and ask him to regain the steel that he used to have in standing for conscience against the establishment, even though the power of the establishment is no longer held by the same people against whom he pitted himself in the past.
  Mr. Bidwell: Following the theme of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), I suggest to him and to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, although I may disagree with him in other respects, has to face the realities of the British industrial scene and industrial relations.
  The hon. Member for Chingford was, I believe, an airline pilot. I assume that he belonged to his appropriate trade union, and (hat he did not think very much of those who were not in their appropriate trade unions, and who enjoyed for nothing all the advantages and the benefits of the very fine trade union of which he was a member. I do not know what feelings were engendered by such people, or whether that union has any "nons". Perhaps airline pilots are too intelligent to have a situation in which there are non-unionists.
  We have to consider the background and the realities of the British industrial scene, and we cannot go by the industrial experiences of other countries. That is where the previous administration slipped up, in trying to borrow from the United States.
  Mr. Tebbit: Let me make it plain to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and to the House that I was a member of my union. Indeed, I was a shop steward—although we did not use such terms in BALPA—for my union. I believed in 100 per cent. membership. I worked for 100 per cent. membership. I would always do so. I also maintained that the day anybody declared a closed shop I would resign from the union, because I respected the right of conscience, and I would rather have a few free loaders, in the interests of conscience, than make the mistake the other way.
  Mr. Bidwell: That was a very long intervention, and I join issue with the hon. Gentleman and with other hon. Members
  1404
  opposite on the question of conscience. I do not know what has taken place in Committee, and I have not followed very closely the arguments made there on both sides. The hon. Gentleman has attempted to make a comparison in particular with the facilities for conscientious objection during the course of war. It was not a question whether one was to be conscripted to fight, but whether one was to be conscripted to die, so there is not an exact parallel. But, even in regard to the substance of what he was saying earlier, the tribunals did not only determine whether or not one had to go into the armed forces. The tribunals determined what one did if one was not in the armed forces. It does not, therefore, fall within the realms of an exact parallel, which is what the hon. Gentleman leading for the Opposition has tried to make out. There is just no comparison at all between the two situations of the emergencies of the war and the normal decent requirements of the British industrial scene.
  I imagine that the hon. Member for Chingford, as a representative of his fellow workers, would not have thought very much of a non-unionist who took all the benefits without contributing to the funds of the union and to what is necessary in order to build trade unionism.
  5.30 p.m.
  Apart from the pre-entry closed shop, apart from the print industry where union control of the supply of labour produces what is perhaps the closed shop par excellence, that situation does not prevail in industry generally. The trade union movement has always aimed to achieve 100 per cent. unionism by the efforts of the workers. Here we are not considering normal practices, however. We are considering, instead, how the law should be fitted into normal practices and the normal mood of tolerance in the trade union movement.
  I know a great deal about this matter because before I came to this House I was a tutor and organiser with the National Council of Labour Colleges, and for two years I was London regional education officer of the TUC. I was a school director at summer schools which brought together trade unionists from all sections of the movement. I know, therefore, the true spirit that exists in the

  1405
  movement. When the London bus workers achieved almost 100 per cent. trade union membership they were prepared to tolerate the genuine non-unionist who had a religious objection to membership. Whether or not the law is applied, therefore, the organised workers in genuine free trade unionism—not in company trade unionism—will continue to display that attitude and approach.
  Trade unionism will grow in Britain and the workers will continue to adopt the traditional practice of tolerating the odd man out who for genuine religious reasons cannot join a union. However, law or no law, they will not tolerate the fly-by-night, the blood-sucker who will not pay his whack. The Opposition should not waste the time of the House but should instead learn to face up to the realities of industry.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: I agree that a great deal of time has been wasted on this matter, but that has not been all on one side of the House.
  As I understand it, the clause has nothing to do with whether a man should belong to a union or should refuse to belong on grounds of reasonable conscience, and I wish that some hon. Members had understood that fact. The argument is quite simple. It is whether, if in a closed shop situation an employee decides, on grounds of reasonable conscience, that he will not belong to a union and the employer dismisses him, he can sue the employer on grounds of wrongful dismissal. All the arguments about whether a man should be made to join a union are irrelevant to the debate. The question is whether he should have the right to sue his employer for unfair dismissal.
  Mr. Booth: I must concede the point raised by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) that the strict legal effect of this clause bears only on whether a person dismissed in a certain situation has the right to unfair dismissal compensation. The whole of the debate on the issue of the closed shop which arose from the original Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 hung upon the influence which such a provision would have on the formation of closed shops. The contention was that we have so amended the unfair dismissal provisions in order to take account of the closed shop that we risk biasing the law
  1406
  in favour of those who seek to make closed shops, and it was argued that what we have done is not even-handed.
  Our argument was that it was absolutely impossible to marry the legal existence of a closed shop with unfair dismissal legislation which would give anyone dismissed for refusing to comply with conditions of a union membership agreement the right to sue his employer for unfair dismissal. We may have had differing formulations about how the right to unfair dismissal may run. That was where the whole thing started. However, whatever degree of exemption one believes there should be, one must accede to the view that the employer is entitled to say that he would not complete a union membership agreement with a union in circumstances where by doing so he considered himself liable to a considerable amount of unfair dismissal compensation.
  Most trade unionists recognise that fact, and that is why those few recent discussions which have taken place on whether closed shop agreements should be made or not have reflected this consideration. In the narrow area where that has happened there has been something of a moratorium on the discussion. Now, however, the argument is being based on a whole number of different grounds as well. It is being contended that by having a closed shop we are in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. That has been suggested in this debate—
  Mr. Brittan: By whom?
  Mr. Booth: That was my understanding of one of the references—not, I accept, by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, because he used that reference to show that the law can distinguish between religion and conscience. My recollection, however, is that it has been held that the closed shop should be regarded as illegal on the ground I have described. However, it can in no way be held that the closed shop conflicts with the rights that exist by virtue of Article 9. A person is free to take the view that he need not join a trade union in order to continue to work. There are millions of non-trade unionists who work in this country in firms which are organised, where unions are recognised. We are not arguing the contention, therefore, that

  1407
  a non-unionist does not have the right to work. We are arguing on the very narrow ground of the extent to which reasonable grounds of conscience to object to a trade union should affect a person's right to unfair dismissal compensation, and the effect of that situation on the formation of closed shop agreements.
  The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) suggested that I have argued that trade unions require protection in this matter. That is not the way I face the issue. I do not argue the issue on the grounds of trade unionists requiring protection. What I argue is that the tolerance traditionally shown in this country and the respect that the majority of unionists and employers have for the objections of individuals, which have resulted in the overwhelming majority of places where unions organise not pursuing a closed shop policy, can work fully only if the law leaves open to them the possibility of giving the widest possible range of union membership arrangements.
  If we take that away by determining in an Act of Parliament that people must receive unfair dismissal compensation if certain forms of agreement are made, the legislation must have an influence. The decision will not be completely free. This matter is worked out in practice most satisfactorily by the union membership agreements which are made in this situation, and to widen the grounds of unfair dismissal compensation must logically influence far more the position of employers as well as unionists in recognising unions and determining how to recognise them. Those who realise the good practice and good sense and tolerance which prevail in industry will reject the amendment.
  Mr. Brittan: With permission, I should like to answer what the Minister of State has said. It may do him little harm in this debate, but it is profoundly subversive of the Government's position in matters that we shall discuss later. He argued up hill and down dale, usually down dale, in Committee that the Government's policy towards the closed shop was neutral. Now he tells us that by the wording of these provisions they seek to influence the formation of the closed
  1408
  shop. If that is so, their attitude cannot be called neutral.
  There is all the distinction in the world between influencing the formation of the closed shop in this respect and the more general question of influencing the categories of people to be included or excluded—particularly journalists. Employers will be affected by the question whether they have to pay compensation and whether or not they form a union membership agreement.
  If one is talking about large groups of people, employers are seriously at risk if they have to pay compensation for dismissing people who have refused to join a union. When we are talking about a tiny number of people, as we should be in the case of those who object on grounds of conscience, employers will not be so influenced. It is open for a union, if it feels that it must, to press for a union membership agreement with no exceptions. If that happened, the employer would bear the brunt of the proposals that we are seeking to support and would have to pay compensation for people who have been dismissed for refusing on grounds of conscience. That is why it is a fair distinction to make and one which we support.
  This is not an attack on the closed shop but an extension of the rights of the individual on grounds of conscience. It is significant that in considering the points so powerfully made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) and others, the Minister of State has not dealt with the fundamental question why conscience cannot be distinguished.
  It can be distinguished. The Minister's point about the European Convention is a complete red herring. He conceded when I intervened that I at least was using that example only to show that international legal instruments accepted that a distinction of legally binding quality and validity could properly be made between conscience and religion.
  That is what we seek to do. We remain unpersuaded that their Lordships got it wrong. I would seek to persuade my hon. Friends to support what their Lordships have done.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 254.

  Division No. 336.]

  AYES

  [4.27 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Allaun, Frank

  Buchan, Norman

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Anderson, Donald

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Archer, Peter

  Campbell, Ian

  Davies, Bryan (Enfleld N)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Canavan, Dennis

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashley, Jack

  Cant, R. B.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Carmichael Neil

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Atkinson. Norman

  Carter, Ray

  Deakins, Eric

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Cartwright, John

  Delargy, Hugh

  Bates, Alf

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Dempsey, James

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Doig, Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dormand, J. D.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Concannon, J. D.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Boardman, H.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Dunn, James A.

  Booth, Albert

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Eadie, Alex

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Corbett, Robin

  Edelman, Maurice

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Edge, Geoff

  Bradley, Tom

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cronin, John

  English, Michael

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Ennals, David

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cryor, Bob

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Luard, Evan

  Roper, John

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Rowlands, Ted

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Ryman, John

  Flannery, Martin

  MacCormick, Iain

  Sandelson, Reville

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McElhone, Frank

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Ford, Ben

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Forrester, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Madden, Max

  Sillars, James

  Ginsburg, David

  Magee, Bryan

  Silverman, Julius

  Gould, Bryan

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mahon, Simon

  Small, William

  Graham, Ted

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Snape, Peter

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Marquand, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hardy, Peter

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Harper, Joseph

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Stott, Roger

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Meacher, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mikardo, Ian

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Hatton, Frank

  Millan, Bruce

  Swain, Thomas

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Molloy, William

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Moonman, Eric

  Thompson, George

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tinn, James

  Huckfield, Les

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Tomlinson, John

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Tomney, Frank

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Newens, Stanley

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Noble, Mike

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hunter, Adam

  Oakes, Gordon

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Irvine. Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Ogden, Eric

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Ward, Michael

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ovenden, John

  Watkins, David

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Owen, Dr David

  Watkinson, John

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Padley, Walter

  Weetch, Ken

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Weitzman, David

  John, Brynmor

  Park, George

  Wellbeloved, James

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Parker, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Parry, Robert

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  White, James (Pollok)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pendry, Tom

  Whitlock, William

  Judd, Frank

  Perry, Ernest

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Kelley, Richard

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Lambie, David

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Lamond, James

  Reid, George

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Woof, Robert

  Lee, John

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Mr. Thomas Cox and

  Litterick, Tom

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Mr. David Stoddarl.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rooker, J. W.

  Loyden, Eddie

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bell, Ronald

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Alison, Michael

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Brittan, Leon

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Arnold, Tom

  Biffen, John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Awdry, Daniel

  Blaker, Peter

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Baker, Kenneth

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Budgen, Nick

  Banks Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Beith, A. J.

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Burden, F. A.

  1384

  1385

  Carlisle Mark

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hurd, Douglas

  Price, David (Eastlelgh)

  Channon, Paul

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Churchill, W. S.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Raison, Timothy

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  James, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover a Deal)

  Clegg, Walter

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

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cockcroft, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinsiead)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Cope, John

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rifkind Malcolm

  Cordle, John H.

  Jopling, Michael

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Costain, A. P.

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Critchley, Julian

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Crouch, David

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutslord)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Knox, David

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lamont, Norman

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lane, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Durant, Tony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shepherd, Colin

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shersby, Michael

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Silvester, Fred

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sims, Roger

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Ian

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Loveridge, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Farr, John

  Luce, Richard

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Fell, Anthony

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McCrindle, Robert

  Speed, Keith

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  MacGregor, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Stainton, Keith

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Fox, Marcus

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stokes, John

  Freud, Clement

  Marten, Neil

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Fry, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Peter

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Maude, Angus

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gilmour, Sir John (East File)

  Mawby, Ray

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Goodharl, Philip

  Mills, Peter

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Moate, Roger

  Trotter, Neville

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Molyneaux, James

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Grant Anthony (Harrow C)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  van Straubenzee, W. R

  Gray, Hamish

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Grimond. Rt Hon J.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Viggers, Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Wakeham. John

  Grylls, Michael

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hall, Sir John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wall, Patrick

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Walters, Dennis

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mudd, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neave, Atrey

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hannam, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, John

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Neubert, Michael

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Newton, Tony

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nott, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hawkins, Paul

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Hicks, Robert

  Pardoe, John

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson and

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Mr. William Benyon.

  Hordern, Peter

  Penhaligon, David

  Division No. 337.]

  AYES

  [5.46 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Allaun, Frank

  Flannery, Martin

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Archer, Peter

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Madden, Max

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Magee, Bryan

  Ashley, Jack

  Ford, Ben

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

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

  Marks, Kenneth

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marquand, David

  Bates, Alf

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Bean, R. E.

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Ginsburg, David

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Gould, Bryan

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gourlay, Harry

  Meacher, Michael

  Bishop, E. S.

  Graham, Ted

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Boardman, H.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Millan, Bruce

  Booth, Albert

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Hardy, Peter

  Molloy, William

  Bradley, Tom

  Harper, Joseph

  Moonman, Eric

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Hatton, Frank

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Buchan, Norman

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Newens, Stanley

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Noble, Mike

  Campbell, Ian

  Henderson, Douglas

  Oakes, Gordon

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hooley, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

  Cant, R. B.

  Horam, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Carter, Ray

  Huckfield, Les

  Orbach, Maurice

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Ovenden, John

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Owen, Dr David

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hunter, Adam

  Padley, Walter

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Park, George

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Parker, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  Janner, Greville

  Parry, Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Corbett, Robin

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Perry, Ernest

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  John, Brynmor

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Cronin. John

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Radice, Giles

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Reid, George

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

  Judd, Frank

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lambie, David

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lamond, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Roper, John

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dempsey, James

  Lee, John

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Doig, Peter

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Ryman, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Dunn, James A.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Litterick, Tom

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Edelman, Maurice

  Loyden, Eddie

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Edge, Geoff

  Luard, Evan

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Sillars, James

  English, Michael

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Silverman, Julius

  Ennals, David

  MacCormick, Iain

  Skinner, Dennis

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  McElhone, Frank

  Small, William

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McGuire, Michael(Ince)

  Snape, Peter

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—
  "( ) After Schedule 4 to the principal Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE 4A

  REFERENCES TO SECRETARY OF STATE REGARDING UNION MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENTS
  1. Where a union membership agreement has been made as defined in section 30 of this Act and any independent trade union, being neither a party to the agreement nor specified for the purposes of or in relation to the agreement, claims that it should reasonably have been so specified, then the independent trade union may refer the matter to the Secretary of State in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this Schedule.

  2. Upon a reference to the Secretary of State under the preceding paragraph then—

  (a) the union membership agreement shall cease to be effective in relation to any employee who is for the time being in membership of the independent trade union which referred the matter to the Secretary of State until the conclusion of the proceedings on the reference; and

  (b) the Secretary of State may after consulting with the parties thereto vary the terms of the union membership agreement and may also specify for the purposes of or in relation to the agreement the independent trade union who referred the matter to him.

  3. The Secretary of State may make regulations governing the procedure to be followed on a reference to him under this Schedule and such regulations may contain such supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.

  4. Regulations made under this Schedule may provide for the Secretary of State to refer the matter in dispute or any part thereof to any person or body appointed under any other enactment dealing with industrial relations whether passed before or after this Act on such terms as the Secretary of State considers
  1414
  necessary or expedient and before exercising any power in paragraph 2(b) hereof the Secretary of State shall consider the report of the person or body to whom the matter was so referred.""

  Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This amendment repeats in substance an amendment moved by the Opposition in Committee. At that stage I expressed some sympathy with the aims of the amendment, but rejected it on the grounds that it would create serious practical difficulties and also because I thought at that time that the real problem to which the amendment was addressed could be solved by an amendment to the Employment Protection Bill, rather than along the lines suggested in the amendment at that time.
  The amendment arises from fears that some small, independent unions, particularly in local government, might not be specified in union membership agreements and their members might, therefore, be pressed to join a specified union within the membership agreement. The amendment would enable such unions to appeal to the Secretary of State asking him to vary the terms of the union membership agreement.
  6.0 p.m.
  The union membership agreement under the procedure outlined in the amendment would cease to have effect while the Secretary of State was considering such an application. We are opposed to this way of dealing with the problem because it would enable unrecognised splinter unions to make complaints against membership agreements, appeal to the Secretary of State

  1415
  and prevent those union membership agreements from operating while consideration was being given to their complaint or application.
  This is even more serious than it seems because such unions could do this without having to establish in any way that they were seeking the right to recognition. I hope that I am not stretching the terms of the debate in Committee when I say that the Opposition spoke fairly as if they were concerned about unions that would normally have a right to establish recognition for their members and would intend to do so. This amendment, as it was presented in Committee and as it is now presented, is a useful vehicle for the discussion of the issue. But our real concern is with the position of unions that properly seek recognition on behalf of their members.
  We have discussed this matter with a number of the small professional unions affected. We have examined their views and considered in the light of them the difficulty that could arise if this amendment were carried. Problems might arise in a way which would conflict with the recognition provisions of the Employment Protection Bill. We have met this by amending the Employment Protection Bill to safeguard those unions recognised under the Bill's recognition procedure or those seeking recognition under it. This is achieved by deeming a union recognition, or, a union having applied for recognition to ACAS, for it then to be specified in a union membership agreement for the purpose of any unfair dismissal proceedings.
  If ACAS recommends recognition the protection automatically continues while the recognition stands. There are provisions in the Employment Protection Bill for the variation of recognition. If ACAS does not recommend recognition the protection ceases. By this means of dealing with the problem there will be no conflict between this safeguard and the recognition responsibilities which will rest on ACAS. This method of dealing with the problem meets the substance of the Lords amendment without breaching collective bargaining arrangements or conflicting with the rôle of ACAS in determining recognition issues. I hope that in asking the House to disagree with the Lords it will be understood that it is
  1416
  not because we take the view that the amendment does not address itself to a problem. It is because we feel that we have been able to solve the problem in another and more effective manner
  Mr. Hayhoe: When we discussed a similar amendment earlier in our proceedings it was clear that the Government took the view that something should be done at least to deal with that part of the point being raised which concerned the fears of some small unions over their negotiating rights. They were fearful that if a union membership agreement was negotiated their rights might be overturned in the process. We saw something of this in the Press comment from some of the small craft unions involved in the current negotiations for a union membership agreement at Chryslers. I am delighted that their fears were unfounded and that proper regard is being taken of their position in the draft membership agreements now being discussed.
  When the Lords made this amendment they were right to push their views to a vote. As the Minister of State said, however, the amendments which have now been moved and agreed in another place go a long way towards covering the points at issue and devising a procedure whereby the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service will have a rôle to play. These amendments also go a long way, if not all the way, to alleviating the fears held by some.
  In this debate it is right that we should express the fears of some of the small professional unions which are worried that they may be eaten up by the great blue-collar unions in a closed shop situation. That is a justifiable fear. The changes made to the Employment Protection Bill will help to meet that fear. It is a good thing that the changes have been made. I believe that if the Lords have a chance to reconsider this amendment they may not, as a result of the decisions made concerning the Employment Protection Bill, wish to pursue the matter. At any rate, that is now a matter for another place so long as we do not agree with the amendment. It seems right that the Lords should have that second chance.
  Not all fears will be alleviated following the changes in the Employment Protection Bill. I note that UKAPE

  1417
  is worried about what happened in the water supply industry. It feels that proper regard has not been paid to its position there. Some of the professional staff in local government will feel that the amendments made meet their fears. The Bridlington and Croydon agreements have often been put forward as the magic answer to this sort of problem. They have been blown sky-high by the speech made by a former deputy leader of the Labour Party during the passage of this Bill through the Lords. His speech rather lifted the curtain on how the big boys operate under Bridlington.
  We should not be too sanguine about the difficulties that can occur. Members

  New Clause B

  FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

  Lords Amendment: No. 7, after Clause 2, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—

  "B. After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section:—" Charter on freedom of the press—

  1A.—(1) If, before the end of the period of six

  months beginning with the passing of the Trade

  5

  Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1975,

  there is agreed among parties including employers of

  journalists, or employers' associations representing

  such employers, editors or editors' organisations, and

  trade unions representing journalists, a charter containing

  10

  rules of conduct for employers, trade unions,

  editors and other journalists on matters relating to

  the freedom of the press, the Secretary of State shall

  lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of that

  charter.

  15

  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above,

  matters relating to the freedom of the press include

  (a) the rights of editors and other persons

  exercising editorial responsibilities to discharge

  their duties free from any obligation

  20

  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

  25

  pressure by industrial action;

  (d) the rights of journalists not to be arbitrarily

  or unreasonably excluded or expelled from

  membership of a trade union.

  (3) If no such charter has been agreed as mentioned

  30

  in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall,

  after consultation with the Press Council and such

  of the parties referred to in that subsection, such

  organisations representing workers, and such organisations

  representing employers, as he thinks fit,

  35

  prepare in draft a charter containing rules of conduct

  designed to secure the rights mentioned in subsection

  (2) above together with such other matters as may

  have been agreed among the parties mentioned in

  subsection (1) hereof, and shall lay a draft before

  40

  both Houses of Parliament.

  (4) If a draft laid under subsection (1) or (3) above

  is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament

  the Secretary of State shall issue the charter

  in the form of the draft.

  45

  (5) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection

  (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in

  accordance with subsection (3) above, may be revised

  from time to time by agreement between such parties

  1418
  of unions can sometimes be treated as a parcel in bargaining between one union and another. Their rights are not always fully taken into account. The procedure being built into the Employment Protection Bill on this narrow issue of recognition will help even in that situation. Accordingly, I welcome it. In giving that welcome I must say that of necessity it means that we must not push support for the Lords. We should allow them to reflect on the matter in the light of the changes that have been made to the Employment Protection Bill. We shall not, therefore, seek to dissent from the Minister of State's proposition.
  Question put and agreed to.

  as are referred to in subsection (1) above, and the

  50

  Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised

  charter before both Houses of Parliament.

  (6) If a draft laid under subsection (5) above is

  approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

  the Secretary of State shall issue the revised charter

  55

  in the form of the draft.

  (7) On issuing a charter or revised charter under

  subsection (4) or (6) above the Secretary of State shall

  make by statutory instrument an order specifying the

  date on which the charter or revised charter is to

  60

  come into effect.

  (8) 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

  65

  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.

  (9) In this section—

  70

  "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

  75

  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

  80

  of their employment, or

  (b) any concerted course of conduct

  which—

  (i) is carried on by a group of

  workers with the intention of

  85

  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

  90

  them, is carried on in breach of

  their contracts of employment

  or (where they are not employees)

  in breach of their terms

  and conditions of service.""

  Read a Second time.
  Mr. Foot: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 3, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I shall explain to the House the procedure it is proposed that we shall follow.

  'such matters as the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism, the application of union membership agreements to journalists (and in particular the position of editors) and the question of access for contributors.'.

  together with sub-amendments (a), in line 3, leave out
  'position of editors) and the question of access for contributors'
  and insert:
  'right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union)
  First, there will be a debate on the amendment in line 3, followed by the main block debate on the amendment in line 10, leave out 'rules of conduct' and insert 'practical guidance'.
  With that we shall take the amendment in line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert:
  and the right of editors to commission and publish any article'.
  and (b), in line 3, leave out 'position of editors)' and insert:
  'right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and pubish any article)'.
  and the amendments, in line 35, leave out from 'containing' to 'and' in line 39 and insert:

  '( ) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a charter

  which is for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him

  liable to any proceedings, but in any proceedings for breach of contract in any

  court between a journalist and his employer or between a member of a trade union

  5

  representing journalists and that trade union, or in any proceedings before an

  industrial tribunal under Schedule 1 to this Act or section 45 of the Employment

  Protection Act 1975

  (a) any such charter shall be admissible in evidence, and

  (b) any provision of such a charter which appears to the court or tribunal to be

  10

  relevant to any question arising in those proceedings shall be taken into

  account by the court or tribunal in determining that question.'.

  and sub-amendment (a), in line 3, leave out from second 'proceedings 'to end of line 7.
  There will be a separate debate on line 40, at end insert:
  '( ) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall define its field of operation.'.
  If the House wishes, there will be a debate on whether the House agrees or disagrees with the proposed amendments.
  Mr. Foot: We are grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Officers of the House for that guidance about the way in which we should deal with this complicated series of amendments proposed to Lords amendments. I am sure that what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, propose will be of general assistance to the House.
  Perhaps I could underline what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said about the immediate debate on the amendment to line 3. Under your procedure the amendment in line 3 will be moved, debated and decided.
  It is true that this amendment, which deals with the question of the Press, has attracted some notice in various quarters of the House and may lead to some later discussion. However, the major debate on that subject can much more conveniently take place when we come to the next amendment, in line 10, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have suggested. I hope that the House will be prepared—I do not say not to agree without debate—not to have the main debate on this preliminary matter, to avoid duplication.
  The question whether there should be a charter, the form it should take, and its status, I should have thought would have arisen within the next amendment rather
  'such practical guidance as is referred to in that subsection'.
  and in line 61, leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert:
  than this one, which is solely concerned with increasing the period during which there shall be an opportunity for the charter to be devised by the parties concerned from six months to 12 months to allow the parties in the industry 12 months rather than six to draw up a charter.
  The point of this amendment is to give the industry more chance to resolve internal differences and to draw up a charter, and thus to lessen the likelihood of the Secretary of State's having to intervene. There has been some criticism. This point may emerge in the later debate on the question whether there should be any arrangement for the Secretary of State to intervene in any circumstances whatsoever. I understand the argument, but I do not believe it is right that we should have that main argument on this amendment. This amendment aims to reduce the likelihood of any involvement of the Secretary of State by ensuring that the parties have a longer time in which to reach their agreement.
  Even if the Secretary of State had to intervene after a year he would still have to consult the two sides of industry. He would be in the position, not formally, perhaps, of some form of arbitrator on disputed points rather than in the position of drawing up his own code—that is, if the parties had come near to reaching agreement, as we might hope they would. But whoever produces the code or charter, it must be acceptable to Parliament. That is the essential safeguard. If the Secretary of State were not able to intervene after the extended period the result might be that no charter will be devised.
  It is part of our argument that the Government think that the charter is a better way of dealing with these matters
  than by legal intervention. That issue will arise in our later discussions.
  I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the amendment. It does not prejudice our later discussions. Further arguments will be put forward. This is merely saying that if there is to be a charter, the House must still decide whether that will be the case and what form it will take, and, if there is a charter, whether the intervention of the Secretary of State should take place after 12 rather than six months.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I think that the House would be wise, and that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members in all parts of the House, to accept the Secretary of State's advice and to take this amendment, as he sugested, without prejudice to the discussion that follows. It means that we shall have a proper debate on the important broad issues involved in this matter. I therefore commend his advice to the House.
  Mr. Foot: I am sure that the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has accepted my suggestion is a good augury for the way in which the rest of the proceedings will be conducted. I am therefore hopeful that as a result of the reasoned attitude which has prevailed in those quarters so readily in the past few minutes we shall make excellent progress.
  Amendment to the Lords amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Foot: I beg to move as an amendment to the Lords Amendment in line 10, leave out 'rules of conduct' and insert 'practical guidance'.
  This amendment may not appear to be a revolutionary proposition. A number of amendments were moved by some of my hon. Friends and others to this proposition and to the other propositions included in our general proposals for amendments to Lords Amendment No. 7.
  The discussion raises the central questions of principle which have been debated fully in the country and the House for a number of months.
  Perhaps I might indicate the way in which I should like to present my first remarks. There may be some remarks to reply to later. However, I should like
  1424
  to set out the reasons why the Government disagree with the House of Lords in its propositions, or the so-called "Goodman" amendments. I shall indicate how the Government think that we should deal with these matters and the Government's attitude to the amendments put down by my hon. Friends. In my first speech I shall indicate our attitude towards them, with this reservation. I shall listen to the case put by my hon. Friends on each of the amendments. I am open to persuasion on the different amendments. We have made no final decisions about them. I hope that my preliminary remarks about the amendments will assist in the discussion. However, as I promised, I shall not make any decisions as to what attitude we should take about their amendments until they have presented their case in the way they wish. First, I shall make a few comments which will possibly assist the debate. I shall come to their amendments later on.
  I should like to make one or two other general declarations so that nobody else nips in to make them for me.
  First, I should like to declare my interest. I have declared it before but it is only proper that I should underline it. I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists for 40 years. That makes me obviously strongly prejudiced in favour of freedom, and especially the freedom of the Press. In that sense I have approached this controversy throughout. I repudiate any suggestion that the Government, myself or my hon. Friends who are associated with me in the Department of Employment have in any sense approached this matter in an attempt to undermine or injure the freedom of the Press. Indeed, the very opposite.
  I believe that if the country and Parliament accept our advice genuine freedom of the Press can be strengthened. That has been our purpose. If the charter we envisage is brought into operation with the support of different parts of the industry, so far from freedom of the Press having been injured, there will be support for freedom of the Press, and those who must operate it, of a stronger nature than we have had before. I repudiate entirely the suggestion that the Bill in any way threatens or is intended to threaten the freedom of the Press.

  1425
  Having said that, it would be absurd for me, having listened to the arguments in Parliament, from editors and all those who have engaged in the controversy, to dismiss their arguments as having been brought forward for factitious or reprehensible motives. I certainly do not say that. I believe that overwhelmingly those who have engaged in the controversy against what we are proposing are also actuated by what they gauge to be the interests of the freedom of the Press.
  I have known Lord Goodman for many years in other connections. He has shown a special interest in this subject. He has associations with the Press, through the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, the editors and various other bodies in the newspaper world. But I am sure that his passionate interest in this subject is not derived from any of those associations. I am sure that it derives from a genuine belief that something wrong is being done which he wishes to resist. I have never questioned his good faith.
  It is on that basis that I seek to refute what Lord Goodman claims, because it is of great importance that the argument should be properly presented. In many cases, the argument, particularly in some of the newspapers which themselves have an interest in the matter, has not been as wisely and rightly put as it might have been. Let us approach the argument, therefore, on a proper presentation.
  I shall not cover the whole ground, for it is familiar to the House. I will merely give a brief retrospect of the background. I shall then underline the reason why the Government regard the Goodman amendments as being imposible for us to accept—indeed, impossible for any Government to accept if they are concerned about the proper management of industrial relations.
  Some people have said that the cause of the trouble is the passionate interest I have in the closed shop. I am not a passionate supporter of the closed shop at all. I was a passionate opponent of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I thought it was very foolish, under that Act, to try to impose upon industry generally the idea that closed shops could be banned. That is not to say that I am in favour of closed shops in particular instances. I think that people should be able to choose. I am opposed
  1426
  to the idea that Parliament can think it wise to lay down rigid rules against closed shops. So far from that assisting the people who want to achieve such an object, there is the opposite result, as experience of the Industrial Relations Act reveals.
  My interest is not a passionate interest in closed shops but that we should put behind us the whole of the unhappy, miserable episode of the 1971 Act. What is being proposed to us in this context is that the Government should retain in the newspaper industry, or at any rate one section of it—the NUJ—and keep applying to it, the kind of provisions applied to industry generally by the 1971 Act, which have now been removed. That is why I am so opposed to the prescriptions from some quarters to deal with these matters.
  It was natural, when controversy arose over the matter, that concern should be expressed about the way in which closed shops or union membership agreements might operate within the newspaper industry once the repeal of the 1971 Act made closed shops legal once again. It is natural that such questions should have been raised. We did our best, in a series of approaches, to ensure that the union membership agreements under our legislation should be as liberal and tolerant and varied as could be arranged. I do not believe that any hon. Member who sat through the discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee on this Bill would deny that the Government have sought in every sensible way they could to make the definition of union membership agreements the best that the country could have in order to assist in our industrial relations.
  I understand also that people might ask, "Are there not special problems associated with the Press with which we should deal in some way or the other? Are there not special fears about closed shops in the journalistic trade?" From such people, proposals came for some form of legislation for dealing with the matter, and this is what we are presented with in the so-called Goodman amendments.
  But the more the Government looked at it, the more they came to the conclusion that it would be most unwise in the newspaper industry, as elsewhere,

  1427
  to try to solve this problem by resort to the law. It was out of that kind of discussion that the proposal for a charter arose—that is to say, instead of Parliament laying down the law as to how to settle these intricate problems, the industry itself should settle them. An initiative in that respect was taken by the NUJ, greatly encouraged by us in the House of Commons, going back to and including the discussion we had on Second Reading—which seems like an epoch ago.
  We encouraged these proposals towards a charter as much as we could. I shall not go into details of what happened subsequently, because most hon. Members are aware of it, but at least, as a result of the discussions in this House and the work by the NUJ for the establishment of some kind of charter, the failure of that first initiative was at any rate postponed.
  In the House of Lords, my noble Friend Lord Houghton applied his ingenious mind to the problem and proposed a charter or code—"charter" is the better word—which could be incorporated in any legislation for legal enactment with no powers of enforcement, such as the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is drawing up in other sectors, and which could be of assistance in dealing with these matters. This would not be a charter laid down by Parliament, but the parties concerned would have the encouragement of Parliament to go ahead with it. That proposal by Lord Houghton was thrown out or overborne by the amendments moved by Lord Goodman, which said, in effect, that such a charter without powers of enforcement was quite insufficient.
  I want to indicate to the House some of the legal reasons—although they touch on other aspects, including political matters—why the Government think that Lord Goodman's amendments are so defective, quite apart even from the main principle. The Government have a number of objections to subsection (8) and subsection (9) of Lords Amendment No. 7 which I must emphasise. These subsections would be deleted if our amendment were adopted.
  Subsection (8) starts with the entirely acceptable statement that
  "No criminal proceedings should lie against any person on account of a contravention of the charter…"
  1428
  But the sting is in the rest of these two subsections:
  "…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…is actionable…for breach of statutory duty."
  The Government are in any case opposed to the use of legal sanctions in these matters. Apart from that, it is a very wide-ranging provision with a number of serious consequences which are difficult to analyse and weigh up at first sight but which would be dangerous. The proposal is that any breach of the charter would be actionable, but the contents of that charter are as yet unknown. Statutory duties, possibly extensive and onerous, would be imposed not by Parliament but by the parties to the charter. That is the proposal not of a wicked Labour Government but of the House of Lords.
  Although Parliament would need to approve the charter in its final state, in certain circumstances it could have little practical control over the contents. It is quite indefensible that the party concerned should be enabled to draw up its own code which would include statutory offences which could be enforceable without Parliament's having detailed scrutiny over them. A charter drawn up for use by industry might well contain provisions in relation to an industrial agreement, but those provisions would not necessarily be suitable for enforcement in the courts.
  6.30 p.m.
  Subsection (8) in Lord Goodman's amendment produces no limitation on the ability of any person who may be affected by a contravention to bring an action for breach of statutory duty. No doubt the courts would take a commonsense approach on some of the more outrageous claims by those affected by breach of the charter. The whole subsection leaves the subject far too vague, and it is not a proper way for the House of Commons to legislate.
  These objections to subsection (8) are strengthened by an examination of subsection (9), in particular of the definition of "industrial action". This is an extremely far-reaching provision. It would seem to deal not only with industrial action in journalism—and action in the courts is not the right answer there—but with action that interferes with the production of goods and services

  1429
  wherever this might occur, provided that the action leads to an infringement of the charter. This means that the provision could well have repercussions in industries outside the Press, or even printing.
  It is entirely wrong to introduce by a side wind provisions which are quite contrary to the Government's policy on industrial relations for industry generally. However, that would be the consequence of Lord Goodman's amendments, if they were placed on the statute book.
  Whatever variations of view my hon. Friends and I may have on other matters, I hope that we can agree that these Lords amendments must be rejected on these grounds. If they were to be accepted we should have written into the legislation something which their Lordships did not intend and which even Lord Goodman did not intend. As I have indicated. Lord Goodman is a remarkable man. He engages in many sophisticated negotiations, but in some matters he is a babe in arms. [Interruption.] He has tabled an amendment which is quite impossible for the House of Commons to accept. Some people may argue whether the House of Lords should retain powers of revision. I am glad that the House of Commons still retains powers of revision. It would be a great error for anyone concerned with industrial relations to believe that Lord Goodman's amendment is acceptable in any way whatever. I hope that there will be no doubt about that.
  I turn to our approach to some of the other matters. In general, the Government's amendments seek, with one or two additions which I shall underline—they are important because they are matters touched upon in the amendments tabled by some of my hon. Friends—to re-establish and reassert the general charter provision originally proposed in the House of Lords by Lord Houghton. In the main, we have not changed the charter. We have sought to make amendments to it. They are complicated amendments in the way they are set out on the Amendment Paper, but they add up to an acceptance of Lord Houghton's proposed code or charter. We have added two or three items to the circumstances in which the charter should be drawn up, which we believe assist the situation and help to alleviate the anxieties expressed in the House by some of my hon. Friends—anxieties which we share. Therefore,
  1430
  there is no objection to incorporating these further suggestions in the amendment that we are making.
  I turn to the circumstances in which the charter should be established. The general terms of the charter should indicate to parties outside Parliament the matters that should be embraced by it. They are set out in the amendment that we have tabled. We have added to the themes and discussions which Lord Houghton specified and which were understood to be embraced in any previous charter. We have added two items which figure in the main charter devised by Mr. Alastair Hetherington of The Guardian.
  The first deals with the position of editors, because there has been much dispute and argument on the question whether editors should be forced to be in unions or closed shops. Secondly, there is the question of contributors' access to the Press, of trying to ensure that there is no interference with the access that contributors, not members of any journalistic union, should have to the Press. Those are the two matters on which considerable concern has been expressed throughout the country and which were raised in previous debates on this subject.
  Under our proposal those two matters would have to be covered in the charter to be drawn up by the parties concerned. Our amendment shows how we have stated that proposition. It is the best way for the House to proceed in order to tackle the matter. Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that we should make those provisions more specific.
  The third amendment deals with the way in which the charter could be cited in evidence and the kind of cases which could be involved. In our amendment to the Lords amendment we considered the kind of cases in which the charter might be cited and we have listed them in the way circumstances have demanded. We have given all the circumstances in which the charter could be so invoked. Some of my hon. Friends believed that by specifying the circumstances in which the charter might be cited in evidence in court we were in some way restricting the way in which it could be cited. That is not our intention. We were seeking to specify and illustrate the ways in which it could operate.

  1431
  We still believe that our words are best, because they indicate the purpose of the operation. However, some of my hon. Friends believe that if we carried their amendments, which cut out the specification of individual instances, and agreed that the charter could be cited in all proceedings, a great change would be brought about. We do not believe that it would make any great change to the proposition. The charter, even without specification, could be cited in other proceedings. I am quite prepared to listen to any arguments that my hon. Friends advance, but if we were to accept their amendment, it would not make much difference to the proposition. However, we are prepared to consider it.
  I turn to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) and others. Although the amendment seeks to clarify or specify the circumstances which should be taken into account when the charter is drawn up, it is carried rather wide. I do not think that it would be possible for the Government to accept the words in sub-amendment (a). The sub-amendment reads:
  "Line 3, leave out 'position of editors) and the question of access for contributors' and insert:
  "right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union) and the right of editors to commission and publish any article".
  We think that that amendment is not acceptable, for the following reasons. First, although my hon. Friends who have tabled it are very concerned with seeking to protect contributors by knocking out our reference to contributors we believe that their amendment weakens the position of contributors rather than strengthens it.
  Secondly, we believe that to write into the charter the words
  "the right of editors to commission and publish any article"
  would carry the matter very wide.
  I am all in favour of trying to protect the legitimate rights of editors, but I do not think that the House of Commons should seek to lay down what may be regarded as a law about the
  "right of editors to commission and publish any article".
  1432
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Let us think about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then answer."] I shall answer.
  I do not want to utter any word of dissent about proprietors. The last time I mentoned proprietors in the House I was told not to drag them into a debate about the freedom of the Press, that it was reprehensible of me to do so, and that it was trying to introduce a note of bias into the discussions. Even the proprietors, whom we want to get to sign the charter and who must be parties to the charter if we are to have the freedom of the Press properly protected, may have some objection to
  "the right of editors to commission and publish any article".
  Certainly it is a novel concept to me. I do not think that Mr. Murdoch gives that power to his editors.
  One of the things that I want to secure—I do not know whether hon. Members opposite want to also—is the charter. We need all the different parties to that. There have been some cases in which the editor is fully protected against the proprietor. In most of those cases the editor is also the proprietor. As far as I know, there has not been much dispute between the proprietor and the editor of the Observer for years. Disputes may crop up again in years to come.
  I do not believe that the words in my hon. Friend's amendment have been thought out very carefully. On second thoughts, I do not think that anyone will think that we could put such a concept into the form that is suggested here.
  I come to another serious objection to the words as they stand. I repeat that what we are seeking to secure is a charter to be agreed between all the parties. So far, one party that has been quite prepared to come forward for such discussions is the National Union of Journalists. There was a period when it looked as if the NUJ or some sections of it would oppose that view. I am glad to see that the ballot which was conducted by the NUJ approved the union's come forward and being prepared to agree to a charter. I hope that the other parties will be prepared to do likewise.
  I do not believe that the best way of ensuring that all the parties come forward to agree to such a charter is by insisting

  1433
  upon these rights in advance, when others have rights, too. Editors certainly have rights. Even proprietors have rights, although I know that the Opposition hate to have it suggested that they should have rights. I am diffident enough to suggest that journalists have rights.
  6.45 p.m.
  To write into the charter at the very beginning that the position of editors is absolutely protected in some way, before we have even had discussions about what the rest of the charter is to contain, is not the best way to go about it if we want to get the charter. All of my hon. Friends want to get a charter. This is the great thing which I hope the Liberal Party is in favour of, too. I hope that some hon. Members opposite will want to have the charter. This is the real distinction between the two sides of the House. Whatever differences may arise in the debate, I hope that nobody will lose sight of the central point, that we want to get a charter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others of my hon. Friends have tabled another amendment on the same subject. Although I do not want to cause any divisions in such a happy band, I am bound to say that it is an improvement on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) and others.
  We considered the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West and others very seriously, of course, but we have to give even more serious consideration to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North and others. As I said at the beginning, I shall not give a final view about it until the amendment has been moved and I have heard the debate.
  If we were to move in this direction, I still think that there would have to be some alteration in the wording, because it has implications that we should write into the charter in advance the particular requirements of editors and that that should not be on all fours with the requirements of other people. In this amendment, too, the position of contributors is not even put on the same basis as that of editors.
  I agree that my hon. Friends have made a genuine effort to ensure that they
  1434
  improved on the previous wording and to assist us in getting the charter started, so I shall listen to the speeches in favour of their amendment in that light. We shall have another opportunity. The House of Lords has its uses. Despite all the difficulties that it may have caused, we have another opportunity and we shall consider the matter after the end of the debate, when I have heard what my hon. Friends have to say about it.
  I stress the central facts of the situation. The amendments bring out these facts. One central fact is the difference between the Government and the official Opposition, Lord Goodman and other Members of the House of Lords in their amendments. We do not believe that the complicated problem of the way in which the freedom of the Press is to be protected can be dealt with satisfactorily by legal provisions, particularly when we are asked to introduce into the law of the land legal provisions directed particularly against one trade union and saying that it is to be selected from all the others as the one to which we deny rights that other unions have.
  I do not believe that that is a tolerable way in which to proceed. The more people think about it the wiser they will believe that the Government have been in their approach. There are a number of people throughout the country who do not believe in the freedom of the Press and who would try to throttle it. There are some in the newspaper profession itself who show scant respect for the freedom of the Press, whether they are proprietors or 57 varieties of Trotskyites, or whatever they may be. There are such people who do not have much interest in the freedom of the Press. If we believe in it genuinely, we must encourage those who are fighting for it and who are determined to sustain it. Contrary to the accusations which have been made against us, that is what we have been trying to do all along. What is more, we are succeeding.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: You have not convinced anyone.
  Mr. Foot: Some of the people who have been convinced are those who are the most important of all—namely, those who work in the newspapers. If we are to have freedom of the Press, that freedom will not be laid down by Parliament,

  1435
  by Conservatives or even by the infallible Lord Goodman. In fact, it will be fought for and sustained by those who work in the Press. That is what we want, and we want to give them every assistance possible by receiving support for our proposals. We shall give assistance to all those in the Press—including proprietors, editors and journalists—who want to sustain such freedom to the full.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I hope that the House will reject the Secretary of State's advice. The freedom of the Press is one of the most important of our basic freedoms, and tonight, by supporting what are called the Goodman amendments, we help to buttress that vital freedom. To vote against the Goodman amendments—that is, in effect, what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for—will undermine Press freedom. The Opposition will well know their duty when it comes to a Division.
  I do not think anyone in the House would challenge the sincerity of the Secretary of State or his deep concern for Press freedom. He felt it necessary to reiterate it this evening, but we accept it. We do not challenge his sincerity or deep concern about unemployment, but it has doubled from approximately 600,000 to 1¼ million during the 18 months of his office. We do not question his sincerity or deep concern over collective bargaining or his comments that a statutory wages policy would be one of disaster and despair, yet in 18 months collective bargaining has at least been partially suspended. Only a political theologian of the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity can still argue that there is no trace of a statutory policy in the Government's attitude towards incomes and wages.
  We do not question the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity or concern about Press freedom, but with that track record the more he protests his concern the more we fear for the precious and vital freedom of the Press which underpins individual liberty and toleration in our free society.
  It is not the right hon. Gentleman's intentions which are at fault, which he spent some time in defending. We criticise the results that we are sure will flow from the actions which he supports.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there are many people in the House who passionately believe in Press freedom who find it difficult to equate that freedom with the fact that most of our daily and Sunday newspapers are owned by millionaires, who have usurped the freedom of the Press and distorted the matter in such a way that it is difficult for the ordinary person to get any rights in relation to the Press?
  Mr. Hayhoe: I accept that some Labour Members hold that view. I have heard it expressed before, but I believe that they are mistaken in expressing it in that form. I hope that the debate will demonstrate the fallacy of that point of view.
  I turn first to the question of whether any legislation on this matter is necessary. Last December, on Second Reading of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, the Secretary of State said "no" in response to that question. He maintained that absurd position throughout Committee and Report. Many will recall the inelegant and somewhat uncharacteristic phrase that he used—namely, that those in another place should keep their "lordly noses out of this matter".
  However, the right hon. Gentleman now commends to us a provision in the Bill which was inserted in Committee by Lord Houghton and his friends—namely, provision for a charter on matters relating to the freedom of the Press. It appears that he has changed his mind and that some progress has been made from a do-nothing-at-all and leave-it-to-others position to an attitude of "Well, let us do something". But before we congratulate him too much on that score, let us remember that what he has in mind is little more than a pious hope, or a wishful think. The Manifesto Group's amendments would make little difference.
  Mr. Foot: Let us get the history of the matter right. As I said, we are extremely grateful to Lord Houghton for the form in which he put the proposition in another place, which advanced the whole matter. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that on the occasion of Second Reading the proposition emerged from the National Union of Journalists that there should be a meeting

  1437
  with a view to drawing up a charter, to which we gave full backing. There was no question of doing nothing at any stage.
  Mr. Hayhoe: If the right hon. Gentleman reads what he said in all stages of the Bill to which I have referred—I have had to undertake that depressing task myself—he will find that he said that this was not a matter to be deal with by legislation. Of course, there was talk of a charter, but why make that silly intervention about it now? It is well known that in the early stages of the Bill the point at issue was the Secretary of State's total opposition to any legislation, but he has now come round a bit. It seems that he is happy to have some legislation as long as it is merely a pious hope and is ineffective. Perhaps with a little more time he will be able to consider these matters further and take the next vital step, and agree that some effective action must be taken.
  I listened fascinated to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments about the Manifesto Group's amendments, the nice balance of wording between versions (a) and (b) and the differences between them. It is very largely a phoney business. There is no backing or sanction. There is no statutory enforcement of any kind available. It is all a pious expression of hope. It means no more and no less than that. I believe that Press freedom is far too precious not to deserve adequate defences. Words alone, be they the words of Houghton or the Manifesto Group, are not enough.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a sign of tangible progress can be seen to have been made already in terms of the special delegate meeting of the NUJ and its result? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether that result would have been more or less likely if the Goodman amendments, about which he is so keen, had been on the statute book?
  Mr. Hayhoe: I shall have something to say about the meeting at Cardiff and the ballot. I shall cover both points. I have been giving way reasonably frequently and I think it might be wiser now to make some progress as the points that are being raised by Labour Members are points that I intend to cover.
  1438
  I turn to an important matter to which the Secretary of State gave great attention on Second Reading. He said that there was immense urgency attached to this matter. He said on Second Reading on 3rd December,
  "I do not think that this is something that can be done in a matter of a few weeks".
  That was in response to a suggestion from this side of the House that we wait until the Royal Commission considered the matter. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
  "This Bill is urgent because as long as the Act remains unamended it can give rise to highly explosive and dangerous industrial situations."—[Official Report, 3rd December 1974, Vol. 882, 1398.]
  That was the right hon. Gentleman's forecast last December. That, too, has been proved to be quite phoney.
  We have now gone on for 11 months and none of the highly dangerous and explosive situations to which he referred has occurred. What absolute nonsense he was then talking about urgency. The Bill left another place six months ago on 15th April. It is clear that all that he was saying to the House about urgency at the turn of the year was a load of bilge. Clearly he has paid no attention to that. The Bill has been rightly held up to allow for further consultations in an attempt to achieve an agreed solution. I am sorry that this has not been achieved. But it shows that the Opposition were right in counselling earlier that there should be delay for further consultations and that the Secretary of State was wrong in talking about urgency.
  7.0 p.m.
  A great deal has happened since Second Reading. I am sure that it is common ground between us that the issue itself has greatly broadened. It started as a rather limited, although very important, issue concerned with what constitutes fair or unfair dismissal in a closed shop situation and how that would affect the Press. It was also concerned with possibility of compensation upon dismissal for editors and the like. However, it has gradually broadened and because of the curious rules of procedure that exist in another place an amendment was able to be added to the Bill, which would have been totally out of order in this House, and which has made it a Bill concerned with amendments to trade union legislation, and also

  1439
  about a charter on Press freedom. The other place has been able to do that and now we must deal with this much wider situation.
  Many hon. Members are aware that Press freedom could be endangered by a combination of events which have occurred over the past 12 or 18 months. The changes in the law affecting closed shops was obviously the trigger for this, but the declared policy of the NUJ in the past to go for 100 per cent. membership has helped to worry people about what would happen. Other aspects of NUJ policy at that time, some of the articles in the Journalist and some of the comments made by leading members of the NUJ, created fear and worry as to what might happen if a closed shop situation was permitted by law and used by small groups of people within the NUJ who did not follow the point of view, which I think all hon. Members would agree is the point of view of the majority of the NUJ, namely, a great concern about Press freedom.
  Growing concern about these developments was expressed by a formidable coalition of people. I believe that for the first time the London editors joined with the Guild of British Newspaper Editors to express concern. The Newspaper Society, the Institute of Journalists, many distinguished contributors and those concerned with magazines and printed periodicals all began expressing concern about the developing situation. The most recent manifestation is the evidence given by the Press Council to the Royal Commission. I should like to quote a small part of that on the specific question of the closed shop. The Council says:
  "if the 'appearance of a closed shop' is intended to mean or does mean a development by which the newspaper and magazine Press of this country was no longer open to receive the contributions of members of the public solely on the grounds that they were not enrolled in membership of a particular trade union, the Council would regard this as a totally unacceptable assault upon freedom of expression as hitherto enjoyed by the people of this country."
  I hope that all hon. Members would regard it as a totally unacceptable assault if that consequence—I make that proviso—flowed from a closed shop in the newspaper and associated parts of the industry.
  1440
  A single union closed shop for journalists is the fear of people who are worried about these developments. Of course, one accepts that a single union closed shop for journalists would much increase the bargaining powers of the members and of the union concerned. One recognises that not having a closed shop, especially in the newspaper industry, even having some people excluded from the operation of the closed shop such as editors and perhaps other senior personnel, puts a limitation upon the effectiveness of industrial action which may be taken to advance a wage claim or indeed for any other purpose. However, that increase in bargaining power which would flow from a single union closed shop for journalists would have to come at a tremendous price and at a price damaging to Press freedom.
  Mr. Robert Adley: Does my hon. Friend also agree that the danger which could continue beyond the single union closed shop would be the ultimate difficulty of people who wanted to join the union being prevented from doing so?
  Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, because it would give the NUJ, or the people running the NUJ—the single union—power to say who would or would not be able to contribute to the Press of this country. I am not saying that they would necessarily use that power in an arbitrary fashion, but it would exist because the union, if the closed shop existed, would really be able to give, to use an emotive term, licences to those who were to contribute and to take licences from those who were not.
  Mr. Ron Thomas rose—
  Mr. Hayhoe: If the NUJ came under the control of what the Prime Minister has called a highly motivated group of extremists, the danger would occur. If this can happen in constituency Labour Party associations, if the local units of the Labour Party are being taken over in this way, why could not something similar happen within chapels of the NUJ?
  If we consider what is on record from the International Socialist, its view would probably be that the NUJ was rather an easier apple to pluck off the tree than many of the constituency associations of the Labour Party. If it can

  1441
  happen to those associations, what magic has the NUJ to prevent it happening to it?
  An Hon. Member: Women's institutes!
  Mr. Ron Thomas: I should like the hon. Gentleman to go back to the point he made about contributors. The union membership agreement makes it quite clear that it is between employers and employees. The contributor whether he be Michael Foot or yourself, with all due respect—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not come into this at all.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I think I heard an intervention about women's institutes. I do not know how the hon. Member's constituency association works, but if in his area it would be in the interests of the extreme left, the broad left, or the International Socialists to attempt to take over the women's institutes, which I doubt—[Laughter.] The laughter should be directed at the stupid and absurd observation made by the hon. Member, about women's institutes, because it is stupid to think that the left would want to take them over. However, I suspect they might find the task more difficult than taking over some of the chapels of the NUJ.
  However, turning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) about contributors, a closed shop agreement, or a union membership agreement, can be written—indeed the standard one is written—in terms which do not impinge upon contributors. However, at the time of the industrial dispute in the provincial newspaper industry we saw action taken against small outside contributors.
  There were indications at earlier meetings—at the ADM in 1974, if I remember rightly—and there had been articles in the Journalist to the effect that some members of the NUJ would like to achieve a situation where there would be a very severe limit upon the number of contributions which could come from outside people. [Interruption.] Yes, a very severe limit and then going down to zero would not be that much of a move. This is the danger. We on this side of the House are not arguing, nor has anyone who has
  1442
  participated in the debate argued, that this is likely to happen in the next year or so. There is a remote possibility that it can happen. We should be concerned with guarding against that remote possibility.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the NUJ is on public record as stating:
  "The National Executive Council states its commitment to free access to the Press for any person consonant with the protection of the employment of NUJ members."
  I urge the hon. Gentleman not to misinterpret the position of the NUJ over this matter.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I hope that I am not misinterpreting it. I have tried all along to make it clear that I am not suggesting this is likely to happen. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's intervention followed the sentence in which I said I was not suggesting that it was likely to happen. I am saying that it is a remote possibility against which we must guard. The hon. Gentleman's intervention in no way indicated how he could be certain that this could never happen. And we cannot be certain. That is why we are concerned.
  My purpose is not to attack the NUJ. I pay tribute now to its general secretary, Mr. Morgan, who has served the cause of the freedom of the Press extremely well over the years, as have most of the members of the National Executive Council and as unquestionably has the bulk of the members of the NUJ itself. But let us look at what has happened recently.
  I turn to what happened about the ballot this year. The Secretary of State referred to the NUJ's proposals for a charter, which were broadly welcomed in all parts of the House. There was a wide welcome for those proposals as a useful initiative. There might have been differences as to how successful or effective such a charter was likely to be, but it was not seen as a damaging contribution to this whole affair. Earlier this year the NEC came forward with reasonable, though ineffective, proposals for a charter. They were repudiated by the annual delegates meeting at Cardiff last April on a very narrow vote. Let us be clear on that. The voting was 159 to 154. At that stage the ADM sabotaged the efforts then being made to create a climate

  1443
  of opinion in favour of some voluntary charter.
  I will not trouble to read from The Guardian leader of 26th April which makes this point very clear. This has been "one in the eye", was the expression, or something like that, "for Michael"—I must not use his name. It had been "one in the eye" for the Secretary of State and Lord Houghton. The article went on to say that, since the NUJ's annual conference had demonstrated its militant intention, the case for Goodman was greatly reinforced. That conclusion was perfectly valid and remains so.
  I think that most of us were astonished that the ADM should have voted in that way in view of all the public interest. If it had been a little cleverer, it surely would have held back for a year or two and used its voting power later. It chose not to do that. Instead, it chose to exert its power at that time in a way which damaged the discussions and the climate of opinion which had been and was being created by Lord Houghton and others for a voluntary charter.
  As a result of that vote there was great public concern and a ballot of all the members was held. The appropriate number of branches asked for the ballot and a postal ballot was taken. That postal ballot largely undid the decision taken at the annual delegate meeting. Members voted against the repudiation of that meeting of the NEC's statement regarding 100 per cent. membership and the rights of editors. They dealt with the 100 per cent. membership and repudiated the view expressed at the annual delegate meeting.
  7.15 p.m.
  I will not go through the whole list. Broadly speaking, one could say that the postal ballot rejected the narrow vote victories of the militant element at that meeting in Cardiff. It showed that when a large number of people take part, often a more responsible and moderate—if I may use that word in the presence of the Secretary of State—result ensues. That is a lesson which has wider implications for much of the voting for union officers in this country.
  The complete opposition to any charter of Press freedom which had been declared
  1444
  was reversed by the postal ballot. Therefore, the official policy of the NUJ is presumably in favour of the voluntary approach.
  Mr. Whitehead rose—
  Mr. Hayhoe: I should like to finish this point. The repudiation was damaging to the Houghton amendments, but the ballot result gave them a fresh impetus. The more responsible elements in the union had achieved a useful result.
  I now want to look at what happened on another issue, because on this issue the ADM was overturned by postal ballot. Let us go back to what happened in the NUJ regarding the dispute over registration under the Industrial Relations Act. The NEC of the NUJ voted 21 to 9 in favour of holding a ballot on the issue of registration. A ballot was held. A total of 6,384 voted, "Yes, we will register under the Industrial Relations Act", and 3,807 voted against. There was a substantial majority in favour of registration. It was a much greater majority than was achieved on most issues in the recent postal ballot.
  What happened? The next annual delegates meeting overturned the ballot decision. It took a decision, by 298 votes to 82, not to register. What help was the ballot? There was a great row over that ADM decision. Therefore, a re-run followed, at which the voting was 171 to 160. With these great oscillations of opinion and the enormous changes which are taking place, it would be unwise for us to rely on, though we welcome wholeheartedly, the result of that ballot by the members of the NUJ.
  Mr. Whitehead: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now answer my question. Would that ballot and the ADM have taken place with the results we know if the Goodman amendments had been on the statute book within the framework of law which poisoned industrial relations in 1971? That was why we had the situation with the ADM at that time.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I find it difficult to accept that industrial relations were poisoned in 1971, having just read the voting. I will read it again. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misheard me. The voting in favour of registration under the Industrial Relations Act was 6,384 to 3,807—a majority

  1445
  of about two to one. If that kind of approach had been followed by other unions we would have had a very different and better climate of industrial relations today. It is highly questionable as to what would have happened if the Goodman amendments had been accepted by the Government and been accepted widely in the House. I do not think that there would have been any great change in the result of the ballot.
  I do not know what would have happened if the Goodman amendments had been carried in a different way but I am not sure whether, on an issue as important as this, the rather transitory result of one postal ballot in the NUJ should be the talisman by which we judge this issue. Are not more vital and long-lasting matters at stake when we are considering the freedom of the Press?
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: If the hon. Gentleman welcomes wholeheartedly, as he said, the change of policy in the NUJ, why does he not give a fair wind to the idea of a charter? Why not try it and see what happens? It may be that the so-called moderate members of the NUJ who overwhelmingly want a charter—and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would argue otherwise—and do not want Goodman would sustain the position and sustain the charter.
  Why does the hon. Gentleman not tell us a little more about editors and their attitude to a charter? Is it not true that some of the editors have deserted the idea of a charter being a bad thing and are now prepared to discuss it? If the hon. Gentleman would lend his weight to this idea, would it not be reasonable to try to get the charter, overturn the proprietors, and get the editors and journalists together?
  Mr. Hayhoe: I do not believe that a charter, expressing a pious hope, representing wishful thinking about general objectives without any back-up of any kind, would be a sufficient defence of this vital issue of the freedom of the Press.
  The Secretary of State said that the Goodman amendment was a defective way of dealing with this issue and he was horrified at the thought of some document which had been agreed by people outside being annexed to a statute and then being
  1446
  used in actions before the courts. What an incredibly short memory the right hon. Gentleman has. What about this document, "The Attack on Inflation"," which had an annex not agreed between different people but issued by the TUC and which became the law of the land? The right hon. Gentleman sat up all night and we thought that he was listening to the debate, but obviously he was not because all that he said about the defectiveness of the Goodman approach is totally destroyed because the Government chose this very approach in a more extreme form when they introduced this Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill. There is nothing in his argument, and so I come to the essence of the whole matter.
  Parliament has to choose between two different and important principles—the sanctity of the closed shop and the freedom of the Press. I believe the reason, and the only reason, why the Secretary of State opposes the legal provisions of the Bill is because they would in a narrow way strike at the principle of the closed shop.
  I remember the brilliant speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) during the debates on this issue in 1971. The closed shop is an important and vital principle—I accept that—though perhaps some of my hon. Friends would not give it as much support or understand its importance in the way I do. Enthusiasm for the closed shop runs through the fears, views and development of ideas of so many people within the Labour and trade union movement.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck rose—
  Mr. Hayhoe: No. I am trying to put my argument to the House as fairly as I can.
  I accept the importance of the closed shop. It is an important principle to many people. I accept that it is more important to Labour Members than it is to my hon. Friends on this side of the House, but the freedom of the Press is the other principle that is at stake, and I believe that a choice has to be made tonight between the one and the other. We are not asked to say that the one must always offend against the other, though that is what the Press Council implied in taking an extreme view. But we are

  1447
  asked to recognise that there is a possibility of conflict between a single union closed shop for journalists and the freedom of the Press. I accept that some Government Members do not agree with what I am saying, for this is the very issue that is dividing us, and if the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) thinks that at this stage in the proceedings a bit of paper from the Department of Employment will make much difference he has little understanding of this debate.
  There is a straight choice to be made, and I am sorry that members of the Manifesto Group have not followed the logic of their concern over this matter. As far as I can see, they have played with words. I am not sure which amendment they are supporting. It may be that they are supporting both, and it will be interesting to see what happens. It seems that this is largely a private semantic squabble between hon. Members on the Government benches and we should leave them to it, because it is sheer cosmetics which set of words is used. It would not surprise me if, during the last minute or two or his reply to the debate, the Secretary of State makes a concession which will sweep the boys into the Lobby once more. We have seen this happen in the past, and all that is going on now leads one to think that there will be a theatrical gesture such as that.
  We believe that the Government amendments, even if they are cosmetically modified by one or more of the amendments proposed by the Manifesto Group, fall far short of what is required in the defence of the freedom of the Press. If we are to have a proper, effective and adequate defence of Press freedom we need more than is contained in the Government amendments. That is why we shall oppose and vote against them whether or not they are modified by the Manifesto Group amendments.
  The Goodman amendments do not, of course, guarantee Press freedom. Neither he nor anyone else, as far as I know, has ever suggested that they would. Press freedom depends on very much wider considerations than those involved in the issues that we are dealing with tonight. It is readily accepted, if I may quote from a leader in The Times, that
  "the freedom of the Press rests not on statute but on diversity of publication and diversity
  1448
  of access to publication It is not perfect, but it is rare, and it needs to be supported and defended; statute did not create it, but at least we must see that statute does not take it away."
  I think that when we have to make our decision later tonight the duty of the Opposition will be clear, and our choice will be in favour of the defence of the freedom of the Press.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In proposing the Question earlier you said that it was "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment" and not "That the amendment be made".
  Mr. Speaker: I was about to say that the Question before the House is whether the amendment to line 10 be made. I shall call the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) next, but he cannot now formally move his amendment. The time to do that will come later. The hon. Member can take part in the general debate on all the amendments before the House.
  Mr. John Horam: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he had been a member of the NUJ for 40 years. I cannot match that, having been a member of that union for only eight years, but I share the concern of my right hon. Friend, which I know is real, for the working journalist and also for the freedom of the Press. As my right hon. Friend said, these two matters are inextricably mixed. Those who have worked in the industry are most concerned about the freedom of the Press, and it is remarkable how little understanding the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) showed of the position of the NUJ in this matter.
  The Lords amendments have always seemed to me to be the wrong approach, and I am sure that virtually all my right hon. and hon. Friends share that feeling. The amendments are wrong because they are phrased in an extremely anti-trade union manner. They are virtually a proprietors' charter. In addition, they drag the law back in industrial relations in a way which we have known for so long to be so dangerous and provocative.
  7.30 p.m.
  It is for these two combined reasons that I have always rejected, and still

  1449
  emphatically reject, the Goodman approach to this problem, and strongly support, and always have done, the general approach followed by my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I think that he has shown great patience. This subject appears to require great patience. It seems an epoch ago since it raised its head. Rather belatedly the editors reacted to the situation. This was astonishing, as the Bill had been before the House and almost passed. Only at the last moment did it strike home to these watchers of our freedom that there was something really important at stake here.
  Not only has my right hon. Friend shown great patience. He has also, in what he has said tonight, been very flexible. I hope that we can be rewarded with even greater flexibility when he winds up. I was delighted with what he said about how the charter will be invoked in an industrial tribunal or in law, but I will leave comment on that to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) whose name is appended to amendment (b).
  What should go into the charter, which I believe to be an absolutely valid approach to this problem? My right hon. Friend's wording has three clear elements in it. First, there is the question of improper pressure on the media or critics. On this point, we are entirely in agreement, and it seems to me that my right hon. Friend's phrasing of this is a considerable improvement on Lord Goodman's phrasing, because it also protects freedom of the Press, not only from what can happen from trade union pressure but also from proprietorial pressure.
  We must be absolutely even-handed in our approach to this problem, and it is the lack of this that disfigures the Goodman approach. I find cause for concern in relation to the other two aspects of what should be in the charter. The first of these is the position of the editors and the second is the access of contributors. My right hon. Friend says that both these points should be covered. I believe that we should not only say that they should be covered but to some extent how they should be covered, for unless we have guaranteed the fact that an editor can pursue his duties and discharge his functions in a perfectly normal manner, and unless also we have guaranteed
  1450
  access to the media by non-journalists, we do not have a free Press. In my opinion the definition of a free Press would revolve around these two pillars.
  I would add, reflecting what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), that we also need a multiplicity of newspapers. I regret the tendency to concentration that we have seen over the years.
  Those three matters would guarantee us a free Press and two of them are covered, I hope, by my amendment. Incidentally, one of them is not a matter of controversy at all, for the NUJ has conceded the position of the editors. This was backed by the ballot, in which my right hon. Friend and I voted—I imagine on the right side. It was decided that the editor need not be a member of the NUJ, so this is beyond dispute, It is only on the question of access that there is still some room for negotiation and disagreement.
  Aside from his particular criticisms of the wording, my right hon. Friend had one basic disagreement with the approach contained in the two amendments, (a) and (b), on the content of the charter. I think he was basically saying, "I agree with your aims and I want a charter, but what you are doing will make it more difficult to achieve." The question of how difficult this is to achieve is a very open one. I do not know whether there will be agreement on this charter within 12 months. My right hon. Friend does not know whether there will be agreement. We do not know how valuable such an agreement will be. It is a difficult matter and there is an area of uncertainty about it. It may possibly cause certain greater difficulty to my right hon. Friend in negotiating the charter, but how otherwise is Parliament to state its view?
  Surely we have a right—indeed a duty—to set out the framework within which to discuss the question of freedom of the Press. It is at this point of time, when we are debating it in the House of Commons, that we should insert our view as to how these negotiations should be conducted. We are only talking about the irreducible minimum. We are forgetting the position of the Institute of Journalists and who should be considered as an

  1451
  editor. All these matters should be considered, rightly, by the other parties to this debate. But we are also parties to the debate, and it is at this point in time, when we are setting the framework for these negotiations, that we should insert our own view. I can see no other way of inserting the sort of framework we should have.
  My right hon. Friend may say that there will be another opportunity when he has to consider this, when these negotiations are completed, at the end of 12 months. He may say that certainly it falls short of these two essential matters—access for contributors and the position of the editors, who should have the right to do their job without pressure. Why not have it in the Bill, so that the negotiations may be conducted in an open and clear manner? Then everyone will know where Parliament stands on this and we can discuss all the other important matters within that framework.
  My right hon. Friend used the argument, in dismissing the Goodman point, that there is some danger in saying that a charter can be invoked as evidence in an industrial tribunal or court of law, and yet left totally open as to what it contains. There is some danger in adopting that sort of posture, and we should therefore say as a Parliament that we are setting certain minimum standards—which is all we are doing—to which the participants in the negotiations should adhere.
  I believe that Parliament must set the framework for this vitally important debate, even if—and I concede the point—it makes it possibly more complicated to conduct these negotiations.
  My right hon. Friend said that my particular formulation, which happens to have my name at the head of it, would cause him some difficulty, so perhaps I may explain how it comes about that there are alternative versions on the Order Paper. It arises from the fact that we only came back to the House on Monday. An amendment of some kind had to be put down then so that the subject could be debated today. Therefore we simply put down literally what we thought of in the first couple of hours spent in discussing the question. Subsequently there were second thoughts and these are expressed in the second amendment.
  1452
  We had an opportunity of discussion with some of the parties concerned, including my right hon. Friend, and we thought it was a better way of phrasing it. I put my name to the second amendment—as a matter of chance it also happens to appear at the head of the first amendment—and I feel that the second is preferable in its phraseology to the first. The substance is very similar.
  I agree that the semantics are lost on most people and may not have much influence on what happens, but I feel that there must be some substance in these two points in the charter before it goes out to be negotiated. There is, first, the protection for the position of the editor. Second, there is the right of any person to have his article printed, if requested by the editor, in a newspaper. Those two points must be guaranteed in some way which satisfies me before I can feel that Parliament has really fulfilled its obligation to meet the public interest in regard to freedom of the Press. I do not think Parliament should stand aside on this issue.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I wish to declare an interest in this matter. I shall speak briefly because most of the arguments and the fears aroused by these proceedings have been gone over repeatedly.
  There are now three issues. I am in favour of a charter. The first issue is whether it should have sanctions behind it or not, and I think that it should. The other two points are whether the two vital issues which exercise the House are sufficiently emphasised without the amendments. I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam). I agree that the two vital points are the freedom of editors and access for contributors. I agree also that we are showing our usual predilection which has been obvious over the last two years of putting the cart before the horse. It would probably be better to debate this matter a year hence when the Royal Commission on the Press will have reported. However, as with the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland, under the Conservatives we chose to set up a Scottish Assembly before that report was received, and this sort of practice now seems to be a parliamentary habit.

  1453
  We are discussing the freedom of the Press. I dissent from the peroration of the Secretary of State in which he seemed to imply that it would be wrong for Parliament to deal on a selective basis with the Press as against other industrial relationships and that to invoke the law is wrong and would cause trouble. On this matter we are entitled to treat this provision selectively and to invoke the law if that were appropriate.
  It would be a foolish proprietor who did not take account of the NUJ. On the Guardian and the Manchester Evening News they have been co-operative on the whole. They fight their corner, but so do we all. I do not regard these amendments as being aimed at any particular situation concerned with the present behaviour of the NUJ. They are legitimate steps which Parliament is seeking to take to safeguard the freedom of the Press against possible future threats, and one must concede that a closed shop could be a threat, whether enforced by the NUJ or anyone else, and that there could be threats to access for contributors to the Press and the freedom of editors.
  I believe that our society is in danger of shutting out criticism and doing too much in secret. Clearly, if public opinion, the House of Commons, the universities and other centres of criticism are to be effective we must guarantee the freedom of the Press. There are many specialist contributors, and I am thinking particularly of the local Press, who clearly should be guaranteed freedom if the editors wish to employ them.
  The Secretary of State made several valid points of criticism about the drafting of the amendments. I am in favour of a charter and I hope that it will be drawn up and will be successful. However, I take the point that it would be useful for those who are considering the charter to have some indication of the views of the House of Commons, and what it feels is vital in this situation. Therefore, we are entitled to sharpen up somewhat these two points. I have a great deal of sympathy with the two amendments to line 3. However, the phrase:
  "the question of access for contributors"
  is not definite enough. The words
  "the right of editors to commission and publish any article"
  1454
  may possibly go rather far. The position of proprietors is a difficult one. It is a long-standing tradition on The Guardian that we the trustees would not dream of interfering with the editor, but I would resent a proprietor who took up a Pontius Pilate attitude about what his paper did. The proprietor cannot always plead to the freedom of the editor. It cuts both ways. If these words are not precisely what is wanted perhaps we could, since this is a vital point, find the words which would make it clear.
  Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman is underlining the fact that he does not agree with the words in either of the amendments. He referred to the words:
  "the right of editors to…publish any article",
  and an offence against that provision would be a breach of the charter. What about cheque-book journalism, for example? There are many examples which could be given. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the words I have referred to do not express what he wants or what many other people want.
  Mr. Grimond: I am trying to be reasonable. I have fairly given the right hon. Gentleman the credit for making a valid point. I agree with him and I hope that some amendment to the amendment might be possible, but I maintain that something along the lines of the amendment would improve the Bill and would give a more definite indication as to what the House of Commons would like to see written into it.
  I have, therefore, these three points. We are justified in writing in sanctions and we must be sharper about the freedom of editors and access for contributors.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Whitehead: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), particularly when he is speaking, as he is here, in part as a representative of the Guardian Trust, a very enlightened body of proprietors. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam), I declare an interest in my membership of the NUJ. It is becoming something of an auction among my hon. Friends as to

  1455
  who has been a member longest. I have been a member for 12 years and I intend to remain so for the rest of my professional life. It is as a member of the NUJ that I wish to speak to the amendment which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I do so as a clear supporter of the general position that the Secretary of State has taken in this Bill and as an absolute opponent to all the amendments introduced in another place by Lord Goodman.
  We have moved a long way since February of this year in our discussions and arguments about the Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) was somewhat grudging in his acceptance of that fact. There was the point concerning his exposition of what had gone on in the NUJ. It seemed to me that he was unclear about the difference between the ADM and the SDM, and the situation which had brought about the special meeting.
  Then there was the question of ballots. The hon. Gentleman was prepared to talk about the ballot in 1971. But what happened after that? The ballot on this issue in the NUJ produced a conclusive result. He is to be excused for not knowing all these facts because very few column inches and very little editorial comment were devoted to it. Many column inches were devoted to the decision of the ADM in Cardiff, to what happened there, to the terrible danger that this conspiracy posed to the freedom of the Press.
  However, through its own democratic institutions, the union overturned that decision through a proportion of its members and their branches, through a ballot properly conducted. A somewhat complex form had to be filled in with a result which most of us here would welcome, and about which there were very few comments in the newspapers.
  I have been trying to find out how much newspaper comment there was welcoming this decision by the NUJ compared to the amount of condemnation of the NUJ resulting from the earlier decision. The answer is, in proportionate terms, about one to 10. That demonstrates something about the crocodile tears which have been shed over the issue of Press freedom by those who
  1456
  seized upon the decision of the ADM in Cardiff as being something of a miraculous vindication of Lord Goodman. However, the contrary is the case. The situation at Cardiff might not have happened without Lord Goodman. I do not say that Lord Goodman wishes consciously to do harm in these matters. Quite the contrary. But he cannot practically do good because he is what he is—chairman of the NPA. Every working journalist knows only too well that the newspaper publishers and proprietors have never been interested in behaviour, codes of conduct and the protection of editors in the past.
  There are still proprietors in that small group in Fleet Street to this day who think no more of changing their editor than they do of changing their socks. These people have never been interested in the protection of editors and we look with some scepticism on their pronouncements now.
  I take the view that the Goodman amendments in toto would have been disastrous if added to the legislation—precisely because they would have brought about, as we saw with the Industrial Relations Act 1971, that atmosphere of hostility, bitterness and friction in which all kinds of views would have come to the surface which would have been quite against the charter, collaboration and the general recognition of those essential categories of freedom of the Press and the uninterrupted right of access to which we would all subscribe.
  That is the difference and that is why I think that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth has been ungracious in his attitude to the NUJ—although I echo entirely what he said about the present general secretary, Ken Morgan. Perhaps a word of praise from me for Ken Morgan would not do him as much harm as a word from the hon. Member.
  I now turn quickly to the two amendments (a) and (b) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West and me. The reason for the difference in wording, which is far from semantic, as it was dismissed by hon. Members opposite, essentially is that I feel, in contradistinction to my hon. Friend, that his wording would be widely misunderstood, that it would appear to carry the overtones of Lords Amendment

  1457
  No. 7 as moved by Lord Goodman in another place and would, therefore, be counter-productive in the arguments and discussions which must now go on with and for the NUJ and the other parties to this argument.
  The NUJ, quite unlike some of the other parties, has welcomed and accepted the idea of a charter. Not all the others were very forthcoming in this matter. That is the case up to this moment and that is why my right hon. Friend is probably right, in his first amendment, to ask for more time so that we can stand back to allow these discussions to take place. I do not believe that the amendment in the wording of my hon. Friends would be particularly helpful, because it would suggest that here again there is that anti-trade union element in what is being proposed. That is shot through all of Lords Amendment No. 7. If it were to come to a vote on that amendment, I would vote against it and with the Government.
  We have to consider the position of editors and the special privileges and protection that they may have in the context of the privileges and protection that others have to have. The Secretary of State is right about that. That is why, in my amendment, I would strongly favour keeping, and have in fact retained, the question of access to contributors, because that is equally important. We would not elevate the editor and say that he is without sin or that there have never been bad editors or editors who have abused their position. That is not so: there have been editors who have abused their position.
  Equally, there might be editors who for some reason could abuse their right, if they were given a general and uninhibited right, to publish any material they liked. That may be the main point that my right hon. Friend would address to those of us who support the amendment. What about the editor who will not publish material from trade unions, the editor who will publish only salacious material or who publishes too much of it?
  The answers to those two questions are slightly different. Taking the second first, if, as my right hon. Friend said in an intervention to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the editor decides that he will go in totally for
  1458
  cheque book journalism and will publish that sort of disgraceful material, as most of us would see it, that is covered in the earlier part of my right hon. Friend's amendment from which none of us would dissent. We support and applaud it and would follow him to the death in introducing it into the legislation. That, and the follow-up procedures of the Press Council and whatever in its wisdom the Royal Commission on the Press may later recommend, is the safeguard we need in that respect.
  Mr. Foot: I understand that, but the difficulty is that there might be a contradiction between the clause that says that under the charter they must oppose all forms of distortion and this clause which says that the editor must have an absolute right to publish anything he wants. That is one of the contradictions that we must try to overcome.
  Mr. Whitehead: Yes, there is something absolutely specific about the phraseology concerning improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment or criticism, because "suppression" and "distortion" could, I think, cover matters of that kind. But I see the point about contradiction and I do not think that, in the time scale that we have had to consider this matter—48 hours—this drafting, any more than that of any other amendment, including perhaps even those of my right hon. Friend, is the alpha and omega of parliamentary draftsman's wisdom.
  I am prepared, if my right hon. Friend accepts this principle because it enshrines, in what seems to me a sensible way which would be acceptable to the NUJ, the two essential points on which my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West has touched, to say, "Yes, that is one of the uses of the House of Lords. A properly drafted form of words which perhaps looks at the freedom to publish any article and covers this possible contradiction is what we need and what I certainly would find acceptable." I do not suggest that we have got absolutely everything in the amendment in precisely the form in which it must emerge in the legislation. What worries me is that if we do not have it in the legislation we are giving another hostage to fortune, a powerful armament in the hands of those in the House of Lords who are out to wreck the Bill entirely.

  1459
  I have no doubt that there are those elements in another place who would be prepared if they could, even at the cost of some constitutional confrontation, to wreck this legislation altogether. I do not wish to see them using any argument in the House of Lords to the effect that we have been dismissive of fundamental rights, such as these are, which would be enshrined in the charter.
  The arguments about the charter must go on between the parties concerned, and Parliament is right to have its viewpoint, but we have to be certain that as this goes through the arguments in another place, we can carry a majority there. If we get into a constitutional situation in which they are trying to wreck the Bill altogether, we on this side will all be of one mind. There will be no argument then about the small print of the Bill. It will be a straight argument, peers versus people.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Do not be too sure of that.
  Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend may be a greater expert than I, but if the House of Lords were to chuck out the Bill under the inspiration of Lord Goodman or anyone else, the argument would be different.
  This is essentially, therefore, our last effective chance in this place to get the drafting as right as we can. I hope we will. When my hon. Friends and I have been trying to do is introduce into the charter and to reinforce for all of those who may be parties to the forthcoming discussions and who would wish it the classical freedoms concerning the Press and entry and access and the functions of newspaper editors.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will be at the very least as persuaded by this and as warm in principle towards it as he was in his introductory remarks.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Aitken: I very much accept the theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and that of the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) that the amendment which they have discussed is an important contribution to ensuring that Parliament has a say in what should be done in preserving
  1460
  the vital rights of access and the vital editorial independence in this whole controversy. This is a praiseworthy attempt which should have been made long ago.
  At this eleventh hour, the Secretary of State still has not recognised the two elephantine errors of judgment that he has been making throughout the interminable passage of the Bill. The first is that in all the arguments about the closed shop he has failed to realise the profound difference between those unions engaged in the mechanical processes of manufacturing industry and those engaged in the creative process of public communications.
  If only the Government had recognised from the start that the media is a unique case and that the question of preserving access to it requires special safeguards, much of the controversy about this Bill could have been avoided as could the absurd humbug from those who suggest that we who wish to see safeguards written in are anti-trade union or anti-NUJ or are trying to bring back the Industrial Relations Act. These thoughts have not been in the minds of any of my colleagues or in the minds of their Lordships.
  The Secretary of State has made a fundamental error in always championing the interests of the NUJ in this debate. It would not matter if it was just a case of championing the interests of the NUJ against the interest of the proprietors at whose expense he has naturally had a little innocent fun. But there is a third, much more important interest involved—the public interest. Readers have rights in this matter too. They will be deprived if a closed shop in journalism is created and, as a result, newspapers are deprived of outside contributions, or the independence of editors is threatened.
  It is very important to realise that this threat is real. I have here a recent edition of the Financial Times. In the sporting columns there is the unusual sight of a completely blank space containing only the words
  "We had intended to publish in this space a report by Mr. Peter Robbins, our Rugby correspondent for the past nine years. The report does not appear because certain members of the National Union of Journalists, on instructions from their union, refused to handle it."

  1461
  I understand the distinguished rugby correspondent of the Financial Times was suddenly faced with this challenge and was told he could not contribute any longer because he was not a member of the NUJ. He said he would like to become a member, but was told he could not join because less than one-third of his total income was derived from journalism. This kind of infringement of the basic right of access to the media must be stopped.
  Mr. Whitehead: Could the hon. Member tell us whether he has ever seen a blank space in the Financial Times where the articles of Mr. C. Gordon Tether should have been?
  Mr. Aitken: That is an interesting point. Mr. Gordon Tether's articles which have not been published by the Financial Times as a result of a dispute between him and the editor, have not been banned, as might happen in the case of a closed shop, from all newspapers throughout the country. They have been immediately republished in The Spectator.
  In the case of a quarrel between an editor and an individual journalist, the journalist has other options, painful though they might be. He could work for any of the other 12 national newspapers or the 1,300 provincial newspapers. That is 1,312 times beter than having a quarrel with the monopoly union, the NUJ, which, if it enforced a ban, could put a journalist out of work throughout the country. It is not valid for the hon. Member for Derby, North to try to equate the two circumstances.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I know that the hon. Member is trying to be fair in the matter of sports writers, but he would be fairer if he recognised that the issue of contributions by non-journalistic sports writers has been going on between the NUJ and the NPA for many years. It is an extremely difficult problem and, in times of industrial pressure, things happen which are not normal or run-of-the-mill. This problem is being discussed by the union and proprietors.
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Member makes a perfectly valid point when he refers to the question of distinguished sportsmen who just talk to a journalist and then have articles credited to them and not to the
  1462
  journalist. I concede his point, but that has no validity in the C. Gordon Tether argument.
  Throughout these debates the Secretary of State has consistently championed and been prejudiced in favour of the NUJ and turned a Nelsonian blind eye to arguments from almost every other quarter. He has tried to pretend, in his usual verbal conjuring trick style, that the only people against the NUJ in the present situation are those nasty people, the tyrannical proprietors. The real situation is very different. For some reason, proprietors are being rather silent throughout the debates and the voices expressing the loudest alarm about the prospect of a closed shop in the media have come from such well-known Conservative supporters as Mr. J. B. Priestley, Professor Bernard Crick, Mr. Peter Jenkins of The Guardian, Mr. Larry Lamb of the Sun and Professor A. J. Ayer. Even Sir Dingle Foot has attacked the Bill in the sort of newspaper article Cain might have written about Abel in Biblical days. Socialist peers in another place accepted the Secretary of State's invitation to "poke their lordly noses" into this matter. The Secretary of State has turned his back on all this fraternal, comradely and lordly advice and retained throughout a touching faith in the NUJ.
  Several hon. Members have sounded complacent notes about the NUJ tonight as a result of the postal ballot result. As a member of the NUJ for about 10 years, I voted in that ballot and I welcome the result as a great improvement on the deplorable ADM decision, but the NUJ cannot be entrusted as the sole guardian of what does or does not get into the media. Anyone who knows the first thing about the NUJ must realise that, politically, it is a very schizophrenic organisation, with members whose views range from the right of General Franco to the left of Chairman Mao. As a result of this bizarre mixture and chiefly because of the latter element, there is a considerable amount of volatility and instability in the handling of NUJ affairs. One symptom is that decisions reached in postal ballots are liable to be overturned suddenly by ADM, which is the real powerhouse of the NUJ. The Secretary of State wishes us to believe that, following the postal ballot, the NUJ will now guarantee to support the liberties enshrined in that vote. Such a belief

  1463
  would be a triumph of hope over experience. Twice in the last four years, the ADM has overturned the vote of a postal ballot of the whole membership. In 1971 the mass membership voted to register under the Industrial Relations Act and the ADM overturned the decision. Later the same year, the membership voted for a ballot on a merger with the smaller union, the Institute of Journalists. That decision was also overturned. Put not your faith in NUJ postal ballots.
  Mr. Foot: I am sure that in his search for accuracy the hon. Member would wish to bring the story up to date and make clear that the NUJ has changed the rules, requiring now that a ballot decision can only be overturned by a ballot. I am sure he will give a proper welcome to it. Perhaps I interrupted him just as he was about to tell us about this action. It will be an improvement.
  Mr. Aitken: Unfortunately the ADM can even overturn that provision. The basic volatility point remains true. It is unwise to have complete faith in the NUJ as the sole guardian of what does or does not appear in the media. Safeguards are needed. What kind of safeguard should apply. Here we come to the Lords amendments. In my view they insert adequate safeguards. They are sensible. They define various rights and responsibilities and legal enforceability with admirable clarity. The trouble with the Secretary of State's amendments to the Lords amendments is that they deliberately set out to dilute and weaken the safeguards which the Lords amendment requires. They have done this by re-wording the Lords amendment into what I believe to be almost meaningless gobbledygook.
  The one contribution made by the amendment tabled by the Manifesto Group is that it at least makes some linguistic and semantic sense. In line 10 of the Lords amendment it is said that this charter must contain rules of conduct. The Secretary of State wants to have this altered for the charter only to contain "practical guidance." I believe that emasculation to be typical of the Secretary of State's attitude.
  Will all these tough customers in the newspaper business—be they these
  1464
  tyrannical proprietors, union militants or these strong editors—when they are in dispute and sit down with this charter to find out what is in it and see how they should act, take any notice of "practical guidance?" Of course not. What they want is rules of conduct. Imagine if instead of rules of procedure in this House there was practical guidance. The place would be bedlam in no time. This is an indication of how useless are the words "practical guidance". We may as well have "girl guidance" or "good food guidance". It is absolutely meaningless.
  Lines 17 to 28 of the Lords amendment spell out exactly what the charter must do to preserve editors' independence and that of their deputies. The most important right is that of journalists to join a trade union of their choice. That is an important measure when we think of the Institute of Journalists which has not come much into our discussions but which in my view is a totally admirable and small union. An increasing number of journalists are joining it. There is the right of editors to publish articles free of pressure resulting from industrial action. Look at what happened in the recent dispute at Birmingham when the National Graphical Association blacked copy which was handed in by members of the Institute who had recently changed over from the NUJ because they were fed up with the militancy of the NUJ.
  That is an example of the kind of industrial action which might be summed up in the Secretary of State's language by saying to the print unions, "Keep your print union noses out of this kind of business". We need some sort of safeguard against this kind of action. There is also the right of journalists not to be arbitrarily expelled or excluded from their union. All of these will be swept away by the Secretary of State's amendments because as far as I can see he wants this charter to be outlined in the vaguest possible language.
  The right hon. Gentleman refers to "the position of editors." What position? He does not refer to their deputies or those exercising editorial functions and rights. That is an important omission. All he refers to is this
  "question of access for contributors"

  1465
  which is again a vague phrase. The result of this vagueness is that the charter might well end up saying that contributors should have no access and the editor should have no independence. The wording is so vague that that could be so. I am not suggesting that is what the Secretary of State wants.
  The advantage of the amendment tabled by the Manifesto Group is that it at least puts in specific terms what is required and what those responsibilities are. Although it is a weak step, it is a step in the right direction and I will support it.
  Finally we come to the matter of enforceability of the charter. The Secretary of State wishes to see subsections 8 and 9 deleted. As far as I can see the point is that these two subsections would make an action actionable at law. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment would water down the Lords amendment to complete legal uselessness and futility by maintaining that contravention of the charter is not actionable. The right hon. Gentleman says in his amendment that matters of the charter may be admissible in evidence. What on earth does that mean? I am no lawyer, but as I understand it it means something like this—and I will take an absurd example to illustrate the point. Supposing at the end of this debate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) got so carried away and so angry—in a House of Commons governed by a charter containing rules of practical guidance—that he loses his temper and strikes the Secretary of State on the nose. There is uproar and a scene. Under the Secretary of State's rules the action my hon. Friend has taken is admissible as evidence but there is no action which can be taken. There are no legal teeth. There is nothing to be done about it. It is merely admissible as evidence. This legal futility is an indication of how, if we throw out the Goodman amendments in toto, we will end up with no safeguards at all.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Walden: I know that the hon. Member is trying to present this absolutely fairly. In the interests of so doing he ought to make it clear that what he has said is not right. In no sense are common
  1466
  law rights breached. What the Secretary of State is saying is that if a man chose to exercise those common law rights he could plead and have admissible as evidence any charter subsequently agreed. That is very different from a situation in which a man can do "nothing about it".
  Mr. Aitken: I am no lawyer and nor is the hon. Member for Ladywood. I am advised that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby, who is a lawyer, hopes to take up this point and show that the effect of the Goodman amendments is to put legal teeth into the Bill and make this action actionable. Without these amendments it is a wishy-washy Bill.
  Mr. Brian Walden: I am not saying that Lord Goodman will not have the whole matter settled by law. That would be the effect of accepting the Lords amendment. I am saying that that is not the only law involved. In no sense has a man forfeited his common law rights if we strike out the Lords amendment.
  Mr. Aitken: If I may I will leave that point. I am pleased to concede a lack of legal expertise.
  The real loser in this situation, if this Bill goes through with the Secretary of State's amendments, are the readers. They are the people who will be hurt most. Above all, this Bill is destroying the concept that Parliament has an obligation and indeed a duty to protect the individual's right to work, to free speech and to free access to the media. These rights can so easily be eroded if, by the passage of this Bill, one union can gain a monopoly position in the area of public communication.
  The risk is great yet the safeguards required are relatively small. If this House is quite unable to put into this legislation some clause which properly protects the freedom of expression of British people we might as well all go home and shut up shop. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that those much-maligned lordly noses will do our job for us in another place.
  Mr. Heffer: I do not want to keep the House long but I feel that I want to say something about this situation as one who has from time to time contributed to various journals in this country. I have not always found it easy to gain access

  1467
  to some of these journals, especially some of our national newspapers. There has been quite a bit of argument or discussion or cajoling on occasions before I managed to get a piece in.
  I should like to take up the argument that the losers will be the readers. That implies that the readers have a say on what goes into our national newspapers. That is a remarkable argument. Neither the newspaper readers nor I have ever understood that they have any say about the contents of a newspaper. The only way for readers to deal with the situation is to stop buying the newspapers. As national newspapers are in the hands of a small and select group, if readers stop buying one newspaper and start purchasing another, they are still not offered much choice.
  Press freedom is important. I accept that. No Government supporter wants to see the Press controlled by any tyrannical force. I do not want to see the newspapers leaving the hands of their present millionaire owners and coming into the hands of the State or for all newspapers to be run by the State. I cannot read Russian but I am sure that the Soviet newspapers must be the most boring in the world. I should not like to see that situation in the United Kingdom.
  No one suggests that we should move from one unfortunate situation to another. We must keep a balance. The situation is difficult and this debate has clearly indicated its complications. We all desire Press freedom. Many Government supporters recognise that that freedom is now extremely limited. Yet at the same time we do not want to move from that position to another which might be worse. That is our dilemma.
  I do not think anyone has produced the final answer to the question of Press freedom. We must think about the ways of ensuring genuine Press freedom. For instance I should like the CBI and the TUC to own newspapers with which to put forward their views and beliefs. I should like to see the TUC owning a good national newspaper. I should like to see an official newspaper attached to the Conservative Party and another attached to the Liberal Party.
  The political parties and other organisations should all have national daily
  1468
  newspapers so that readers have a free choice in the newspaper they wish to buy. Even then there must be editorial freedom. We understand that. However, I believe that we are taking the matter much too far.
  This evening one Front Bench spokesman was floored by the Secretary of State, who pointed out that the rules of the NUJ had been changed. When that union holds a ballot, the decision can only be overturned by another ballot. The Opposition case was destroyed. Since the NUJ must hold a ballot to overturn the decision of a previous ballot, the safeguard lies in the decision taken by the membership of the NUJ. Suppose that the majority of the NUJ decided by ballot on a certain policy, which was objected to by the Opposition. Ballots do not necessarily give the answers we want. There is another side to the ballot argument. The railwaymen's case is a case in point. Even under the Tory Industrial Relations Act 1971 the workers in different industries could hold ballots to decide whether they should belong to one union or another. We objected to the process, but that was part of the philosophy. The journalists as a profession could have taken a ballot to decide whether they should belong to the Institute of Journalists or the NUJ. That could have been done under the Tory legislation.
  This is the nub of the argument. Journalists are not being forced to join trade unions. Obviously the matter must be considered, but I do not think that editors should be frightened of that. The terrible crisis foreseen by the Opposition is a remote possibility. It is never likely to occur. If I thought that contributors to magazines, national newspapers and local newspapers were to be excluded as a result of this Bill no one would have the right to express their point of view in a newspaper, I could not agree to the measure. I have written for newspapers ranging from the Catholic Herald to the Morning Star. As long as no editor says what I must write, or censors what I write, I shall continue to write for those newspapers.
  Nothing in this legislation affects the question of the independent contributors. This is a bogy. It has been built up out of all proportion. Even some of my hon. Friends are infected by the fear

  1469
  mistakenly emanating from the Opposition and the editors.
  I think that the Secretary of State has fallen over backwards in order to placate the editors, hon. Members opposite and some of my hon. Friends. I say to him "Do not go any further." I think that he and the Government have gone far enough and that they should not give any further concessions. Indeed, in some respects they have gone too far and this is the end of the road. I am willing to support the Government tonight, but I hope that they will not go any further. We must not succumb to the bogy man fears which have been developed by hon. Members opposite.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. George Reid: After the acres of type and hours of debate devoted to the subject of Press freedom over the past year, it was a relief to see on the Notice Paper the amendment put down by the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam). It goes straight to the heart of the matter—freedom for editors and access for contributors, steering a sensible middle course between the excessive legalism of the Lords amendment and the rather grudging concessions of the Secretary of State. Essentially, the hon. Member for Gateshead's amendment recognises the editor's delicate position, the fact that in journalism the buck has to stop somewhere, and that in the editor's chair is a man who is dealing not only with his staff but with his proprietor and public while simultaneously coping with the legal demands made on him. For that reason I believe that the hon. Gentleman's amendment would be welcomed by a majority of members of my union, the National Union of Journalists.
  We have heard a lot of talk tonight about threats to the Press and to Press freedom. But freedom of the Press is a public freedom. It does not belong to those who work in the Press—to the proprietors, the editors, the journalists or the compositors—it belongs to the public who have a fundamental interest in knowing that what they read is the product of free minds not restrained by any exterior forces.
  That freedom has been abused by plenty of proprietors—Northcliffe and Beaverbrook and some today. My concern as a member of the NUJ, however,
  1470
  is the increasing number of ideologues in the union who are seeking consciously to take control of their chapel, to gain editorial control over their publications and to determine what appears where, when and why. Many hon. Members have referred to the reasonable and responsible attitude of the vast majority of the 30,000 members of the NUJ, and of its general secretary, and I agree. But times are changing.
  When I entered journalism, there was such a thing as the "associate member's card" which covered the position of the editor perfectly—the man who had gone through the ranks of the union and was now in the editorial chair. As an associate, he had a foot in the union, but his external legal position was recognised by the union. That situation no longer applies.
  Recently, the Journalist, which carries the imprimatur of the NUJ as its house magazine, had an editorial calling for nationalisation of the Press. We have seen the blacking of non-union copy. In Scotland and England we have seen disciplinary action against editors. The London Freelance Branch issued a circular earlier this year containing the following note:
  "While these managements and editors control the Press and access to it, we can expect such access to be almost exclusively restricted to those 'experts' whose views are antagonistic to the Labour movement and the interests of the working people."
  I may add that I have sympathy for that point of view both in regard to the Scottish National Party and the Labour Party. The motion went on:
  "When the columns of the Press and air waves are open to the Labour movement, we will obviously reconsider the matter."
  That suggests a fair degree of penetration by ideologies. Surely the interests of the newspapers are primarily the interests of their readers. The job of Parliament in this situation is to defend the interests of the public and to hold the ring.
  I turn now to the right of access by external contributors. It is fairly obvious that democratic life demands the widest dissemination of information and ideas as possible. We have seen examples already of local newspapers, threatened by the fact that only a union member could contribute, virtually going to the wall. Lots of people who have been sending in notes about gardening or chess or

  1471
  shinty or whatever have been told that now the job can only be done by NUJ members, and the papers they have contributed to have been threatened with closure as a result. The same applies to specialist magazines taking articles from, for example, educationists, psychologists or psychiatrists, who can never be members of the NUJ as such. We need the widest access possible.
  I turn to the amendments from the House of Lords in the name of Lord Goodman. These would not bring about a situation of liberty in chapels but they could well bring about a situation of licence. I sympathise with members of the National Union of Journalists who see contained in them a veiled threat to the union. It is not only editors who are to be covered by their wording but other persons "exercising editorial responsibility". Where does that responsibility stop in a chapel? Does it stop with the teaboy? Clearly the women's feature editor, the picture editor, the letter page editor and the crossword editor have editorial functions. If all these people were to be free of any obligation to join the union, the NUJ would lose strength. Few of us in the current situation appertaining to chapels would wish that to happen.
  Finally, I come to the crunch of the matter. The guardians of the freedom of the Press are the editors. They have a privileged and at the same time rather burdensome position. To do their job they have to be free men. Naturally they are constrained by the need of their papers to survive and by considerations of law, but they must remain free from hidden influences of the type to which I have referred, and free from any threat to their own job security. They have a unique relationship with their staff. Their job is a unique two-way process. They carry legal responsibility for a group product. At the end of the day the editor is the guarantor of the freedom of all his collective workers to get on with their jobs without political or proprietorial interference. Free editors are essential to free journalism.
  Mr. Bryan Magee: I am not a member of the National Union of Journalists, and under the rules of that union I am not eligible to join. But in case any hon. Member is under the impression that
  1472
  the following constitutes an interest, perhaps I should mention that I write a monthly column for The Times, and contribute occasional articles to other papers. I am also a council member of the Critics's Circle, the long-established body in this country which represents critics of the performing arts. I mention in passing that some of the most distinguished and famous of the critics in this country are also not members of the NUJ, and not eligible to become members.
  Those of us who have been concerned with this controversy have throughout agreed on one or two basic issues. We have agreed that the two key issues are editorial freedom and freedom of access. We have also agreed all along—and I am at one with the Secretary of State on this—that freedom of access is extraordinarily difficult even to define, let alone to guarantee. Because no one would be so foolish as to say that any individual, having written any article he likes on any subject he likes, ought to have the right to submit that article to any editor he likes and demand that the editor should publish it. That is an absurdity, and anyone who gives thought to this matter would agree that in material respects the editor must, in order to perform his function, have the right to reject articles.
  Therefore, one problem that is central to this whole issue is how we can make freedom of access a reality while at the same time preserving the genuine freedom of the editor to pursue his editorial function. We can have freedom of access, and a free Press, only when we have an enormous multiplicity of newspapers, so that the individual who sends his article to one editor and has it turned down can send it to another. The same applies to the journalist who works on one newspaper and is sacked, for he can go and work on another.
  These are not just theoretical considerations. They are everyday realities for hundreds of journalists and for everyone who writes for newspapers. This freedom can be threatened—indeed, in most societies of the world it is not only threatened but obviated—by the existence of any body of people that has the power to say that only what it approves of—or, to put it at its weakest, only what it does not disapprove of—can be published. That is the case in most societies throughout the world. It behoves the

  1473
  House to remember that. It is not the case in this country. There is nobody who seriously regards the British Government as constituting a threat to the freedom of the Press in anything like that sense.
  There is only one body in Britain which is so placed that it is within reach of getting into that situation; that is the National Union of Journalists. To say that is not to make an anti-union point. It is to state a fact. Interference with editorial freedom can and does come from proprietors. It comes also from advertisers, and from pressure groups of many other kinds. However, the proprietors are not members of a single national organisation that has the power to make and to implement a united policy. Neither are the advertisers, nor the other pressure groups. However, the National Union of Journalists is.
  Those who are alarmed about this situation are not just enemies of the trade unions, sitting on the Opposition benches. As the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) rightly said, large numbers of members of the NUJ are alarmed about it. The hon. Member is a member of the NUJ, and I was pleased to hear him say that he thinks that many members of that union would support with enthusiasm the amendment on this question in the names of my hon. Friends and myself.
  In recent months not one but dozens of members of the NUJ, who are also Labour voters, have written to or have visited me and expressed their concern on precisely this question. So let not my hon. Friends continue with the idea that only enemies of trade unionism, or enemies of the NUJ, or only people with Right-wing political or social views, are frightened about the possible power that could be put into the hands of the NUJ by the Bill.
  Mr. Corbett: Would my hon. Friend agree that the biggest threat to the freedom of the Press comes not from any possibility of a closed shop but from closed publications?
  Mr. Magee: I agree. The situation in this country is imperfect and very unsatisfactory. The freedom of the Press must depend on a multiplicity of papers. In this country we have nothing like that. I should like to see far more newspapers.
  1474
  and a far wider spread of journals representing political views of all kinds, religious views of all kinds, if you like anti-religious views of all kinds. The greater the multiplicity, the better it is for freedom of expression.
  The greatest threat to freedom of expression and the freedom of the Press in any society is to have one body, however benevolent it may be and however much we may agree with its views, getting into the position where it can exclude from publication expressions of view with which it does not agree.
  The Secretary of State's amendment would put this power into the hands of the NUJ, his attitude being "We can trust it not to use that power." That is folly. If we are confident that the union will not use the power, why give the power to the union? The value of the amendment standing in the names of hon. Members and myself is that it would make it impossible for the union to exercise such a power.
  There is general agreement that the two key requirements to maintain freedom of the Press are editorial independence and freedom of access. The whole point of what we might call "the Horam amendment" as against "the Goodman amendment" is that it lays down the guarantee of these two freedoms as the minimum conditions which any charter will have to satisfy if it is to meet the requirements of this House. We are not legislating. We are saying what we regard as being the fundamental, irreducible requirements that any charter must meet. If it does not have those two requirements in it, the charter will not be worth having, as it will not do the job of guaranteeing fundamental Press freedoms. If my hon. Friends take the view that those freedoms are not threatened, I cannot see why they should not go along with the amendment.
  8.45 p.m.
  I do not support the Goodman amendments as they stand. The trouble is that they are framed as if the only threat to Press freedom comes from the trade unions. That is plainly not so. The trouble with the Secretary of State's amendment to the Goodman amendments is that it would have the effect of guaranteeing Press freedom only to trade

  1475
  union members. It is the mirror image of the same mistake.
  We want a situation which is open to all members of society whether or not they are members of a union. I recognise the enormous service that my right hon. Friend has provided for the policies of this Government by helping to forge links with the trade union movement, and especially in recent weeks. Those links will be of enormous importance to the Government over the next few years. However, the good relations with the trade union movement on which effective government should be based, and is now effectively being based, must not be reached by our always giving way to union demands. The way to have good relations with the unions is not to say "Yes" to everything they ask for. After all, the unions are bargaining organisations. That is what they exist for, that is their function in life. Like all bargainers, they never start by asking for what they expect to get. They never start by asking for what they are prepared to settle for in the end. When my right hon. Friend agrees to their first demands I sometimes suspect that no one is more astounded than they are. They probably wonder what he is up to when he adopts that approach.
  Some of my hon. Friends sitting near me may claim that my right hon. Friend has not done what I have suggested. Indeed, he has not, he has done something worse. The NUJ has not asked for what he proposes to give it. He is proposing to give it powers which it is not in the interests of our society to give it, and which it has not demanded.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my hon. Friend define the powers that my right hon. Friend proposes to give to the NUJ as against the whole of the trade union movement?
  Mr. Magee: If the Bill is passed in its existing form it will empower the NUJ, if it so chooses, to insist on having editors in the closed shop. It has been fundamental to my speech that no single body should be put in a position of being able to achieve monopoly control of what goes into newspapers—namely, monopoly control of the editorial function. So my view is that we should not accept the Goodman amendments, but also that the
  1476
  Secretary of State's amendment as it stands will not do. I hope, therefore, that the House will pass the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. If that amendment is not accepted, I hope that as a second best we shall pass the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).
  Mr. Adley: I almost hesitate to take part in the continuing debate between the various factions in the Labour Party on this issue as on so many others. I am speaking briefly in response to requests by working journalists of my acquaintance who have asked that the Goodman amendments be upheld as the best option that appears to be available at this rather late stage in what has been a long, complicated and technical argument on quite a simple matter.
  The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee), from where he stood in the Chamber, courageously stated that even this Government should not always give way to the trade unions. It is the demands of a few people in the trades unions, whom I do not believe are representative at all of the rank and file of the trades unions, which are behind this continuing debate. The remarks that the hon. Member for Leyton has just made, about a charter, illustrate this point well.
  It seems that we are to have a charter only when the Government decide that the law is not to be used to protect society against those from whom the Government, in their judgment, think society does not need protection. Rather than simply having the Community Land Bill why do we not have a Community Land charter? We are told by the Minister for Planning and Local Government that the Community Land Bill is merely a Bill to give local authorities certain powers. Of course, he says, they have not got to use those powers—they merely have them. If availability of power is enough, why have we spent so much time hammering that piece of legislation through against a great deal of informed criticism from outside?
  The issue tonight in my view is a simple one, namely, will the Bill increase or decrease the freedom of the Press? I am not aware—I may be wrong—that there is a universal feeling among the

  1477
  people of this country, especially those who buy newspapers, that at present the freedom of the Press is seriously in jeopardy. I do not believe that the Government have put forward any basic reasons for the need to shove this piece of legislation down the throats of the House and of the newspaper industry. I should have thought that if the Government were looking for a target, the laws of libel, for instance, might well be a better target on which they could concentrate their efforts than the target at which this Bill has been aimed.
  I should like to stress the point made by the hon. Member for Leyton and, before him, the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), about the possibility of the National Union of Journalists at some stage deciding who should or should not write for newspapers. I agree and accept that at present that may be a remote possibility.
  I have tried to join two unions in the past year and I have been rejected by both.
  Mr. Heffer: One has to have qualifications.
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) from a sedentary position, says that one has to have qualifications. I tried to join Clive Jenkins' union. He recently said that he would like to represent Members of Parliament. However, he would not take me as a member of his union, although I understand that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) thought that Mr. Clive Jenkins was wrong in refusing my application for membership.
  I applied for membership of the GMWU, and that was also turned down. Never let it be said that those two rejections had anything to do with politics—or did they? Of course, they did. They did not want a Conservative Member of Parliament in either of those trade unions.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Lady says "Hear, hear". She thinks it is funny. I put it to her that the situation of contributors to newspapers, who might at some future date find themselves barred from membership of the NUJ because of their membership of a political party, is not a
  1478
  laughing matter. That is a situation which could well arise. The hon. Lady would do well occasionally not to sneer at comments from Conservative Members who, in spite of the remarks of the hon. Member for Leyton and his ridiculous charge that the Conservative Party is anti-trade union, may well only be opposed to the imposition of militant views, by a minority, on the trade union movement.
  Mrs. Jeger rose—
  Mr. Adley: I shall give way when I have finished my point. I earnestly request hon. Members opposite to understand that trade unions in this country bring themselves into disrepute if they seek to deny to people who are not members of certain political parties membership of trade unions, and for no other good reason.
  Mrs. Jeger: I was not laughing at what the hon. Gentleman said. What he said was very serious. The question of membership of a trade union has nothing to do with political parties. However, it has to do with training, experience, work and skills within the particular craft of the union one is seeking to join. I can say that as a member of the NUJ. I have been a working reporter for many years. It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that one can simply apply to join the trade union of one's fancy without having been through that apprenticeship, training, work and the acquisition of the necessary skills. That is all I was trying to convey to him.
  Mr. Adley: How many more years than five must one serve in this House to qualify for membership of the ASTMS, Mr. Clive Jenkins having said that he would like it to act as the trade union for Members of Parliament? I recognise that the hon. Lady has been in this House a great deal longer than I have. My five years "apprenticeship" may not be long enough to qualify me to apply for membership of a trade union. But is she seriously suggesting that anybody who has been in a job for less than five years is not eligible to join a trade union which, in the words of its general secretary, has set itself up as the union to represent a given craft or trade—in this instance, Members of Parliament? There is political bias in certain unions and the hon. Lady would do well to recognise that fact.

  1479
  The point of the whole discussion about the NUJ is the possibility that at some time members who hold views unacceptable to the NUJ might find themselves excluded from writing articles. It was not many months ago that we saw large blank spaces in newspapers throughout the country because the NUJ was blacking the contributions by certain people who were not members of that union.
  The hon. Member for Walton has made one of his usual impassioned pleas about the evils of newspapers owned by millionaires, be they former members of the Parliamentary Labour Party or be they not. Many people own newspapers, and some of them are exceedingly wealthy. I do not have that detestation of people who have progressed in life, which seems to be the hallmark of the hon. Gentleman, who I might—
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman should refrain from making such statements about detestation of people because they are millionaires. I have never taken that view in my life, and never will. The argument is not about them being milionaires, but the fact that they are obviously trying to use the newspapers which they own to sustain a system of society in which they believe. The point is that they do not advocate another system of society or give unfettered access to those who do. There is no detestation of such people as individuals.
  Mr. Adley: If the word "detestation" upsets the hon. Gentleman, I withdraw it. Perhaps a better way of describing him is as the obersturmbahnfurhrer of the envy and jealousy brigade on the benches opposite.
  The hon. Member for Leyton wants more new newspapers built up. He wants more journals of specialist types started. The Scottish Daily News has not had a happy start, perhaps indicating that there is a lack of motivation, drive and special interest behind the newspaper to make it successful. What is needed if we are to have more newspapers is the creation of new enterprises by people who have the initiative, the determination and the drive to set them up, and if they make a lot of money jolly good luck to them. I recognise that there is a fairly wide gulf between the views of the hon. Member
  1480
  for Walton and those which I hold. There is a fairly wide gulf between his views and those of many of his hon. Friends, but that is another matter.
  9.0 p.m.
  There is no perfect answer to life's problems. The hon. Gentleman admitted that he did not think much of Pravda. He imagined that Russian newspapers were fairly stodgy and he did not want a system of State control. In life we have somehow to find a compromise, but I do not believe that the deliberate shackling of editors is the sort of compromise that will help to ensure the freedom of the Press.
  The hon. Gentleman complained that he could not get access to newspapers by which I presume he means that the fact that he could not get articles placed in certain newspapers had nothing to do with talent and everything to do with politics. He may, or may not, be right! I do not believe that in this country we have too many newspapers which deliberately present a totally one-sided view of life. But if we do, and if one is asked to choose, shall we say, between the Daily Telegraph and the Morning Star, I know which newspaper I should prefer, which freedom I should prefer.
  The Secretary of State is, I believe, a sad figure, a man who used to be master of the House of Commons but is now the slave of a Government which I rather suspect he wishes at times he had not joined. I do not believe that this measure is worthy of him. It may be that the Goodman amendments are imperfect, but I hope that the House will accept them. If they are not accepted here tonight I hope that in another place they will be adhered to rigorously.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: I rise to attempt to make it clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there are a number of hon. Members on this side of the House who feel that he has gone much too far in the amendment that he has put forward this evening.
  I think we would agree that a good deal of nonsense has been talked, tonight, throughout the Committee stage, on Second Reading and on Report, about the whole question of the freedom of the Press. If we consider the recent referendum campaign, can anyone seriously suggest that in the debate on this great

  1481
  issue we had a free Press in Britain which looked objectively at the arguments and gave every opportunity for every point of view to be expressed? My local newspaper said more or less in one of its editorials that the anti-Marketeers suggest that they ought to be given equal space in this debate. "But why should they?", it went on to ask.
  My right hon. Friend has no doubt seen the Labour Party document on the Press and what it had to say. The working party made it clear, as I think others have, that
  "In effect, three large corporations now produce 80 per cent. of all national daily and Sunday newspapers sold in the United Kingdom and, in the overwhelming majority of cities, there is an effective local monopoly of news, sometimes in the same hands as the national Press."
  The report went on to say:
  "A free Press, therefore, in the sense of a varied or a balanced Press is fast disappearing",
  and many of us on this side of the House would support that view.
  The document then lists those Members of the House of Lords, referred to this evening, who have considerable control over the Press. It has been suggested from the Opposition benches that we should look to them to defend our freedoms. No one with even a smattering of knowledge of this country's political history could seriously suggest that we should look to that other Chamber to defend the freedoms of the British people. Therefore we rebut this idea that we have a free Press. Nevertheless, at the same time we have to discuss what all these arguments about a free Press have to do with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill.
  Those who have not done so should look at the proposed charter that my right hon. Friend is asking us to support this evening. It is, it is true, an amendment of the House of Lords position, but, nevertheless, the Secretary of State says that, while hoping there will be an agreement between the trades unions and the employers in the newspaper industry on a charter, if no such charter has been agreed, he will, if he gets a vote in the House of Commons, impose a charter on the parties concerned in 12 months' time or so.
  It also goes on to suggest that this will be admissible as evidence. I know that
  1482
  there are many on the Opposition benches who would like it to be much tougher in terms of admissibility of evidence and so on. Throughout the Committee stage I understood the Secretary of State to be saying clearly that he would welcome a charter freely negotiated between the trade unions and the employers in the newspaper industry, but he did not accept that it would be possible, practicable or acceptable to have a clause in the legislation or a code of practice or whatever it might be.
  I should like to remind my right hon. Friend of what he said in the Committee:
  "That is why the Government were strongly in favour of the initiative taken by the National Union of Journalists whereby discussions should take place; discussions directed at devising not a law—not even a clause to be inserted, because that is not a satisfactory way of doing it but terms that could be put into the union membership agreement."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17th December, 1974; c. 98.]
  I have not heard any justification from anyone this evening or in any previous debate as to why those in the Press should be isolated from normal collective bargaining, or why an exception must be made of this group because they happen to work for newspapers. It is not thought to matter that they are monopoly newspapers. What about television, radio and the whole field of education? Could not we have some alarming stories of the possibility of ASTMS or the Association of University Teachers being taken over by the Maoists or Trotskyists and demanding a closed shop in our universities, laying down that all they will teach is the "Words of Chairman Mao", or something like that? Is not that a possibility? It has not been mentioned.
  What about Equity? What about the theatre and all the arts? Let us suppose that Equity starts laying down that actors must have a social conscience or inject social realism into Hamlet, or something like that. This is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hammered, and rightly so: if we make these exceptions, where do we draw the line? Why should the line be drawn at this particular point?
  Mr. Whitehead: It is a dangerous line of argument to pray in aid the situation of radio and television, because they are controlled by statutory organisations and

  1483
  if there were any form of take-over of any kind of the form of the BBC Licence and Agreement the Television Act, now the Sound Broadcasting Act, would make that impossible, whether or not that would be defined by some people as interference with the rights of collective bargaining, if collective bargaining is defined as exclusivity.
  Mr. Thomas: If there was a closed shop in radio and television I would have to be convinced that they would be able to use a quite separate charter which was not attached by any provision to this legislation and that the charter could be used to define their position.
  My right hon. Friend insisted that if he took the line of action suggested he would be making an exception and the question would then arise as to where the line should be drawn. It is wrong to say to a group of trade unionists that just because they work for a particular category of employers they have to be isolated from the rest of the working class and trade union movement in terms of collective bargaining.
  Let me move on to the definition of a union membership agreement. I fear that during our discussion hon. Members on both sides of the House have not taken account of the actual definition. The 1974 Act says
  "'union membership agreement' means an agreement or arrangement which—

  (a) is made by or on behalf of, or otherwise exists between, one or more independent trade unions and one or more employers or employers' associations; and

  (b) relates to employees of an identifiable class".

  Earlier we passed an amendment to clarify what was meant by "an identifiable class ".We have heard that the NUJ has made it clear—although its policy might, of course, change—that it would not demand that editors should join the NUJ, although editors are members and there are many closed shop situations such as on The Guardian and many other newspapers. The definition of a union membership agreement is expressly set out so that if it relates to employees of an identifiable class ipso facto it can identify those who are excluded from the agreement.
  1484
  There is no difficulty at all if the newspaper industry wants to identify editors as not being covered by the closed shop agreement. However, one or two hon. Members on the Opposition side have made it clear that that is not what they want. They want to extend the exemption to sub-editors, to sports editors and to gardening editors. The pressures from the employers are aimed to provide the opportunity to give job descriptions to a whole range of jobs and to try to free those doing the jobs from pressure to join a trade union.
  Mr. Adley: In view of the hon. Member's constituency will he answer one particular question? A few months ago Blackboy's Diary in the Bristol Evening Post contained large white gaps because many of the contributions were from people who were not members of the NUJ, although they were members of the IOJ. Does the hon. Member support or reject that situation?
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas: Every trade union has the right to adopt a policy in respect of the work for which its members have been trained and in respect of those who take that work from their members or where the employer gives it to outside workers. That is a legitimate part of collective bargaining. The NUJ has every right to have a policy about contributions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that it should allow the number of outside contributors to rise to the point at which its members become redundant. Many have become unemployed—I am not saying because of outside contributors.
  I understand that, in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers—one of my hon. Friends will be taking up another case on which we disagree—there was a dispute. In a dispute, a union can use whatever weapons are available—
  Mr. Adley: It was an inter-union dispute.
  Mr. Thomas: I do not care whether a dispute is an inter-union one or between union and employer: it is, in my judgement, a legitimate form of trade union industrial action and has nothing to do with a union membership agreement.
  Mr. Adley: It has everything to do with it.
  Mr. Thomas: It has not. If the NUJ has 50 per cent., 60 per cent., or 70 per cent. membership, it could still take that action. A closed shop is not necessary. Plenty of unions take such action even with a minority membership. It is no good pretending that this is linked with the closed shop. It happened before there was one and would happen if there were no closed shop.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing—he seems to be—that the National Union of Journalists would have the right to decide what level of outside contributions it would prohibit? If it decided, for example, that The Times must not publish articles from Members of Parliament on its left centre page, would he defend its enforcing that decision against the will of the editor and possibly against the public interest?
  Mr. Thomas: I do not know what is meant by the public interest in this connection. We are told the public have an interest but it seems they have no rights, that only editors, outside contributors and proprietors have rights. To answer the question: yes, I believe that a union would be failing its membership if it did not have a policy about the amount of work, presumably for its members, which was going to others. That is not to say that one would go from that to argue that it would decide how much and discriminate among individuals. On the other hand—some of my hon. Friends may not like this—the Labour Party document also called for more industrial democracy for the Press and more involvement of workers in decision-making. This may cut across the question of outside contributions and where they come from.
  I appeal to the Secretary of State, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), not to go further than he has gone. A number of my hon. Friends put down an amendment to reject the whole of Lords Amendment No. 7 which was not called. The Secretary of State convinced me that the best approach was for the unions and the employers to try for a voluntary charter. It should not be part of the Act, whether as a clause or as a code of practice. It would be quite wrong for those working in the newspaper industry to be isolated from the general stream
  1486
  of the working class and trade union movement and denied rights of free collective bargaining which even this charter denies them to some extent.
  The Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): May I appeal to the House for shorter speeches if possible? The debate has already been going on for more than three hours.
  Sir David Renton: In view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall detain the House for only a very short time, and I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) will forgive me if I do not follow him.
  We find ourselves in a paradoxical position. On one hand we are supposed to be the great protectors of the liberties of the people. Sometimes we succeed in being so with Acts like the Habeas Corpus Act, but on the other hand we find that most of the liberties of the people have been handed down through common law and custom, and, when we have legislated, it has been by means of interference with liberty. There has been a good deal of interference with liberty in legislation in recent years, sometimes justified, sometimes not.
  Tonight we find ourselves in a habeas corpus position. It has been admitted and agreed on both sides that, if there is a threat to the freedom of the Press, it can come most easily from those working in trade unions of Press employees. This is the stark reality of the situation. We suffered in this way in my own constituency not long ago with the Sharman dispute. By refusing to accept advertisements for their local papers some employees interfered with the freedom of the Press and did so simply because their union had ordered them not to accept those advertisements. This is the sort of thing that should warn us. Fortunately the unions concerned took stock of public opinion and what was said in this House.
  The Secretary of State has put us in the position of having to make a very stark choice tonight. He has said he does not want Parliament to pass an enforceable law to ensure the freedom of the Press. He wants a law that merely acknowledges that a charter, the contents of which are unknown to us, may one day

  1487
  be made, and may one day, after inter-union discussions, do something to preserve the freedom of the Press. I do not find that a satisfatcory situation. I much prefer the solution proposed in another place by Lord Goodman, which, as the Secretary of State has said, was put forward for the best of motives and with complete sincerity. The Secretary of State, while prepared to use the Goodman amendment as a framework or skeleton in order to have something on which to hang his idea about a charter, has withdrawn from the amendment any teeth which would make it an enforceable law. This admirable effort on the part of Lord Goodman, supported by a good majority in the other place—from both sides—is to become merely a tooth-les skeleton. That is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes on this occasion to pretend to protect the liberties of the people. It is not good enough.
  Mr. David Marquand: Most of the speeches so far have been concerned with the first two amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and myself. I want to concern myself solely with the third, dealing with the applicability of the charter rather than its contents. Before doing so there are one or two general comments I wish to make about the considerations which make it necessary to widen the applicability of the charter in the way we seek to do.
  We are discussing a quite revolutionary departure in this country's history. Most countries of the western world—I think I am right in saying all countries with written constitutions—have got legal safeguards for the freedom of the Press. This country has not. If this Bill is passed into law it will be the first time in the history of this country that Parliament has taken any view as to what constitutes freedom of the Press and what are the necessary conditions for that freedom. We are therefore talking about a revolutionary, valuable and healthy development in British history.
  One of the reasons why I could not possibly support the so-called Goodman amendments is that the criteria contained in them for what should count as freedom of the Press are ludicrously narrowly drawn and appear to be directed
  1488
  solely against possible threats to freedom from the journalists' unions. This is only one possible source of interference with the freedom of the Press. The amendment my right hon. Friend is moving to the contents of the charter in which he seeks to state that the charter shall have to include such matters as the offence of:
  "improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism"
  is a remarkable and important step forward.
  Those of my hon. Friends who believe that my right hon. Friend has gone too far should think twice before saying that. My right hon. Friend is saying, for the first time in our history, that it is an infringement of the freedom of the Press for there to be:
  "improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism".
  This is an important step forward and there should not be any difference of opinion on the Labour benches about the desirability of inserting that amendment.
  Mr. Tom Litterick: I follow the significance of my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope he will accept criticism in the spirit in which it is offered. The operative phrase needed to make his judgment of this Bill significant would be
  "pressure from any source at all."
  That phrase is not present. The phrases which crop up again and again in the Lords amendment give the game away. The amendment is aimed at trade unions which are defined as the only possible threat. If the phrase I suggest were to be incorporated we might be talking about the real issue. At the moment we are doing nothing like that.
  Mr. Marquand: I do not want to be led too far astray. If my hon. Friend will listen to my speech I hope to be able to persuade him that the amendment dealing with the applicability of the charter will deal with pressure from proprietors.
  We have to ask whether the amendments put forward by my right hon. Friend go far enough to meet the ends he seeks to achieve. He has gone a long way. If the Bill finally results in an agreed charter with these principles incorporated in it my right hon. Friend will deserve a great amount of credit.

  1489
  9.30 p.m.
  Those of us who have been involved in negotiations with the Minister should pay tribute to the way in which he responded to our point of view and sought to meet the representations from different quarters. I do not think that he has gone far enough to protect one of the central issues in the argument. I refer to the question of access by outside contributors who are not journalists, who are not eligible to be members of a journalists' union, and who do not have any contract of employment with a newspaper, but who are simply outside contributors. The protection of their interests is a vital matter of public concern, for the reasons put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam). I do not think that the amendments dealing with the ways in which the charter can be quoted go far enough to protect outside contributors' interests.
  I strongly object to the Goodman approach to enforceability. That approach will lead us down a disastrous blind alley. It is an attempt to do for Press freedom what the Conservative Party tried to do for industrial relations generally in its ill-fated 1971 Act. The lesson of history is that that Act was a disastrous failure. If we try the Goodman approach we shall poison and embitter relations in the newspaper industry between the journalists' union and the other parties in the industry and the print unions and the rest of the industry.
  The only safeguard of the freedom of the Press is the actions of those engaged in it. If we poison and embitter relations in the industry we shall not protect the freedom of the Press. On the contrary, we shall undermine the freedom of the Press.
  I do not accept the Goodman approach that the right way to secure the enforceability of the charter is to make it an offence to break the charter, or to make it possible for someone to take action against another party for breaking it.
  The Minister laid down the ways in which the charter can be used in legal proceedings too narrowly. He said that the charter could be quoted in evidence and could be taken into account by a tribunal or a court of law in only three
  1490
  ways. It can be taken into account or quoted in evidence if a professional journalist, not an outside contributor, takes action against an employer for breach of contract. Secondly, it can be quoted in evidence and taken into account by the courts if a member of the union takes action against the union. Thirdly, it can be quoted in evidence if an editor has been wrongfully dismissed and takes action before an industrial tribunal. That does nothing to help the outside contributor who does not have a contract with his employer. The outside contributor is not a member of the union. The provision about possible actions between members of a union does not concern the outside contributor and does not offer him protection. I suppose the right of editors to quote the charter if they have been unfairly dismissed might occasionally involve what the Minister has attempted to do about the use of outside contributors, but that will not occur very often. Outside contributors are not protected by that provision.
  Our amendment seeks to give the protection of the charter to the outside contributor in so far as the law allows the outside contributor to have any recourse to the courts, as well as giving it to the classes laid down in my right hon. Friend's amendment. I emphasise that it is not a question of giving anyone new rights of action against the union which they did not possess before. People can already take common law action against a union for all sorts of reasons. If an outside contributor is maliciously denied the right to have his article printed in the paper by an NUJ chapel, he now has the common law right to take action against the union. But my right hon. Friend's amendment makes it impossible for that person to use the charter as part of the ground for his action and to have the court take the charter into account. Our amendment does not give new rights. It is saying that if anyone uses his common law rights in any of the areas the Bill covers, it will be possible for him to quote the charter in evidence and for the court to take the charter into account.
  Mr. George Cunningham: What possible common law right would an outside contributor have against a union for taking some action, so long as that action was not a criminal offence or a tort?
  Mr. Marquand: If the union were actuated by malice of some kind against a contributor, he would be able to take action against that union, but under our amendment he would be able in his action also to quote the charter in evidence and have it taken into account by the court when the issue was decided.
  Mrs. Renée Short: It might, of course, be a rotten article.
  Mr. Marquand: It might be, but the court could decide whether that was the motive.
  Mr. Lee: Is not my hon. Friend trying to invent a new tort?
  Mr. Marquand: No. I am merely saying that the charter could be quoted. There have been a number of cases in our legal history in which people have taken action against others who have tried to exclude them arbitrarily or unfairly from membership of a union, and the judges have had the duty to decide whether the action complained of was against public policy. Our amendment gives guidance to the judges in such a case as to what constitutes public policy. We say, "This is Parliament's view of what constitutes public policy".
  This is not an anti-union amendment. It does not create any danger of new actions being taken against the NUJ which cannot be taken at the moment. All it says is that, where common law rights already exist, a person who feels he has ground for action under that common law against, perhaps, a proprietor who maliciously and frivolously tries to prevent his article from appearing in the Press, or against the NUJ for trying to interfere with his copy, will be able to quote the charter in evidence.
  As far as I understand it, my right hon. Friend said that there was really no point in our amendment because it was already covered, that the three limiting cases which he puts forward in his amendment are simply examples of the sort of thing that might arise and do not exclude anything else. I am not a lawyer any more than he is, but I am told that normally if a statute lays down three sorts of proceedings to which its provisions apply, it is understood by the courts that it is not intended to apply to other proceedings.
  1492
  Otherwise why define them in that way? Why not simply leave it as we would leave it under our amendment, that in any proceedings that can be brought in this matter the charter can be quoted in evidence? If my right hon. Friend is right that our amendment, as it were, is unnecessary, at the very least it is harmless and he should be able to accept it. If it is not the case that it is unnecessary and if there are other proceedings in which it might be relevant to quote the charter, why should it not be quoted? If there are any other such proceedings in which my right hon. Friend believes that the charter should not be quoted, what are they?
  My right hon. Friend has to resolve this dilemma. Either our amendment is harmless or it is necessary. I hope that he will accept this as a useful and constructive step forward in making the charter, which all Labour Members agree is the right solution to the problem, more effective than it is in the amendment which he has tabled. I also hope that those Conservative Members who believe that the right way to give teeth to the charter is to go down the Goodman path and make it possible for people to be sued in the courts for breaking the charter will think twice before they take that road.
  The lesson of the history of the past few years is that that course will do more harm than good. There is no need for it. Existing common law remedies cover the matter and our amendment offers a solution to the problem which should be acceptable to all hon. Members.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: It is with great regret that I find myself at odds this evening with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for whom I have the greatest respect and regard. I hope that I have the reputation in this House for being independent enough to speak my mind when need warrants it. I shall do so this evening and vote accordingly, if necessary. It will depend on what my right hon. Friend does.
  Freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom of the Press, is an essential pillar of our democratic society. If it is eroded, we shall go down the slippery path to authoritarianism—the sad slippery path. I want to guard against that at all costs.

  1493
  First, I shall put a spoke in the wheel of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) who opened the debate for the Opposition. He is afraid, as many people are afraid that the Bill as it stands will force editors to become members of the union; that is, a closed shop.
  I am interested in the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have no special interest; I am just interested in it. That federation recently wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rather than to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In its letter it said that:
  "Editors are regarded as the guardians of the free press, and to fulfil their rôle they must be free to do so without political or proprietorial interference. If they are compelled to become full union members, and act in any manner which displeases the union, they could be expelled and become unemployable in the profession."
  I agree with that entirely. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote back saying:
  "The legislation will not require that editors, or anyone else who writes for the media, should be union members, and no union is given the right to demand that a closed shop should be established."
  9.45 p.m.
  If that is so, why not embody it in the Bill and ensure that there is no necessity for a closed shop? That is exactly what the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) and others does. It says:
  "right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union".
  That is why I have come down absolutely in favour of that amendment rather than in favour of the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others, which does not include that. There is no reason why that provision should not be included. It would safeguard editors against having to join a trade union and form a closed shop.
  I come next to the question of freedom of access. My right hon. Friend's amendment to line 17 is pure waffle. It does nothing to preserve freedom of access. Freedom of access must be preserved. I appreciate that there is a fear that the right of editors to commission and publish
  1494
  any article might be misused. I suggest an alternative. For the words
  "the right of editors to commission and publish any article"
  there should be substituted the words
  "to commission and publish articles from non-union contributors".
  That would fit the Bill. It would at least allay the fears of those who feel that contributors who are non-union members would be excluded from contributing their articles to a paper. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that, perhaps as an amendment to an amendment, and to yield to the strong feeling of hon. Members on this side.
  Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I support the amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will realise that in an earlier manifestation you had occasion to take very critical action against me as I was the editor of a journal in which you were mentioned by an anonymous contributor in the most defamatory way. I have forgotten the name of the contributor. I did not give his name to you, but you took very vigorous action against me.
  I am not a member of the National Union of Journalists, although I contribute to newspapers both in Britain and in other countries—in ever-increasing numbers, I am glad to say. The question which was presented most ably and vigorously by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) concerned a hypothetical situation; namely, that in a situation of social crisis the members of the NUJ, by virtue of their position within the media of information, would have a power totally disproportionate to their numerical strength and could exercise that power to seek to impose a totalitarian system upon the country.
  Most of the authoritarian Socialist systems that have been imposed upon reluctant people in the last decade have not been imposed by—to use the words used by my right hon. Friend—57 varities of Trotskyites, Maoists or whatever else it may be. They have been imposed by soldiers, by armies. So, if we are to shiver with fear, let us, in the light of history, shiver with fear whenever we see a uniformed soldier and not whenever

  1495
  we confront a fully-paid-up member of the NUJ.
  I have no reason to love the National Union of Journalists. I was kicked out of that union in circumstances which were certainly not to its credit but entirely within its rules. As a result of being ill I had neglected to pay my subscription. There were certain other accounts that I neglected to pay. The Midland Bank, bless and preserve it, was far more generous to me than the NUJ. When I attempted to rejoin the union it was decided that I was not eligible. Let us make no mistake about it; that was entirely within the rights of the members of that union. Although I have every reason to have a strong prejudice against the NUJ, I cannot take seriously the view that the union is about to be captured by the enemies of democracy with intent to destroy the freedom of the Press and to liquidate outside contributors such as myself.
  I speak as a fairly well known and fairly widely read outside contributor. Judging by my correspondence, I am read mostly by Conservative Members and not by my hon. Friends. I must point out that there are certain responsibilities which cannot be written into a charter which outside contributors must accept as a kind of self-denying ordinance. I would never in any circumstances, even if I obtained real hard news—and occasionally I stumble into it—use the column that I am privileged to occupy once a month in The Times to purvey such news. In so doing I would be depriving a craftsman of work. I do not think that outside contributors should do that.
  We are entitled to give our opinion on what is already in the public domain. We are entitled, as most of us are expected to do, to entertain the public rather than to inform them. I do not believe that the NUJ is wrong in any sense if it registers an objection if some of us in a position to receive hard news incorporate it in columns which are supposed to be columns of opinion. We should not be in business to deprive craftsmen of any part of their jobs. I do not believe that members of the NUJ who have decided by ballot—the Secretary of State has shown that the ballot can be reversed only by another
  1496
  ballot—to take a reasonable course of action should now be indicted because at some future time, in a future hypothetical situation, they might be captured by about 27 thugs. I do not think that we should talk about the Bill or the dangers to Press freedoms in those terms.
  In making my final point, I speak as someone who has not only disagreed rather vigorously with my right hon. Friend before but who has actually worked for him. I believe that I was the biggest nuisance he ever had in his employ. However, that is past history. I emphasise that the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North takes complete care of all the objections that have been raised as to the operation of the Bill and the charter that will emerge from the discussions that have taken place during the Bill's passage. It takes complete care of the special position of editors. If anyone associated with me in a union or in my party pointed the pistol at the head of any editor to force him to join any union I would repudiate such action. My hon. Friend's amendment takes complete care of that possible situation.
  The amendment also protects the interests of outside contributors, although I expect such contributors to observe certain self-imposed ground rules as I do myself. I think that it is a constructive amendment to what is already a constructive amendment. Those who imagine that by trying to bring the law into this sort of situation they are protecting the freedom of the Press should understand that if the situation in journalism is as potentially dangerous as they imagine it to be, there will be no law passed in this House that can stop it from escalating. There is no charter that will not be torn up by the revolutionaries, if they exist in sufficient quantities to be able to do that. I do not believe that they exist in such numbers in the NUJ. Whilst I have no reason to have great affection for that union, I believe in what it stands for in the light of the ballot decision it has recently taken.
  Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Like the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher), I do not think that there is a band of men spread throughout the NUJ who deliberately intend to subvert the newspaper industry.

  1497
  No one imagines that. I believe that from various sources in varying degrees our Press is in some danger of having its freedom eroded. If I had to list the most important single source I should say it was the closure of newspapers due to economic pressure. Indeed, I wish that we were talking about that and about a Bill for the freedom of the media. I wish that we did not have this Bill, but had a different Bill in a different situation.
  Let us recognise that although there is the danger of closure and of financial strangulation and some danger, sometimes, from proprietors—I think greater in the past than now, because economic forces grip them also—there is some danger, in certain situations, from journalists' unions acting in their own defence, cutting people out of contributions or trying to influence the policy of the paper. It does not happen often. It is not prevalent, but the danger exists.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) put his finger on the matter when he pointed out that in a declining industry he would support a policy by the NUJ, if it agreed to it, in a particular chapel, to have, if necessary, no outside contributions whatever. If that happened it would limit the freedom of the Press and it would constitute a danger.
  If there was no danger my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not have told us that he intends to set up a charter. If there was no danger he would not be saying that. However, he says that we have to have a charter. We are not in disagreement about this or about the nature of freedom, which is to have many newspapers able to put their own free editorial point of view. We are in agreement that it can be threatened in one or two ways, one of which we are trying to combat by this measure.
  The only issue remaining is whether the House should give some indication of what the charter should or should not include. As far as I can see, that is the only issue that remains before us.
  I should have thought that the charter would be a difficult thing to draw up, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am sure, will agree, if it does not contain some defence of editorial freedom and access it is not
  1498
  worth having as a charter. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would want it to include those things, and would not accept it as a charter if it did not. In the circumstances, all that he is saying is, "I think that the charter should include the same points as are in your amendment, but do not say it. Do not put it in the Bill. Do not write it down." Why not? When I have listened to him speak in the House on other occasions his only argument has been, "If you write it in you make it more difficult to negotiate You upset them. You frighten or annoy them." If anything would upset or worry me about the freedom of the Press it would be if that were true. If it were true that the NUJ were so teetering on the verge of rejecting these principles that it would be frightened by the House making any point of this kind, I believe that the danger would be greater than is the case.
  I am surprised that my right hon. Friend should tell the House "The two sides will negotiate a charter, but, hush, do not let the House of Commons say what it regards as the minimum requirements of the charter." I cannot understand him when he say that. I can think of him in a previous incarnation of only a few years back when he would have stood in the Chamber and said, "Is it to be said to us, the sovereign legislature of this country, that we are not to pronounce on this matter? Is it that we are to go to outside parties and say 'Protect the freedom of our Press, protect your rights, come together, because we have to make the commitment.'"? All we are asking in our two amendments is that this House shall exercise its normal right of representing the public, the readers of the Press. The charter will be worthless unless it contains these two points.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) finished so suddenly that he left me speechless. I will try to sustain

  1499
  that position as nearly as I can and still discharge the duties which I suppose I must perform at the end of this debate. I will speak as briefly as possible and comment upon what has been said. This debate is a refutation of the view which my hon. Friend was attributing to me—that in some way or other I am not in favour of the House of Commons pronouncing on these matters.
  The House of Commons has done very well today. That is one reason why I believe in the House of Commons. Debates of this character, when we are not subject to a Government who have closed their minds in advance—[Interruption.] I have always believed in the proposition that as often as possible—of course, it cannot be done all the time—Ministers should listen to a debate and reply to it taking into account what has been said.
  Sir David Renton rose—
  Mr. Foot: I will give way, but I want to get a word in first.
  At the beginning of the debate I said, although it may have been a most extraordinary utterance, that I would listen to the debate and make up my mind, or that of the Government, in view of what was said. I have done that and I propose to reveal it to the House as soon as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to do so.
  Sir David Renton: The right hon. Gentleman claims to have an open mind. Will he bear in mind that the House is waiting for him to show his open-minded-ness on the closed shop?
  Mr. Foot: I have already expressed my view on that matter. I have tried to disabuse hon. Members of the idea that I have some passion in favour of the closed shop. That is not so. As I said earlier, I have a passion to try to get rid of the Industrial Relations Act, but that is a different matter.
  I turn first to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) and his amendment on the subject of the admissibility of evidence. Admissibility is a very different matter from enforceability, as he acknowledged
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas)
  1500
  expressed his doubts, suspicions and qualms about the charter being admissible in evidence in any form. I will come later to his general proposition about having a charter included in the Bill in any form whatsoever. I shall seek to reply to that point.
  I do not think that anyone in any quarter of the House should have any qualms about the charter, once it is established, being admissible in evidence. But I think it is a reasonable thing to happen. That is what happens with highway codes and other codes which may be established under different Acts of Parliament. They are admissible in different forms. Indeed, as I understand it—I am no lawyer, like many others who have spoken—they are admissible if they are relevant.
  It is partly because of the general admissibility of such evidence that I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield over-rated the significance of his amendment. I do not believe that it has the full significance that he suggests. However, it is true that some contributors might be embraced in his amendment who might conceivably be excluded under these provisions, although we have racked our brains to discover circumstances in which that might be the position. We have not found any circumstances that indicated that, but it is conceivable. Therefore, he says, his amendment is harmless on my reckoning or it is necessary, and which is it? I think that it is harmless, and so I shall take it. But I take it subject to what I have said about its harmlessness, and I am sure that the courts will pay due attention to what I say. I believe that the charter could be invoked in all proceedings where it is relevant, whether or not we have stated it in the Bill.
  On that basis, if the House will permit my hon. Friend's amendment to be carried the Government will accept it. I do not think that it makes a vast improvement to the Bill. I do not think that it alters it greatly. It does not alter the Bill from our intention, and in some respects I think the fact that we have spelled out in the Bill the occasions when the charter could be invoked and its admissibility could be invoked is of assistance to the general debate.
  Now I come to the amendments of my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead,

  1501
  West (Mr. Horam) and Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). It has been suggested that there is not much difference between these two amendments, but I think that there is a considerable difference between them as was illustrated by the debate, particularly when my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian laid stress on the rights of contributors, and that is a theme that has run through all these debates.
  The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West leaves out any recognition of or reference to contributors, and if he were to vote for that amendment he would vote for one that did not deal with that subject. Although the matter may be partly dealt with in the harmless amendment that I have accepted, it would be an extraordinary state of affairs if my hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, who always sees these matters so much more clearly than the rest of us, decided that they would go slap into the Lobby to vote for an amendment which specifically does not carry out what my hon. Friend has been complaining about. I do not think that that is a very good reason for voting for the Gateshead amendment.
  I am not saying this in a fiercely critical sense, because I appreciate that my hon. Friend, like other hon. Members, has not had a great deal of time in which to put down the amendment. I do not think that that is a complaint against the Government, or against anybody, and by having discussed these matters in the House today we have been able to clear up many of these points.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead that, partly because it leaves out contributors, partly for the other reasons that I stressed earlier, partly because the reference to editors is made in an unqualified manner, partly because, if passed in that form, it would greatly injure the prospect of securing any charter, I hope that he will not move his amendment. I think that that is the best solution, but if he does move it, I shall have to ask the House to reject it for the reasons that I have stated.
  Now I come to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North. His amendment is very
  1502
  different from that put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, for the reasons that he said. First, it does not have the overtones of anti-unionism which one finds in the Gateshead amendment. I am sure that that was not done on purpose, but the amendment has that inference, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North insisted. Also, as he emphasised, there are many other differences between his amendment and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West.
  We believe that his amendment is a very considerable improvement and goes near to solving the problem, but we should like to look at the wording carefully.
  In some respects we do not think that the amendment quite carries through everything that is intended, because it is qualified in another sense; the rights of the editors stated there are qualified by reference to the agreement itself. We shall look at the amendment and see whether it is satisfactory in the present form or whether we wish, while still retaining the principle of it as now stated, to qualify it or to frame the words in a somewhat different way when it goes to another place.
  Subject to that, we shall accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, if he moves it, and ask the House to support it and add it to the other amendments that we shall then be proposing.
  I believe that that is a sensible approach. I hope it will not cause any trouble to any of my hon. Friends in any quarter, though certainly I hope that it will cause great trouble to the Opposition. By adopting this sensible approach I believe that we shall be carrying out more skilfully and more purposefully what had already been intended by the Government. Indeed, when it is suggested that we must have an arrangement whereby the charter, whatever else it deals with, covers two specific subjects—the position of editors and the question of access—that is quite right. But that is all in our original amendment. In accepting the amendment of the hon. Member for Derby, North we are, therefore, fulfilling what we had originally intended—subject, as I have already said, to the fact that we wish to look at it in the House of Lords a bit later.

  1503
  Turning to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, I fully accept the view he expressed about the charter, in the sense that he quoted remarks that I had made earlier about the way in which this question should be approached, and how we wished to keep the law out of this battle.
  My hon. Friend said that the charter might, in some form or another, be an interference with free collective bargaining. I do not accept that view, and certainly that is not the view of the National Union of Journalists. The union has been strongly in favour of the charter all along. Part of the reason for their being strongly in favour of it is that their own code of conduct—which they had before any of this arose—embraces most of the ideas in the charter itself. It does not embrace them all, because there are some matters, such as the position of the editors, that were not dealt with in the code of the journalists. That was one of the specific matters referred to the journalists in the ballot that they have recently held.
  I am sure that the National Union of Journalists does not regard the charter approach to this subject as one that interferes with its rights as a trade union. If the charter were to be made enforceable by legal means, I would entirely agree with what has been suggested, but the Government have resisted this throughout. We have had major pressure from all other quarters, sustained from the Opposition benches tonight, although with wilting effect, because there has not been a very powerful assault from them. It rather seems that they have given up. If that is so, I think they are very wise, because more and more as the debate has proceeded, we have seen how unwise it is to think that problems such as these can be solved by the cumbrous and awkward legisative apparatus that Lord Goodman has served up to us.
  The first thing we should be doing tonight in accepting the Government's amendments is to reject the whole of that apparatus. In that sense I believe that we are fulfilling the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Lee: May we take it as an assurance that if an attempt is made by a
  1504
  majority in another place to reverse our decision the Government will then deal with the other place?
  Mr. Foot: Do not tempt me too far. Let us get this Bill through the House of Lords and then consider these questions in the proper way. I want to see this Bill on the statute book as speedily as possible, not only in the interests of the journalists but because the Bill is the final measure for wiping out the 1971 Act. Already many months have passed during which the Bill should have been on the statute book.
  The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said that nothing much had happened and that we need not worry. All the dire prophesies that I had made of what might occur if that measure had stayed on the statute book had not come to pass, he said. Maybe it is because we have been improving the industrial climate in other spheres too. As long as the arbitrary exclusion clause, on which the Government had such a good majority earlier today, remains the law of the land of course there are dangers asociated with the kind of actions which spring from the 1971 Act, and for that reason I eagerly await the time when this Bill will be carried into effect.
  The House of Commons has illustrated that whatever the differing shades of emphasis there may be between us none of us can accept the Goodman method of dealing with this problem. We are all determined to vote against that method, and whatever hesitations and reservations we may have we believe that the charter method is the right way to proceed. Therefore when we vote for these Government amendments the House will be giving all the encouragement it can to the NUJ, to the editors and to the others concerned to come together to try to secure the charter we have always wanted. When that objective is achieved we shall in some respects have a better protection for the freedom of the Press than has ever existed in this country. The Opposition asked about this appalling fear, this idea that the NUJ would exercise its mammoth monopoly and deny complete access to the newspapers. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth was wise enough to say that this was a very remote possibility. That was not the frenzied way in which the

  1505
  situation has been portrayed in the newspapers. There have been no leading articles in the Daily Express, The Times and other newspapers referring to a remote possibility. They have almost been talking about Hitler marching down Fleet Street.
  If we carry through the Government's proposals for dealing with this problem and if we can sustain support for the freedom of the Press generally and, in particular, among journalists and editors, if we can sustain the kind of momentum which has been displayed on this subject over the last few months, we shall remove that remote possibility from the horizon altogether. I hope that the House will not be guided by those hobgoblins, but will accept that we have made progress in securing protections for the freedom of the Press which do not involve the dilemma which the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth presented. He said that we have to choose between the freedom of the Press and the principles of trade unionism.
  Mr. Hayhoe: No.
  Mr. Foot: No, I know that the hon. Member said that we have to choose between freedom of the Press and the closed shop—
  Mr. Hayhoe: The sanctity of the closed shop.
  Mr. Foot: Yes, "the sanctity of the closed shop" is a phrase in the mouths of Conservative Members which they use to try to reassert the 1971 Act ideas. Nothing could be more dangerous than to say to people, especially trade unionists, that the freedom of the Press is opposed to their interests. Trade unionists have as much interest in the freedom of the Press as anyone else and they have shown a better spirit in sustaining it than many other sections of the community.
  So for hon. Members opposite or the House of Lords to try to draw a distinction between freedom of the Press and the interests of trade unionists, two freeddoms—the freedom to write and speak freely and the freedom to combine—which have had to be fought for mainly by trade unionists is to seek to damage the cause of trade unionism and that of the freedom of the Press. We on this side stand for both.
  Mr. Brittan: After many hours of debating the freedom of the Press it is easy to forget the context of the debate and how the anxieties of the freedom of the Press arose in the first place. The Bill is not fundamentally about the Press but about industrial relations. One of its effects was to encourage the spread of the closed shop. It was at that point—late in the day, it has been said—that the Press realised that the Bill was likely to encourage the closed shop and those concerned with the Press woke up and realised that if the closed shop was enforced by the NUJ there was a risk—not necessarily overwhelming but some risk—that the union would abuse its position as a monopoly supplier of labour to the Press and restrict Press freedom in some way.
  We can debate whether the danger of that happening is great or small, but we believe that if that is a danger at all it must be dealt with. It was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) and supported by the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Magee) and Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) that the threat may not be imminent but is one that we ignore at our peril.
  The question then arose, if that is the situation, whether one should and could protect Press freedom from that threat and specifically from that threat alone. It is important to remember that the Bill is about industrial relations and the impact of the closed shop. It is not a Bill about the Press generally. It is therefore no answer to what we say for Labour Members to say that there are other risks to Press freedom which should be dealt with. That is the answer to the points made about the influence of proprietors.
  I do not agree with everything said about proprietors, but even if some of it were right, and even if some of what was said about access to the Press were right, it does not follow that we could or should try to deal with that problem in the Bill. A Royal Commission is sitting and when it has reported it may or may not be appropriate to introduce much more general legislation to meet the points of hon. Members opposite.
  At the moment, we are concerned with one particular potential threat to Press freedom—that posed by a closed shop.

  1507
  It is that threat alone we seek to meet in the Bill. Some hon. Members have said that the threat is so negligible that it ought not to be regarded; others have said that, even if it was not negligible and had been a reality, it had been adequately dealt with by the votes of the NUJ. We have had a thorough-going history of votes at NUJ meetings and in postal ballots. Whatever the constitutional position within that organisation, to rely for the protection of our freedom of speech on votes which can change from week to week and month to month is to base the most precious of our freedoms on shifting sands. Although the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) told us we should be grateful to the NUJ, the right attitude for this House is not to be grateful or ungrateful to the union. It is for this House to take the steps necessary to protect our freedoms rather than wait for the NUJ to be good enough to take an attitude we can approve.
  Is it right to intervene in the encouragement of closed shops of the kind provided by this legislation? The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) asked why the NUJ should be singled out and why it should be more difficult for that union to impose a closed shop than it is for other unions in industry. They asked whether that was not unfair.
  The answer is that producing a newspaper is not the same as manufacturing ball-bearings, and anybody who falls into the error of thinking that there is nothing we should do to protect the freedom of the Press, as opposed to dealing with a closed shop situation where freedom of expression is not concerned, is making a fundamental error which we reject. However important the closed shop may be to some people in industry, freedom of speech is more important for us, and if anyone is to protect freedom of speech, it should be this House. We should never be party to a protection which is false and illusory. It would be better not to make an attempt to protect Press freedom than to be a party to protecting it in a way which is a snare and a delusion. The Secretary of State's proposed amendments to the Goodman amendments are a snare and a delusion and are not worth the paper they are written on. That is why
  1508
  I shall advise my hon. and right hon. Friends that the Goodman amendments should be supported and the Secretary of State's amendments should be rejected.
  Much of the debate has taken place against a background of internecine strife, with a greater or lesser degree of politeness, between the Manifesto Group and other members of the Labour Party. The Secretary of State graciously conceded much to the Manifesto Group, exactly as we predicted at the outset. The charade has been played through. It is a charade because it does not make a halfpenny-worth of difference whether the Manifesto Group's amendments are passed or the Secretary of State's amendments go through. None provide adequate protection. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) claim that his amendment would guarantee Press freedom. How can it guarantee Press freedom when it is only a charter which is, at most, admissible and can be referred to, but has no effect and does not bite? My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East was devastating in his analysis of why a charter would have no effect and would not bite. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) showed that it was deprived of all force and had no effect because it merely provided something which could be looked at by the courts.
  10.30 p.m.
  At one point the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) intervened and said that the Bill did not deprive the journalist of his common law rights. He is correct. But the point is not that it does not deprive the journalist of his common law rights but that, in the form in which the Secretary of State would have it, it adds nothing to those rights and does not assist him one jot or tittle to enforce those rights and to have those rights. It would be quite wrong for us, on the basis of a charter which contained a lot of illusory hot air, to surrender our undoubted duty of providing real protection for the freedom of the Press in the area in which it is most threatened.
  There is only one sure protection for the freedom of the Press when it is threatened in a particular way as it is in this Bill. It is for us in this House to have the courage to say to the country

  1509
  that we cannot guarantee Press freedom. The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher) was right in that sense. But we can give some measure of protection against a particular threat. That is what we propose to do, and that is why we support the Goodman amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords Amendments be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 257.

  Division No. 337.]

  AYES

  [5.46 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Allaun, Frank

  Flannery, Martin

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Archer, Peter

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Madden, Max

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Magee, Bryan

  Ashley, Jack

  Ford, Ben

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

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

  Marks, Kenneth

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marquand, David

  Bates, Alf

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Bean, R. E.

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Ginsburg, David

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Gould, Bryan

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gourlay, Harry

  Meacher, Michael

  Bishop, E. S.

  Graham, Ted

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Boardman, H.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Millan, Bruce

  Booth, Albert

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Hardy, Peter

  Molloy, William

  Bradley, Tom

  Harper, Joseph

  Moonman, Eric

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Hatton, Frank

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Buchan, Norman

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Newens, Stanley

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Noble, Mike

  Campbell, Ian

  Henderson, Douglas

  Oakes, Gordon

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hooley, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

  Cant, R. B.

  Horam, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Carter, Ray

  Huckfield, Les

  Orbach, Maurice

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Ovenden, John

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Owen, Dr David

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hunter, Adam

  Padley, Walter

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Park, George

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Parker, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  Janner, Greville

  Parry, Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Corbett, Robin

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Perry, Ernest

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  John, Brynmor

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Cronin. John

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Radice, Giles

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Reid, George

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

  Judd, Frank

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lambie, David

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lamond, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Roper, John

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dempsey, James

  Lee, John

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Doig, Peter

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Ryman, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Dunn, James A.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Litterick, Tom

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Edelman, Maurice

  Loyden, Eddie

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Edge, Geoff

  Luard, Evan

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Sillars, James

  English, Michael

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Silverman, Julius

  Ennals, David

  MacCormick, Iain

  Skinner, Dennis

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  McElhone, Frank

  Small, William

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McGuire, Michael(Ince)

  Snape, Peter

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Tuck, Raphael

  Whitlock, William

  Stallard, A. W

  Urwin, T W.

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Stoddart, David

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Stott, Roger

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

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Strang, Gavin

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Ward, Michael

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Swain, Thomas

  Watkins, David

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Watkinson, John

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Watt, Hamish

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Weetch, Ken

  Woof, Robert

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Weitzman, David

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Thompson, George

  Wellbeloved, James

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Thome, Stan (Preston South)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Tierney, Sydney

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Tinn, James

  White, James (Pollok)

  Mr. Tom Pendry and

  Tomlinson, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Miss Margaret Jackson

  Torney, Tom

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Fell, Anthony

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Alison, Michael

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Knox, David

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Lamont, Norman

  Arnold, Tom

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lane, David

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Fox, Marcus

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Banks, Robert

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Beith, A. J.

  Freud, Clement

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Bell, Ronald

  Fry, Peter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Lloyd, Ian

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Loveridge, John

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylda)

  Luce, Richard

  Biffen, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McCrindle, Robert

  Blaker, Peter

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Body, Richard

  Goodhart, Philip

  MacGregor, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Madel, David

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Grant Anthony (Harrow C)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Brittan, Leon

  Gray, Hamish

  Marten, Neil

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Grieve, Percy

  Mates, Michael

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J

  Mather, Carol

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grist, Ian

  Maude, Angus

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Grylls, Michael

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Buck, Antony

  Hall, Sir John

  Mawby, Ray

  Budgen, Nick

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Burden, F. A.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hannam, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mills, Peter

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Channon, Paul

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Molyneaux, James

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Clegg, Walter

  Heseltine, Michael

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Cockcroft, John

  Hicks, Robert

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Cope, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Cordle, John H

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Costain, A. P.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Critchley, Julian

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Mudd, David

  Crouch, David

  Hunt, John

  Neave, Airey

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hurd, Douglas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Neubert, Michael

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Newton, Tony

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Nott, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  James, David

  Onslow, Cranley

  Drayson, Burnaby

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

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Jessel, Toby

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Durant, Tony

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Pardoe, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Pattle, Geoffrey

  Elliott, Sir William

  Jopling, Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Emery, Peter

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Percival, Ian

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Kilfedder, James

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Kimball, Marcus

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Farr, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  1412

  1413

  Raison, Timothy

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Rathbone, Tim

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Trotter, Neville

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Speed, Keith

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Viggers, Peter

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stainton, Keith

  Wakeham, John

  Rifkind Malcolm

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Wall, Patrick

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Walters, Dennis

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Stokes, John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Storehouse, Rt Hon John

  Wells, John

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Scott, Nicholas

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Winterton Nicholas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Silvester, Fred

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Mr. William Benyon and

  Sims, Roger

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  [For Division List 338 see col. 1541.]
  Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 7 proposed, in line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert:
  'such matters as the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism, the application of union membership agreements to journalists (and in particular the position of editors) and the question of access for contributors. '.—[Mr. Foot.]
  Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment to the Lords Amendment (a), in line 3, leave out the words after "particular the" and insert instead thereof:
  'right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union) and the right of editors to commission and publish any article '.—[Mr. George Reid.]
  Question put, That amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 275.
  Question accordingly negatived.
  [For Division List 399 see col. 1545.]
  Amendment to the proposed amendment made to the Lords Amendment (b), leave out "position of editors)" and insert:
  "right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and publish any article)".—[Mr. Whitehead.]
  Question put, That the amendment to Lords Amendments No. 7, as amended, be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 265.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  [For Division List 340 see col. 1547.]
  Further amendments made to Lords Amendment No. 7:
  In line 35, leave out from "containing" to "and" in line 39 and insert
  "such practical guidance as is referred to in that subsection".
  In line 40, at end insert—
  "( ) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall define its field of operation."—[Mr. Foot.]
  Amendment proposed to Lords Amendment No. 7, leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert—
  '( ) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a charter which is for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings, but in any proceedings for breach of contract in any court between a journalist and his employer or between a member of a trade union representing journalists and that trade union, or in any proceedings before an industrial tribunal under Schedule 1 to this Act or section 45 of the Employment Protection Act 1975

  (a)any such charter shall be admissible in evidence, and

  (b)any provision of such a charter which appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in those proceedings shall be taken into account by the court or tribunal in determining that question. '.—[Mr. Foot.]

  Amendment to proposed amendment to Lords Amendment No. 7 made:
  (a) leave out from second "proceedings" to "Employment Protection Act 1975."—[Mr. Marquand.]
  Question put, That the proposed amendment, as amended, to Lords Amendment No. 7 be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 256.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  [For Division List 341 see col. 1551.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with Lords Amendment No. 7, as amended.—[Mr. Booth.]
  Mr. Hayhoe: We have had a somewhat involved series of Divisions and although I know that the Conservative Party have known what they have been doing, I am not at all sure that others did know. The effect of what we have done is to emasculate the Goodman amendments. We are

  1511
  now back, as Labour Members wanted us to be, at Houghton, slightly modified with slight tinges of Manifesto attached to the Houghton amendments, which, as the Secretary of State made clear, were hardly worth mentioning.
  These discussions on the Manifesto amendments have tended to obscure the main issue, which is whether or not we are prepared to support the defence of the freedom of the Press with effective measures backed by sanctions. We shall, therefore, vote against the whole package of amendments to Goodman, for we believe that proper enforcement provisions are vital.
  The shadow boxing we have seen tonight between the Secretary of State and the Manifesto Group and the rather curious involvements of the Liberals and the Scottish Nationals and their ritualistic performances must not be allowed to draw attention away from what the House has done.
  We shall, therefore, vote against this whole package of amendments because we do not think that they provide an effective defence for the freedom of the Press. I ask my hon. Friends now to register that view, and by so doing I hope
  1512
  that another place will take the message—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that at least there is a substantial number of hon. Members in this House who support their view that the freedom of the Press is something worth defending with effective action.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 260.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  [For Division List 342 see col. 1557.]
  Remaining Lords amendment agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Booth, Mr. Brittan, Mr. Secretary Foot, Mr. Hayhoe and Mr. Thomas Cox; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Booth.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  INCUMBENTS (VACATION OF BENEFICES) MEASURE
  11.43 p.m.
  Mr. Terry Walker: I beg to move,
  That the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  It was as long ago as 1966 that the Convocation of Canterbury—that is the clergymen—passed a resolution affirming their confidence in the ecclesiastical judicial measure for discipline cases but declaring that there was a need to provide a means whereby, when it was in the interests of the man or his parish, an incumbent could, after due inquiry, be removed from his benefice and offered a suitable post elsewhere.
  The present measure accordingly seeks to deal with this area, where there is no suggestion of criminal conduct on the part of the incumbent but where his relationship with his parish or a substantial body of his parishioners has so deteriorated that pastoral care has come virtually to an end. The Measure is based on proposals presented to the General Synod in 1972. In 1974 it passed all the necessary stages in the General Synod. At no stage was there a division. It has been understood throughout to be legislation of an essentially domestic and pastoral character.
  At the same time, care has been taken to allow legal representation where required and not to deny the claims of natural justice, particularly to those whose livelihoods are affected. The Measure applies to incumbents of benefices. It does not apply to non-beneficed clergy, such as assistant curates or curates in sole charge of a parish, since in their case the licence granted by the bishop of the diocese is also terminable by him at any time.
  Part I of the Measure refers to those cases where there has been a serious breakdown of the pastoral relationship between the incumbent and his parishioners. This may be attributed to faults or disagreements on the part of the incumbent or his parishioners, or both.
  1514
  Part II refers to cases of disability, where it is considered that the incumbent of a benefice is unable by reason of age or infirmity of mind or body to discharge adequately his duties. Similar provisions exist in the Incumbents (Disability) Measure 1945, which is to be repealed by this new measure. For both types of case there is to be a common basic procedure available, namely an inquiry conducted by a diocesan committee comprised of three clergy and two laymen drawn from elected diocesan, ministerial and lay councils. In the case of an inquiry into pastoral breakdown under Part I, the incumbent may opt for the inquiry to be conducted by a provincial tribunal consisting of a diocesan chancellor or Queen's counsel, who shall be the chairman, two clergymen and two laymen, where the parties concerned may be represented by a barrister or solicitor.
  The constitution of these diocesan committees and provincial tribunals, and the procedure they are to follow, are set out clearly in the schedule of this Measure. Diocesan committees and provisional tribunals are required to report to the bishop. They cannot recommend that an incumbent should leave his benefice unless at least four of the five members are in favour of such a recommendation.
  Furthermore, where an incumbent loses his benefice on the grounds that the committee or tribunal is of the opinion that there has been a serious breakdown of the pastoral relationship between the incumbent and the parishioners, the incumbent is entitled, pending a new appointment, to claim compensation for the loss he has suffered by reason of the enforced vacation of his benefice on the basis already laid down in the Pastoral Measure 1968, Schedule 4, when an incumbent is dispossessed. On the other hand the committee or tribunal report may lead to a rebuke from the bishop to either incumbent or parishioners, or indeed both, or the giving of such pastoral advice or guidance as the bishop should deem appropriate.
  The expression "serious pastoral breakdown" is hard to define with any kind of precision, and the General Synod has taken care to safeguard the Church from what could be a spate of frivolous or hasty charges by limiting those who can make requests for official inquiries to be instituted. The Measure therefore

  1515
  provides that only the incumbent himself, if he feels sufficiently aggrieved by the conduct of some or all of his parishioners, secondly the archdeacon, or thirdly the majority of the lay members of the parochial church council—that is, those who are directly responsible for the affairs of the church in that parish—may ask for an inquiry. The option is not given to any chance group of disgruntled parishioners to initiate action against their incumbents.
  The Ecclesiastical Committee found the Measure to be expedient subject to the reservation about Clause 18. That clause gives the General Synod power to make rules and to make further provisions for the constitution and procedures of diocesan committees and pastoral tribunals, which matters are included in the schedule of this Measure.
  The General Synod found itself in some difficulty. In the past it has been advised that it should not take up the time of Parliament with Measures which deal with comparatively minor matters but that it should confine itself to matters of broad principle. The Synod's approach has been on this basis.
  I assure the House that the General Synod has no intention to use this power to curtail the rights of individuals, whether clerical or lay, who may have to appear before these committees and tribunals. Rather, the power is seen to be a means of giving added protection and safeguards, should these seem to be necessary, when the committees and tribunals have actually been appointed.
  Finally, any rules made under the power will need the approval of all three Houses in the General Synod—the Bishops, the Clergy and the Laity—and will be subject to annulment in either House of Parliament.
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) said that care had been taken by the General Synod to have regard to the rules and principles of natural justice. I oppose this Measure and hope to persuade hon. Members to oppose it first and foremost because there is, to my way of thinking, a fundamental denial of the rules of natural justice in one of the
  1516
  provisions. There are three other blemishes in the Measure to which I object.
  I have to confess at the outset that I read the Measure for the first time only two hours ago, and therefore I am sorry that my speech is not as carefully constructed as I would like. I deal first with the most important point, which arises out of the failure of this Measure to confer any right upon the incumbent to be heard personally by the diocesan committee or provincial tribunal set up by the bishop to inquire whether there has been a breakdown in the pastoral relationship brought about by the conduct of the clergyman.
  I make it clear at once that I am not against the intention of the Measure. I am for it. I think it is long overdue that there should be granted to the Church the power to get rid of an incumbent who should properly be got rid of. I am in favour of the intention of the Measure.
  But we must never lose sight of the fact that a clergyman whose benefice may be declared to be vacated under the provisions of this Measure is a clergyman who will lose his livelihood. Therefore, it seems to me to be absolutely fundamental that he must be given the right to be heard by the committee that carries out that inquiry.
  This is even more strongly the case, surely, when one reads in Clause 10 that where the committee recommends that the bishop "shall" declare the benefice to be vacated he will have no discretion, provided that the diocesan committee makes that recommendation by a majority of four to one. If four out of the five make that recommendation, the bishop "shall" comply with it.
  Therefore, one has the position that a clergyman may be deprived of his livelihood as a result of an inquiry carried out by a committee before which he is or may have been denied the right to attend in person and state his case.
  I must not be seen to be making a false or unfair point. It is true that there is a right conferred upon the incumbent to make written representations. However, the diocesan committee of inquiry is given the right by Clause 10 to invite any person who may, in its opinion, be able to assist it, to address the committee or tribunal or give oral evidence. The procedure to be followed is set out in Part

  1517
  III of the schedule at page 17. For example, the committee has the right to invite a clergyman's detractors to give oral evidence, but the clergyman has no right to give oral evidence himself, if the committee does not invite him to do so, or to call evidence, or to address the committee in person. That has only to be stated to reveal a fundamental denial of one of the first and most important principles of natural justice, namely, that one should have the right to state one's case. I do not have to elaborate that.
  I pass to the remaining points to which I object in the Measure. They are not of the same importance as the first one, but they are important.
  The first is that there is no right to object to more than two members of the diocesan committee of inquiry. This provision is to be found in the schedule. A clergyman may object, but does not have to give his reasons, to two members of the panel appointed by the registrar. Why cannot he object to each of those members of the panel if he has reason to do so and why should there not be the bishop or some other established authority to adjudicate on whether there is good reason? Why should not the procedure that applies in the case of juries apply here? This provision is profoundly wrong.
  Secondly, in paragraph 8 of the schedule it says that of this committee of five members, three shall be the quorum. However, nowhere is it provided that the three who constitute the quorum shall attend every meeting of the committee, that is to say, shall be present throughout the proceedings. We must not lose sight of the fact that the committee has jurisdiction to sack the clergyman, since the bishop has to act upon the recommendation. Why is there not a provision that this quorum of three shall consist only of members who are present at every meeting, that is to say throughout the whole proceedings?
  Lastly, paragraph 13 of the schedule says that all proceedings shall be in private. Why on earth should they be in private? In certain proper cases they may be in private. If that were the provision in the Measure it would be in line with the jurisdiction conferred upon many disciplinary committees, for example, for the professions. However, why should a committee with this powerful jurisdiction, which I have already emphasised, have to
  1518
  sit in private? It means that a man may lose his livelihood by virtue of its recommendation and yet never have its deliberations and in particular the evidence heard in public. This is a thoroughly undesirable and unsatisfactory feature of the measure.
  I do not take issue with the provision that the bishop has to comply with the recommendation of the committee if it is made by the majority of four out of five. I do not like it. I should have preferred the bishop to retain his discretion in a matter so important as this. But as we have legislated for synodical government, this is a matter that should be left to the Church to decide. If the Church wants that, well and good.
  In conclusion, I revert to the first point that I made. It is of fundamental importance that a man has the right to attend, be heard and call evidence if he wishes, and that right is not conferred by the Measure. This is a point which is expressly made in the report by the Ecclesiastical Committee in the document that accompanies this measure at paragraph 10. The schedule does not confer on the parties the right to be heard. It is no good saying "Oh well, he always would be given the right". That is not good enough. In this House we should not connive at the passing of legislation that infringes the principles of natural justice. I hope that hon. Gentlemen—
  Mr. Peter Rees: Will my hon. and learned Friend elucidate one point? I have followed with interest the point he is making. Paragraph 11 of the schedule says:
  "The incumbent concerned shall be entitled to attend any meeting of the committee or tribunal at which any other person is to give evidence to, or be heard by, the committee or tribunal and to put questions to that person."
  Paragraph 9(1) says:
  "Any person may make written representations to the committee or tribunal."
  It occurs to me that the tribunal could not proceed without either written representations or oral evidence. Is it my hon. and learned Friend's view that, if written representations were made, paragraph 11 would entitle an incumbent to attend? If that were so, clearly an incumbent has the right to attend if oral evidence is given. If my hon. and learned Friend takes the view that an incumbent

  1519
  also has the right to attend if written representations are made, that might cover all the eventualities, as presumably the commitee of inquiry could not proceed without either written or oral evidence of some kind. It is a difficult point. Obviously my hon. and learned Friend has given it closer attention than I have.
  Mr. Mayhew: Where only written evidence is to be received by the committee, I do not think that the incumbent is entitled to attend and make a speech, which is the point about which I am concerned. Paragraph 11 is a little obscure. One cannot put questions to a person whose evidence is given only in writing. That is the answer to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend. It is true that by virtue of paragraph 11 there is an entitlement to put questions to anyone who gives evidence to the committee. However, one cannot open one's case and outline one's answer to the charges made. One cannot make a speech at the end of the case. This is an extraordinarily truncated attempt to comply with the requirements of natural justice.
  12.2 a.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this chance of saying a few words about the Measure. I do not think that it is a minor matter, though that is how the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) described it. It is a matter of great importance.
  It is very sad that a Measure such as this should have to come before the House. I believe sincerely, as I am sure most hon. Members believe, that the Church should be a Church of reconciliation. It is very sad that Christians cannot agree in matters such as this. It would be as well for the Church of England to remind itself that it is a Church of reconciliation.
  As I read the Measure, it goes against the whole of the New Testament. I am reminded of such exhortations as that we be reconciled to one another. However, that having been said, we must return to earth. This is an imperfect world and we have an imperfect Church, regrettably. Therefore, I believe that there is, regrettably, a need for a Measure of this sort.
  1520
  Turning to the question of compulsory resignation, for that is what this is, I am unhappy about the phrase
  "breakdown of the pastoral relationship".
  How sad that is. I know from working in the Church of England in the remote rural areas where many head-on collisions of this type occur that it is because over a period of time there has not been sufficient aid and care accorded to the incumbent. I know that men become embittered, lonely and frustrated. It is in that sort of situation that the head-on clash develops. There is then a breakdown of the pastoral relationship between the incumbent and his flock. I hope that the bishops and the archdeacons will take far more time—I appreciate that they lead busy and difficult lives—to help and encourage the parish priests. That is a matter of vital importance.
  Clause 10(7) reads:
  "the bishop may give such pastoral advice and guidance".
  I believe that "may" is the wrong word. A bishop should do so. It is not a question of "may". That must be the first duty of a bishop or archdeacon. They must look after their incumbents and their flocks when there are real problems.
  We must ask ourselves why such a situation can develop. Why is there a breakdown of the pastoral relationship? It may be because of the problems of churchmanship. Perhaps far more care should be taken in the appointment of parish priests to certain parishes. That is probably a matter that will be coming up in other measures. There is no question about it, head-on clashes sometimes develop because of the problem of churchmanship. I regret it, but that is a fact of life.
  We must also take into account that sometimes there is a lack of Christian charity on the part of parishioners. I hope that the Church will look carefully at the whole business of Christian charity and give and take, particularly when things begin to go wrong in a parish.
  I must reiterate that there is the problem of despondency. I find that this occurs in rural areas because of the remoteness, lack of communication, lack of encouragement and lack of fellowship.

  1521
  Some parish priests become very much run down, and their position can be understood. In such instances there develops a real breakdown between the incumbent and his flock.
  I hesitate to say this, but this Measure puts real power in the hands of the bishops. We cannot run away from that fact. Although we are prepared to trust the bishops, I believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) has put his finger on a very important point in that there must be proper safeguards. It is quite obvious that I am not of a legal mind, but I feel that my hon. and learned Friend has raised a matter that should be considered and resolved. There should be proper safeguards and proper supervision. We should do everything possible to see that the incumbent has every safeguard.
  Mr. Ivor Clemitson: We have heard quite a lot from Conservatives about the inadequacies of this measure in terms of protecting the incumbent, but I put it to the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) that there are a considerable number of clergymen in the Church of England—I would guess that they are an increasing number—who are not incumbents and who hold jobs at least as responsible as those of incumbents who do not enjoy any of the protections contained in this Measure—clergyman who can be fired with very little protection afforded to them. I would like the hon. Gentleman to comment on the position of clergymen in that position.
  Mr. Mills: With great respect I believe that I should be out of order, because although I understand what the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) is getting at, I point out that we are dealing with people who have livings. I do not think that the point he raises comes into the matter.
  I turn from compulsory resignation to compulsory retirement. As we examine this Measure we must ask ourselves why incumbents continue to go on and on well past the time when they should have retired. The reason concerns not only the question of a pension but that of accommodation. That is why an incumbent is prepared to go on in his living far beyond the time at which he should retire.
  1522
  I speak to myself as much as to anyone else when I say that the Church of England should wake up to its financial responsibilities in provisions for elderly clergy so that they can retire. That will ensure that this sort of situation does not arise. I understand that a pension can be provided in this situation, but I suggest, from my knowledge, that many times it is the case that elderly clergy have nowhere to go—no alternative accommodation.
  The Church of England must wake up to its responsibilities in this matter, because if one has been a parish priest for many years one has no chance of saving any money or putting by for retirement. With inflation roaring ahead there is no hope for such people ever getting a house of their own so that they can retire.
  I believe that before such a serious step as compulsory retirement is taken, we should try, in these difficult times, to make better provisions for accommodation for these elderly people.
  I shall not vote against this Measure. I see the need for it, when we come to the end of the road in this difficult situation. However, I hope that we shall always seek to be a Church of reconciliation so that this sort of situation will never arise.
  12.13 a.m.
  Mr. John Cordle: I closely follow the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) in respect of the extraordinarily low incomes that clergymen receive even in 1975. If we compare the salaries they receive with those that are given abroad, especially in the United States, we see that they are deplorable.
  However, turning to this Measure, one is always suspicious of proposals to remove old men from office against their will. The history of our country shows that many men have done their best work after the age of seventy.
  We cannot overlook the fact that only a few years ago the Church courts were used to deprive a Godly clergyman of his living because he refused to yield to the pressures of some of his congregation I am referring to Mr. Grubb, who is the late rector of Spaxton in Somerset.

  1523
  Sometimes one begins to feel that nowadays, whatever happens, the parson is always wrong and the contentious parishioner is invariably right. We need a new breed of bishops who will be equally true and righteous both with clergymen and with laity.
  For these and other reasons I hope that this House will watch closely the manner in which this Measure is applied. There ought to be some inexpensive way in which maltreated clergy can appeal to the Ombudsman when they are mishandled, as they think, by their superiors.
  I should like to think that if the proposals are to be approved in their present form, equally stringent measures will be applied to bishops and dignitaries in the near future if this can be done and if the need arises.
  I believe that this House, while leaving the General Synod to debate and formulate its own laws for the better government of the national Church, must always guard the rights of the individual citizen, whether ordained or lay. This especially applies in cases of elderly clergymen who have given the best years of their lives to serve at cut-price rates of pay far below those available to their contemporaries in universities who turned to teaching and to other learned professions. Most of these men cannot afford to save to buy homes for their retirement, or to rent adequate accommodation, if they can find it. We all know that the supply of Church pension homes is very limited.
  May I pose a serious question? Will the compensation proposed take account of the fact that the man losing his living will be homeless?
  I think that we must approve this Measure, at the same time making it clear that this House is not here to rubber-stamp anything which the General Synod may lay before it in future. For my part, I am glad to know that there is some concern in this House and in another place about a further Measure which proposes the confiscation of private patronage.
  In conclusion, I should add that, in the light of the Archbishop's appeal to the nation today, this House must not shrug off its ancient responsibility for moral leadership in national life.
  12.17 a.m.
  Sir Michael Havers: I speak not only as a lawyer but as an ex-chancellor of two dioceses.
  I am impressed by the points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), in particular the denial in this Measure of the absolute right for an incumbent to be heard and to call witnesses in an inquiry where the report of those hearing it, if it is four out of the five, shall be acted upon with no discretion by the bishop. This is putting an incumbent in a position which will remove from him not only his livelihood but his right to a freehold which exists at the moment. No person charged with any criminal offence or who faces any sort of inquiry is placed in that situation.
  This matter ought to be taken back and looked at by the Synod when it meets again, as I understand, in November. The rules of natural justice must be made clear and brought back to this House, and the other matters mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend should also be looked at. In particular, this matter should be looked at as it is mandatory upon the bishop to act upon the recommendation. If that were done, the purposes of the Measure would not only be sensible but right. I am sure that the House would then welcome and pass the Measure. At the moment, I feel unable to allow the Measure to go through in this way, because a major departure from the rules of natural justice is unfortunately enshrined in it.
  12.20 a.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I view this Measure with deep concern and perhaps like other Members of this honourable House I am concerned about many of the Measures being passed by the General Synod. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Cordle) mentioned another Measure that is likely to come before the House in the not-too-distant future.
  We must not overlook natural justice, and I am amazed that the Second Church Estates Commissioner can put forward this Measure on behalf of the Synod when so much natural justice is denied to a person who is so dependent upon his living. I am deeply concerned about this, and along with the points that have been so

  1525
  well covered, I want to refer to Clause 4 which seems to be nothing but blackmail, because if an incumbent knows that an inquiry is likely to be set up and he resigns before it has its first meeting, he is entitled to compensation. This clause will, therefore, put an incumbent in a very difficult position. It will put him under a tremendous amount of pressure. He will ask, "Can I adequately defend myself against a person or a group of people who have pressed for an inquiry to be set up into the way that I administer my parish?".
  This is wrong, and for this reason and the lack of natural justice which we would all expect to be given to any person I believe that the Measure should be opposed.
  12.22 a.m.
  Mr. Terry Walker: I am grateful to hon. Members for raising various points and I should like to make a few comments in reply.
  I believe that in this whole discussion it should not be overlooked that the Church is about people. It is the people who sit in the pews who must be thought about, as well as the incumbents, whose case has had such a wide airing from the Opposition side of the House.
  This Measure is concerned not with a criminal trial but with the problems of men. It is concerned with a disastrous situation where there has been a breakdown of relationships within a parish. We recognise that this is a regrettable occurrence but it is something that has to be worked out between the clergyman and his people. We very much hope that these things will not come to the committees at all but will be dealt with in other ways.
  The composition of these committees is important. It should not be overlooked that the panels are elected by the clergy and laity of the diocese. There will be maximum consultation—
  Mr. John Wells: It is a spurious argument that these panels are elected by the clergy and laity of the diocese. There has been some sort of an election in the diocese in which I live. We were presented with a list of 16 names. I am a reasonable visitor round the diocese, and I know quite a number of people in it, but I had heard of only one of the 16
  1526
  names. I knew basically nothing about the other 15. The elections are bogus. They are confined to a mutual admiration society and a small clique. There is nothing democratic about them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not forget that part of the argument.
  Mr. Walker: A similar argument has been used about elections to this House.
  The position is that four of the five members of the committee have to be in agreement. The incumbent is entitled to submit written evidence. He can also be asked to come and give whatever evidence he wants to the committee. Further, if anyone else is heard the incumbent has the right to be present, with or without his legal advisers, to hear all that is said.
  Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Member has said that the clergy and tribunals are elected. Would he look at Part II of the schedule, on page 16, paragraph 4, where it says that in the case of a provincial tribunal the persons constituting the tribunal shall be appointed by the Vicar-General? The five persons so appointed are described in sub-paragraph (2). They are not elected by anybody. They are appointed.
  Mr. Walker: There was one point that needs clarification. It is not the livelihood of the incumbent that is in question. If he loses his benefice he can, of course, receive financial compensation in respect of his stipend and the loss of his work. Also, as I spelt out when I introduced this matter, the parties concerned can be represented by a barrister or solicitor. This is important.
  Finally, the General Synod of the Church of England has dealt with this and at no stage has there been a division. When the Ecclesiastical Committee met there were some reservations about one clause but it was passed. The objections raised tonight would have been much better raised before, because it would have helped us in our deliberations there.
  Sir Michael Havers: The House would be grateful if the Second Church Estate Commissioner would tell us whether the points raised tonight were raised in debate in the Synod, and also if he would answer the very pertinent point put to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member

  1527
  for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew). Is he telling the House that the right to question those who attend—not a right to challenge written evidence—is sufficient when there is an absolute denial of the right to attend and to give evidence on one's own behalf? I am sure that the House would like to hear the answer to that.
  Mr. Walker: When this matter came to the Synod there was a discussion about it. Obviously I have not the record here at this stage, but the points raised here have all been adequately dealt with before. When it came to the Ecclesiastical Committee I am quite sure that this point was not raised at all by any members present, and certainly this was something that was not considered to be important at the time.
  Sir Michael Havers: Is the hon. Member telling the House that one of the most fundamental principles of natural justice either was not discussed at Synod or was considered to be of no importance?
  Mr. Walker: We are, with respect, not talking about a criminal trial. As I have already said, we are talking about a serious breakdown between an incumbent and his parish. That has been the view throughout all the discussions.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Is the hon. Member saying that an incumbent whose whole livelihood has been challenged—and his home, for which he gets no guaranteed alternative accommodation—is allowed to see and to know the contents of the written allegations made against him but may not himself speak concerning these allegations?
  Mr. Walker: In Part III of the Schedule, paragraph 9(2) reads:
  "Where any person, other than the incumbent concerned, makes written representations to the committee or tribunal, the incumbent concerned shall be entitled to be supplied with a copy of those representations and within three weeks after such copy is supplied to him to send his comments thereon in writing to the committee or tribunal, as the case may be."
  Mr. Mayhew: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down I wish to put a point to him. In some respects he has been put into an unfair position because unfortunately I did not have the opportunity
  1528
  to give him prior notice of the points I wanted to raise. That was because I saw them myself only shortly before our debate began. Will the hon. Member now concede that he is not in a position to answer the main point which has been made tonight, a point which has not been challenged by anyone from the Government benches?
  Perhaps these matters were dealt with in committee and in debate in the Synod, but if they were the hon. Gentleman is not able to answer the criticisms. Would it not be better for the hon. Gentleman to take this Measure back to the Synod at its November meetings so that it may be brought back to this House with the correct answer?
  Mr. Walker: No, Sir.
  12.30 a.m.
  Mr. Richard Wood: The hon. Member has heard the arguments which have been carefully adduced tonight and he will be aware of two things. First, the principle of the measure is largely accepted in this House. Secondly, he will realise that there is profound disquiet on the point and that it is giving rise to argument.
  It is distasteful to most of us to have to vote against a Measure with which in principle we agree, but for the reasons given by my hon. Friends I do not think we have any alternative. If it is in the hon. Member's power, therefore, I hope that he will reconsider what he has just said. He can be reasonably sure that if the point that the House has made this evening can reasonably be met the House will, when the Measure next comes before it, be willing to agree to it. In its present form, however, the House will certainly reject it.
  Mr. Walker: By leave of the House, may I say that these points have been gone through very thoroughly by the Synod. I believe that the points raised tonight have been answered as eloquently as has been possible.
  Question put,
  That the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 33.

  Division No. 343.]

  AYES

  [12.33 a.m.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Noble, Mike

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Penhaligon, David

  Ward, Michael

  Corbett, Robin

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Dempsey, James

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Horam. John

  Snape, Peter

  Mr. Ivor Clemitson and

  John, Brynmor

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Frank White.

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  NOES

  Alison, Michael

  Marquand, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Banks, Robert

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Brotherton, Michael

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Wall, Patrick

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Mills, Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Cordle, John H.

  Percival, Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Younger, Hon George

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hicks, Robert

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Mr. John Wells and

  Judd, Frank

  Silvester, Fred

  Mr. John Farr.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Question accordingly negatived.

  EXPENDITURE
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 18th November relating to nomination of Members of the Expenditure Committee, Mr. Frank McElhone be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Giles Radice be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
  Ordered,
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

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

  MISSILES (STANDARDISATION)
  12.43 a.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: It has been said that up to 50 per cent. of the vast sums spent in the research and development of weapons in Europe is wasted because of duplication of effort. In the United States of America the Callaghan Report has estimated wastage through duplication to be as much as 10 billion dollars. Both these figures may very well be on the high side but, clearly, at a time when the electorate are pressing their various Governments to make economies any wastage on this scale is unacceptable. I would go further and say that if Europe
  1530
  is to afford an effective defence in the next 20 years it must standardise its hardware in all fields and that the first task is to remove duplication.
  The standardisation of tactical missiles in Europe and between Europe and the United States of America is probably an easier task than in other fields such as aircraft or armour as it is a relatively new technology and, therefore, vested national interests are not so entrenched.
  Having visited most of the missile producers in Europe, I would first like to consider the weapons and the duplication that exists, make some suggestions about the present and the next generation of missiles, and then compare the various types of missiles produced in Europe and in the United States of America. Having done this, one is in a position to make suggestions for maintaining an effective European missile industry as well as eliminating undue duplication with the United States of America in future generations of tactical missiles.
  I fear this will be a rather technical debate, and I hope the House will excuse me if I glance at my notes rather more often than usual. For the benefit of those who record our speeches, I have provided a comprehensive list of the large number of missiles to which I shall refer.
  Existing European tactical missiles can be divided into three basic categories—ship-borne, land based and airborne, each category having a number of subdivisions.

  1531
  Taking first ship-borne missiles, we have the shorter range Penguin from Norway and Sea Killer II and III from Italy, which have a range of some 20 kilometres and a relatively small warhead, suitable for fast patrol boats. It is about time that we followed Norway's example and built missile-armed fast patrol boats. Before the last war, we led the world in fast patrol boats. Now we have only four and they are not armed at all, let alone with missiles.
  In the longer range, there are the French Exocet, to be followed by the MM40, the Otomat produced by Italy and the Harpoon by the USA. Exocet has been purchased by the Royal Navy but has to be fired within plus or minus 30 degrees of the direction of the target, whereas Otomat can be fired within plus or minus 300 degrees, giving much greater flexibility. Harpoon has the great advantage in that it is designed to be fired from ships, submarines or aircraft. In the surface-to-air category we find greater duplication—in the medium range the French Marine Roland II and the Naval Crotale and Italy's Albatross using the Sea Sparrow III or Aspide missile, together with the very successful, but shorter range, British Sea Cat and the rather specialised SLAM.
  In the longer range, there are the British Sea Dart—which is replacing Sea Slug—the French Masurca and the United States Standard II.
  Mention must also be made of the unique British Sea Wolf, which is the only anti-missile missile in existence and is said to be able to hit an object the size of a cricket ball travelling at Mach 2.
  Helicopter-borne anti-ship missiles include the Italian Marte, the French AM39 and the British Sea Skua, Hellcat and Hawkswing, with the Franco-German HOT and the American TOW for use against armour.
  Here I would like to ask the Minister a direct question. The Government have cancelled Hawkswing, which leaves our helicopters armed with a near-obsolete weapon AS 11 or 12. Are they now going to consider the purchase of HOT or TOW, as these seem to be the only alternatives that would provide modern weapons for our army/air helicopters?
  1532
  As far as land-based missiles are concerned duplication in certain categories is even greater. Tactical surface-to-surface missiles with nuclear capacity include the American Lance, now adopted for many NATO armies, and the French Pluton. In the field of surface-to-air missiles the long-range category, now that Bloodhound and Thunderbird are obsolete, is dominated by the American Improved Hawk, with a range of some 40 kms. In the medium range, we find the French Roland and Crotale, the British Rapier and the Italian Indigo and Spada, and in the short-range infantry missiles the British Blowpipe and the American Red Eye, to be replaced by the Stinger.
  In the anti-tank weapons we have the British Swingfire, which is the only one to be capable of being fired from behind cover, the Franco-German HOT and the American TOW. In the lightweight range, the Franco-German Milan, the now obsolete British Vigilant, the Italian Sparviero and Mosquito and the German Mamba.
  Airborne missiles provide an even greater variety. These include the long-range air-to-surface Anglo-French Martel and the Italian Otomat. In the medium range there are the French AS30, the United States Bullpup, the British Sea Skua and the German Kormoran. In the air-to-air category, medium range, there is the very advanced French Super 530, the American-United Kingdom XJ 521, the Italian Aspide, the British Red Top and the American Sparrow. For close combat there are the French R550, the British SRAAM and the American Sidewinder.
  I have mentioned all these missiles by name to illustrate the number of designs produced and the intense competition between nations for a relatively limited market.
  What is needed, and this is the nub of my speech, is an evaluation of those missiles whose life could be extended for the next decade, together with a new standard weapon in each main category for the next, or third, generation, of tactical missiles. In this evaluation it is interesting to note that five companies dominate the European market—Aerospatiale and Matra from France, MBB

  1533
  from Germany and BAC and Hawker Siddeley Dynamics from Great Britain. There is already considerable co-operation between these firms—some are producing joint weapons—and there is a general feeling that this co-operation could be greatly increased, given the right circumstances.
  The problem is how to standardise the existing 79 European-built tactical missiles together with the 13 types purchased from the United States. I propose to be so bold as to attempt such an evaluation for at least the following categories. The first is naval sea-skimming, in which would come the MM40—that is, the improved Exocet—and the Otomat.
  Next is naval underwater-to-surface operations. Now that the British Government have abandoned the Sub-Martel, the United States Harpoon is the obvious choice. With naval area self-defence there is a considerable query because there is no ideal weapon in this category yet. Possibly the Sea Dart could be used, or the Maritime Roland or the American Aegis system now under development. For naval point defence there is no query—the Sea Wolf is a world beater. The American Lance is the main weapon system for army ground-to-ground, while for army ground-to-air there are Roland, which has been chosen by America for protection of armoured forces, and Rapier which is best for airfield defence.
  For air-to-ground, long range, the Martel is supreme, while for air-to-ground, short range, there is HOT or TOW. Martel or Harpoon come into the air-to-ship, long range stand-off category, and the Sea Skua is my choice for the air-to-ship, short range. In the air-to-air medium to long range category there is the Super 530, and the 550 for the air-to-air, short range, dog-fight rôle.
  Such an evaluation would entail Europe adopting at least two major American weapon systems—Lance and Harpoon—and leaves open for future development three categories; namely, medium-range army ground-to-air, single man portable ground-to-air, and anti-tank systems, in which areas I hope that British companies will take the initiative.
  Of the 12 European missiles listed six are now coming into service and others, now in service, have a considerable
  1534
  development potential. A high degree of standardisation could, therefore, be achieved within the next five to 10 years with the weapons already in existence or coming into service in the near future.
  The key to standardisation in the following, or third generation lies in the staff requirement or design study. At present the Conference of National Armament Directors has agreed that there should be only one European naval surface-to-surface missile in the next generation, and a family of four anti-tank missiles in the 1,000 metres to 4,000 metres range. It is hoping to agree on one design of medium-range ground-to-air missile, which at present is nonexistent. So far so good, but, as usual, there is a snag. It has agreed in principle that there should be only one weapons system, but each country will undoubtedly bring forward its own candidate. Armaments directors wear national hats; although they have agreed in principle on a standardised weapon, when the time comes they are almost bound to press for their own country's weapons.
  This is the main point of my speech. We shall not achieve standardisation until the requirement and design study is prepared by an international staff. Once that is done, firms can easily arrange the various international consortia for the production of these missiles. But they must first have clear guidance as to the common design requirement. They have told me that time and time again.
  How can that be done? I believe that it could be done now. The design study could now be carried out by an international staff; namely, the Military Committee of NATO, provided that it is given adequate technical staff with which to carry this out. At a later date I hope that a European Armaments Agency will be developed and set up to draw together the present groups—namely CNAD and EURONAD, EUROLOG and EURO-LONGTERM—into a co-ordinated whole, with a defined institutional basis. Only when that is done will Europe be able to achieve a satisfactory trade-off with the USA.
  The Government have, in my view correctly, announced the suspension of the Sub-Martel and the Hawkswing, and the purchase of the United States Harpoon and the Franco-German Milan. What

  1535
  weapons will these countries buy from Britain in return? That is the key operation if our missile industry is to survive. Sea Wolf is a world beater and should, therefore, be a candidate, but very little seems to be done to push the sale of this weapon compared with the efforts of the American companies, backed by the United States Government, to push their hardware. The Minister must appreciate that he will not be able to make a convincing case for purchasing abroad unless he can tell the House what weapons of British manufacture foreign countries will purchase in return.
  To summarise, tactical missiles seem to me to be the best field in which to achieve standardisation. First, the multiplicity of European missiles must be pruned down in the next generation to certain specific categories. Then adequate exchange arrangements must be made with the USA. True standardisation and, therefore, a true basis of exchange is, in my view, unlikely to be reached until design studies are undertaken not by a national but by an international staff. This should be tried out as soon as possible and should be followed by the institution of a European Armaments Agency, which, I remind the Minister of State, was recommended both by the North Atlantic Assembly and by the Western European Union. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that action in all these important matters is either being taken or is contemplated.
  1.58 a.m.
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): It is a convention on these occasions to welcome virtually every Adjournment debate with which the House is faced, but it is more than a convention on this occasion when I say that I am very glad that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) was able to raise these important matters today.
  In the House we have too few opportunities to discuss detailed matters related to weapons systems, for example, and, therefore, it has been to the advantage of us all that the hon. Gentleman sought this opportunity to enlarge in the House on his distinguished work elsewhere. Many of the matters which he raised today need detailed consideration
  1536
  by Ministers and by our advisers, but I think that he has helped to push the frontiers forward. I hope that in the subsequent debates in matters of defence policy, and in our annual debate on the White Paper, we will pick up where he left off and examine some of his suggestions in more detail.
  When I say that this is a particularly appropriate time, of course I have in mind the announcement, to which the hon. Member referred, which we made on 23rd September, indicating three very substantial purchases for the Armed Forces. I was pleased to have his broad endorsement of this decision this evening, because when the House debated defence at the beginning of May he indicated that he supported the broad principles which I suggested should underlie the purchase of equipment of all kinds.
  We on both sides of the House are concerned with two different considerations. In the first place, we want to see a strong United Kingdom guided weapons industry as far ahead as we reasonably can. We believe that we have a special expertise and wish to see it flourish, not only for our own domestic needs but also in so far as it makes an important contribution to the alliance.
  Secondly, we have an anxiety to see standardisation both to make the alliance effective and because we cannot expect to have the full range of guided weapons in our possession unless there is a higher measure of agreement than hitherto between the countries within the alliance.
  Standardisation is an old issue, but we should not dismiss it for the reason that it has had perhaps only limited success. My right hon. Friend has been seeking to give new impetus to it in the discussions in the Eurogroup. It will come as no surprise that matters of this kind have not been wholly absent from the agenda in recent visits by Mr. James Schlesinger, the United States Secretary for Defence, and M. Bourges, the French Defence Minister. Therefore, in so far as the hon. Gentleman has given a further direction to this thinking, it is greatly to our advantage.
  The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was anxious mainly to put a number of important matters, as he saw them, on the record. I had previously had the opportunity of looking at his WEU report,

  1537
  Document 671, in particular the recommendations in paragraph 522. I undertake to give further study to that document and to his additional remarks tonight.
  I have also looked at the part of the report on the security of the alliance to the Military Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, which is also relevant to the question of choice of equipment and the desirability, if we can, of having a higher level of standardisation even if it is within this one relatively small area.
  I want now to set out the principles determining the United Kingdom procurement policy, endorsing what I tried to do in setting them out in the debate on 7th May. I there said that we had two objectives—first, to provide the Armed Forces with the equipment they need, and, secondly, to ensure as far as possible a strong British industry by giving it the greatest possible amount of work. But I contested on that occasion—and there was no argument—the view that it was wrong by definition to buy foreign weapons and right by definition to buy British weapons at all times. I said that to pursue that policy would make nonsense of standardisation because, although it seemed legitimate for this country, it could equally be claimed to be legitimate action by other countries too.
  I said that, given the whole range of missiles, the cost of going it alone in each of these sectors was far beyond the means of any country in Western Europe and somewhat beyond the means of the United States as well. I said that as a background to standardisation. But I agree—and it is right to focus on this point—that if we buy abroad we hope others will buy from us. The principle of standardisation will work only if it means reciprocity as well. We shall be looking, as far as possible, for reciprocal arrangements, not only as a result of this purchase of foreign equipment. It is not always right to relate one item to another. The whole field should be examined.
  If we could provide all-British weapons which precisely met the needs of the Services, if they were the cheapest available, were then adopted by NATO and sold in large quantities to other countries round the world, we should be delighted. However, it is too much to expect that it will always be as easy as that. Therefore,
  1538
  increasingly we must work towards European solutions without in any way excluding transatlantic ones as well. I hope that what was announced on 23rd September and what has been said by the hon. Member for Haltemprice tonight is all part of the same story of seeking to achieve the right weapons, to meet the needs of our Armed Forces.
  Mr. Wall: Will the Minister answer the two questions that I put to him? Will he confirm that we shall press hard for sales of Sea Wolf abroad, because it is a unique weapon? Will he also state the future armour with which our helicopters will have to deal? This question was asked in another place and received no answer.
  Mr. Rodgers: I had not overlooked the hon. Gentleman's questions. I was coming to them. We shall do all we can with Sea Skua because it is important. Sea Wolf is a unique weapon and we want it to be accepted. Bearing in mind the financial pressure on the Armed Forces, we decided that we could not at present go ahead with Hawkswing, but further consideration persuaded us that for the time being we did not have to make a purchase of any kind. The House may assume that it is unlikely that we shall in the foreseeable future make any announcement on this matter.
  In this package we sought to deal with a number of related matters in order that they could be presented together and, in a sense, one could be offset in our own minds and in discussions with our allies against the other.
  As long as we seek reciprocity people will be anxious about the employment consequences. This is why I am glad that the matter has been raised this evening and was debated on 7th May. It is important that as far as possible we should speak with the same voice and have a consistent policy towards the industry.
  As a result of the decisions that we have made, we expect expanding work loads on the production side in the next few years which should fully maintain job opportunities in the industry. Our decisions will inevitably mean some redundancies on the design side but as far as possible we shall endeavour to offset these and we wish to maintain the design capacity of the industry. During the next decade there

  1539
  should not be any real anxiety about the future of the industry. From now on we shall seek to obtain agreements which will represent genuine reciprocity within the alliance from which we shall all benefit.
  The hon. Gentleman referred not only to standardisation as a principle but also to the institutional framework for getting the right answer. This is not easy, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well. We have had co-operation within NATO, and particularly through the Eurogroup. I should welcome a good deal more cooperation between the individual firms concerned, because it must not always be assumed that the intervention of the Government is the first point of departure towards a successful collaborative venture. British firms in the guided weapons business are themselves taking the initiative and looking forward to the prospect of co-operation, particularly in Europe but not excluding transatlantic co-operation.
  We must examine all institutional means of securing co-operation. It may
  1540
  be that there should be a new framework of the kind the hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not want to commit myself to that tonight beyond saying that we will examine it in detail and consider whether it can perform a function which is not now performed within the alliance bilaterally or in some other way within firms themselves.
  I sometimes think that the thoroughness of the work done within the Western European Union—I say this because I once led a delegation to it—amongst NATO parliamentarians, and in the Council of Europe should make us a little ashamed of the way in which the House of Commons approaches these matters. It should make us a little dissatisfied with our procedures. The House is not over-full of Members who are prepared to give careful and painstaking attention to defence matters. The hon. Gentleman has once again tonight shown that he is an exception. We are very grateful to him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past One o'clock.

  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
  Division Lists Nos. 338–342
  [See cc. 1509–12]

  Division No. 338.]

  AYES

  [10.35 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Allaun, Frank

  Flannery, Martin

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Archer, Peter

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ashley, Jack

  Ford, Ben

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Forrester, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Madden, Max

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

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

  Magee, Bryan

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mahon, Simon

  Bates, Alf

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Bean, R. E.

  George, Bruce

  Marks, Kenneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Ginsburg, David

  Marquand, David

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Gould, Bryan

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Graham, Ted

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Boardman, H.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Meacher, Michael

  Booth, Albert

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Hardy, Peter

  Millan, Bruce

  Bradley, Tom

  Harper, Joseph

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Molloy, William

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Moonman, Eric

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Hatton, Frank

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Campbell, Ian

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Canavan, Dennis

  Henderson, Douglas

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Cant, R. B.

  Hooley, Frank

  Newens, Stanley

  Carmichael, Neil

  Horam, John

  Noble, Mike

  Carter, Ray

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Huckfield, Les

  Ogden, Eric

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hunter, Adam

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Ovenden, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Owen, Dr David

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Padley, Walter

  Cook Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Corbett Robin

  Janner, Greville

  Park, George

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Parker, John

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Parry, Robert

  Crowchaw, Richard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cronin, John

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  John, Brynmor

  Pendry, Tom

  Cryer, Bob

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Perry, Ernest

  Cunningham G (Islington S)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies Bryan (Enfield N)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Radice, Giles

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Judd, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Reid, George

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Kelley, Richard

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Deakins, Eric

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lambie, David

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Dempsey, James

  Lamond, James

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Doig, Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lee, John

  Rooker, J. W.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Roper, John

  Dunn, James A.

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lipton, Marcus

  Ryman, John

  Edge, Geoff

  Litterick, Tom

  Sandelson, Neville

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  English, Michael

  Luard, Evan

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Ennals, David

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silkin, Rt Hon Jon (Deptford)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  McElhone, Frank

  Sillars, James

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  1542

  1543

  Silverman, Julius

  Tierney, Sydney

  White, James (Pollok)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tinn, James

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Small, William

  Tomlinson, John

  Whitlock, William

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Torney, Tom

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Snape, Peter

  Tuck, Raphael

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Spearing, Nigel

  Urwin, T. W.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

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

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Stoddart, David

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Stott, Roger

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Wilson. Gordon (Dundee E)

  Strang, Gavin

  Ward, Michael

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Watkins, David

  Woof, Robert

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Watkinson, John

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Swain, Thomas

  Watt, Hamish

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Weetch, Ken

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Weitzman, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Thompson, George

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mr. J. D. Dormand.

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Alison, Michael

  Farr, John

  Kilfedder, James

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Fell, Anthony

  Kimball, Marcus

  Arnold, Tom

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorns)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Awdry Daniel

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Baker, Kenneth

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Knox, David

  Banks, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lamont, Norman

  Beith, A. J.

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Lane, David

  Bell, Ronald

  Fox, Marcus

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Freud, Clement

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Benyon, W.

  Fry, Peter

  Lawson, Nigel

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Biffen, John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Lloyd, Ian

  Blaker, Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Loveridge, John

  Body, Richard

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Luce, Richard

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  McCrindle, Robert

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Goodhew, Victor

  MacGregor, John

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Brittan, Leon

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Grant Anthony (Harrow C)

  Madel, David

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gray, Hamish

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grieve, Percy

  Marten, Neil

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Mates, Michael

  Buck, Antony

  Grist, Ian

  Mather, Carol

  Budgen, Nick

  Grylls, Michael

  Maude, Angus

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hall, Sir John

  Mawby, Ray

  Burden, F. A.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hannam, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Channon, Paul

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mills, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Clegg, Walter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Cockcroft, John

  Hicks, Robert

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan, Geraint

  Cope, John

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Cordle, John H.

  Hordern, Peter

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Costain, A. P.

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Critchley, Julian

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Crouch, David

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Mudd, David

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hunt, John

  Neave, Airey

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Neubert, Michael

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Newton, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Nott, John

  Drayson, Burnaby

  James, David

  Onslow, Cranley

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

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

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Durant, Tony

  Jessel, Toby

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Pardoe, John

  Elliott, Sir William

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Emery, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  1544

  1545

  Penhaligon, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Percival, Ian

  Shepherd, Colin

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Shersby, Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Silvester, Fred

  Trotter, Neville

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Sims, Roger

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Raison, Timothy

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Speed, Keith

  Wakeham, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Renton Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Sproat, Iain

  Wall, Patrick

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Stainton, Keith

  Walters, Dennis

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rifkind Malcolm

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Wells, John

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Stokes, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Tebbit, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Scott, Nicholas

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Russell Fairgrieve and

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Mr. Michael Roberts.

  Division No. 340.]

  AYES

  [10.58 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Allaun, Frank

  Carter, Ray

  Dempsey, James

  Anderson, Donald

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Doig, Peter

  Archer, Peter

  Cartwright, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Ashley, Jack

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Dunn, James A.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dunnett, Jack

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Coleman, Donald

  Eadie, Alex

  Bates, Alf

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Edelman, Maurice

  Bean, R. E.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Edge, Geoff

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Conian, Bernard

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  English, Michael

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Corbett Robin

  Ennals, David

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Boardman, H.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Booth, Albert

  Cronin, John

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Cryer, Bob

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Bradley, Tom

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Flannery, Martin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ford, Ben

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Forrester, John

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Campbell, Ian

  Deakins, Eric

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

  Canavan, Dennis

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Cant, R. B.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  1548

  1549

  George, Bruce

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Ginsburg, David

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Gould, Bryan

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Ryman, John

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Sandelson, Neville

  Graham, Ted

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Magee, Bryan

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Hardy. Peter

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Harper, Joseph

  Mahon, Simon

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Marks, Kenneth

  Sillars, James

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Marquand, David

  Silverman, Julius

  Hatton, Frank

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Small, William

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Snape, Peter

  Hooley, Frank

  Meacher, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Horam, John

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hoyle. Doug (Nelson)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stallard, A. W.

  Huckfield, Les

  Millan, Bruce

  Stott, Roger

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Strang, Gavin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Molloy, William

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Hunter, Adam

  Moonman, Eric

  Swain, Thomas

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Thorne, Stan (Frestor. South)

  Janner, Greville

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Tierney, Sydney

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Newens, Stanley

  Tinn, James

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Noble, Mike

  Tomlinson, John

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Torney, Tom

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Ogden, Eric

  Tuck, Raphael

  John, Brynmor

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Urwin, T. W.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Ovenden, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Owen, Dr David

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Judd, Frank

  Padley, Walter

  Ward, Michael

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Palmer, Arthur

  Watkins, David

  Kelley, Richard

  Park, George

  Watkinson, John

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Parker, John

  Weetch, Ken

  Kinnock, Neil

  Parry, Robert

  Weitzman, David

  Lambie, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lamborn, Harry

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Lamond, James

  Pendry, Tom

  White, James (Pollok)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Perry, Ernest

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lee, John

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Whitlock, William

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Richardson. Miss Jo

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Litterick, Tom

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  Loyden, Eddie

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Woof, Robert

  Luard, Evan

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Rooker, J. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  McCartney, Hugh

  Roper, John

  Mr. John Ellis and

  McElhone, Frank

  Rose, Paul B.

  Mr. David Stoddart.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Blaker, Peter

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Body, Richard

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Alison, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Channon, Paul

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Arnold, Tom

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthome)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Brittan, Leon

  Clegg, Walter

  Banks, Robert

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Cockcroft, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Brotherton, Michael

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Bell, Ronald

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Cope, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Cordle, John H.

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Buck, Antony

  Costain, A. P.

  Benyon, W.

  Budgen, Nick

  Critchley, Julian

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Crouch, David

  Biffen, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  1550

  1551

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kilfedder, James

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Durant, Tony

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rifkind Malcolm

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Emery, Peter

  Knox, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lane, David

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Farr, John

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fell, Anthony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Scott, Nicholas

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lloyd, Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Loveridge, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Luce, Richard

  Sims, Roger

  Fox, Marcus

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Freud, Clement

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Fry, Peter

  MacGregor, John

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Speed, Keith

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sproat, Iain

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Madel, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Mates, Michael

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mather, Carol

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maude, Angus

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mawby, Ray

  Stokes, John

  Gorst, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Tapsell, Peter

  Grant Anthony (Harrow C)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Gray, Hamish

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Peter

  Tebbit, Norman

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Grylls, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Hall, Sir John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thompson, George

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morgan, Geraint

  Trotter, Neville

  Hannam, John

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Viggers, Peter

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Mudd, David

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Neave, Airey

  Wakeham, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Neubert, Michael

  Wall, Patrick

  Heseltine, Michael

  Newton, Tony

  Walters, Dennis

  Hicks, Robert

  Nott, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Watt, Hamish

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Wells, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pardoe, John

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hunt, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hurd, Douglas

  Penhaligon, David

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Percival, Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  James, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

  Pym. Rt Hon Francis

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES-

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Timothy

  Mr. Russell Fairgrieve and

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Mr. Michael Roberts.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Division No. 341.]

  AYES

  [11.13 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Bates, Alf

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Allaun, Frank

  Bean, R. E.

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Anderson, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Bradley, Tom

  Archer, Peter

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Ashley. Jack

  Bishop, E. S.

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Atkinson. Norman

  Boardman, H.

  Buchan, Norman

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Booth, Albert

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  1552

  1553

  Campbell, Ian

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Ovenden, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Huckfield, Les

  Owen, Dr David

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Padley, Walter

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Carter, Ray

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Park, George

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hunter, Adam

  Parker, John

  Cartwright, John

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Parry, Robert

  Caslle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Clemitson. Ivor

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Perry, Ernest

  Cohen, Stanley

  Janner, Greville

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Coleman, Donald

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Radice, Giles

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  John, Brynmor

  Reid, George

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Roberts. Gwilym (Cannock)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Judd, Frank

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Cryor, Bob

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roper, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lamond, James

  Ryman, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sandelson, Neville

  Deakins, Eric

  Lee, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Doig, Peter

  Lipton, Marcus

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Dormand. J. D.

  Litterick, Tom

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Duffy, A. E, P.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sillars, James

  Dunn, James A.

  Luard, Evan

  Silverman, Julius

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Eadie Alex

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Small, William

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Edge, Geoff

  McCartney, Hugh

  Snape, Peter

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Spearing, Nigel

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  McElhone, Frank

  Spriggs, Leslie

  English, Michael

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ennals. David

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stoddart, David

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stott, Roger

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Fernyhough. Rt Hon E.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Madden, Max

  Swain, Thomas

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Magee, Bryan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Flannery, Martin

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mahon, Simon

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Thompson, George

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Ford, Ben

  Marquand, David

  Tierney, Sydney

  Forrester, John

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Tinn, James

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tomlinson, John

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w d)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Torney, Tom

  Freeson, Reginald

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tuck. Raphael

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Meacher, Michael

  Urwin, T. W.

  George, Bruce

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Ginsburg, David

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Gould, Bryan

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Graham, Ted

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Molloy, William

  Ward, Michael

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Moonman, Eric

  Watkins, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Watkinson, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Watt, Hamish

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Weetch, Ken

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Weitzman, David

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Newens, Stanley

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hatton, Frank

  Noble, Mike

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Oakes, Gordon

  White, James (Pollok)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Whitlock, William

  Henderson, Douglas

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hooley, Frank

  Orbach, Maurice

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Horam, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  1554

  1555

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Woot, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Williams. W. T. (Warrington)

  Young. David (Bolton E)

  Mr. Laurie Pavtti

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Alison, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Arnold, Tom

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mills, Peter

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Awdry, Daniel

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Gorst, John

  Moate, Roger

  Banks. Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Beith, A. J.

  Grant Anthony (Harrow C)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Bell, Ronald

  Gray, Hamish

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Grieve, Percy

  Morgan, Geraint

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Biffen, John

  Grist, Ian

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Blaker, Peter

  Hall, Sir John

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Body, Richard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mudd, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Neave, Airey

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Hannam, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Newton, Tony

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Nott, John

  Brittan, Leon

  Hastings, Stephen

  Onslow, Cranley

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pardoe, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hicks, Robert

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Buck, Antony

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Budgen, Nick

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Penhaligon, David

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hordern, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Burden, F. A.

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Howells. Geraint (Cardigan)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hunt, John

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Channon, Paul

  Hurd, Douglas

  Raison, Timothy

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rathbone, Tim

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir peter

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  James, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Clegg, Walter

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

  Renton Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Cockcroft, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Cope, John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rifkind Malcolm

  Cordle, John H.

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Costain, A. P.

  Jopling, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Critchley, Julian

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Crouch, David

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kilfedder, James

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Scott, Nicholas

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Knox, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lamont, Norman

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Durant, Tony

  Lane, David

  Shepherd, Colin

  Eden. Rt Hon Sir John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Shersby, Michael

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Silvester, Fred

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Emery, Peter

  Lawson, Nigel

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lloyd, Ian

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Farr, John

  Loveridge, John

  Speed, Keith

  Fell, Anthony

  Luce, Richard

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sproat, Iain

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stainton, Keith

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  MacGregor, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charies

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Fox, Marcus

  Madel, David

  Stokes, John

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Freud, Clement

  Marten, Neil

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Maude, Angus

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mawby, Ray

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  1556

  1557

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Wakeham, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Wall, Patrick

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Walters, Dennis

  Tugendhat, at, Christopher

  Warren, Kenneth

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mr. W. Benyon and

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Wells, John

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Viggers, Peter

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Division No. 342.]

  AYES

  [11.29 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Ennals, David

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Allaun, Frank

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Anderson, Donald

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Luard, Evan

  Archer, Peter

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Ashley, Jack

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  McElhone, Frank

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Flannery, Martin

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Bates, Alf

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Bean, R. E.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Ford, Ben

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Forrester, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

  Madden, Max

  Boardman, H.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Magee, Bryan

  Booth, Albert

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  George, Bruce

  Mahon, Simon

  Boydern, James (Bish Auck)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Bradley Tom

  Gould, Bryan

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marquand, David

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Graham, Ted

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Buchan, Norman

  Grocott, Bruce

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Meacher, Michael

  Campbell, Ian

  Hardy, Peter

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cant, R. B.

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Millan, Bruce

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Carter, Ray

  Hatton, Frank

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Molloy, William

  Cartwright, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Moonman, Eric

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Huckfield, Les

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Newens, Stanley

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Noble, Mike

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hunter, Adam

  Oakes, Gordon

  Cook. Robin F. (Edin C)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Ogden, Eric

  Corbett, Robin

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Cronin, John

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ovenden, John

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Owen, Dr David

  Cryer, Bob

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Padley, Walter

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  John, Brynmor

  Park, George

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Parker, John

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Parry, Robert

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davies. Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pendry, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

  Judd, Frank

  Perry, Ernest

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Kaufman. Gerald

  Phipps, Or Colin

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kelley, Richard

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Kilroy-Silk. Robert

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dempsey, James

  Kinnock, Neil

  Radice, Giles

  Doig, Peter

  Lambie, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lamond, James

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lee, John

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Eadie, Alex

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Edelman. Maurice

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Edge, Geoff

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Roper, John

  English, Michael

  Litterick, Tom

  Rose, Paul B.

  1558

  1559

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Strang, Gavin

  Weetch, Ken

  Rowlands, Ted

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Weitzman, David

  Sandelson, Neville

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Wellbeloved, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Swain, Thomas

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Thomas Ron (Bristol NW)

  Whitlock, William

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Willey. Rt Hon Frederick

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Tinn, James

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Tomlinson, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Sillars, James

  Torney, Tom

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Silverman, Julius

  Tuck Raphael

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Urwin, I W.

  Woof, Robert

  Small, William

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Snape, Peter

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

  Spearing, Nigel

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ward, Michael

  Mr. John Ellis.

  Stoddart, David

  Watkins, David

  Stott, Roger

  Watkinson, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Jessel, Toby

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Alison, Michael

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Farr, John

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Arnold, Tom

  Fell, Anthony

  Jopling, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Baker, Kenneth

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Kilfedder, James

  Banks, Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kimball, Marcus

  Beith, A. J.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bell, Ronald

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Fox, Marcus

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Knox, David

  Biffen, John

  Freud, Clement

  Lamont, Norman

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fry, Peter

  Lane, David

  Blaker, Peter

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Body, Richard

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Lloyd, Ian

  Brittan, Leon

  Goodhart, Philip

  Loveridge, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Luce, Richard

  Brotherton, Michael

  Goodlad, Alastair

  MacCormick, Iain

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gorst, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Grant Anthony (Harrow C)

  MacGregor, John

  Buck, Antony

  Gray, Hamish

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Budgen, Nick

  Grieve, Percy

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Burden, F. A.

  Grist, Ian

  Madel, David

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grylls, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Hall, Sir John

  Marten, Neil

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mates, Michael

  Channon, Paul

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mather, Carol

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maude, Angus

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hannam, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Clegg, Walter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Cockcrort, John

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Caoke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mills, Peter

  Cope, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Cordle, John H

  Heseltine, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hicks, Robert

  Moate, Roger

  Critchley, Julian

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Crouch, David

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hordern, Peter

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Davies. Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Morgan, Geraint

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hunt, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Hurd, Douglas

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Mudd, David

  Durant, Tony

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Neave, Airey

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  James, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Elliott, Sir William

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

  Newton, Tony

  Emery, Peter

  Nott, John

  1560

  1561

  Onslow, Cranley

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Scott, Nicholas

  Thompson, George

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Pardoe, John

  Shepherd, Colin

  Trotter, Neville

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Shersby, Michael

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Pattle, Geoffrey

  Silvester, Fred

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Penhaligon, David

  Sims, Roger

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Percival, Ian

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Viggers, Peter

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Wakeham, John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Speed, Keith

  Wall, Patrick

  Raison, Timothy

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Walters, Dennis

  Rathbone, Tim

  Sproat, Iain

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Stainton, Keith

  Watt, Hamish

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Wells, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rifkind Malcolm

  Stokes, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mr. W. Benyon and

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

ENVIRONMENT
  House Building
  House Building
  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  London
  London
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
  Road Markings
  Road Markings
  European Transport Ministers
  European Transport Ministers
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Elms Felling Costs
  Elms Felling Costs
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Royal Parks (Angling)
  Royal Parks (Angling)
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Building Demolition (Manchester)
  Building Demolition (Manchester)
  Dual Carriageway Link (English-Welsh Border)
  Dual Carriageway Link (English-Welsh Border)
  Caravans
  Caravans
  M16
  M16
  Railways (Commuter Services)
  Railways (Commuter Services)
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Architects
  Architects
  Royal Docks, London
  Royal Docks, London
  Local Authorities (Direct Labour Departments)
  Local Authorities (Direct Labour Departments)
  Housing Mortgages
  Housing Mortgages
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Central Lancashire New Town Development Corporation
  Central Lancashire New Town Development Corporation
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Milk
  Milk
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Directorate of Overseas Surveys
  Directorate of Overseas Surveys
  European Community Ministers (Meeting)
  European Community Ministers (Meeting)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Service Conditions and Practice
  Service Conditions and Practice
DEFENCE
  Reservists (Accidental Deaths)
  Reservists (Accidental Deaths)
  Defence Review (Pamphlet)
  Defence Review (Pamphlet)
  HMS "Zulu"
  HMS "Zulu"
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Money Markets (Liabilities)
  Money Markets (Liabilities)
  Prices
  Prices
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  CBI and TUC
  CBI and TUC
EMPLOYMENT
  Halesowen and Stourbridge
  Halesowen and Stourbridge
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Oldham
  Oldham
  Huddersfield
  Huddersfield
  Training (Wales)
  Training (Wales)
  Southampton
  Southampton
  ISC Alloys, Bloxwich (Arsine Gas)
  ISC Alloys, Bloxwich (Arsine Gas)
SCOTLAND
  Economy
  Economy
  Employment
  Employment
  Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Local Authority Staff (Mortgages)
  Local Authority Staff (Mortgages)
  School Examinations Results
  School Examinations Results
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Secondary School Children
  Secondary School Children
  Rates
  Rates
  Homicide
  Homicide
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Public Works
  Public Works
  Prisoners Released
  Prisoners Released
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Bullying
  Bullying
  Direct-grant Schools
  Direct-grant Schools
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pensioners and Disabled Persons
  Pensioners and Disabled Persons
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Devon Health Authority (Expenditure)
  Devon Health Authority (Expenditure)
  Family Fund
  Family Fund
  Typhoid
  Typhoid
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Fuel Debts
  Fuel Debts
  Sterilisation of Minors
  Sterilisation of Minors
  Coal Miners (Industrial Diseases)
  Coal Miners (Industrial Diseases)
  Students (Supplementary Benefit)
  Students (Supplementary Benefit)
TRADE
  Concorde
  Concorde
  European Community
  European Community
  Trade and Gross Domestic Product
  Trade and Gross Domestic Product
  Multi-national Companies
  Multi-national Companies
  Belfast Airport
  Belfast Airport
ENERGY
  Pipelines
  Pipelines
  Pipelaying Barges
  Pipelaying Barges
  Electricity Industry (Employment)
  Electricity Industry (Employment)
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Power Stations (Outside Contract Labour)
  Power Stations (Outside Contract Labour)
INDUSTRY
  Motor Vehicle Industry (Report)
  Motor Vehicle Industry (Report)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Precautions (Hotels)
  Fire Precautions (Hotels)
  Bail
  Bail
  Remanded Prisoners
  Remanded Prisoners
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Murder and Manslaughter
  Murder and Manslaughter
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Prisoners Released
  Prisoners Released
  Obscenity
  Obscenity
  Film Censorship
  Film Censorship
  Electoral Register
  Electoral Register
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Prisoners (Release)
  Prisoners (Release)
  Planning
  Planning
  Terrorist Organisations (Membership)
  Terrorist Organisations (Membership)
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Graphic Design Units
  Graphic Design Units
  Foyle Fisheries (Report)
  Foyle Fisheries (Report)
  Terrorist Organisations (Explosives)
  Terrorist Organisations (Explosives)
  Police Act 1970 (Complaints)
  Police Act 1970 (Complaints)
  Martin McGuiness and Seamus Twomey
  Martin McGuiness and Seamus Twomey
  Unemployment
  Unemployment

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
The Lord Audley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinswoman.

NHS: EMI SCANNER SUPPLY
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to which Health Regions the EMI Scanner has already been supplied; what was the cost to the Department of Health and Social Security for each Region; and when the capital allocation for the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Area Health Authority for the coming year will be announced.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the EMI Brain Scanner is a product of British technology which has been recognised as the leading diagnostic X-ray machine of its type all over the world. A total of six machines have been supplied and contracts have been placed for a further 12,of which one is for the Newcastle General Hospital. The Department of Health and Social Security was responsible for research and development assistance and for the initial purchase of five Scanners, including a prototype, at a total cost of £550,672. Subsequent machines have been and will be purchased by health authorities out of their normal capital allocations. I regret that I cannot say when the Area Health Authority will be notified of its capital allocation.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether it would not have been fairer, having regard to the fact that there is very little money available for the Health Authorities now, if each Health
872
Region had been given one of these important new technological instruments? Is he aware that in my part of the world we are very regretful of the fact that the Government did not think that each Health Area should have one sent to it? Is the noble Lord further aware that, had we had one, two lives would probably already have been saved? Will he please not discriminate against my Region any further?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, to answer the last part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question first, there is no discrimination against her Region. It is within the competence of her Health Authority to order one of these machines, and if she inquires she may well find that they have in fact already done so.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I know they have, my Lords.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with regard to the general matter of the Department giving each of the RHA's one of these machines, it has been established practice for many years that the Regional Health Authorities decide their own priorities and the expenditure comes out of their allocations.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Then, my Lords, can the noble Lord very kindly tell me which two Regions were given, at the Health Authority's expense, one of these very new technological instruments?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I was not aware that any Health Authority had been given a Scanner, but I will endeavour to find out and let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Wales and Scotland, I think, my Lords.

SCHOOL-LEAVERS: TRAINING SCHEMES
2.41 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to state how many of the recent school-leavers have applied for inclusion in Government training schemes and how many are receiving training.
Lord JACQUES: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that applications for training from recent school-leavers numbered just over 1,900 at the end of September. Approximately 900 are already in training.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that information. Is it not surprising, however, that only 1,000—I think my noble friend mentioned that figure—have applied for training and yet we are informed on reliable authority that over 100,000 school-leavers are applying for work and are unable to obtain it? Can he say whether those young people who are seeking work but are unable to obtain it receive any financial benefit from the Government or from the local authority or from any other source? Are the local authorities in the various areas interested in the distressing situation in which young people find themselves because they are unable to obtain gainful employment? What are they doing to organise young people either for the purpose of engaging in some useful work or even for purposes of recreation?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the figure I gave of applications was not 1,000 but 1,900, and of these 900 are in training. The Training Services Agency has stepped up its commitments very considerably. For example, for 1976, it expects to be training 6.000 school-leavers in Government Skill Centres. In addition, the Agency will be financing a further 30,000 young people who will be receiving training mostly in employers' establishments, but financially aided by the Agency. The Agency is fully conscious of the task that lies ahead and is doing everything in its power to see that it is handled expeditiously
874
and adequately to meet the circumstances.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend reply to one of my supplementary questions; namely, whether those who are unable to obtain gainful employment are receiving any financial assistance?—because there must be a severe burden on many parents who have to maintain these young people.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the recent grants which have been made for these purposes included an allocation of £20 million to the Manpower Services Commission for the extension of the training activities of the Training Services Agency; a provision of £3 million further to extend the employment transfer scheme; the extension of the temporary employment subsidy scheme to cover the whole country up to a cost of £7·5 million; the introduction of a recruitment subsidy for school-leavers at a cost of £5 million; and the allocation of £30 million to the Manpower Services Commission to establish a work creation scheme. All the 30,000 young people whom I mentioned will receive financial assistance.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, is it not a fact that school-leavers who are not in employment get nearly £7 a week from Social Security? Can my noble friend also explain whether the low numbers in training are due to lack of facilities or to the fact that though the facilities exist the young people are not using them?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right as regards Social Security. So far as facilities are concerned, this varies from one part of the country to another. In some areas, it is a question of needing further facilities. In other parts of the country the facilities exist but we have not the applications.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend say what proportion of children receiving special training are girls?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I regret I have no information on that point.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this year the figure for unemployed school-leavers shocks the conscience of the nation and that he and the Government will have the

875
support of every right-minded person in helping to alleviate this terrible burden on our youngsters who have just come out of school?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am fully aware of that and I can assure my noble friend that the Government and all those associated with them have the same strong feeling as he has.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, are the Government aware that a great number of people will welcome what they have said today and that this question is of overwhelming importance not only for the school-leavers—though for them it is of particular value—but also for people who are thrown out of work in industries which are going downhill? Further, are the Government aware that a tremendous amount is being done by our industrial competitors overseas to extend training schemes so that people in, for instance, textile factories, who become unemployed, are actively trained to get jobs in other industries where the productivity is higher and the pay better? May I ask the Government to look at this question on a very broad scale and to press forward with it even more than they are doing at present?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government take the same view as he does with regard to this problem and that they are moving as fast as they possibly can. There are about 10 different schemes through which youngsters are assisted in training. All are quite different and they are so because youngsters are different. I have been astonished at the differences in the schemes and the endeavours which are being made by the service to accommodate the greatly varying needs of so many youngsters. I can assure the whole House that we have the greatest sympathy and are making the greatest endeavours to deal with the problem.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, will the Government spare some thought not only for those who are being trained but for those young people of both sexes who have been trained as teachers, who have completed their course honourably and who find that there is no chance of an engagement in the next year or two?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I feel that this is partly another question. Certainly it lies in the field of another Department. I can tell my noble friend that we have sympathy, but I do not know that I can go beyond that.

NORTH SEA OIL: INSTALLATION PROTECTION
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what present Forces are available for the protection of oil installations in the North Sea against surprise attacks by organisations hostile to this country; and whether their military advisers and oil operators are satisfied with the present degree of protection.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: The full range of capability of the Armed Services could, if necessary, be made available in the circumstances envisaged by the noble Earl. The Government are fully satisfied with the degree of protection available and, although I cannot speak for the oil operators, there is very close co-operation between us on these matters and I have no reason to doubt that they too are satisfied.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which seems to have improved since the debate here on 21st May. Can he inform the House whether it is the fact that the Norwegians have instigated an offshore defence force to protect their rigs, and can he say whether the Government would consider having a special force to defend the rigs in the North Sea?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am not aware of what is happening specifically in Norway, but as a result of a Dutch initiative officials from Holland, Norway, West Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France and Britain met in The Hague on 5th June to discuss possible co-operative measures in peace time against malicious or accidental damage, and a Working Group has since discussed certain aspects of the problem in London. The next full meeting of the regional conference will be held in London in November.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether we are to understand from his reply referring to the Armed Services, that the Government do not consider that there is a police responsibility in this matter, as was suggested by the Government many months ago when this subject was raised?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, an offence on a rig is exactly the same in nature and in law as an offence on land. Normally it would be a police matter, but the Armed Forces are there to assist the civil power and under certain circumstances could take action on their own initiative.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord go a little further and assure the House that there is now adequate and almost instantaneous (if I may use that word) machinery, so that the police can get in touch with the military in the case of urgency?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what police forces have the direct responsibility which he adumbrated in his last answer but one?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I believe that the prime mover in this case is the chief constable of the Grampian Police.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, would the Government now reconsider their decision to cut down on conventional submarines, as these are the only ones that can operate in the Channel and in the shallow waters, while nuclear submarines cannot do so? Surely conventional submarines are one of the main possibilities for defending oil rigs in the North Sea?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the noble Lord puts down a Question on this matter I shall endeavour to answer it.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, surely the truth of the situation is that once it ceases to be a police matter and becomes a matter for the
878
Armed Forces, these rigs in the North Sea are wholly indefensible?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's pessimistic attitude which I had noted earlier.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord just explain this point? He referred a moment ago to the chief constable of the Grampian Police. Surely his writ would not extend over installations off the Norfolk Coast nor, presumably, those North-East of Shetland?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it will be the chief constable of the appropriate Region.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be very undesirable if he were to say too much about the nature of these defences?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most sensible comment.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is no danger of his saying too much about this matter, because he has said very little?

GOVERNMENT REPLIES TO LETTERS
2.53 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an assurance that in future letters addressed to Ministers and Government Departments on realistic matters will be answered.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I am happy to do so, since it is already the Government's practice. But if the noble Baroness has any particular case in mind where this may not have been done, and if she will kindly let me have details, I shall certainly look into it.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that I believe, having been 38 years in another place—and while not blaming one Government or another—that it is very well-known that many letters are not answered, partly, presumably, because they are overlooked, and partly, probably, by design? May I ask whether he would be kind enough to see that a special piece of knowledge is sent around to every Department to ensure that letters will be answered, as that would be in favour of a proper democratic system?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have not had the same length of experience in Parliament as has the noble Baroness, nor perhaps have I suffered in the same way that she has done. I always found that letters I sent to Ministers in the previous Administration were answered; although it is true that it was perhaps after a period of time. But one must recognise that often one is writing letters on matters of great complexity so careful examination is required before the Minister can reply, which therefore takes time. It may be true, too, that letters occassionally get lost; I do not believe by design. But if the noble Baroness has a point—if she has any letters that are outstanding and in respect of which she is now awaiting answers—then if she will let me know I will see that she gets an answer.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I am just making the point; that is all.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, having reproved one of my colleagues for making a suggestion yesterday, may I reprove the noble Baroness that this is not an occasion to make a point but to ask a question.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is it not very unfair to suggest that either Ministers or Departments do not answer letters; and does not that go for either Conservative or Labour Governments? When I became a Member of this House, people began writing to me about their problems and I have been amazed at the courtesy, the care and the detailed information that has been given in trying to deal with these problems; and sometimes in dealing with them satisfactorily.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, and no doubt as a consequence of her question to me her letters will in future be answered with even greater expedition than in the past.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Beswick will be repeating a Statement on the meeting of the EEC Agriculture Ministers on 13th and 14th October.
COMMUNITY LAND BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
RECESS ELECTIONS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PETROLEUM AND SUBMARINE PIPE-LINES BILL
2.58 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Balogh): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Balogh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE in the Chair.]
Schedule 2 [Production licences for seaward areas]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: In the short time available in the last 10 minutes of the last Committee day on 25th September, I briefly moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 60, line 12, at end insert—
"(8A) Where in consequence of any breach or non-observance by the Licensee of any requirement imposed upon him by the provisions of this clause the Minister has power by virtue of paragraph (1) of clause 33 of this licence to revoke this licence he shall exercise that power only in relation to that part of the

881
licensed area in respect of which the breach or non-observance has occurred and over which the programme extends; and where he does so the rights granted by this licence shall cease in respect of that area without prejudice to any obligation or liability imposed upon the Licensee or incurred by him under the terms of this licence."
The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, then had time to say that the Government could come some way to meet the point in the Amendment. This is a very significant reaction by the Government, though what really matters is whether the Government will meet the main point in Amendment No. 17. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said that the Government proposed to table a Government Amendment at Report stage. We naturally welcome any sign of the Government shifting from their previously entrenched position on this important subject, because this is probably the most important issue in the whole Bill. It could govern the extent of the activity and future development of oil and gas resources in the British sector of the Continental Shelf more than any other part of the Government's attitude in the Bill.
Under the Bill as at present drafted, the Minister is given power to revoke the whole of a licence, although a breach or a non-observance of the licence conditions may be a minor one concerned with one small area of the licensed area. I would remind your Lordships that some individual licences cover several blocks and several oilfields. Your Lordships will recall that in this Bill the Government are seeking to alter the terms of licences as from a date in the near future; and this is not simply licences to be granted in the future; they are changing the terms of existing licences due still to run for some years. Here I would note, as I have before, that Norway has not done this, and they share with us the major part of the oil and gas resources in the North Sea.
The method by which this is to be done is to change the model clauses which are the bases of these licences, and Schedule 2 to the Bill shows how the model clauses are to be changed. This Amendment is addressed to Model Clause 15 on page 79. That deals with the development and production programmes of companies and consortia. Ministers are to have powers to decline approval for schemes or to direct companies, and the following situation
882
could arise. A company might decide not to develop a marginal or non-commercial field, which might be a small one, because they have not got the financial resources or because they simply do not consider it worth while. They might have other successful fields coming into production under the samelicence—oilfields into which they have put massive investment. Such a company could be threatened with the loss of all those successful fields under the licence simply because they had taken the sensible commercial decision not to develop the small marginal field and the Minister at the time, for reasons of his own, had decided that that field had to be developed. I would also point out that the breach or non-observance which might cause this situation could be the result of the changes to the licences which arc being made in this Bill; that is to say, it could be a breach of a term which did not exist when the licence was first agreed and granted.
This provision, therefore, is not only unnecessary and unfair but is most likely to deter companies from entering upon new programmes on the British Continental Shelf. This is akin to a motorist being charged with over-staying for ten minutes at a parking meter and, as a result, having his car confiscated and his licence taken away for the rest of his lifetime. Moreover, it is as if the parking meter is one where the time-recording system has been changed while the car has been parked. That is the situation which this model clause as it stands would produce. No wonder the Government have now decided to make some change, which we shall examine with care. This situation cannot be justified. Indeed, it would seem designed to frighten away from our shores in future years those whose finance and skills are needed to extract the oil and gas, and this surely cannot be in British interests and cannot be what the Government seek to do.
In Model Clause 14, on page 78, which deals with exploration and not development of oilfields—it deals with surveys and drilling to find oil and gas—the Minister is given discretion to revoke part of a licence and not the whole licence. Under this Amendment, of course, we are seeking, not that the Minister should have discretion but that only part of the licence

883
should be revoked in these circumstances; and the concession which we understand the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is now offering is to make Model Clause 15 on the same lines. But that means that the Minister could still decide to revoke part of the licence or could decide to take the licence away completely, and the Licensee could still be confronted with a decision by the Minister that the whole of the licence is to be revoked for what could be a comparatively minor infringement—and there is to be no arbitration. Under Model Clause 14, the one concerning exploration, a company can take the disputed matter to arbitration, but from what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, on the last occasion, no such recourse is to be available under the change he is suggesting to Model Clause 15. I hope that the noble Lord will tell us more about this today. Also in his remarks in relation to this matter on the last occasion the noble Lord said that it was necessary to retain the power of total revocation "as a weapon of last resort"—and those are the words he used. Surely the Government of the day and the oil companies and consortia should be working together. This should not be a battlefield; there should not be such terminology as "a weapon of last resort", particularly when this Government are speaking of 51 percent. participation. We know little of what that consists because it is being conducted by private and confidential conversations with individual companies, but if the Government are to participate on that scale there should not be such terminology as "weapons of last resort", and language of that kind. None of this will give much encouragement to companies who have already invested massive sums in the North Sea, or to those who are considering future investment on a similar scale.
The likely effect of these provisions on future activity in British waters is very great. We must have a clear explanation of the Government's attitude and intentions now. Is the new Government Amendment which is to be moved at Report stage to be nothing more than giving the Minister discretion to decide between total and partial revocation without arbitration? Then there is also the question of an alternative; that is to say, the voluntary surrender of part of a licence, which might well be a better
884
course for a company than revocation of the whole licence. That is a matter for discussion under the next Amendment, No. 17A, so I will not pursue that but will merely mention it now. I hope that the Government will now tell us more and will recognise how crucial this matter is for the winning of Britain's indigenous oil supplies. I beg to move.
3.16 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lord has said, and I understand the fears of the industry on this score. We are in close consultation with the industry and I hope that I shall meet them before the Report stage. The Amendment which, at the last sitting of the Committee, I indicated we should be willing to bring forward at Report stage was designed to reassure them. Although the Secretary of State will retain the option of total revocation, the mention in the licence of partial revocation will serve to ensure that the Secretary of State fully and carefully considers whether that would be the more appropriate course; and in many cases I am sure it would be. There would be no question of holding the threat of total revocation like a sword of Damocles over the heads of Licensees to force them to undertake unreasonable investment. That, after all, is one of the interesting and important functions or possible functions of BNOC, to undertake work which is on the margin, but that can be secured by the ordinary exploitation of the contract. Nor would there be any question of using the power of total revocation as a pretext for denying a Licensee a commercial field which happened to be in the same licensed area as the acreage which was the subject of dispute under the model clause. Quite apart from the fact that most commercial fields are likely to be the subject of separate licences, we have never acted like this and this is not the way we shall act in future. We value the presence of the oil companies far too highly to injure their confidence.
It was my hope that these assurances would suffice. I know, however, that the companies attach very great importance to securing a firm guarantee on this point, and I can understand their reasons for so doing. I shall consult with them further; but I must repeat that the licence is a unity and this unity should not be lightly infringed. That is the

885
reason why we resisted in the first instance. However, in the very special circumstances which obtain in this case, I have concluded that we would be justified in making an exception, and so I am able to tell noble Lords that at Report stage we intend to bring forward Amendments which will ensure that, if there is a breach of the licence terms in respect of a programme under Model Clause 15, the Secretary of State will not be able to exercise his power of revocation so as to deprive a Licensee of a commercial field.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: If the words we shall see on the Marshalled List when we get to Report stage mean what I think they will mean, from what I heard from the noble Lord, then that is a very interesting and very valuable reply. There is a principle in this. To me, any suggestion that a Government should take retrospective powers to alter a contract that had been entered into is one that should be resisted on principle. If the noble Lord is giving the assurance that his words, when we get to the Report stage, will mean that the terms of the contract, as they stood when it was originally entered into, will not be altered—that is, that the power the Minister did not have then will not now be taken to be used retrospectively—then I think the principle I have in mind is well covered. If it does not mean that, then I hope that this Committee will very much resist such an interference with the sanctity of a contract.
Lord BALOGH: I should like to remind the noble Lord that I have explained not once but several times that no retrospection is involved at all. We are not making illegal something which was legal. We are only legislating for the future. It is not in the interests of this country that noble Lords should bandy about that word. While I am eager to listen to reasonable cases—and, as I have demonstrated, the Government are willing to make concessions—it seems to me that we ought not to have too much of that word, "retrospection", because it is not there.
Lord TREVELYAN: I am glad to hear the assurance of the Minister on the assumption, if I have interpreted correctly, that it meets the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy,
886
put forward and which I strongly support. I should like to emphasise that this is a very important point if we are to maintain the confidence of those who invest in the development of oil in the North Sea.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like to put two points to the noble Lord on what he has said. First, as he knows, I have never used "retrospection" or "retroactive" during any of the debates on this Bill, because of the ambiguity. What my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls refers to is the changing of existing licences even though it is for the future. It is the changing of licences which were freely agreed in the past at a certain time, even though the changes will be for the future, because those licences and conditions were intended to extend into that period. I have not used the word "retrospective"—he cannot charge me with that—but I have in previous debates pointed out that the Government are trying to do something without compensation which affects agreements freely entered into in the past and which would still be continuing in effect into the future.
The Minister said that a Secretary of State in the future would not act unreasonably in forcing a company to do something and threatening the total revocation of a licence which might extend over several oilfields. We welcome that assurance, but, naturally, Parliament wants to make sure that the legislation is such that some future Government and some future Minister does not, in a situation he thinks is justified, use these powers unreasonably. That is why we must always watch carefully what goes into legislation despite the assurances which Ministers of Governments of the day may give us. I detected that the noble Lord spoke in the plural on this occasion and said that the Government would be putting down Amendments. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head so that I am glad to get that clarified.
That brings me to the next point. The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, said that he hoped that the Minister's reply met the point of Amendment No. 17; but we cannot really tell until we see it on the Marshalled List. Also, I do not think that the noble Lord mentioned the question of arbitration. I do not know

887
whether he can deal with that now. I pointed out that arbitration is available under model Clause 14, but there has been no indication so far that the Government will make arrangements for arbitration under model Clause 15. That is a point which, if the Minister cannot answer now, we shall want to look at. For my own part, I should like to give the Minister the opportunity to reply to this now, if he can, before making any further comment.
Lord BALOGH: We are still in negotiation with the companies. I hope to see them. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with this reply. The whole matter will be clarified when we move the Amendment on the Report stage. The Amendment will contain some suitable phrase which will not permit the Secretary of State, when revoking part of a licence, to revoke it in respect of a commercial field.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: There is one point which I want to raise with the noble Lord on the question of the unity of the licence that he discussed. Is it not a fact, when we come to the question of BNOC participating in the licences, that the likelihood is that BNOC will want to participate in the successful commercial fields? If not, it is frightening to think of some of the things that BNOC may find itself getting into. If that is the case, what is BNOC going to participate in? If it is not the whole licence, it will surely participate in the successful part of the licence. Therefore, we are immediately saying that it is possible to split up these licences, to take one part and to look at it as a separate entity from another part.
This brings us back to the argument we are engaged in now which, in effect, is asking: "Is it not a pity to put the whole licence at risk, because there is an argument about the operation of one small part of it?" The noble Lord has gone some way to reassure us by saying that the commercial fields can be extracted and, as it were, pushed aside and made safe from the incursions that might take place as a result of forced operations that the company would not want to do. I am suggesting that, anyway, we shall have to split up these licences when we come to participation. I hope that the noble
888
Lord will address himself to these points when bringing forward these Amendments that he has promised.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am proposing to end this debate. Therefore, before asking leave to withdraw my Amendment I would point out that the matter of arbitration has not been answered. I think the noble Lord says that we must wait for Report stage on that. The Committee will have realised that this is an Amendment on which, because of its importance, we would have asked the Committee to divide; but as the Government are beginning to see the light, and since they have said that they will table an Amendment for the Report stage, I shall not press this Amendment and will reserve the position for this Bench, so that we can again put down an Amendment on these lines which can be considered with the Government Amendment at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.20 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 17A:
Page 60, line 18, at end insert—
("(10)(a) If the Minister shall give any notice to the Licensee pursuant to this clause either

(i) rejecting a programme; or

(ii) approving a programme subject to conditions otherwise than on the ground specified in paragraph (i) of paragraph (4)(c) of this clause; or

(iii) requiring a programme to be carried out

or shall give a limitation notice in respect of any programme pursuant to clause 12B of this licence, the licensee may within 60 days after the service of such notice surrender the licence as to the whole or any part of the licensed area, being apart comprising the whole of the area to which the said programme relates;
(b) on the surrender of the whole or any part of the licensed area pursuant to paragraph (a) of this clause there shall be paid by the Minister to the Licensee the fair value (disregarding the terms of the said notice given by the Minister) as between a willing seller and a willing purchaser, to be determined in default of agreement by arbitration in pursuance of clause 34 of this licence, of the rights granted by the licence in so far as they relate to the part of the licensed area surrendered.")
The noble Lord said: I have listened with care to the assurances already given by the Minister in respect of the previous

889
Amendment; but, in my view, the assurances given (so far as I understand them) do not quite meet the point of my Amendment. The background of my Amendment is very similar to the background already given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. It is directed to the model clause on working obligations which gives the Minister authority to serve written notice on a Licensee to carry out certain specified work programmes. Where there is any breach or nonobservance by the Licensee of such a working programme imposed by the Minister, the Minister may revoke the licence. But as the Minister has already said, he is proposing to deal with this in further Amendments produced by the Government on the question of not revoking the licence for any breach.
Consider the position of the Licensee when he has received a notice from the Secretary of State asking him to introduce some kind of working programme, and the Licensee decides for a variety of reasons, perfectly realistically and practically, that he may not be able to carry out these working arrangements. The Government may have felt the view of the Licensee, based on the experts they have both used, differs from their own, but the Government may consider that their experts are right in relation to geological matters. As those of us who have been concerned with technical matters know, the experts can differ quite honestly in facts arising out of their researches. There may be a different interpretation between the company, the Licensee and the Government on the basic data concerned with this matter. There may be other motives: the Government may wish to exercise the authority—that is, that they have to maintain employment in certain areas—and, from a national point of view, the arrangements made by the Licensee for drilling and production do not conform with that decision.
When the Minister therefore has decided to issue such a notice in regard to these working programmes, the purpose of my Amendment is to deal realistically and practically with the position as it then stands. The Licensee, in my submission, should be in a position to say to the Minister: "In all the circumstances, I am sorry I cannot carry on with this licence and I should like to surrender
890
the licence to the Minister of State, the Secretary of State or to his nominee, or surrender a part of the licence." In taking a simple, straightforward, commercially understood, step it would of course be expected that some compensation should be given to the Licensee if the Secretary of State accepted such a surrender of the whole licence or part of it.
Therefore the first part of my Amendment enables the Licensee, in the circumstances in which he finds himself in relation to the Secretary of State's requirements, to be in a position to surrender the licence, or part of the licence, to the Secretary of State. The second aspect of my Amendment is that fair compensation should be paid to the Licensee if it is agreed that he has due and proper cause to take this step of surrendering the whole licence or part of it. The powers of arbitration under the Bill are still not very clear, and therefore the question regarding compensation could be referred to arbitration as paragraph (b) of my Amendment suggests. The matter should be determined in default of agreement by arbitration in pursuance of Clause 34 of the licence, or it could be referred to another tribunal if the parties so desired. I hope that I have not taken up too much time on this matter, but from the Licensee's point of view this aspect of being able to surrender the licence, or part of it, is important. It may be that the Minister will be able to give some assurances now on this question. I beg to move.
3.24 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: I had hoped, after our previous discussions, that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, would not move his Amendment. I do not want to detain the Committee long in reply. It seeks to do two things—guarantee for the Licensee the option to surrender part of his licence if he objects to the Secretary of State's production or depletion requirements, and to provide, in the event of revocation, for compensation to be paid to the Licensees.
Partial surrender we have already discussed fully on the last Amendment (No. 17), and on compensation noble Lords have already inserted into the Bill Amendment No. 14 which comprises and indeed goes beyond what is proposed in this Amendment. Therefore it is not

891
quite compatible. I do not think there is anything to add to what has been said on either of these topics, and since we have already deliberated the substance of the Amendment, I assume the noble Lord will not wish to press it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: In view of the undertaking which the Government have given to deal with this situation and to amend model Clause 15, clearly we are now considering, as I mentioned in the earlier debate, another possibility; that is, a right to voluntary surrender of part of a licensed area. I would point out arrangements for surrender of licences and also for licences of part of a licensed area are available under model Clause 6 and that, together with model Clause 7, there are provisions for a company to surrender part of a licensed area provided that that licensed area meets the conditions laid down in model Clause 7 which describes how it should be delineated and it has to be of a certain kind. Notice has to be given of at least six months which is linked with an anniversary date. The principle of surrendering a licence is surely not an issue here because it is something which is available anyway to companies in general.
The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, at column 396 of Hansard in our previous discussion, referred to the licence as a single unit and gave us the impression it was not divisible. This may have been a concept some time ago; but surely it is ceasing to be a concept now, because under model Clause 14, which we have been discussing, the Minister is to have discretion to revoke only part of a licence, and he has given us an undertaking under model Clause 15 that a similar provision will now be made for model Clause 15. Thus the concept that a licence is indivisible is one that may have existed for a period in the past, but does not exist any longer.
Lord TREVELYAN: Surely it was not a similar discretion. My understanding of the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, was that the arrangements would be made which would prevent the Secretary of State from asking for surrender of the whole of the licence.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My understanding of the undertaking given by
892
the Government—and, again, this means that we have to wait to see the Amendment when it is tabled—is that they will table an Amendment which will give discretion to the Minister to revoke the whole of the licence or part of it, but that it will be so worded that commercial oilfields will not be included in the revocation. I know that is a summary of what the noble Lord said, but if I am incorrect, I will gladly give way. I understand that I have it right. I hope that helps the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, whose support in this I value because he knows about this industry in a way that many of us do not.
I was simply pointing out that the concept of a licence having to be a single unit and remain one, even though it covers several oilfields, if it ever existed, certainly is no longer with us. The bringing in of the petroleum revenue tax, the new system of taxation for oil, has in the first place made a nonsense of that because that is a tax which is levied on each oilfield; each oilfield is taxed separately. Companies are not taxed on their activities in offshore oil, each oilfield is taxed as a separate unit. That goes across the individual licences. I do not think the Minister can rest on that argument which he gave us last time.
I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will not press this Amendment because of the undertaking Which the Government have given to us. But it has given us an opportunity to consider this as another way in which a company can voluntarily surrender its licence where it feels it cannot, for very good reasons, carry out some directive by the Minister and would prefer to leave it to be done by somebody else; or where for some reason it would prefer to surrender a licence rather than have it revoked. This is another possibility which I hope the Minister will bear in mind.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Minister for the concessions that he has made. I do not propose to press the Amendment but shall await the Amendments which are to be produced by the Government later. However, I want to make it quite clear, having regard to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, that in this Amendment I am adumbrating that the licensee, when he quite sincerely and conscientiously cannot

893
carry out the notice for the working arrangements, should have the right to surender the licence, or part of it, subject to the determination by a tribunal of adequate compensation. In the circumstances, and once again thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his concessions in this matter, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ORR-EWING: May I just ask the Table whether we are taking Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 together?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I think it would be helpful if Amendment No. 19 were discussed with Amendment No. 18.
3.32 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING Lord ORR-EWING moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 61, line 10, after ("programme") insert ("and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;").
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment where we are really trying to help the noble Lord the Minister. We are in our most helpful and convivial mood, but I have not been in the Chamber long enough to know whether or not the noble Lord is in one of his most co-operative moods. This Amendment brings into the Bill something which seems to us highly desirable: an assurance which was given by the Minister, Mr. Varley, in another place. We have had three clear references to this assurance and, as noble Lords will see, the first part of the Amendment ensures that the licensees and the programme will not be cut so drastically as to do harm. It will be cut by only 20 per cent. Mr. Varley gave an assurance of this in a Written Answer on Friday, 6th December, in another place in a very full Statement. One suspects that perhaps that was an inspired Question—they generally are when put in written form on Fridays and towards the ends of Sessions. To make sure that no one overlooked the report in Hansard on that Friday, to Press Statement was put out by his Department. This sets out in very clear terms an assurance, and it says:
"The main parts from Mr. Varley's Answer are that there will be no delays on the development of finds already made up to the end
894
of 1972 under existing licences; full consultation with companies, should it prove necessary to delay the development of finds made in 1976 or later, so that premature investment is avoided …"
Then it goes on to draw from his Statement, which was much longer than is given here, the two points which are now incorporated in these two Amendments. So it was clear that the Government felt these points were causing some anxiety to the oil companies and the consortia and that it was in the interests of everyone that they should be stated. The points were also incorporated in the Brown Book. So not only do we have the Written Answer but we have the Press release—a copy of which I have in my hand—which makes the point very firmly, and we also have this incorporated in the Government's Brown Book, or what we call "The Bible".
So here we have three statements—and I am sure it would be in comformity with the Government's views—that it is better to write this into the Bill than to rely on an assurance given by a Minister. There can be nothing against this, and if the noble Lord the Minister is in a co-operative mood I am sure he will come to accept it. I would make the point that you need to have an assurance of this sort, and one which should be written into the Bill. I hope very much that the noble Lord the Minister will be forthcoming. I feel sure he will, because this is quite in comformity with the Government's thinking and with their statements, together with their publications and the Press release. Therefore I hope that these two Amendments will be accepted. I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord seeks to restrict the reduction in the rate of extraction which may be specified in a limitation notice to 20 per cent. Incidentally, I should have said immediately that I will certainly take this Amendment in conjunction with No. 19. I should also like to take with it Amendment No. 26.
I am sure noble Lords will acknowledge that considerable concessions have already been made on these depletion controls. The system of limitation notices, introduced in Committee in another place, now allows a licensee to know at the outset of production the maximum change which might be required of him. Before such

895
a limitation notice is issued, the Secretary of State must consult with the licensee and consider his representation I need hardly stress again the importance of depletion control: I am sure all your Lordships are aware of it. North Sea oil is not only a timely discovery of tremendous value to this country, it is also a finite resource. We must approach its exploitation in the realisation that it will not last for ever. For the sake of succeeding generations we dare not extract the oil recklessly or wastefully without thought for them or for the long-term economic or social cost to the country as a whole. That means that it is necessary to have a sensible and flexible policy of depletion control.
I do not think we can go further in the imposition of limits and restrictions on the Secretary of State's discretion without rendering the clause too poor an instrument adequately to protect the national interest. It may well be that in many cases 20 per cent. will prove to be the maximum cut-back which can reasonably and practicably be demanded. As the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, pointed out, the Secretary of State indicated as much in his Statement on 6th December last. If this is so, it is open to the licensee to make his case when the limitation notice is drawn up. But to exclude any possibility of a higher figure being appropriate and being agreed in any case is unnecessarily to inhibit the operation of the clause. Therefore I must ask the Committee to reject Amendments Nos. 18 and 26. However, as regards Amendments Nos. 19 and 27, I fully sympathise with the intention behind them, which would require the Secretary of State. before issuing a limitation notice, specifically to consider representation from the licensee on commercial and financial matters. I can assure the Committee that, with or without the Amendment, the Secretary of State will consider recommendations about financing and commercial viability. I do not think any Amendment is strictly necessary, but at the same time I can see that some more specific reference to representations on financial matters might be desirable. Therefore, since we seem to be starting in a conciliatory mood this afternoon, I am willing to consider whether or not we can
896
bring forward something on Report, if the noble Lord will agree not to press this Amendment.
Lord STRABOLGI: This may be a convenient moment for your Lordships to hear the Statement which is at present being made in the other place. If that is acceptable, I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

EEC: AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING
3.40 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, with permission, I would repeat a Statement being made in the other House on the results of the Meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 13th and 14th October.
"The Council agreed that the representative rate for the pound—the Green Pound—should be adjusted by 5·8 per cent. This will raise support prices for United Kingdom producers by about 6·2 per cent, in sterling terms. The change in the Green Pound will generally take effect from 27th October but will be deferred for certain commodities. For wheat the date of implementation will be 1st July 1976; this will defer any effect on the price of bread. For beef the date of implementation will be 5th January; this will avoid any incentive to put beef into intervention in the autumn period of heavy marketings.
"The agreement reached in Luxembourg will be of real benefit to British farmers. It should be worth about £90 million to them in a full year, after taking account of its effect on feed costs. Of this sum over £50 million will go to our milk producers. We shall now increase the guarantee for milk by an extra 2·3p a gallon from November, which will mean that the effective guarantee over the winter months will now be over 40p a gallon. The average guaranteed price for the year will be 37·04p. I announced in the summer that the retail price of milk would have

897
to rise by 1p in the autumn. Following this increase in the producer guaranteed price and the adjustment I announced on 29th September, the retail price will now rise by 1½p per pint to 8½p per pint from 2nd November.
"I am sure that this settlement will help to meet the milk producers' difficulties. It comes on top of the increase of 2·2p per gallon decided in July, making 4½p per gallon altogether. There will be scope for a further increase at the beginning of the next milk year. This will be for the Government to decide after the Annual Review.
"There will also be a useful increase in the producer price for sugar beet. For beef the new buying-in prices will put a higher floor in the market in 1976. The cereals grower should also benefit in due course. Pigmeat processors, who have been in difficulties, will greatly welcome the reduction in monetary compensatory amounts.
"We have agreed to these changes in the interest of our agricultural industry and in order to safeguard our food supplies. We have sought to keep a balance with consumer interests.
"The main effect on the consumer is on milk, which I have already mentioned, and butter and cheese, on which there may be increases of about 2p a pound depending on the market situation. Otherwise the effect is expected to be less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. on the cost of living. It will be postponed for bread and flour until July next year. This is a very considerable benefit. Even when everything is taken into account, the total effect in a full year is expected to be less than 1 per cent. on the cost of food and less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. on the total cost of living.
"Finally, I am glad to say that the representative rate for the Irish Green Pound has been devalued less than the United Kingdom Green Pound. In consequence it will be possible to end the monetary charges which are at present applied to agricultural trade between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. This will be very welcome to both farmers and traders, particularly in Northern Ireland."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for repeating this Statement. I can only welcome it. For some time we have urged that the Green Pound should be devalued. The Minister has now achieved this to a certain extent and we welcome it. As the noble Lord rightly said, the main effect of this will be on milk. I should have preferred to see an across-the-board devaluation and not one done at different dates as the Statement explains will happen. One appreciates the reasons why this is done, but I rather fancy that it is more for the benefit of the Treasury than, as the Statement says, for agriculture.
It was essential that the Green Pound should be revalued in order to give some kind of security to the milk producers. This will certainly help. I do not think the noble Lord should feel that it will necessarily wholly give them the confidence that is required. The fact I regret is that the Government will keep on taking nibbles at the cherry. We had a devaluation of the Green Pound last July and since then between 250 and 350 milk producers have gone out of production. We now have another devaluation. But I give credit to the Government for saying that the increased cost of this will go on to the retail price and will not be added to the Milk Fund.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, this question. After the devaluation of the Green Pound which he has announced—and I am amazed at the funny figure of 5·8 per cent.; one wonders who arrived at this curious figure—what is the difference between the Green Pound and the pound now? I also welcome the narrowing of the Green Pound in relation to the Irish Green Pound. Can the noble Lord say what is the difference between those two? It is said on page 4 of the Statement:
"There will be scope for a further increase at the beginning of the next milk year."
Does that mean that there will be scope for an increase because of the arrangements which were agreed to this week, or because the Government will take a fresh reappraisal? Will the noble Lord confirm that it is the Government's intention as soon as possible to get parity between the Green Pound and the pound?
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I too welcome the Statement from the Minister. I share the misgivings of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about too many bites at the cherry. We on these Benches are of course very aware of the need to keep down the rise in the cost of living and not to have savage increases, but here the Government must take their courage in their hands. I am aware that the Minister's fight is with his colleagues here and not so much with his colleagues on the Council of Europe. But the evidence today is that if the Government do not do something fairly drastic to restore confidence, then we are going to get into a great deal more trouble. It is interesting that today the price of potatoes is moving from £80 upwards and it is reckoned it will go much higher in the spring, having a significant effect on the cost of living. I am absolutely certain that this is due to a lack of confidence on the part of the potato grower in the support price, which is at a totally false figure and cannot possibly cover the cost. This is having a much more adverse effect on the cost of living than any rise in the price of milk resulting from this agreement.
I note that the Minister is very conscious that this action is not enough—the language of the Statement appears to me to indicate this: It says:
"… this settlement will help to meet milk producers' difficulties It comes on top of the increase. … There will be scope for a further increase".
I think that the Minister should have another battle. May I ask whether he is considering trying to get permission to abolish the subsidy for going out of milk and into beef, which we are paying in this country at the present time when we may have a milk shortage. It is absolute madness, but it is a fact that producers are being paid to go out of milk at the present time. In this country this is madness, and it conflicts with the interests of the European countries. So may I ask whether we are going to do something about that?
I would also reiterate a question put by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. When are we going to get parity with the actual value of the pound? Nothing less will matter, because our costs in this country are exactly the same as the costs in Europe and there is no good reason for doing otherwise except containing inflation
900
—a very good one but it has the opposite effect. Furthermore, is the Minister aware that confidence is sadly lacking in the beef trade and that still producers of the essential stock—the young stock from the hills in Wales, Scotland and elsewhere—are not receiving a price which is economic, as is borne out by every costing done by independent bodies such as the colleges? Will the noble Lord say when he can give firm, long-term assurances that the beef producer, the beef fattener, will get parity with Europe and then be able to pay a price that will ensure our supplies?
Lord SLATER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question before he replies?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, it is customary for Ministers first to reply to the two Front Benches.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, my question is on a point which has been made. This is just making a mess of it.
3.51 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if I may endeavour to reply to the various questions which have been put to me, first may I thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the welcome he gave to the Statement. He said that he would have preferred to have had an across-the-board arrangement instead of the different dates which I have mentioned. The fact is that the difficulties of the farming community vary, but I think we all agree that it is the dairy farmer whose need is the greatest. That is one reason why there is this differentiation between the dairy and the beef dates. The noble Earl spoke about different bites at the cherry, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is a little more understanding of our difficulties in this respect. Obviously it is necessary to think of the consumer in these matters and to have phasing, if at all possible. On balance, I believe that it is better to do it this way than to have one big increase and make that last for a longer time.
I was asked by the noble Earl whether I could explain to him—and I am sure that the House is straining to know the answer—this figure of 5.8 per cent. This is the difference between the old rate of exchange with a unit of account of 1·86369 units, and the new one, which will now be 1·7556 units. The difference

901
between those two figures is 5·8 per cent. As I never lose an opportunity of telling the noble Earl, may I remind him that he was greatly in favour of our entry into the Community and part of the Treaty obligation is that we should accept this kind of arithmetic. I was asked about the phrasing of the Statement in which reference is made to the scope for further increases. There is no question of any automatic further increase. However, as he put it, it will be possible later to reappraise the situation.
I was asked about the difference between the Green Pound and the ordinary rate of sterling exchange. I think I am right in saying that the difference after this reduction is 7 per cent. There will still be a 7 per cent. difference between the market rate of exchange and the agricultural rate of exchange. The difference between the United Kingdom and the Irish Green Pound is about 1.6 per cent.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about the importance of confidence and I accept what he says. May I say to him that we all know that there has been this lack of confidence, and it is essential for all of us to ensure that we do not more than necessarily talk ourselves out of confidence. There has been a considerable improvement here, so let us think rather a little more about the improvement than about the difficulties with which we have had to contend. We might also remember that there are others in the nation apart from farmers who have difficulties to contend with in the present situation, and it will not do any of us any good if we sap each other's confidence. I recognise the point which was made about potatoes. I will look into and write to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, about that point and the one which he made about milk and comparative encouragement as between dairy and beef farmers. It does not arise out of this discussion.
I was asked by both noble Lords if I could give a date when there will be parity between the sterling rate in the market and the Green Pound exchange rate. The answer is that I cannot. Again it is a question of phasing, and I believe that a gradual move up to parity will be better than a sudden lurch.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, my question to my noble friend is this. It arises from a question that was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I ask it for the benefit of the general public of this country. When the Government talk about the Green Pound what are they talking about? There is the Green Pound and the ordinary pound that we use here as sterling currency. Is my noble friend able to say what is meant when the Government talk about the Green Pound?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I quite understand my noble friend's difficulty. As I have already said, the fact is that we have gone into the EEC, with all the responsibilities attaching thereto. There is a procedure for making payments under the Common Agricultural Policy. These payments are made, during the transitional period at any rate, at a separate rate from the ordinary sterling rate. As I have said, for the purposes of the Common Agricultural Policy the exchange rate at the present time is 1·7556 units of account. That is the so-called Green Pound rate, which varies now by 7 per cent. from the exchange rate that the noble Lord would obtain if he changed pounds into francs in the ordinary money market.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask whether there is a Green Franc and a Green Mark as well?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, yes. The Green Pound is exchanged into Green Francs and Green Lire.

PETROLEUM AND SUBMARINE PIPE-LINES BILL
3.57 p.m.
House again in Committee, on Amendment No. 18:
Lord POLWARTH: I, too, wish to join other speakers in congratulating noble Lords opposite on the atmosphere of great reasonableness in which they have returned to us today, compared with earlier days. Perhaps it is an indication that it would be good for the health of us all if we had two shorter summer holidays rather than a longer one. However, I shall leave that point to your Lordships to decide.

903
On the two Amendments that we are considering now, I wonder whether I might direct your Lordships' attention to one other aspect. In doing so, I repeat my declaration of my own interest as a director of companies which are involved in exploration and development in the North Sea, and also in the financing side. As noble Lords opposite know, with the exception of one or two fortunate companies which are able to meet the financing of these developments from their own resources, the great majority will be obliged to seek to borrow from banks or other financial institutions. Not surprisingly, banks will need to have a reasonable assurance of a sufficient return from a field to fund that borrowing over the life of the field.
This is not an exact science, and there are a great many uncertainties in this industry. Despite all the technological advances, it is still not possible, even when a decision is taken to develop a field, to be at all certain, within certain limits, of the ultimate output, the reserves, the rate of output and so on. This is not surprising, considering that the oil is underneath 400 or500 feet of sea water and possibly below two miles of geological strata. Therefore, for these reasons there must be a degree of uncertainty. We are introducing a number of other uncertainties by the various powers taken in this Bill for the control of development in one way or another, not least this power to restrict production which I agree will be necessary, within certain limits, at some time in the future. But was glad to hear the noble Lord opposite say that when it came to imposing restrictions the Government would discuss with companies what were the financial implications.
However, I think it has to be looked at a little earlier. I know we have this welcome dispensation that all fields declared, as it were, before the end of this year will be exempt and that there is a starting date, of, I think, 1982. But we have to look a long way ahead in regard to the initial financing of the fields, and I can say from experience that at this stage we are finding that in some cases it is proving very difficult to arrange the initial financing of fields, in view of the escalation of costs and the delay in, and uncertainty of, the
904
passage of these various Bills through Parliament. Financing is proving more difficult than was anticipated. I think we must remove any avoidable uncertainties at this early stage and therefore I ask the noble Lord opposite, in considering how to deal with it, to bear in mind that some limit should be pronounced at the beginning of the development of a field, as to the maximum restrictions that may be imposed later if we are to have a reasonable prospect of raising the finance—and the sums are very large indeed.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: It would be churlish of us not to welcome wholeheartedly the concessions promised by the noble Lord in respect of Amendment No. 19. I am sure that these will be welcomed by the industry and they are indicative of the frame of mind of the Government, which is receptive to what we are trying to do here this afternoon. Amendment No. 18 is rather a different proposition and I do not think the noble Lord has given us a convincing case as to why it should not be pressed. I do not think he has made any concessions in respect of Amendment No. 18, which concerns this rather curious expression used in the industry of "pro rationing", whereby the output from a field can be limited at a certain date in its development. Apart from anything else, a Statement made so categorically by a Minister—a Statement which, as my noble friend has pointed out, was most carefully issued in the form of a Press release and repeated in the brown book—all for the purpose of trying to reassure a nervous industry, and nervous financial institutions which were going to back the industry, should be incorporated in the Bill.
Surely no Government can turn around and say, "Well, of course, we said all sorts of things by way of reassurance, but really we cannot start writing these reassurances into the Bill". One is tempted to use words like "sharp practice" if this is the way we are going to behave, and I should have thought we were wholly entitled to say that the Government must put into the law of the land the undertaking which they have given verbally. For that reason alone, I believe that this Amendment should be pressed.
Lord ORR-EWING: I add my grateful thanks for the fact that the Minister has given way on one of these two Amendments, No. 19. In fact he has accepted our principle that Mr. Varley's assurance given in the House and repeated in the Press release and in the brown "bible" should be written into the Bill, and he is now going to try for some wording at Report stage which, as I understand it, will include financial and commercial viability as one of the considerations which the Minister is to take into account.
One cannot help remembering that Mr. Varley made that Statement, with all the publicity which followed it, when he was responsible for the North Sea industry and one wonders whether this desire to avoid hard and fast facts being written into the Bill may possibly be a "spin off" from the fact that Mr. Wedgwood Benn is now in control there, and is less sensitive to the need for these assurances which the industry so badly requires. One has only to see his track record in his previous job to realise that industries' recommendations and wishes do not take a very high priority in his actions. So I rather hope that the Minister will now go one further and accept not only Amendment No. 19, but also Amendment No. 18.
As my noble friend has said from the Front Bench, since this Statement was made and since this assurance was given, these companies have had a further tremendous escalation in development costs. It is seen to be a dangerous, extremely expensive and risky business, and they would like to have an assurance that no greater cut than 20 per cent. will be made in their production rate. It is quite clearly said that this would generally limit cuts to 20 per cent. at most, so why not accept those words? As a result of this Bill and other actions, the Government already have a tremendous control over these companies. If they acquiesce in participation, which we shall consider on Amendment No. 50, then the power, the leaning-on, the influence which the Government can have on these great undertakings will be terrific. Surely we can have an assurance that 20 per cent. is the most that they will cut back the production—the optimum production—of these companies.
I hope that the Government will look at this most carefully in the interim,
906
before we come to Report stage and Third Reading of this Bill. But I must recommend that the Committee divide, because I believe that this is an important point for the future optimum development of these fields.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: May I ask whether, the Government having given those assurances and the Opposition having decided to divide against them, those assurances will be withdrawn?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: It is to be hoped that this subject would be approached with greater responsibility than is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton. I think we should take into account the problems which these explorations are having to face, quite apart from any problems brought about by Government action or decree. As has already been pointed out by my noble friend, if the people working these difficult and expensive fields can foresee that the normal hazards, the normal costs and the normal difficulties of carrying out these operations will get less, or will not get any greater, then perhaps the undertakings need not be written in. The normal development would make the undertakings sufficient in themselves.
But I think everybody would accept that the problems—quite apart from any Government action—facing anyone exploiting these fields will get much greater; the costs and the competition will get much greater and the sharing out of the technical knowledge for doing it will become much greater. It is because one can only anticipate that the job of producing and marketing the oil will get much more difficult as a process in itself that, in order to balance the lack of confidence that the future risk carries with it, something has to be given. I should have thought it would be giving nothing away if we were to write into the Bill the statements that have already been made in good faith by the Minister, which to some extent recognise the problems of the future. That would be more likely to maintain the essential confidence that we need and, if the Government can recognise that, I am certain that they will concede the request that is now made and will write into the Bill the same words as they have already issued in the form of an official Statement.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I should first like to stress what I said earlier in answer to the noble Lord. We have already made a number of concessions and I should like to consider some of these briefly for the benefit of the Committee. When this Bill was introduced, the Secretary of State had unqualified power to increase or cut back production at any time. As the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has pointed out again today, the industry argued that the existence of this power could make it very difficult for them, or their bankers, to calculate with any confidence the profitability of proposed investment in any field, and that this would make investment and borrowing to finance investment impossible. Therefore, in Committee in another place the Government introduced an Amendment to establish the limitation notice procedure set out in this model clause which ensures that the Licensee and his bankers know when the programme has been approved—that is, before any development expenditure has taken place—the maximum amount of cutback which his field can suffer. We also provided separately that the limits in the limitation notice were not to be such as to empower the Secretary of State to define an increase in production costing more than the cost of drilling a new well in the licensed area at the time of the further notice. This provision, which did not appear in the Bill as introduced, is based on the belief that an increase in production is likely to be ordered more in a short-term supply emergency, resulting, for example, from an interruption to Middle Eastern supplies. We also amended the Bill in terms of deferment. Once the decision was made on the period of deferment, the Secretary of State was firmly committed to it.
I think we have gone quite a long way to meet the Opposition's request, the request of the oil industry, in this matter. The terms of the limitation notice will be discussed with the Licensee at an early stage before development starts. This is a major concession. I think this should meet the point that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, is making. I fully accept that it is important in terms of financing the operation. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, made a good deal of the Secretary of State's Statement of 6th December last, and limitation notices
908
will be consistent with it. The Statement said only that the cut-back would generally—these are the Secretary of State's words—not be more than 20 per cent. and we intend that limitation notices should be consistent with this.
Lord ORR-EWING: If I may correct the noble Lord, it was even a little firmer than he has said. It was said that this would generally limit cuts to 20 per cent. at most—not only the general limit, but "at most".
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and, as I have said, we shall ensure that limitation notices are generally consistent with that. I think it would be sharp practice on the public on our part if we argued for a depletion policy, and were then to restrict it in such a way as to make it not much of a depletion policy at all. I think we have to have much more flexibility and freedom of action than this Amendment is trying to give us.
I should like finally, hoping that I have met the case and that noble Lords may decide not to press this Amendment, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and I want to correct an impression that is very widespread. This is one of the least speculative oil-fields in the world; I think we ought to realise that. There is a much smaller proportion of dry holes being drilled in the North Sea as against successful bores than anywhere else.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I think we would accept that, and indeed hope that it is true in accepting it. But the noble Lord must accept the fact that in this country today, particularly in the financial field, there is a real lack of confidence, based upon a downward turn which does not seem to be stopping at the moment, and the whole trust in the value of the oil-fields has to be taken on the one hand. But the lack of confidence of the people who have to take risks in exploiting them is a very real factor which ought not to be denied by the Government.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I do not wish to belittle the efforts of the oil companies in any way. I fully accept the investment and all that is involved in this. However,

909
the point I have tried to make is that we have gone a long way in trying to meet the case put forward in this respect by the other side. I have already given an undertaking in respect of Clauses 19 and 27. I would have hoped that in the interests of agreement in the Committee we might look to noble Lords not to press Amendment No. 18.
Lord POLWARTH: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, to clarify the position a little for me. This is probably my stupidity. Is it the case that at the stage of agreeing the development programme with the company at the beginning, when we start initial development and Government approval is sought and details are gone into, the Government will indicate to the company both the earliest date at which restriction is liable to be imposed, and also the maximum extent to which it is liable to be imposed? That is what I am not quite clear on.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I do not think I can give a firm undertaking in this matter, but I will undertake to look into the possibility without making any firm commitment to the noble Lord.
Lord ORR-EWING: I feel that we have not got quite as far as we want to go on this. I think the Government have plenty of time. If they made out a good case they could amend this Bill by a single clause at a later stage in the years to come. If they find that 20 per cent. is too restrictive and their case is really solid, I have no doubt that Parliament will allow them to amend the Bill accordingly. I must ask that the intention of the 20 per cent. Cut at most, as put in Mr. Varley's Statement, should now be written into the Bill.
4.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Mansfield, E.

Airedale, L.

Essex, E.

Margadale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Falkland, V.

Merrivale, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Armstrong, L.

Ferrier, L.

Middleton, L.

Balerno, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monck, V.

Balfour, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Barnby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Barrington, V.

Glasgow, E.

Moyne, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Goschen, V.

Moyola, L.

Belstead, L.

Grantchester, L.

Newall, L.

Berkeley, B.

Grenfell, L.

Northchurch, B.

Bourne, L.

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brock, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ogmore, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Haig, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Polwarth, L.

Cairns, E.

Porritt, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hankey, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Carrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Harvington, L.

Rockley, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hayter, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Clwyd, L.

Hewlett, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cowley, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Helens, L.

Cromartie, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Ironside, L.

Sandys, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sempill, Ly.

de Freyne, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Denbigh, E.

Kimberley, E.

Stamp, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcarron, L.

Deramore, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Digby, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Dudley, B.

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Eccles, V.

Lonsdale, E.

Suffield, L.

Effingham, E.

Lothian, M.

Tenby, V.

Elles, B.

Loudoun, C.

Terrington, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Elton, L.

Lyell, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vernon, L.

Vivian, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Yarborough, E.

Wade, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Young, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pannell, L.

Balogh, L.

Hall, V.

Phillips, B.

Beswick, L.

Halsbury, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Popplewell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Roberthall, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rusholme, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hoy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Burntwood, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Longford, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crook, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lytton, E.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Summerskill, B.

Darwen, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Maybray-King, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Milford, L.

Winterbottom, L.

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

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Fisher of Camden, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.27 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 62, line 5, at end insert—
"(7) The Licensee shall ensure that any conditions to which an approval is subject in pursuance of clause 12A(4)(b) of this licence or a consent is subject in pursuance of paragraph (1) of this clause are complied with."
The noble Lord said: May I suggest that with Amendment No. 20 we take the corresponding Amendments Nos. 28, 32, and 35, and speak to them as well. These are technical Amendments and I am sure that we can dispose of them briefly. The point is that the Secretary of State can under the model Clause 15(4) approve a programme outright or subject it to a condition relating to the timing of development. Paragraph (8) of the model clause places a duty on a Licensee to carry out an approved programme except so far as a condition under paragraph (4) requires him to do otherwise, but there is no clear, express and unambiguous duty laid upon him to observe the condition. Clearly the intention of the Bill, and it has been understood as such by the industry, is that any such conditions must be complied with. Our legal advice is, however, that to put the matter beyond doubt this requirement should be explicitly stated. This is the purpose of the Amendment. As I say, it does no
912
more than put beyond doubt what has always been understood to be the intention and effect of the Bill and, on this basis, I recommend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Lord is saying that this is a purely technical Amendment. I think that this is a slight overstatement, because again one detects lying behind this the common threat which seems to run through so many of these Amendments; that is, trying to get almost unlimited power for the Minister with draconian sanctions in the event that his directions are not followed by the industry.
As I read this Amendment, which is no more noted for its clarity than quite a number of the other Amendments in this Bill—notably the one to which we shall be coming in a moment—it seems to create slightly further uncertainty and create a slight further threat to the viability of production operations for petroleum products. If one reads this with the attempt to link the revocation of part of a licence to the whole of it, it is understandable that the industry is not very happy about it. Perhaps we should not object to this Amendment to the point of carrying it to a Division, but we need to look carefully at what the Minister has said to be certain there is not something here being added to the considerable and onerous burden which

913
the industry already feels is being placed on it. I do not think there is any point in my expanding further than to say that, with the utmost reluctance, I am prepared for this Amendment to be agreed to.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Did I understand the noble Lord to say that he means to withdraw the Amendment?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Lord moved the Amendment, so it is up to him.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I apologise. The noble Lord is quite right.
4.31 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 21B:
Page 63, line 5, at end insert:
"(2AA) An application for consent in pursuance of paragraph (2A) of this clause must be made in writing to the Minister and must specify the date on which the Licensee proposes to begin the flaring or use in question; and subject to paragraph (2AB) of this clause that date must not be before the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the date when the Minister receives the application.
(2AB) If the Minister gives notice in writing to the Licensee stating that, in consequence of plans made by the Licensee which the Minister considers are reasonable, the Minister will entertain an application for consent in pursuance of paragraph (2A) of this clause which specifies a date after the expiration of a period mentioned in the notice which is shorter than the period mentioned in paragraph (2AA) of this clause, an application made in consequence of the notice may specify, as the date on which the applicant proposes to begin the flaring or use in question, a date after the expiration of that shorter period."
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient for the Committee to take with this Amendment the corresponding Amendments, Nos. 29A, 33A and 36A. This is a substantive and not a technical Amendment. Its effect is to require Licensees to give at least two years' notice of intention to flare gas, except in emergencies which are already provided for in the model clause or where it is clear that two years is impracticable. At first sight this might appear to be an onerous new obligation, but I hope I can demonstrate that this is not in fact so.
The Amendment arises from the problem of associated gas; that is, gas which
914
in greater or lesser quantities is produced in conjunction with oil. The problem arises because the interests of the producing company and the nation may well not coincide. The Licensee is understandably principally interested in oil. That is the more profitable commodity, that is what oil companies are really in the business of searching for. From a national point of view, however, natural gas is an important energy source, a scarce commodity supplies of which must be husbanded wherever possible. Anyone who has flown over certain areas of the Middle East, for example, by night and has seen the desert illuminated for miles around by flaring gas will be aware of the enormous waste of a vital energy source that can occur when commercial considerations override all others and there is no control on flaring gas. We are greatly concerned to see that associated gas from beneath the North Sea is not wasted, and if it is flared, burnt off, it is quite simply wasted.
There will no doubt be instances where it is inevitable, where the associated gas is so little or where the location of the field is such that it makes no economic sense to do other than flare. But there may well be other cases where it need not be wasted, where it might be possible and economically viable to feed it into a gas pipe-line already existing or to collect the associated gas from a number of neighbouring fields and transport it ashore in a pipe-line specially built for the purpose. A feasibility study has recently been mounted to evaluate the relative economics of alternative ways of bringing the associated gas ashore, possibly through a gas-gathering pipe-line. But the examination of such possibilities and arrangements to take advantage of them take a long time, and this is why we think it necessary to have warning so far in advance of Licensees' intentions.
The model clause as drafted could too easily be rendered ineffective as a conservation measure by Licensees seeking consent to flare at such short notice that there was no practical alternative but to agree. We recognise that there would be cases where an absolute requirement for two years' notice could be unduly inflexible, and after discussion with the United Kingdom Offshore Oil Authority, we have introduced provision for a shorter period of notice to be approved. But before giving an exemption we shall

915
wish to be satisfied that two years' notice really was impracticable.
Having said all that, however, I hasten to assure the Committee that there is no question of the Secretary of State unreasonably requiring a Licensee to go to immediate expense merely to save a tiny quantity of gas. The industry voiced these fears early on in discussion on the Bill and the model clause already contains provision for Licensees to make representation on technical and financial matters. The Amendment is therefore a strengthening of the Secretary of State's powers to ensure that in the national interest valuable energy resources are not avoidably lost and, as such, I commend it to the Committee.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: We can start with the kind things first and say that this Amendment is at least better than the first version which appeared in the last Marshalled List. It does, however, raise a number of questions. It seems a curious moment for this issue to have come up in an Amendment, very late on in the passage of the Bill. I should not think that it is a new point. I think the noble Lord was attempting to answer my second question: why is it necessary at all in view of the powers which are already in paragraph 21(3) of Schedule 2. That says:
"Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this clause, the Licensee shall not—

(a) flare any gas from the licensed area; or

(b) use gas for the purpose of creating or increasing the pressure by means of which petroleum is obtained from that area, except with the consent in writing of the Minister and in accordance with the conditions, if any, of the consent."

If I understood the noble Lord correctly, he was saying that the industry could, under that provision, put a pistol to the head of the Minister and virtually say that a dangerous situation was going to be created unless he agreed to give the consent which was required under that clause. It is difficult to see why these new powers are required; and certainly the language in which they are expressed in this Amendment is difficult. I am told by the legalists that it is very difficult for them to understand, and as a matter of fact I assure the noble Lord that for the non-legalist it is most difficult and highly
916
obscure as to what the intention really is. This is, as it were, the technical area of objection to it.
On a more commercial and common sense basis, there are a number of worries. There is the question, of course, that for fields which are about to come into production in less than two years it does not seem to make sense because one cannot give two years' notice if one is wanting to do something in less than two years. I suppose that that is a basically technical point which could easily be overcome. Then there is the worry that if a company is refused permission to flare its gas, it may weaken its commercial bargaining situation when it has only a monopoly purchaser to whom it can sell the gas in any case. I can sympathise totally with someone who says, "I am going to be put in the situation where there is only one person who can buy my product and he is not prepared to offer me a price which makes it in the least attractive for me to sell it to him and therefore I wish to pour it down the sink". But under this Amendment that will not be possible for him to do; the potential buyer will know that very well and this will put him in a very strong position to make life extremely awkward for the company. I should not expect the Government to shed any tears over the lack of profit which some of the oil companies may make as a result of that, but I should expect them to shed a certain amount of tears if this causes a delay in the production of the oil which the country so desperately needs. I believe that one of my noble friends will be referring to the problems which are already appearing in connection with other oilfields in the North Sea; that is, some of the technical problems which have arisen from the specialist equipment.
I am sure that this is not the place for us to go into the questions of re-injection as opposed to flaring. It is a highly complex matter, as I am aware from the little information I have been able to obtain on the subject. I shall be filled with a certain amount of misgiving if the companies are to be asked to go through an elaborate fandangle to explain why they think it necessary to do certain things and if the Minister is to arrogate to himself the right to override them. That is perhaps a rather more general objection, but it inevitably arises from the

917
nature of the Amendment and the time at which it has been produced. I cannot see the need for this, since one would have thought that this would be one of the major issues to be discussed early on when working on the development programme.
Clearly, we are not going to divide the House on a technical Amendment of this kind and one which the Minister has satisfied himself gives him a power which he really needs. I would, however, earnestly ask the Minister to consider the possibility of withdrawing the Amendment which I am advised is inherently badly timed, possibly unreasonable and certainly badly phrased. One would hope that some shorter and more intelligible wording might conceivably be introduced at a later stage. We shall not oppose the Amendment, though we reserve the right to examine it closely and to see whether it will be necessary to bring in a subsequent Amendment at Report stage unless, as I hope, the Government can be induced to put the short time available between now and Report to good use in producing a better Amendment which achieves what they really think they need.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, has said in explaining the reason for this Amendment, but, so far as I understood him, he was concerned merely with the question of the notice required for flaring the gas. However, the Amendment also deals with subsection (2A)(b) which relates to re-injection of the gas into the reservoir of oil underneath. Last week, I had the privilege of visiting the Ekofisk Norwegian oil rigs in the middle of the North Sea. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, is in the House and he and I were both on this expedition. There, there was re-injection of the gas into the oil space underneath for the purposes of avoiding depletion because the oil rig was not ready with the pipe-line to supply North Germany at Emden with the gas. As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, he emphasised that it was necessary to prevent waste and suggested that, instead of flaring, steps could be taken to take the gas somewhere else. However, it may be necessary for a variety of reasons with which I shall not weary
918
the House that there should be re-injection. That is the use which is allowed as stated in sub-paragraph (b) at the top of page 63. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to explain this aspect of re-injection and whether or not he considers, as a technical matter, that two years' notice would be too long to give in the circumstances of re-injection which is necessitated for technical reasons?
Lord IRONSIDE: I, too, found it very difficult to understand the noble Lord's reasoning here, especially after the visit which I paid to the Ekofisk field with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, last Friday. When we were at that field, flaring was going on for the reason that the noble Lord has mentioned. They were testing out compressors and techniques of injection and they found that it was necessary to burn the waste gas on site during the test period. We learnt on that rig that the arrangement which the company—Phillips Petroleum—has with the Norwegian Government is that its programme is based on a month to month assessment during this stage when oil is not being pumped to Tee side and when gas is not being pumped to Germany. One would have thought that it would be possible for the Government to be flexible in this matter, because it was emphasised to us that the need to flare when in production is purely technological and arises from assessments made from the reservoir pressures and general statistics. The need to maintain a constant pressure is vital and to operate in any other mode involving "Stop/Go" procedures due to Government intervention or delays caused by Government is not acceptable because any hiccups which are caused in gas production may lead to a situation in which it would be difficult to get the gas flow started again having stopped it. As I understand it and as it has been put to me by oil company representatives, indiscriminate flaring is not technologically practicable. However, in the Norwegian case, should the licensee wish to seek consent under a planned programme to carry out flaring, he would expect to be able to obtain that consent at short notice on presentation of a reasonable case.
When the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, spoke to the Amendment, he drew

919
attention to all the things we see going on in the Middle East. The North Sea is not quite like the Middle East in this respect, however, and I cannot really see that the fears which he has expressed can be substantiated.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I should like, first, to reply to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. He referred to the situation of the fields which will be producing less than two years after Royal Assent. We can make transitional provisions under Clause 46 to cover these. At present, the situation is that there is inadequate control. In future, we shall secure control but, clearly, in the case of rigs which are now moving towards production, two years cannot apply. On the monopoly point raised by the noble Lord, it is only gas for use as a fuel in Great Britain which has to be offered to the BGC and only at a reasonable price which can be determined in the last resort by the Secretary of State. It is true that generally we shall expect flaring plans to be discussed as part of the development programme.
On the matter of re-injection, of course this is a very important aspect of dealing with gas. It is something which, in cases where it is impossible to take the gas out and feed it into the pipe-line, is one potential way of using the gas, just as a certain quantity of the gas—though not very much—can be used to power the rigs. The noble Lord referred to a visit to a rig. I was on one of the rigs in the Forties field which is powered by gas. Gas provides its source of energy. I do not know how many rigs will do this, but it is a potential use, though not very much gas would be involved. There is a case here where a certain amount of re-injection could be done. Perhaps this is one of the points that a producer might have to work out, to see to what extent he could re-inject. I am afraid that I am not in a position to go into technicalities on this, but re-injection is a necessary part of dealing with the gas.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, said, the fact is that a producer could flare all the gas; it is possible to flare all the gas. The noble Lord says that that would not be done in the North Sea, but unless we introduced control over
920
flaring early on a producer could do it. We must prevent this happening. It is a matter which we shall discuss early on, and it is in the interests of the producers that we should do so. Flaring gas affects the design of the platform itself, for one thing.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Lord seems to be speaking as if the paragraph which I quoted to him is not already in the Bill. But it is already there, and it is clearly stated that it is possible to stop the flaring of gas. No one is suggesting that we want to eliminate from the Bill the power of the Minister to stop the flaring of gas. We are suggesting that it is already there, and that we need to make it even more difficult than it is now.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: The point that I was last making answers the noble Lord. We want information well in advance. We want this worked out; hence the two years. I shall try now neither to withdraw nor to oppose my noble friend's Amendments, and so I beg to move.
Lord ORR-EWING: I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I should like to reinforce other appeals. I am merely a simple industrial engineer, and not a legal expert. But here we have sheer legal gobbledygook. I have read it six times, but it makes absolute nonsense, and I cannot understand what it is about. There must be other people, who are also engineers involved in this business, who will have the same difficulty. The Minister did not reply to this point. There is no political difference on this. All we are suggesting is that there might be a new draftsman to see whether this matter can be made a little simpler in its final version. That is my first point.
With regard to my second point, the Minister said—if I understood him rightly—in referring to the two years' notice, that there was provision for a shorter period. I made a note of what the Minister said in his first contribution, but I was not quite clear on this. Is this to be written into the Bill? Is it to be included in the model clause? Perhaps the Minister can say where we are to find this. Is it already there, or is it to be put in later? I cannot help feeling—and

921
many other people have made the same point—that it will be necessary to be sufficiently flexible for the Ministry to give permission at very short notice.
My noble friend Lord Ironside made the point that it is not a two-year plan at the moment in the case of Ekofisk. It is done on a monthly basis. It is not done two years ahead; it is done month by month. I can visualise times in the life of an oil rig when it may be necessary to rebuild a compressor, enlarge its capacity, or up rate it to deal with higher powers which may be necessary to pump the gas ashore. Such requirements may mean modifications to compressors and render them unserviceable. In such circumstances, would it be possible to send a telex message to the Ministry stating that there has been an emergency or putting forward a certain plan, and asking for early approval? This type of flexible approach must be available if we are not to sacrifice the optimisation of the oil flow which is what the whole debate is all about.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I certainly undertake to look again at the precise wording to see whether it is crystal clear, and if it is not we may be able to make it clearer, or make out a stronger case for the existing wording on Report. With regard to the other point raised by the noble Lord, about the provision for a shorter period to which I referred in proposing these Amendments, this is in sub-paragraph (b) of Schedule 2, Part II.
Lord ORR-EWING: Is there to be a set up so that early permission can be given for a flare-off in an emergency? Would a telex message be sufficient to justify the case?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I am sorry that I did not deal with that point. In the Bill there are provisions which enable flaring to take place in an emergency, whereby the Licensee can, in fact, flare. He has an obligation to notify the Secretary of State, but in an emergency he can flare before doing so.
Lord POLWARTH: Before we leave this Amendment, I wish to raise one point, it is not a technical point, at least not in the sense in which we have been discussing the matter. It has a rather wider
922
application than this Amendment alone, Therefore, this may not be the appropriate time to ask the Ministry to reply on it, and perhaps Third Reading would be a more suitable occasion. But what I have in mind highlights a problem. If the Minister has to administer all these different controls—such as whether it is right to flare gas, whether it is right to restrict a production programme, whether it is right to approve a particular production programme for a start; and many other things—he will need to have available to him a considerable amount of skill and expertise, all of which are in short supply. There are two ways in which he can do this; and, obviously, to some extent he is doing this already. One method is for the Minister to have his own experts; the other is to call in outside consultants. No doubt both methods are used already. But it is the experience in the industry that skills of this kind are in short supply. The companies are in hot competition with one another for the limited expertise available. We are now to create a British National Oil Corporation which will also be competing for these skills, which the Minister will have available to him so that he can, as it were, cross-check to see whether he regards the companies' proposals as reasonable.
I can see considerable problems arising from this situation in, for instance, consultancy in relation to reservoir engineering and the attempt to assess the extent of oil revervoirs and their probable production rates. One sees in reports time and time again the name of virtually only one firm which is qualified to express opinions in this very difficult field. The administration of this Bill with all its different controls will put a very great strain on scarce resources. I hope that the Minister will, if not now at a later stage—perhaps on Third Reading—say a little on how the Government intend to deal with this problem.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, I shall certainly do so. I fear it would take up much of the Committee's time if I did so this afternoon. However, I wish to take the opportunity—as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has again intervened—to make quite clear what I said to him earlier. He asked whether before developments start the Licensee will know the maximum cutback and the earliest

923
time that cutback can start. The answer to that is, Yes, I also wish to make quite clear to the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, the reference in the Bill which I mentioned earlier in reply to a point from him. Perhaps I did not make it as clear as I might. The Amendment adds two paragraphs to the model clause (2AA) and (2AB). The second of these provides for a shorter period of notice where appropriate.
Lord BALOGH: I beg to move Amendment No. 21A, which is intended to correct a printer's error. I commend it to the Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 23, at end insert ("of the").—[Lord Balogh.]
5.0 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 67, line 35, at end insert:
("(6) Where any of the events specified in sub-paragraphs (b), (f), (h) or (i) of paragraph (2) of this Clause shall first occur this licence shall not be revoked unless the Minister shall have first given written notice to the Licensee of his intention to revoke this licence on those grounds and the Licensee has failed within a period of three months beginning with the date of service of such notice to remedy the breach or non-observance in question.")
The noble Lord said: In discussing Amendment No. 22 I would suggest that we also consider Amendment No. 30, which is its counterpart, where similar wording would have to be written into the Bill. We are now dealing with the procedure for revoking a licence, and the purpose of this Amendment is to provide a period of grace in which Licensees can remedy any alleged breach of the licence terms. This is to avoid a licence being revoked on what might be purely technical grounds, or indeed for breaches of the licence terms of which the company were not aware until the matter was drawn to their attention and which they could quite quickly and readily put right. Revocation of a licence is an extreme step, and it can involve the Licensee losing all the money he has invested in the licensed area as well as the chance of future profits. It should not, therefore, be exercised lightly. The new model clauses give Ministers the power to revoke licences in many new circumstances, and
924
this makes it essential that there should be some safeguard against forfeiture through misunderstanding. The Amendment would provide that a licence cannot be revoked overnight without an opportunity, during a period of grace, to ensure that the breach of the licence terms is remedied.
I foresee that there is one possible objection which the noble Lord who replies may raise; namely, that this course of action could be abused by persistent offenders. But that has been anticipated, and the Amendment provides that the period of grace can apply only to the first breach of the kind in question by the Licensee concerned. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted in principle by the Government, though they may themselves seek to put down other words. I beg to move.
Lord BALOGH: This Amendment provides that where a Licensee breaks a licence condition for the first time he should be given three months in which to remedy the breach before the licence becomes revocable. There was some debate on a similar Amendment in another place, and on that occasion the Under-Secretary, while saying that in most cases the Secretary of State would give a first offender a second chance, resisted the Amendment to this effect on the grounds that the way could be open to a chain of successive breaches; and I do not think that the wording as it is now really meets this case. I acknowledge that the noble Lord has sought to meet that objection, but we might still be faced with the case of the habitually careless Licensee who might in minor ways breach a number of licence conditions to an extent which justified revocation. As the clause stands, the sanction of revocation would be real and immediate. As it is proposed to amend it, however, such a Licensee could escape punishment for a long time provided he was prudent enough to breach a different licence term each time.
Another point is that Licensees might be able to adopt a more relaxed attitude in matters of safety and pollution. Can it really be contended that massive pollution or flagrant disregard of safety requirements should not bring about automatic loss of the licence, even if it happens only once? Certainly the

925
Americans thought so when the catastrophe occurred off California, and I should have thought that we might as well follow the American practice.
This is perhaps a rather far-fetched scenario, but it does illustrate the difficulties and risks of dealing in Statute with matters of a type which require flexibility in handling and are better left to the discretion of the administering authority. I can, however, give the noble Lord this reassurance. An undertaking was given in another place that the Licensee who, through uncharacteristic inadvertence or ill luck, defaults on a licence term has nothing to fear. I can repeat that assurance. The Amendment would make no practical difference in his case. In the future, the efficient and conscientious Licensee will have nothing to fear from the revocation clause, just as he has had no cause to fear unreasonable use of it up to now. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord and that he will rot press his Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving that assurance, which I am sure is the sense which most of your Lordships' Committee would support in the kind of breaches which I mentioned, where a company, once the matter has been drawn to their attention, could quickly and very readily put it right. Naturally, we believe it would be better if it were in the Bill. As I anticipated, the noble Lord spoke about persistent offenders, but the words "shall first occur", which are in this Amendment, are there in order to cover that point. When the noble Lord referred to a disaster, that is not the kind of situation with which this Amendment is designed to deal. Of course a disaster on the scale to which the noble Lord referred—a "blow out" off California—is quite another matter.
We should have preferred to have something in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Polwarth pointed out in a debate on a previous Amendment this afternoon, it is because of latent threats like this in the Bill that many companies are finding it difficult to get finance. Banks and other financial institutions realise that a Government could negative and nullify an investment at very short notice through something that could be a misunderstanding and could lead to a revocation, so I
926
hope that the assurance which the noble Lord has given this afternoon will be widely circulated. It will again help confidence in that respect, in finding much-needed finance for our offshore oil operations. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord BALOGH: I merely wish to say that I can certainly undertake that, in our negotiations about the other clauses which we are amending, I shall mention this matter and give that assurance.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance, and I do not intend to press the Amendment in these words or at this time. This is an important subject, but I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 22A:
Page 72, line 26, at end insert ("being the notional cost thereof to the Licensee assuming that the said conveyance and treatment had been negotiated and effected on arms length terms by a person other than the Licensee").
The noble Lord said: In view of the assurances given by the Minister in relation to Amendment No. 14B, this particular Amendment will not be moved.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Amendment No. 23 is an Amendment which I spoke to with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 17, at end insert ("and where it is determined in consequence of any reference to arbitration in pursuance of sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph that the programme in question does not satisfy the relevant requirements the Licensee shall submit to the Minister, as soon as possible after the date of the determination, a further programme which satisfies the relevant requirements.").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
Page 82, line 21, at end insert—
("(8B) Where in consequence of any breach or non-observance by the Licensee of any requirement imposed upon him by the provisions of this clause the Minister has power by virtue of paragraph (1) of clause 39 of this licence to revoke this licence he shall exercise that power only in relation to that part of the

927
licensed area in respect of which the breach or non-observance has occurred and over which the programme extends; and where he does so the rights granted by this licence shall cease in respect of that area without prejudice to any obligation or liability imposed upon the Licensee or incurred by him under the terms of this licence.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 17. It is therefore not moved.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25A:
Page 82, line 26, at end insert—
("(10)(a) If the Minister shall give any notice to the Licensee pursuant to this clause either

(i) rejecting a programme; or

(ii) approving a programme subject to conditions otherwise than on the ground specified in paragraph (i) of paragraph (4)(c) of this clause; or

(iii) requiring a programme to be carried out or shall give a limitation notice in respect of any programme pursuant to clause 16 of this licence, the licensee may within 60 days after the service of such notice surrender the licence as to the whole or any part of the licensed area: being a part comprising the whole of the area to which the said programme relates;

(b) on the surrender of the whole or any part of the licensed area pursuant to paragraph (a) of this clause there shall be paid by the Minister to the Licensee the fair value (disregarding the terms of the said notice given by the Minister) as between a willing seller and a willing purchaser, to be determined in default of agreement by arbitration in pursuance of clause 40 of this licence, of the rights granted by the licence insofar as they relate to the part of the licensed area surrendered.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 17A, and it is not moved.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Amendment No. 26 is consequential on Amendment No. 18, which was accepted a short time ago by your Lordships' Committee. It is necessary because it repeats in another part of the Bill exactly the words which were passed through this Committee by a Division a short time ago, and therefore I beg to move this as a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 11, after ("programme") insert ("and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;").—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 28 which was spoken to with Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 47, at end insert:
"(7) The Licensee shall ensure that any conditions to which an approval is subject in pursuance of Clause 15(4)(b) of this licence or a consent is subject in pursuance of paragraph with."—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 29A which was discussed with Amendment No. 21B.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 13, at end insert:
"(3A) An application for consent in pursuance of paragraph (3) of this clause must be made in writing to the Minister and must specify the date on which the Licensee proposes to begin the flaring or use in question; and subject to paragraph (3B) of this clause that date must not be before the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the date when the Minister receives the application.
(3B) If the Minister gives notice in writing to the Licensee stating that, in consequence of plans made by the Licensee which the Minister considers are reasonable, the Minister will entertain an application for consent in pursuance of paragraph (3) of this clause which specifies a date after the expiration of a period mentioned in the notice which is shorter than the period mentioned in paragraph (3A) of this clause, an application made in consequence of the notice may specify, as the date on which the applicant proposes to begin the flaring or use in question, a date after the expiration of that shorter period."—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Production Licences for Landward Areas]:
5.12 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Amendment No. 31 was discussed with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 10, at end insert ("and where it is determined in consequence of any reference to arbitration in pursuance of subparagraph (a) of this paragraph that the programme in question does not satisfy the relevant requirements the Licensee shall submit to the Minister, as soon as possible after the date of the determination, a further programme which satisfies the relevant requirements.").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Amendment No. 32 was spoken to with Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page111, line 38, at end insert:
"(7) The Licensee shall ensure that any conditions to which an approval is subject in pursuance of clause 12A(4)(b) of this licence or a consent is subject in pursuance of paragraph (1) of this clause are complied with."—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 33A which was discussed with Amendment No. 21B.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 39, at end insert—
"(2AA) An application for consent in pursuance of paragraph (2A) of this clause must be made in writing to the Minister arid must specify the date on which the Licensee proposes to begin the flaring or use in question; and subject to paragraph (2AB) of this clause that date must not be before the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the date when the Minister receives the application.
(2AB) If the Minister gives notice in writing to the Licensee stating that, in consequence of plans made by the Licensee which the Minister considers are reasonable, the Minister will entertain an application for consent in pursuance of paragraph (2A) of this clause which specifies a date after the expiration of a period mentioned in the notice which is shorter than the period mentioned in paragraph (2AA) of this clause, an application made in consequence of the notice may specify, as the date on which the applicant proposes to begin the flaring or use in question, a date after the expiration of that shorter period."—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Amendment No. 34 was spoken to with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 130, line 35, at end insert ("and where it is determined in consequence of any reference to arbitration in pursuance of subparagraph (a) of this paragraph that the programme in question does not satisfy the relevant requirements the Licensee shall submit to the Minister, as soon as possible after the date of the determination, a further programme which satisfies the relevant requirements.")—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 35 which was spoken to with Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 135, line 20, at end insert—
"(7) The Licensee shall ensure that any conditions to which an approval is subject in
930
pursuance of clause 15(4)(b) of this licence or a consent is subject in pursuance of paragraph (1) of this clause are complied with."—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 36A, which was discussed with Amendment No. 21B.
Amendment moved—
Page 137, line 45, at end insert—
("(3A) An application for consent in pursuance of paragraph (3) of this clause must be made in writing to the Minister and must specify the date on which the Licensee proposes to begin the flaring or use in question; and subject to paragraph (3B) of this clause that date must not be before the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the date when the Minister receives the application.
(3B) If the Minister gives notice in writing to the Licensee stating that, in consequence of plans made by the Licensee which the Minister considers are reasonable, the Minister will entertain an application for consent in pursuance of paragraph (3) of this clause which specifies a date after the expiration of a period mentioned in the notice which is shorter than the period mentioned in paragraph (3A) of this clause, an application made in consequence of the notice may specify, as the date on which the applicant proposes to begin the flaring or use in question, a date after the expiration of that shorter period.")—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Authorisations for pipe-lines]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 17, line 1, leave out from ("authorisation") to end of line 2 and insert ("the design and capacity of the pipe-line or of part of it and the steps to be taken to avoid or reduce interference by the pipe-line with fishing or with other activities connected with the sea or the sea bed or subsoil;").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in fulfilment of a commitment given by the Under-Secretary in another place—Hansard, col. 1489 (Committee) and col. 1576 (Third Reading). It reflects the Government's intention that in the administration of the pipe-lines control full regard will be paid to the legitimate interests of fishermen and others who use the sea and are dependent upon it for

931
their livelihood. It is of course of paramount importance to exploit our oil resources to maximum advantage, but we have always recognised that there must be full consultation with other interested parties and that oil exploitation and development must take place in recognition of their position. On wider issues there is the Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group which has proved a valuable forum—for example, as a result of discussion there, UKOOA have agreed to institute a voluntary scheme of payments in respect of damage caused to fishing by sea bed debris resulting from oil operations.
On the narrower questions which arise out of this Bill, the fishing industry will certainly be among the bodies who will be consulted on the routeing of pipe-lines under the provision of Schedule 4, and this Amendment serves further to emphasise the Government's intention that the interests of fisheries and others with whose operations pipe-line development might interfere will be properly taken into account in the administration of these controls.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: We welcome the writing into the Bill of this new Amendment. Certainly the fishing industry has been worried, since off-shore oil was first discovered and activities increased, that they might not be taken into full consultation when the oil operations were being carried out. Putting this into the Bill makes it certain that the fishing industry and others connected with the sea or with seabed activities will be consulted. One of the difficulties is that pipelines may be laid right across a fertile fishing ground and it may be expensive and difficult for the pipe-line to be diverted. The pipe-line will be buried at the end of the day, but while the laying activity is going on that fishing ground may be out of use. This could cause disturbance and loss of earnings to the fishing industry. The important point is that the oil industry and the fishermen's associations should be in direct touch in plenty of time to work out what will be the best arrangements. If there is a dispute and a real conflict of interests the Government or some other agency can come in and help to arbitrate.
It is an interesting point that obstacles on the seabed and other under-sea
932
obstacles can attract fish and, by providing shelter of the kind that fish need, cause an additional congregation of fish in those places so that in a way there can be advantages at the end of the day. The more serious point is on the laying of pipe-lines and other under-water activities connected with oilfields. Unless these are known beforehand and synchronised with the normal activities of the fishing industry, they could cause not only damage to the fishing industry but much quite unnecessary ill-feeling between the two.
The noble Lord mentioned the consultative machinery which has been set up (and which I know about) between the fishing industry and the off-shore industry. May I ask whether it has now reached a permanent situation? Is it a Standing Committee? Does it have regular meetings? If the noble Lord cannot answer now, I shall understand; he can no doubt let me know later. I should like to know what progressis being made and how the consultation between these two industries is going forward. Right at the beginning the two industries were nut in touch through an agency of the Government of which I was then a member. I am glad to see that the machinery seems to have been increasing and that consultation has been getting better since. If the noble Lord can give a little information about this or its prospects we shall be grateful.
Lord BALOGH: I ask permission to write to the noble Lord.
5.20 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 17, line 40, leave out from ("specifying") to the end of line 44 and insert ("requiring that, in default of the holder and the other person reaching agreement as to the sums or the method of determining the sums to be paid to the holder by the other person for the purpose of defraying the whole of so much of the cost of constructing the pipe-line as is attributable to the term, such sums or the method of determining such sums shall be determined by arbitration;").
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient for the Committee, in this slightly complicated set up that we have in this Bill, if I speak to Amendments Nos. 38, 40, 40A, 42 and 47A which are all on much the same subject. This covers the question of pipe-lines and agreements between more than one participating party

933
concerning the use of a pipe-line. As I understand the situation, we are trying to deal with the point where there is a disagreement between two companies and the question as to who should arbitrate between the two companies in disagreement about the payments which should be made for the mutual use of a pipe-line. According to the present provisions in the Bill, the Government take to themselves the right to arbitrate when there is a disagreement of this kind. This, for matters of the magnitude we are dealing with herd, seems unnecessary and rather inappropriate in principle. Would it not be better to provide that the companies go to arbitration as between themselves rather than calling upon the Secretary of Statet to arbitrate? Perhaps I should say they do not call upon the Secretary of State—he says he will arbitrate whether or not they wish to have it.
I would have thought, on the whole, we had come to the conclusion that rather elephantine and heavy-handed intrusion by Government in matters of this kind is not necessarily the best way of getting the right agreements. I do not think there is any basic political disagreement on this question at all. My instinct is to feel that Governments are best left out until the last moment. I dare say that, in the course of his reply, the noble Lord will mention this in the provision which is borrowed from the Pipe-lines Act—which refers to onshore pipe-lines—which was brought in by a Conservative Government. I am prepared to say that possibly we have learned the error of our ways and feel this would be better done by arbitration as between companies.
Broadly speaking, the other worry the companies would have is that the Government may not exercise their arbitration on purely commercial considerations. They could have other reasons for tending to favour one party or the other through non-commercial considerations. I do not want to try to suggest in any way that we think the Department are liable to be Machiavellian in the way they judge an issue of this kind; but we lay ourselves open to a suspicion on the part of industry that this could happen, and it seems unnecessary. I should have thought that there was a case for saying the Government could be called in; but rather what we would seek to happen is
934
to say that arbitration should be the first recourse between companies, and this gives them the opportunity to agree. I know that it is true to say at the present time they can already go to arbitration before they refer to the Minister, but there is a good case for saying that arbitration has at least to be tried before we involve the Government in what is essentially a commercial disagreement which need not concern them, and it is a quite unnecessary intrusion by them. I should be interested to see how the Minister reacts to the suggestion put forward in this Amendment.
Lord LOVELL-DAV1S: I can understand the noble Lord's anxiety to ensure that equitable treatment is accorded to all parties concerned with pipe-sharing arrangements; but for a number of reasons I doubt if there is advantage in inserting into the Bill the Amendment which is proposed. I shall try to explain my reasons for saying this and, I hope, give assurances to noble Lords which may persuade them not to press their Amendment.
First—and I must make this very clear to allay the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal—we see the powers given to the Secretary of State very much as a long stop. The industry know and, I believe, welcome this. It is not our intention to interfere in cases where amicable agreement can be reached between the parties concerned. And they can, if they wish agree to go to a third party arbitrator. It is not a matter of automatic Government involvement. Secondly, the vesting of powers of this type in the Secretary of State finds a precedent—and I shall refer to it as the noble Lord suspected—in the 1962 Pipe-Lines Act which was enacted by a Conservative Government (which the noble Lord says has now become older and wiser), to regulate land pipelines. The provisions on third party use in this Bill are based very closely on that Act for the good reason that experience has shown that that Act has worked well. The power of the Secretary of State to regulate charges is there in the background, and there have been cases where it has helped to secure agreement. We hope that the corresponding provisions in this Bill will fulfil a similar role.

935
Thirdly, where the Secretary of State exercises his power, he will act in a quasi-judicial capacity rather than a political capacity. In such situations it is not usual to make the Secretary of State's exercise of his powers subject to arbitration. I will try to set the noble Lord's mind at rest and say the Secretary of State will not let himself be a party to the dispute and, in this respect, the situation is different from disputes concerning licences where the Secretary of State is a contractual party to the licence. In fulfilling a quasi-judicial role of this sort the Secretary of State will act fairly and impartially. He will be answerable to Parliament for the exercise of his powers and, in certain circumstances, appeals will be possible to the courts or to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
To sum up: there is no question of the Secretary of State using his power to discriminate unfairly between Licensees by setting charges by reference to extraneous factors. The powers are a long stop; they reflect the 1962 Act, which has worked well; the Secretary of State will be responsible to Parliament for his actions, and in the last resort an aggrieved party may have recourse to the Parliamentary Commissioner or the courts. I hope, in the light of these considerations, noble Lords will not feel it necessary to press their Amendments.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Lest it should be thought I have come to make trouble this afternoon, I have been busy in a Select Committee, and I would not want your Lordships on the opposite Benches to think I am not interested in this subject. I am interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, said. He says in certain instances there will be an opportunity to appeal. I wonder whether he or his colleagues could give us some examples of the instances in which there would be an appeal. He referred to the quasi-judicial capacity in which the Secretary of State would act. I felt certain when we were last debating this matter that this famous phrase would recur. Those of us who have had the opportunity to sit in another place with constituents who had endless problems subject to the quasi-judicial activities of the Secretary of State, have had cause to wonder both at the Secretary of State's
936
official imperviousness to pressure—which has been very impressive from time to time—and on other occasions, one has been sceptical as to whether it was the quasi or the judicial which was the effective factor. On that point, I am sure the Minister will be able to give us some kind of assurance.
He has also used the second argument which we have heard before; that is, that because an assurance is given there is no need to put it into the Bill. This is, of course, a question of principle which has arisen many times and I am sure that the Government Front Bench are as tired of it as we are on this side, but it is all very fine saying that the Government will give certain assurances. One day there will be another Government in Office. It may be of the same Party as that of noble Lords opposite, though I hope not; it may be of the same Party but of a different wing of that Party; it may be a Government from this side of the Chamber. How can noble Lords opposite say that a future Government will be bound by an assurance given now? This is really very unsatisfactory, therefore, and, as I say, it raises a matter of principle which we have brought forward more than once.
I have not come here this afternoon to make trouble and I do not wish to delay the proceedings. Indeed, as noble Lords opposite will see, my very absence has been intended to be helpful and my brevity this afternoon is intended to be equally helpful. I only hope that during the rest of the afternoon which is before us we do not have that strong—I will not say "smell"—scent of prejudice against arguments used on this side, which reminds one so very much of what was written by the Reverend Sydney Smith in 1822:
"I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so."
5.32 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I am afraid that my imagination is not working very fast this afternoon. I cannot think of instances where the appeal could be made, just offhand—but someone has just leapt to my help! The instances which I have before me indicate that reference to the Parliamentary Commissioner could be made in the case of maladministration, or failure to take account of the material facts or

937
circumstances of a case. Appeal could be made through the courts where the Secretary of State had acted in a wholly unreasonable manner—for example, by a denial of natural justice. It has been established by court decisions that a Minister, in exercising his powers, must act within the bounds of reasonableness. I give the noble Earl those two examples. I do not know what to say on the matter of assurances. I realise these can be given fully only in terms of the Government who make them, It is a commitment by the Government. One hopes that the spirit of the legislation will be followed through by subsequent successive Secretaries of State; but it cannot, of course, be fully binding. I can only say in this case that laws also can be repealed.
I am most delighted to see the noble Earl this afternoon, and even more delighted to know that he is not here to create trouble. I therefore hope he will accept my rather inadequate replies to his several questions.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Before the noble Lords sits down, may I put two points to him? I am interested in what he said about the Parliamentary Commissioner. I have sat for many years in another place since the creation of the Office of Parliamentary Commissioner, and so I know rather a lot about the way he works. I should like to ask whether the Parliamentary Commissioner has had the matter discussed with him before, so to speak, he gets into this Bill, or is it the intention of the noble Lord to get him put into the Bill? I quite realise that he gives a sense of security. However, I should like to know whether he has agreed, because I did not quite like the phraseology which was used by the noble Lord. He said that it would be possible for the Parliamentary Commissioner to act if he considered that the material facts had not been properly considered. I think that might be a little risky, because I quite understand that politicians of any Party may argue a great deal about the material facts, and I did not entirely like the way in which it seemed to be envisaged that the Parliamentary Commissioner would be brought in, without being absolutely certain that the Government have an agreement with him, so that the Parliamentary Commissioner would know what his powers were to be under this Bill.
938
Then, before we go any further, it would be very interesting to know how many decisions have been taken to the effect that it is not necessary to write into the Bill proposals and observations that have been made. So many clauses have been discussed in connection with Amendments, and I should like to know the numbers, because they are rather difficult to keep in one's mind. At the same time, I should like to know who represents the fishing industry, because, of course, I represented an area which had a big fishing industry. Over the years there have been a great many discussions of every kind between Scotland and England concerning inshore fishermen, middle-water fishermen and so on. Therefore, it would be extremely interesting to have all that on the record, so that in future years when we are discussing the fishing industry people will know who represented that industry during the discussions which have taken place in this Chamber. I should like to have some information about all these matters.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Perhaps I should first correct a false impression which has been gained by the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, about the Parliamentary Commissioner being "written into the Bill". I was referring earlier to the fact that the Secretary of State would he answerable to Parliament for the exercise of his powers, and to the fact that in certain circumstances appeals could be made to the courts or to the Parliamentary Commissioner. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, asked me to quote examples of when a case would be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner and when it would be referred to the courts. I was able to give him two examples; and I mentioned that a case could be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner if maladministration had been alleged. The Parliamentary Commissioner, of course, can only consider complaints which are brought to his notice by M.P.s, although—
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: No!
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I should say that I would think so. He can also intervene automatically in cases which are suitable to his responsibilities. He does not have to be specifically mentioned in

939
the Bill and in fact he is not so mentioned. The only other point—
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Before the noble Lord leaves the point of the Parliamentary Commissioner, what I asked was this: has this matter been discussed with him, even though he is not going to be put into the Bill? He is going to appear in Hansard as one of the arguments being used. Has he been brought into the matter by means of discussion before being used in debate?—if I may put it in that way. That is what I should like to know.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: No, no more than every Bill which involves a possible recourse to the courts is discussed with the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice. The Parliamentary Commissioner is there and he is able to take action if called upon. There is no need whatsoever for us to have discussed with him an area in which he has absolute freedom to act or in which people have freedom to use his services. I can assure the noble Baroness there is no need to have consulted him, and we have not in fact written him into the Bill as it stands.
On the other point that the noble Baroness, Lady Ward, raised as to who represents the fishing industry, I am sure she knows the answer to that a great deal better than I do. I am not sure, but feel certain that the industry does not lack representative bodies which could look after its interests, although of course in framing this legislation we have very much taken into account the interests of the industry, partciularly so far as the laying of pipe-linesis concerned.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: On that point, when we had an Amendment concerned with the fishing industry just now, the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said that he could not reply to me immediately which I quite understood, on the question of consultations and the machinery which now exists and what is likely to happen in the future where the oil industry and the fishermen's representatives are concerned. He said he would write to me. I suggest that when one of the Ministers writes to me he should also deal with this point and write to my noble friend Lady Ward, because we are both very concerned about these matters. I
940
myself would not expect the Ministers who are here now to be able to reply to all the fishing points with which my noble friend Lady Ward and I are concerned, but as I have had an undertaking to receive a letter on this matter I hope we can both be given the information we need by correspondence.
Lord BALOGH: Most certainly.
Lord POLWARTH: I am sure we all hope very much that there will not be cases of division and altercation about the best use of pipe-lines. When I was involved briefly for the Government with certain aspects of this industry, one of the things I was keenest to avoid was a proliferation of pipe-lines like spaghetti across the bed of the North Sea. We want to see the best possible use made of the available line. At the same time, inevitably a dispute will arise sooner or later, I am sure, possibly because a company has a pipe-line which has spare capacity, another company would like to make use of that spare capacity and the first company has a promising find a little further on and hopes that it may be bringing in oil from that and will want to use it itself. So disputes are bound to arise, and possibly some day a case will arise where there is a dispute about this, or as to the terms of an arrangement between a private oil company and the British National Oil Corporation. Without imputing any motives to any Ministers, actual or potential, who I am sure do their best to be fair in these matters, I can see again from experience how very difficult a position a Minister would be in where he has to adjudicate between an outside interest and what is, in effect, his own creature. Would it not, therefore, for the avoidance of doubtor suspicion in the terms of this kind of arrangement, be better to have had provision for an independent arbitration? I raise that question once more before we leave the subject.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: In answer to the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, which is one I think he particularly wanted me to take up, the point is that BNOC will be involved in all of the companies. The Secretary of State, acting in his quasi-judicial capacity, would find it very hard; he would not know who to favour, BNOC being involved in all the companies concerned.
The EARL of LAUDERDALE: Will the noble Lord elaborate one point? He said that BNOC will be involved in all the companies. Surely that statement must be squared with the assurances we have had over and over again, that negotiation with the companies is entirely voluntary and their collaboration will be voluntary and there will be no use of force. How, therefore, does the Minister know that BNOC will in fact be involved in all the companies?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: It is our declared aim to go for 51 per cent. participation. I trust that we shall obtain 51 per cent. participation right across the board. This is the whole purpose of our continuing negotiations.
The EARL of LAUDERDALE: I am sorry to press the noble Lord, and I do so in the friendliest possible way, as he knows. Surely, it is one thing to say that this is the Government's intention and policy—and reluctantly we recognise that that is so. But to say that it will in fact be achieved is to say that all the companies concerned will be willing. There is no evidence that they are willing; our evidence is that they are unwilling. Surely, the noble Lord is in that very statement, with the use of the word "all", introducing an element of menace. Obviously, we shall have to come back to it later, but he is anticipating the situation. Does it not contradict his own side's argument that these negotiations are entirely voluntary and without pressure?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, on the other hand, was tending to impute rather sinister motives, possibly—well, no; but the suggestion was that the Secretary of State may act in the wrong way in a certain situation. The point I was trying to make—and perhaps used the word "all"inadvisedly—was that BNOC would be involved. The noble Earl knows our aims. I do not think there is any menace in what I was saying. These are our aims. Whether BNOC becomes more or less quickly fully involved in all these companies, there is no doubt that it will be involved in a number of them. This I think is the answer to the original question I was trying to answer from the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, about the
942
situation of the Secretary of State when he has to act in his quasi-judicial capacity.
Lord POLWARTH: I will not pursue the matter further here, except to say that since we have come on to a new Part of the Bill concerned with pipe-lines, I perhaps ought to have repeated again my interest, not only as before but actually in an oil and gas company which itself already possesses at least part of a pipeline.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: We seem to have strayed rather widely in the course of discussing this comparatively innocent probing Amendment. It is fairly clear to me that the Government are disposed to be totally reasonable and I do not think there is very much between us. We disagree to the extent that we believe that more independent arbitration would be desirable before dragging in the Government's activities here. The question of participation and the amount of leverage to be used in obtaining it is something to which we are going to address ourselves in a few minutes, so I do not intend to refer to that at all.
We have had quite an interesting little debate on this question. I detect a lack of rigidity in the Government's approach, and I can assure them that this is the feeling on this side of the Committee. I believe that in the circumstances the best course would be to withdraw this Amendment at this time until we have had a chance to hear what the Minister says, in the hope that he and the officials in his Department will be doing the same. A number of legitimate misgivings have been expressed this afternoon, and I sincerely suggest to the Government that they should consider carefully whether all the points that have been raised have been covered, unless one or another of us brings in an Amendment at a later stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Compulsory increases in capacity etc of pipe-lines]:
5.49 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 18, line 26, after ("pipe-line") insert ("can and").
The noble Lord said: This is, I suggest, a drafting Amendment. Before deciding whether a pipe-line should be modified the Secretary of State clearly ought to be satisfied that it can be modified, that it is capable of modification. In the Committee stage in another place, the Government accepted a similar Amendment in another Part of the Bill and the effect was the same; that is, that the capacity of a pipeline should be capable of being increased before the Secretary of State is able to require an increase in capacity. I trust, therefore, that the Government will have no difficulty in accepting this Amendment.
Lord BALOGH: I must say that this Amendment strikes me as extremely odd. It is interesting that noble Lords, who are after all Members of Parliament and potential holders of very important Offices, including the Department of Energy, should believe that the Secretary of State, provided he is in his right mind (and if he is not he would probably he removed from office) can require somebody to do something which it is impossible to do. I do not wish to sour the amicable spirit in which, in the absence of the noble Earl, we have been discussing these matters by suggesting that this is unnecessary and rather a slight upon our political system. The mind boggles—mine certainly does—at the thought of anybody requiring something of a very important and costly character to be done which cannot be done. In view of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: This is very strange. Everything that the noble Lord has just said applies to his colleague who at the Committee stage in the other place accepted exactly the same words in a similar place in the Bill. We thought we were doing a little elegant editing for the Government because they have accepted the Amendment in exactly similar wording a paragraph or two away. If the noble Lord will look at column 1531 of the Report of the Committee stage in another place, he will find the debate and the Minister accepting this Amendment and appearing to regard it as helpful. I am not going to press this Amendment to a Division but we are
944
trying to help the Government on a small point of drafting. If the noble Lord really believes that this Amendment is too difficult, even though it was accepted in Committee in another place in exactly similar circumstances, of course I will not press it, but I must point out that we are doing only what the Government have already accepted and seem to have overlooked in another place in the Bill.
Lord BALOGH: Is it not obvious that the noble Lord has done his homework very much better than I have? Also, it is probably true that the experts who are helping him are very alert. However, as he has made such an impassioned plea, I will undertake to look again at the drafting of Clause 22(1)(b) to see whether or not we can meet the noble Lord's wishes.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for being so generous. I have not tried to catch him out because in my opening statement I made it clear that this had already been accepted by the Government in an equivalent place in the Bill and that this was the other place where it needed to be done. I have not kept that up my sleeve and I hope that the noble Lord will acquit me of any discourtesy. I referred to the fact that this Amendment had been accepted in Committee in another place but had been overlooked in another part of the Bill. In the light of what the noble Lord has said, and in order to give him time to think about it, I hope that the Government will put it down at Report stage. In any case, I give notice that I shall put it down at Report stage to make sure that the Bill is complete in this respect and that an Amendment that has been made in one place is also made in the appropriate place elsewhere. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Acquisition by persons of rights to use pipe-lines belonging to others]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Grenfell): I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 40A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 41.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 20, line 12, at end insert ("so as to secure to the owner recovery of an equitable proportion of the relevant capital and operating costs of the pipe-line;")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 41. May I suggest that Amendment No. 42A should be discussed with it, as they go together. In these two Amendments we are suggesting an alternative way of dealing with the kind of problem to which my noble friend referred when lie moved Amendment No. 38 and the group of Amendments that go with it. At present, Clause 23 gives no guidance on the compensation to be paid to the owner by an applicant who wishes to use an existing pipe-line. The Secretary of State might arbitrate on the basis of formulae based on historic costs and these would be most unfair in a period of high inflation. Also, he might ignore the opportunity which the owner is giving up in conceding a portion of his existing capacity. The Government have made it clear that they wish to retain flexibility so as to require pipe-line owners to accommodate third parties but that on occasions this should be done on less than commercial considerations. At the Committee stage in another place on 10th July, 1975, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary made this clear.
There is a case that, irrespective of whether the original pipe-line owner has fully depreciated his capital outlay and nominally recovered his investment, he should not be required to dispose of spare capacity at less than its commercial value. Spare pipe-line capacity has a commercial value and the owner, having borne the cost and risk of installing the pipeline system, should be entitled to derive a fair commercial consideration for that value. I recognise that the Government may say that there will be certain occasions when it is in the national interest that spare capacity should be used by a third party and that for that reason the consideration should be less than commercial. However, this can be unfair as it is a matter of chance whether the owner of a pipe-line system happens to be in a position where the national interest is engaged or whether it is one where the national interest is not involved. This is simply a hazard. Therefore, we believe that the Government should face up to this situation and that there should be
946
criteria to ensure that proper commercial factors are taken into account.
Since the Minister has penal sanctions to terminate an authorisation if changes are not made, the owner of the pipe-line has no effective appeal against what he may consider to be unfair treatment. This Amendment provides safeguards in the form of principles governing the sums the applicant should pay to the owner to ensure that such sums shall reflect a fair payment to the owner for real costs and for opportunities foregone and that it should be based on commercial considerations.
5.58 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I can understand the motives behind the Amendments and I recognise that there is some need for a further clarification of Government policy on the matters they deal with. I cannot, however, advise the Committee to accept them. Let me first explain why this is so, and then give an explanation of Government policy which will, I hope, deal with some of the concerns which lie behind the Amendments.
I said that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendments. This is not only because of the difficulty of applying the concept of commercial terms to a pipe-line, since a pipe-line owner is naturally in a monopoly or partial monopoly situation and there is no free market in pipe-line capacity. There are also difficult questions of timing, since the newcomer's use of the pipe-line may be only temporary or may commence after the owner's use of it has started to decline. But, above all, we must retain flexibility—the flexibility referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—to provide some assistance to marginal supply. Where a supply is very marginal, making it bear a full share of the basic capital cost of a pipe-line might make it uneconomic. This consideration is especially important for gas, for which tanker loading does not provide an alternative. I think I am right in saying that all parts of the House are anxious to encourage marginal production in order to achieve maximum output of the oil and gas we so badly need, and so I hope that noble Lords will agree that this measure of flexibility is therefore desirable.
The pipe-line owner will of course be a net gainer in so far as the newcomer

947
makes any contribution to basic fixed costs, but as I have said I recognise that there may be a need for some further clarification of Government policy on the payments to be made by statutory third-party users. Therefore the Government have carefully considered, in the light of the proposals in the two Amendments, what undertakings they can give as to the exercise of the new powers. I am very glad this evening to give your Lordships the following assurances which are new and which 1 think the industry will find of considerable interest.
First, it is certainly not the intention of the Government that the owner of a pipeline should be in any way out of pocket as a consequence of the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers. The Bill already provides that the third party must reimburse the owner for the direct additional capital costs arising from the former's entry. It does not deal with indirect costs; for example, the cost of interruption to the owner's throughput which arises while the line is being modified to enable the third party to use it. I can however undertake that we shall ensure that these costs also are reimbursed to the owner.
Secondly, the tariffs will be so fixed that the third party bears a fair share of the total running costs incurred after his entry. Thirdly, the Bill makes no provision for the third party to pay a share of the basic capital costs of the line. I can give an assurance that unless the supply in question is a marginal one or the pipeline owner has already made other sufficient arrangements to recover the full capital costs, we would normally expect the financial arrangements proposed to take account of the basic capital costs as well as costs arising from the entry of the third party.
I think it is fair to say that these assurances are an important new statement of Government policy. I hope that they will go a long way to meet the points made by noble Lords and the anxieties which I know are felt by the industry. I hope also that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will not wish to press his Amendment.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Just for clarification, may I ask whether the noble Lord can explain a little further this
948
rather complicated formula which he read out, which taxed my rather rusty shorthand, when he said that the Government are going to make sure that the pipe-line owner is not out of pocket. That could mean a variety of things. Is this in terms of the historic cost of the pipe-line or is it in terms of the historic cost as corrected by inflation to today's price? I hope the Government do mean that, but it was not said and perhaps it is worth getting it clear.
The noble Lord also made the point that because there is no free market in pipe-line capacity, therefore it is impossible to judge what are the commercial terms. I take it that the Government are trying to do just that—to decide what, in the absence of a completely free market, would be commercial terms. I hope that that is really their purpose.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: To answer the second part of the noble Earl's question first, that is the Government's purpose. I am sorry if I dashed ahead and exceeded the noble Earl's shorthand capacity. The noble Earl's first point was with regard to the kind of out-of-pocket expenses or indirect costs which are not dealt with and which might arise as a consequence of the Secretary of State exercising his powers. For example, I quoted the cost of interruption of the owner's throughput which is bound to arise while the line is being modified. We intend to ensure that the owner does not suffer as a consequence of this being carried out.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I welcome the Government's statement on this and I thank noble Lords on the Government Front Bench for having taken so much trouble in considering these two Amendments. I am sure that the statement that has just been made and to which the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, has given great emphasis, will he considered most carefully, not only by us here, who will want to look at it in writing, but also by those outside who are much concerned with these problems and who, after all, will have to carry out the exceedingly intensive and difficult operations of laying and operating pipe-lines.
I should like to ask one question. The noble Lord made a very important statement, but does he intend to put anything

949
into the Bill on this matter or is it simply to be a Government statement about the way in which they intend to handle this question?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: It is a statement and an assurance of the way in which the Government will approach this part of the Bill and pipe-line sharing. They are assurances given by the Government.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is clear that it is not his intention to put anything into the Bill on this, but none the less I welcome the important statement which the Government have made and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Termination of authorisations]:
6.8 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of K ILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of K ILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 42B:
Page 22, line 16, at end insert—
"Provided that if the contravention is capable of remedy by or on behalf of the holder the authorisation shall not cease to remain in force unless such contravention has not been remedied within the period specilied in the notice or any extention thereof which is reasonable having regard to all the relevant circumstances appertaining to the notice."
The noble Lord said: It is intended that this Amendment should be helpful to the Government in a practical situation which could quite frequently arise in relation to the termination of authorisations given under the Bill to a company as a licensee. If I may briefly outline it to your Lordships, the position would arise in this way. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State would have given authorisations to a company as licensee under certain working projects concerning the use of pipe-lines and matters of that kind, There then would have been a contravention of one of the conditions of the authorisation and under the Bill there will be consultation between the Secretary of State and his representatives with representatives of the licensee. After those discussions the Secretary of State can issue a notice terminating the authorisation.
The purpose of my Amendment is a quite simple and quite practical commonsense
950
one. If the contravention is capable of remedy, then in my submission the Secretary of State should give the licensee the opportunity of remedying that contravention. It may be that in the course of the discussions to which I have referred between the representatives of the Secretary of State and the licensee, the Secretary of State would have given a notice terminating the authorisation with a long period to enable the licensee to remedy the contravention. But that is not clear from the wording of the clause as it stands at present. I hope your Lordships will consider my Amendment to be fair and just. It is that, provided the contravention is capable of remedy by or on behalf of the holder of the authorisation, then that authorisation shall not cease to remain in force unless the contravention has not been remedied in the period to which the Secretary of State has decided the notice should come into force. It means to say that for a period during the notice the licensee can endeavour to remedy that contravention and if he does so remedy it the authorisation should be capable of continuing.
The Amendment takes one other point; that is, that if the licensee, acting perfectly sincerely and desiring to remedy the contravention, for reasons often likely to be beyond his control, is unlikely to be able to remedy the contravention in the period given by the Secretary of State, there should be a discretion by the Secretary of State to allow a reasonable extension of that notice so as to enable the contravention to be remedied. It quite often happens that when you fix a period of time for doing anything in this field—something involving difficult technologicalmatters—it is impossible to keep to the time because of difficulties of industrial unrest or technical problems that were not noted or were not realised.
Therefore, the purpose of my Amendment is that the Licensees should have an opportunity to remedy the contravention within the period of the notice set by the Secretary of State, and during a reasonable period thereafter if the Secretary of State finds that the Licensee is doing his utmost to remedy the contravention, and has been prevented from doing so by the technological or industrial reasons reasonably held to be beyond his control. I beg to move.
6.11 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: This Amendment would provide that if the holder of a pipe-line authorisation breaches its terms the authorisation cannot be revoked until the holder has had a reasonable time to remedy the breach. This sounds fair and equitable, but an earlier Amendment, No, 22, proposed a similar provision for breaches in licence terms. I advised noble Lords against that Amendment and I must advise them against this one, basically for the same reason.
First, the Amendment opens up the possibility of repeated breaches in the terms of an authorisation, with the authorisation never revoked, because each breach is in the prescribed period. Noble Lords should recognise how unsatisfactory this situation would be in the dangerous atmosphere—or perhaps we should say lack of atmosphere—of the seabed.
Secondly, while I readily see the force of much of what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said, there may be some breaches of the authorisation which, even if they happened only once, are so serious that it is right that they should lead to revocation at once. A breach of safety requirements involving loss of life should certainly do so, as should a breach of good operating practice leading to much pollution.
However—and I see the force of much of what was said by the noble Lord—the Bill as drafted merely empowers the Secretary of State to revoke an authorisation when its terms are breached. It does not compel him to do so. It also requires him to consult the holder before revocation. I can give noble Lords the assurance that the Secretary of State will administer these provisions reasonably, and will not revoke for minor or technical breaches of the authorisation, without giving the holder a chance to remedy them. This assurance will, I hope, meet the spirit of the Amendment while leaving the flexibility necessary to deal with major breaches which are not covered by the Amendment. In the light of all this, I hope that the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press this Amendment.
Lord ENERGLYN: I should like to support this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It should be underlined that many of these are technical exercises carried out for
952
the first time in the world. With all the good will in the world, mistakes can be made. This clause seems to be to give the flexibility that the technologists will require in carrying out these very difficult enterprises on the sea floor.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Can the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, help us on this point? He assured us—and I do not doubt that it is the case—that there would be consultation before revocation. But anybody who has listened in this House to a Government Statement on consultation with other countries and so on, will know that consultation can mean a lot, or absolutely nothing. It can mean a single letter. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us what sort of procedures of consultation are envisaged. Is it that the Department will write a letter to the company, and will expect an answer within a week? Is it that there will be inspectors who will go around all the time, inspectors known and respected by the industry, as happens, for example, in the aircraft manufacturing industry with regard to air-worthiness? What is to be the operation of this consultation? If there are to be inspectors known perfectly well as individuals by the industry so that it is said: "Oh, here is Bill again. He has come to see if we are all right", that is one thing. But if it is to be the sort of consultation where there is perhaps an abrupt telephone call, or a series of letters, then that is not adequate consultation. If the noble Lord could tell us more about this, I am sure the Committee would benefit.
Lord BALOGH: If the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, reads subsection (4) of this clause he will find the answer. Subsection (4) reads,
"If the Secretary of State is of opinion, after giving the holder of an authorisation an opportunity of making representations in writing to him about the matter and considering any such representations then made by the holder …"
and so on. It means that before anything can be done, the Secretary of State must consult and must accept the representations of the holder of the authorisation.
Again, we may say, that this does not mean that the Secretary of State will handle the matter in an equitable manner. But I do not see why we should assume that in the normal practice of British administration, this should happen. I do not see how one could remedy this if one

953
assumed that the Secretary of State would act maid fide. On the whole, I think we have given sufficient assurance, and the Bill itself gives sufficient assurance, that normal representations will be made. They will be seriously considered as in other cases, and, with the permission of the noble Baroness, I can refer to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act which gives a remedy against maladministration.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and to the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, I am bound to say I find myself in sympathy with this Amendment. We are dealing here with technically extremely difficult matters in many cases, and I am sorry to detect in the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, a trace of rather more of the attitude of the policeman than the reformer. I seem to hear him say, "We must have the power to punish if someone does something wrong". But surely we are trying to ensure we get it put right. I should have thought that the spirit of this Amendment was very much that of "Let us get together to get things right". The less the Government find themselves in the position of punishing people and, indeed, looking for occasions when they might need to punish people for doing something wrong is surely the spirit in which we ought to be approaching this job.
Lord BALOGH: I quite agree. But I assure the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, that we are not approaching this matter in that spirit. It is not a question of punishment, but a question that if someone has committed a major disregard of the rules of the authorisation—and this is what I would say to my noble friend—if he acted against the best technical rules then, in the dangerous and extremely risky situation with pipe-lines in which we find ourselves, obviously preventative action is necessary. If one cannot trust the operator who has committed a major breach of the authorisation, and one came to the conclusion that one could not trust a series of minor breaches, then, after all, it is a fact he knows the terms of the authorisation and ought to hold himself to the rules. Any breach of the rules might in those circumstances cause really
954
catastrophic consequences. As the noble Lord said, we are faced with very important and very dangerous problems, and it seems to me that you have to have a certain flexibility of action in order not so much to punish but to prevent a repetition of the mishap.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Before I decide what to do about this Amendment, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I quite sympathise with his approach that where there is the most catastrophic action taking place immediate action must be taken to terminate the authorisation. But it is inherent in my Amendment that the hands of the Secretary of State are not tied in those circumstances: he has in my Amendment the flexibility he is asking for. If I may ask the noble Lord to look at the first line of the proposed Amendment, the Amendment starts off with a proviso,
"Provided that if the contravention is capable of remedy by or on behalf of the holder …"
If a catastrophic situation arises as a result of some contravention it is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State; he can say, "This is not a matter which can be remedied in the normal way". My Amendment is directed to the straightforward difficulty; a licensee company dealing with these difficult technological problems in new fields feels that they ought to have some extra time to deal with the contravention. In the case of catastrophe the Secretary of State has full powers; the flexibility is, in my submission, inherent in the Amendment.
Lord BALOGH: But the noble Lord has not dealt with the problem of the repeated smaller infringement. In this environment, with these extremely difficult technological problems, this situation must lead to a substitution of somebody who is capable of maintaining the rules. I do not think the noble Lord's Amendment secures that.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: With great respect, I did not deal with the question of repeated breaking of the authorisation. There again, in my sub mission, my Amendment covers that situation perfectly, for this reason. Assume that the Secretary of State has been kind to the holder of the authorisation on one occasion, and he breaches the authorisation again; the Secretary of

955
State can then say "I terminate this authorisation tomorrow morning". He can terminate that authorisation whenever he likes. It is inherent in my Amendment that the Secretary of State has powers to deal with the recalcitrant Licensee who is constantly breaching the authorisation. He gives him a chance the first tune to remedy. The noble Lord was good enough to say that he sympathised with the general principle of fairness inherent in my Amendment, but if the Licensee abuses that courtesy and sympathy which the Secretary of State has given him in the difficult technological circumstances that arise, if he again breaches it, the Secretary of State can say to him, "You have had your chance. The authorisation is terminated as of now". He is capable of terminating the authorisation almost immediately.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I did not quite understand what the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, meant at that moment by introducing the Parliamentary Commissioner. I really must put on the record, in relation to this Amendment, that I do not think the Parliamentary Commissioner could possibly be involved. I thought I had better just put that on the record.
Lord BALOGH: He could easily be involved, through an MP. A complaint can be lodged of maladministration, and in that case a report will be made. The
Secretary of State has to receive representations from the holder of the authorisation if he cannot explain why he did not obey the rules. It is not as if the operators of the pipe-lines do not know the rules they will have to keep to; it is not a problem like the finding of oil, where a similar Amendment was not accepted, and where you do not know what situation will occur. The way in which these undertakings operate is known. They have to maintain certain safety factors. It seems to me that the assurance I have given to the noble Lord and a reading of the respective passages of the Bill should be sufficient.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurances he has given, and I do not wish to waste the time of this Committee. But I am afraid that I must say that the assurances given do not go far enough, in my view, particularly having regard to the observations the noble Lord was good enough to make in answer to the points I have raised. In those circumstances I feel it is my duty to ask the Committee to accept this Amendment, and ask them to divide on it.
6.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 42B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Inglewood, L.

Alport, L.

Energlyn, L.

Ironside, L.

Amherst, E. [Teller.]

Essex, E.

Kemsley, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falkland, V.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Kilmany, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrier, L.

Kimberley, E.

Banks, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Berkeley, B.

Gainford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Garner, L.

Limerick, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Glasgow, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Goschen, V.

Long, V.

Byers, L.

Gowrie, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Greenway, L.

Lyell, L.

Carrington, L.

Gridley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone L.

Merrivale, L.

Cowley, E.

Middleton, L.

Daventry, V.

Halsbury, E.

Monck, V.

Denbigh, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Deramore, L.

Harvington, L.

Moyne, L.

Digby, L.

Hawke, L.

Newall, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Henley, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Hives, L.

Northchurch, B.

Elles, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Pender, L.

Selkirk, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Polwarth, L.

Somers, L.

Tranmire, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Redesdale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vivian, L.

Reigate, L.

Wade, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Sudeley, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

St Aldwyn, E.

Suffield, L.

Wigoder, L.

St. Davids V.

Terrington, L.

Wise, L.

Sandys L

NOT-CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Hale, L.

Paget of Nothampton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pannell, L.

Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Phillips, B.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Jacques, L.

Popplewell, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Segal, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Shinwell, L.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Slater, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stedman, B.

Darwen, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

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

Mais, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Melchett, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller]

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

White B.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Safety]:
6.36 p.m.
Lord IRONSIDE Lord IRONSIDE moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 23, line 12, at end insert ("submersible apparatus,")
The noble Lord said: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos.43, 45 and 47. I should first like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, and his noble friend Lord Balogh, were kind enough to have discussion with me on these Amendments and other matters which I raised earlier in the Bill connected with functions of research, and I hope that they will be able to say something to me about them tonight.
This Amendment and the subsequent ones concern the inclusion of a relatively new type of vessel which will become a new class in its own right under Part IV of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974, when the regulations for the registration of submersibles are shortly invoked. Part IV of the Act requires submersible apparatus to be registered, which includes life support equipment generally. This would
958
include such things as articulated suits, remotely controlled submersibles, and lockout chambers in due course. As I understand the position, at the moment submersibles are first on the list and the other things will come later when sets of standards have been worked out in the industry and in insurance generally. Part III of the Bill covers safety and inspection in the control areas and fills a gap in the off-shore safety rules left by the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971.
Safety and inspection are about the most important issues raised in this Bill, and even now we do not know whether all safety and inspection issues offshore have really been covered, as we have no one Act that provides for them in an all-embracing way. In fact, three Departments are concerned: the Department of Energy, the Secretary of State for Employment—that is to say, the Health and Safety Commission—and the Department of Trade. Perhaps this pattern is too complex and, quoting from a recent article written by the Head of the Marine Division in the Department of Industry, he says that it is "currently being considered". The Government may have something to say about this.
We cannot yet say whether safety of our nationals is properly provided for in the ocean concessions which some future agency may grant beyond the continental

959
shelves. The death rate stands at 24 since 1971, which is an average of about 4 per 1,000 per year. None of these deaths is attributable to submersibles which, worldwide, have had an extremely clean record; the only recorded incidents being in America, neither of which was under insurance control. The two vessels concerned, your Lordships may remember, were the "Sealink" and the "Nekton Beta". We have been guided considerably by the classification societies in offshore works and they have set the pace. But they themselves are under considerable pressure and the five appointed organisations are becoming more and more overloaded in the North Sea, so we must be careful that they do not let us down.
One point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale was that it was most important that firms should be working in close harmony with inspectors, and if the inspection societies are under pressure then this becomes even more important. There are possibly now eighteen submersibles operating in the North Sea, eleven of which have been there for some time and five of which belong to Vickers Oceanics Limited, and therein I have to declare some interest with that organisation from the point of view of research. Of the seven now on order, which go to make up the total of eighteen, five are on order by Vickers Oceanics.
The point I am making is that they have graduated to a distinct class of their own. Through their use, considerable British achievements in oil and gas developments have been pioneered, very largely by this one British company, Vickers Oceanics; so there is a considerable feeling that submersibles should for many reasons be formally classed as such in the Bill, instead of being sieved out through a mixed mesh of words such as aircraft, vessels, vehicles, structures, plant, equipment and other things. Indeed, I think the noble Lord would find it a bit of a challenge to say exactly what they are. Under the Bill they cannot be described as fish or fowl; it is difficult to say exactly what they are. It has always been argued that drafting requirements in any Bill need only be the legal minimum; but submersibles, through not being properly defined, have since April 1975 attracted
960
25 per cent. VAT. In Treasury eyes they are boats, like "Morning Cloud". They are classed with the products of the domestic appliance, leisure and luxury trades, like radio and television sets, caravans, photographic equipment, binoculars, furs and jewellery. Because they are of a limited gross tonnage—and this is questionable in the case of submersibles, which alter their buoyancy and displacement from time to time—they do not escape this net. One would have thought that submersibles would escape—that because they are not designed for domestic or recreational use there would be some derogation—but they do not, and they are unfairly and obliquely captured for this 25 per cent. rating.
Unlike boats, such as "Morning Cloud"—and I mention this because everybody knows everything there is to know about "Morning Cloud", the cost of which we are told was about £60,000—these submersibles cost £500,000; so that for a firm such as Vickers Oceanics taking delivery of five new submersibles during the next 12 months a very large sum of VAT is to be paid, and when they are paying of the order of £2,750,000 for all these submersibles, the VAT comes to about £670,000. This applies to the P & O Company, the British Aircraft Corporation and others. All are in the same position; they are rated by the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act formula of length times breadth times width over 150. It is of course possible to reclaim this money from the Customs and Excise after one month, but more likely two months; but the commitment in terms of extra working capital to finance this operation in the case of Vickers Oceanics, assuming the ability to raise it at 12½ per cent., is immense, costing I think £20,000, and the transaction merely becomes a banker's benefit.
I have already given the noble Lord some details of this situation and I should be happy to give him further detailed information when I have this at hand. I hope that he and his right honourable friend will do as much as they can to correct this situation, as it only encourages companies such as Vickers Oceanics in the use of flags of convenience and tax havens, something which I am sure all noble Lords regard as unpatriotic in a situation where British offshore contractors such as Vickers Oceanics are

961
performing a service for which we shall be grateful in future years.
What are the incentives for these companies? BNOC is excused the petroleum revenue tax. We are told that it pays it in a notional way; like a dose of salts, it seems to go straight through the system into the National Oil Account. If underwater contractors like Vickers Oceanics were excused VAT, they would be delighted. Perhaps they could be notionally rated. I have a number of ideas to offer the noble Lord, and I should be happy to discuss these with him in detail at any time. I am simply saying that in this Bill it should be possible to use proper terminology in tune with the times, and I hope that the noble Lord will give this Amendment consideration. We do not want submersibles escaping the safety net, and it is fully recognised that they must be monitored by inspection procedures at all times. This is something we want and the contractors want, but these new vessels should be mentioned by name in the Bill.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I appreciate, and I am grateful for, the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, to ensure that full powers are available to regulate safety in respect of submersible apparatus. My reply is a simple and short one: submersible apparatus is covered by the existing wording of Clauses 26 and 27. These clauses were intentionally framed in wide terms, and I assure the noble Lord that there is no doubt that submersible apparatus will be covered by the words:
"… any … vessel … plant, equipment or other thing"—
used
"for the purposes of any pipe-line works …".
Similarly, in Clause 27 inspectors have power to enter upon vessels and inspect and test equipment. This, too, I assure the noble Lord, is wide enough to cover submersible apparatus. So far as the question of VAT on submersibles is concerned, I can only say that I have noted the matter and will draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to it.
With the leave of the Committee, I will, while I am replying to the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, refer to a matter which he has mentioned and which he raised in an earlier debate—the question of BNOC's power to commission as well as
962
carry out research. I can assure the noble Lord on this point, too. It is true that Clause 2(2)(b), where research is specifically mentioned, refers only to "carrying out", but that provision is not the one which actually empowers BNOC to carry out research. It merely illustrates some of BNOC's powers and is stated to be
"… without prejudice to the … powers conferred by the preceding subsection…"
That is to say, it is Clause 2(1) which confers powers on BNOC and under Clause 2(1)(g) it would be able to carry out or commission research. I hope that the noble Lord now feels reassured on these points and that in the case of the former—the inclusion of submersible apparatus—he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord ENERGLYN: In support of the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, I am not quite content to accept the interpretation of Clause 26. It could be, as the Minister has just said, that submersibles would be adequately covered by the wording therein but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, has pointed out, this is a piece of terminology which will affect not only the present development of the North Sea but any future development of the seabed. So in establishing the definition of "submersible apparatus" on page 31 as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside. I feel that we should be doing a very prudent and sensible thing and I see nothing difficult about inserting the definition, into the Bill.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: May I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, the difficulties of doing this in the present case? The primary intention is to have the submersible taken up in the definition and fully covered for the purposes of the Bill. I have assured the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, that this is done and it is so. If we were to define submersibles specifically we should be getting into a very long list of equipment used in pipe-laying and oil exploration generally.
It is impossible to tell what lengths one would have to go to define all the equipment employed in the construction and safe operation of pipe-lines and in securing the safety, health and welfare of people engaged on pipe-line works. We should have to include helicopters, possibly hovercraft, and we should wind up

963
with a very long list and one which would have constantly to be added to as new equipment came into use. The important point here is that the clause is intentionally framed in wide terms and that it does take in submersible apparatus. We have taken the advice of Parliamentary Counsel on this and we are assured that submersibles are fully covered. That is the intention in this clause.
Lord IRONSIDE: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, for his support of the Amendment. However, I see the difficulty pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, of introducing terminology specifically to cover submersibles. I raised the point because we have been somewhat laggardly in legislation on safety generally. However, we are now seeing more of it and it is all rather piecemeal and not all-embracing. We have an example of American legislation on the safety of submersible vessels which has been in operation since 1968 and which the insurance industry uses as a model for its own business.
I do not want to press the point any further. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for giving me reassurances concerning the research and development functions of BNOC. One reason why I raised the point was because it was somewhat different from other points such as that which covers moving petroleum. We all understand that a person who wantsto move petroleum will do it in his own tanker or will hire some, body else's tanker, but, when it comes to research, the philosophy of extra-mural and sponsored research is something which is fairly new to everybody. That is why I thought it should be specifically mentioned in the Bill. We have had the Rothschild proposals in operation and the customer/contractor principles are now working well and are understood by everybody. They have become established practice. But, generally speaking, this is a new philosophy and I should have thought that it would have been worth including this, by example, in the Bill.
However, I shall not press the point any further, except to say that the reassurances which the noble Lord has given will be welcomed by the Association of Independent Consulting Research
964
Organisations and many other research firms in the country. I accept the noble Lord's assurances about Clauses 26 and 27 and I am grateful to him for saying that he will take up the matter of the 25 per cent. VAT rating on submersibles. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 23, line 41, after ("44") insert ("(1)").
The noble Lord said: These are minor technical Amendments, associated with the Amendment to be moved later to Clause 44. Clauses 26(3)(a)(ii) and 45(2)(b), the subjects of the Amendments, refer to "such an other installation" as is mentioned in Clause 44. But Clause 44 mentions installations at several points. It is subsection (1) which refers to "other installations"—that is, those brought by the Bill under the safety controls of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971. Subsection (2) will refer to a sub-class of offshore installations which are already within the 1971 Act. It was thought that, to avoid any doubt, Clauses 26 and 45 should be amended to make it clear that they are referring to the other installations referred to in subsection (1) of Clause 44 and not to the installations referred to at other points in that clause. I am sorry that that answer read like a Bill. In short, the draftsmen want to clarify something in Clauses 26 and 45 following a rather loose definition of "installations" in Clause 26.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Control of construction and extension of refineries]:
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.0 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: We have not put down any Amendments to Clauses 34 to 39, which provide for a new system of authorisation of sizeable new refineries or extensions to refineries. From some future date such projects will require a new kind of special refinery authorisation. It appears from the Bill that the intention is that before the Town and Country Planning Acts are invoked

965
and planning applications under them are considered, the Secretary of State—we presume that in this case it will be the Secretary of State for Energy—must issue an authorisation, no doubt on industrial considerations. But we should like an explanation from the Government about this. I say straight away that I sec the object of this and I personally sympathise with it. I can see that there is no point in embarking on the time-absorbing public inquiry which usually has to take place where a refinery is concerned, because a refinery—particularly a refinery on the scale mentioned in this clause—is the type of project to which people object, not only because of its appearance but also because it gives off pollution.
It seems unnecessary to embark upon the trouble and the expense of a public inquiry if it is later found that the refinery, or the extension proposed, is not necessary from the industrial point of view; or that there are reasons against it. I presume that it is the intention that the industrial question should first be considered by the Minister concerned, and that any planning application and consideration of it should come later. With that I sympathise. But I wish toput one point. I presume that the Secretary of State who gives the first authorisation for a refinery, or for an extension to be built, will be the Secretary of Slate for Energy. In the Bill reference is made, in the usual Parliamentary terms, merely to the "Secretary of State" and as a result it can be any Secretary of State. That is our normal way of working in such matters. But in these cases the Secretary of State for Industry might also be involved, I should be grateful if the Minister can tell us whether either of these two Ministers is likely to be involved, or whether the Secretary of State for Energy will have this function, which is an entirely new function.
So far as the consideration of the second part of such a project is concerned—that is planning permission—the procedure is laid down quite clearly in the planning Acts. So far as I can see, the Bill again refers to the "Secretary of State," in the singular. But it is pointed out in the clauses that this applies in Scotland to the Secretary of State for Scotland (who is the planning Minister
966
there) and in Wales to the Secretary of State for Wales; and that is well understood in our legislation. Having myself been the planning Minister in Scotland, and after inquiries having had to undertake personally—because it cannot be delegated to another Minister—the quasi-judicial decisions on very controversial matters, I can certainly sympathise with the intention here of dealing with the industrial question first.
I wish to ask the Government this second question. Do economic considerations come into the picture when both these points are being considered? Presumably, when the Secretary of State is considering refinery authorisation, in the first place he will, besides considering the refinery capacity in the country and other matters affecting the oil industry and energy, take into account as well the general economic situation of the country. In the past that has certainly also been a factor in planning decisions: there has been the question of whether something is, from the point of view of the economy of the country, a matter of national importance. I presume that that economic consideration will also be taken into account when decisions are being taken after planning inquiries under the Town and Country Planning Act, but I should like confirmation of that.
I turn now to my third question. Have the effects on the planning Acts—both those affecting England and Wales and those affecting Scotland—been fully considered, and are any more changes to them required? Changes are incorporated in the Bill. Are they all the changes that are necessary? I raise this matter because it is a very delicate piece of legislation which has been evolved by Parliament over the years which enables objectors to put their case as fairly as possible, but which also enables promoters of schemes to put their case—often against advice—in order to try to test their case in the courts, thus giving them freedom to apply in order to see whether they are able to get planning permission for development on a certain site. Thus there is this very delicate machinery, which is difficult to operate and is often misunderstood. But it is there to promote the greatest degree of fairness as between objectors and promoters, and as between the general public

967
and anyone else who has an interest. That is my third point. Are any changes required to the planning Acts as a result of this innovation with which, in principle, I agree but which could disturb the practice which is well understood and which is also the basis of the practice of many lawyers who operate in the field of the planning Acts?
Lord BALOGH: I think I can reassure the noble Lord on those three aspects. It is the Secretary of State for Energy who is responsible. His authorisation will have to be sought before planning permission is applied for, and planning permission cannot be sought for a refinery before the consent of the Secretary of State for Energy has been sought. With regard to the effects on the other planning Acts, I am told by my experts that this matter has been thoroughly discussed with both Wales and Scotland and that there is no reason to suspect that there is anything remiss at the moment. But obviously, with changing conditions, one might need some Amendments later. But at the moment my experts think that these points are all covered.
I come now to the most important point raised by the noble Lord; namely, considerations. There are a number of considerations which will interplay. There is the industrial consideration, which is derived from the fact that our mix in demand and our mix in supply, as soon as North Sea oil is ashore, will have certain difficulties. The oil is sulphur-free and rather light, and the demand spectrum in this country is rather biased towards the heavy oils, not like in America and Germany where it is biased towards the lighter oils. Therefore there are many kinds of industrial and technical considerations involved about what sort of refineries there should be and what extensions to existing refineries should be sought or provided; for instance, catalytic crackers in which we are at the moment, on the whole, not so well equipped as we might be.
Obviously this involves economic considerations, because the options are very wide. The Secretary of State has said in another place that we wish to refine up to two-thirds of the oil gained from the North Sea, and clearly this will have a certain impact on refinery planning.
968
Equally, the wish of the Continental countries to get some of our oil is very great because it is suitable for their needs. It is a politically safe area and it is very near; so there is a certain amount of agreement.
These are the considerations which the Secretary of State will have to take into account in coming to his conclusions. The amount, distribution, nature and ownership of oil refining capacity is largely determined, of course, by the structure of the United Kingdom oil market. It is important that the movements in this field should accord with the Government's oil policy and with the aim of obtaining maximum benefit from the North Sea oil. Our present refinery projects are subject to the usual planning procedures, but up till now at no stage are such projects evaluated in oil policy terms. This will now happen, and I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will take due account of both the economic and the larger political considerations in coming to these decisions.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. This is an important subject, and I think we have been able to deal with it in a very short time considering the size of it; but the noble Lord has been able to reply to my points, and I am grateful to him. This is something which I think we can pursue later, in correspondence.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 39 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Extension of Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations.) Act 1971]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 47B:
Page 42, line 17, leave out from ("installation") to end of subsection and insert ("subsection (4) of section 3 of that Act (which includes the concession owner among the persons having the duty to ensure that regulations under that section relating to an installation are complied with) shall have effect as if references to the concession owner were omitted.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, with Amendment No. 47B I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 47C and 47D. Clause 44 is a technical clause dealing with the boundary between the Mineral Workings

969
(Offshore Installations) Act 1971 and the Bill, and these are all technical Amendments to enable the clause more precisely to achieve its aims. At present, the 1971 Act gives control over the safety of manned installations on pipelines carrying petroleum from the United Kingdom Shelf. The purpose of subsection (1) of Clause 44 is to extend the control of the 1971 Act to such installations on pipelines on United Kingdom-controlled waters but conveying non-United Kingdom petroleum. A small consequential change is necessary, as a result, in the 1971 Act. At present it says that responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Act for any installation is on the concession owner (or Licensee with whose petroleum the installation is connected) as well as on the installation's owner and manager. The responsibility placed on the concession owner makes no sense for the new installations brought in under the 1971 Act. The concession area, apart from being in non-United Kingdom waters, will be some distance, perhaps a considerable distance, away from the installation. The concession owner may have no effective control over the installation. The Amendment therefore removes his responsibility. The responsibility of the owner and manager of the installation will of course remain, and they will be effectively answerable for the observance of safety requirements.
Amendment No. 47C is a small drafting correction. Subsection (2) deals with installations concerned with the transmission of oil from the United Kingdom areas. Because the source is within the United Kingdom areas the 1971 Act already applies, and the installations in question are therefore correctly referred to as "offshore"installations—the term used in the 1971 Act—and not "other" installations like those, hitherto outside the 1971 Act, which are dealt with in subsection (1). Amendment No. 47D is purely a drafting consequential Amendment.
That is all that there is of these Amendments, but in passing I should like to reassure noble Lords that the removal or reduction effected by this clause in the liability placed on the Licensee is a recognition of fact—that the installation concerned may be outside the area of his licence—and does not represent any impairment of our safety controls. It does
970
not mean that no one can be held responsible. In all cases—in subsection (1) as well as subsection (2) cases—the owner of the installation and the manager will continue to be responsible under Section 3(4) of the 1971 Act for seeing that all regulations are complied with. I beg to move Amendment No. 47B.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I have just spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 47C.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 21, leave out ("other") and insert ("offshore")—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 47D.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 24, leave out from ("persons") to ("shall)") in line 28 and insert ("the said subsection (4)")—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Amendments of enactments]:
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 43, line 16, at beginning insert—
"(1) It is hereby declared that the reference to pipe-lines under the high seas in section 8(1) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 (which among other things relates to the punishment of persons who damage such pipe-lines) includes pipe-lines under the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom."
The noble Lord said: This is a declaratory provision to make it clear beyond a peradventure that the provisions of the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885 apply to pipe-lines in territorial waters. Noble Lords who are learned in these matters may recall that that Act provided for the punishment of those who damaged submarine cables and provided also for the payment of compensation to anyone who could demonstrate that he had suffered loss through sacrificing gear in order to avoid damaging a cable. The 1885 Act applied, however, only to cables which were the subject of the Submarine Telegraphs Convention of 1884, the Convention which the 1885 Act was introduced to give effect to. Section 8 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 extended these provisions to all submarine cables under the high seas and to pipe-lines under the

971
high seas. The term "high seas" is not defined in the legislation, and this Amendment is designed merely to clarify the scope of the term by confirming that the provisions of the 1964 Act apply in territorial waters. Thus, all concerned can be quite certain of the legal position. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Amendment No. 49 was spoken to with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 37, after ("44") insert ("(1)")—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Interpretation etc.— general]:
7.18 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 45, line 13, at end insert—
"(d) permits the Secretary of State to exercise or not to exercise any power or authority or to withhold any consent, approval or authorisation or to make provisions terms or conditions pursuant to this Act or a licence for the time being in force by virtue of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 with a view to securing participation by the Government of the United Kingdom, or by the Corporation or any other body on behalf of the Government, in activities connected with petroleum beneath controlled waters."
The noble Lord said: This rather long Amendment could be shortened if one simply read it, in the context of the Bill, to say,
"Nothing in this Act permits the Secretary of State to exercise his powers with a view to securing participation".
I feel confident that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, on behalf of the Government, will at least accept the spirit which lies behind this Amendment. This gives the Government an opportunity to repeat on oath, as it were, what they have said many times in your Lordships' House and Committee, and to confirm their credibility, their good faith, their honesty and their honour when they declare that all negotiations about participation are truly voluntary.
We have to say that we on this side of the Committee doubt the virtue of
972
majority participation. We are opposed to imposing it—and we believe that this is happening. We think that the onus of proof for participation must lie on the Government. We have to bear in mind that the number of people concerned in the top echelon of the oil industry and the financial institutions which back them is small. Many times in this House we have heard it said that the number of people with real expertise at the top level of this industry is limited. There is no doubt that a great deal of the time of a great many people with many other (I think) better things to do is currently being spent negotiating and discussing terms for participation. I dare say that the noble Lord himself and many of his staff are able to say that they have burned much midnight oil on this subject; so that they, at least, will have sympathy with the people on whom they are imposing this extra burden at a time of rapid expansion of the industry—an expansion we want to see going forward as fast as possible.
I do not propose once again to indulge in the sort of semantic arguments we got into with the noble Lord as to the difference between participation and nationalisation. We feel that 51 per cent. Government participation with the express purpose of securing control is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from nationalisation so far as this argument is concerned. We do not believe, in any case, that this method of securing control is needed, and I should have thought that this was confirmed by many of the discussions during the Committee stage of this Bill today and previously.
We have raised a number of questions about the concept of participation and the way in which BNOC will play its part in it. A great many of these questions remain unanswered. We have further stages of this Bill yet to come. I do not believe that we have ever been told whether BNOC intends to contribute its share when it takes participation, or where the money for it in the early stages is to come from. Would it not be an advantage if at least some model terms for participation could be published as a basis for discussion? Our doubts on these issues underline and emphasise the importance we attach to the issue of "voluntariness"—I do not know whether such a

973
word exists but at least its meaning is quite clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, in previous debates used such expressions as: "Every ounce of strength …", and "We must use our strongest cards …". He even, I regret to say, went so far as to say: "We have been gentlemen too long", and referred to "weapons of last resort".
Lord BALOGH: I hope that that was in my unregenerate days.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: If the noble Lord is saying that he is a reformed character, then "Welcome to the fold!" But he also said that the most important part of participation is that we should get physical control over the oil. He went on to say that we might pay dearly for our neglect. I do not think that the noble Lord, after having used language like that, can complain if the listeners suggest that his interpretation of the word "voluntary" might be described as somewhat Orwellian.
Some of these discussions have been rather more voluntary than others. Is it not curious that all the agreements in principle that have been announced seem to have come at about the same time as some changes in the licensing have been required by the companies? The circumstantial evidence is extremely compelling. We know of cases where there have been changes of partners in the various consortia—what the oil industry calls "farm-outs". It is important that we should accept and encourage the fact that it is an extremely volatile and evolutionary industry where the situation is changing all the time. If we make it more difficult for these changes to take place we will inevitably slow up the progress. This is the nature of an industry of this sort.
We know of cases where there has been a need to get extension of the time to carry out drilling operations. Agreement by the Government to all of these changes required in licences seems to have come at a time when there has been agreement in principle by the company concerned to participate. To suggest that there is no connection between those two puts me in mind of Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest, who said:
974
"To lose one parent is unfortunate; but to lose both parents shows a certain lack of consideration for the manners of good society."
—or words to that effect.
The Government have never given an answer to the question of whether there has ever been an instance, since their policy on participation was announced, where a "farm-out" has been agreed to without the principle of participation at the same time. In these circumstances it is small wonder, I suggest, that the industry labours under the belief that a request for any substantial permission connected with their North Sea operations from the Department of Energy will be unsuccessful unless the principle of participation is first accepted. With the possible exception of BP which, in any case, is in rather an unusual situation, in the case of every company one looks at which has publicly stated that it has accepted participation, the belief will be substantiated that some form of Departmental consent or co-operation was given simultaneously with the acceptance of participation.
Throughout our discussions of the Bill we have had reference to the fears, many of which have appeared to be rather unreasonable, about some of the powers which the Secretary of State proposes to take under the Bill. These fears arise from the fact that the relations between the industry and the Government have come to such a sorry pass that the industry seriously believes that a number of these, to them, onerous provisions have been put into the Bill with the express purpose—or if not the express purpose, the very convenient purpose—of coming in handy when it came to discussing the possibility of participation.
We should like to feel that these fears are groundless. To put such unworthy fears at rest we are in this Amendment inviting the Minister to demonstrate his genuineness, forthrightness and integrity by binding himself in law to behave in the way he has always so blandly declared to be his wish, his intention and his practice. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, in making either a Second Reading or a Third Reading speech, though I have some barbed remarks well prepared for

975
such an occasion. However, the atmosphere of today's debate has been so sympathetic that I will not use them.
We wish to develop the oil business, not for fun, not for making a record output from an exhaustible source of supply, but for making money. This is a delicate subject and it is very vulgar to talk about it. We are in this for money but not for the world as a whole. I once said in those debates that we ought to cultivate a little sacro-egoismo around here; we have not done so in the past 25 years; we imposed on ourselves restrictions which proved terribly onerous. Everything which noble Lords opposite have done, if it were successful, would diminish the net "take" of Britain. Through mistakes we must admit a large part of the oil industry (which I am not going to outline at this hour of the night) has passed into foreign hands. I am sure noble Lords opposite, were they in power, with exactly the same problems as we have, would take the same view, and would come to remarkably similar solutions.
The British conditions have been exceedingly generous. The British oilfield is one of the most risk less, though it is very expensive. The ratio of dry wells was at a minimum—I know there are very good statistical explanations for that, but it is the truth—and the discovery rate was colossal. Not only was it colossal, but it opened up, but only opened up, opportunities to back the ailing British economy. The balance of payments can be strengthened by the oil revenue. This Government have introduced, and Parliament has approved in principle, this Bill which, for two reasons, is based on participation: for getting information and knowledge, which we do not have, and for having a physical possession.
Participation is being negotiated. Each side in the negotiation has stronger and weaker cards in his hand. I am not ashamed to use the word "cards". Noble Lords opposite are mostly engaged in large-scale business, or advising large-scale business, and they know very well that in a commercial bargaining position one does not give away all one's best arguments and force. There is a great deal at stake, an enormous amount of money at stake for Britain, and this Government, at any rate, are not going to
976
risk it. None of this means the Government are putting undue or illegitimate pressure on the companies. We are now in negotiation with several companies. Some of them would surprise noble Lords opposite, but I am not going to make any further revelations. We expect to use to the full the arguments and bargaining power that we have; but we are not going beyond what is fair and supportable, because obviously we want to encourage the exploitation of the North Sea, subject to the profits accruing mainly to the nation, the people and helping Britain to get on its feet.
Generally, I have no evidence that the industry feels it has been badly treated in the participation negotiations, or the consultations on the Bill. Some of the companies have indeed positively welcomed the help and co-operation from the Government which participation will bring. It is obviously impossible to have a model participation submitted before Parliament because each case differs so much from any other case. We have some large fields which are situated very near the shore in low water and are easily exploited. We have small fields situated in areas where there are torrential rains and snow, such as in the Northern Passage.
In these circumstances, I do not think we can put a complete menu before the Committee; I can only assure noble Lords that we arc doing our best to secure the maximum benefit to this country of the discovery of oil in the North Sea and, hopefully, in the coastal shelf. I cannot recommend this Amendment, which would seriously weaken the power of the Secretary of State to negotiate favourably with the companies.
7.38 p.m.
Lord IRONSIDE: I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment and take up what the noble Lord opposite has said. He referred to getting knowledge which we do not have. Whether by "we" he means the Government and the BNOC, I do not know, but obviously he means the BNOC at least. But it is clear that if one wants to get this knowledge one does not need 51 per cent. participation. One per cent. or half of 1 per cent. participation would do in any field in order to have access to knowledge and information.

977
I should like to develop my theme along the following lines. First, in the fact sheet which the noble Lord's Department produces from time to time, and particularly in June 1975, reference is made to the Offshore Supplies Office. It says that the Office is there to secure full and fair opportunity for British firms to compete in the market and to help establish new British ventures in the offshore supply field. Surely engineering companies are interested in anything the Offshore Supplies Office can do; and surely the oil companies are looking for full and fair opportunity to compete in the market as well. I suggest that 51 per cent. participation does not give them full and fair opportunity to compete in worldwide markets while Big Brother is overlooking everything they do—in fact, one might say, completely controlling the whole oil industry from life to death. In this Bill we see that pipe-lines may belong to the oil company to start with, but when they come to the end of their working life, so far as I can see, the property reverts to the Government. So what the noble Lord has said does not give me much confidence that he is striving to do his best for the country, for the oil industry and for industry in general.
Regarding participation, I should like to revert to a statement he made in Hansard on 23rd September concerning next year's applications for licences. Very good. We all want to see the momentum of oil discoveries being kept up; I am sure we all agree with him there. But at the end of the statement we see the sting in the tail, when he said:
"The terms and conditions governing the licensing, which will he announced when applications are formally invited, will be designed to entrench and safeguard our legitimate national interests including, as the Government have already declared"—
Lord BALOGH: Does the noble Lord think there is something shameful in safeguarding the interests of the nation?
Lord IRONSIDE: If I may say so, I have not quite finished:
"… a provision for majority State participation in commercial finds."—[Official Report, 23/9/75; col. 288.]
So we have participation coming into this statement, which I do not believe is compatible with the idea of keeping up the momentum of discoveries. It is most important that participation should not
978
affect what we try to do in the future, both in the oil industry and in industry as a whole. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment.
7.42 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said a little earlier that the atmosphere had been, as he put it, so sympathetic, that he did not want to be more controversial than was necessary. It might be that we have had up to now what used to be called a "pleasant Sunday afternoon" but I want to say that there was once a saw which went like this:
"I want to go home: the party's getting rough."
My patience and, I might almost say, my anger have now been tested severely. I do not want to prolong the debate. We have had a lot of talk about dry wells and about how few there were and about how many discoveries of wells there were. Yes, but how many are not commercial? I ask your Lordships to look at the Government's list. We had the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, earlier to all the oil companies being in these participation agreements—and if that is not a contradiction of voluntary negotiation, I do not know what is.
The object of this Amendment is to put into legal form, statutory form, constitutional form, clear form, a test of the Government's integrity—and the integrity issue is not something to be lightly brushed aside by reference to this person's or that person's judgment of British interests. The simple question—and I use the term quite bluntly—is whether or not in these negotiations for participation there is an element of blackmail.
As far back as 7th August, during the Second Reading debate, I asked the Government a question. They were silent, and so I repeat the question: will the Government guarantee publicly that any company or consortium not accepting the terms of participation will not be the victim of discrimination in the future: for example, in the next licensing round? That is shown in the Official Report of 7th August. I had no answer. It may be that my voice does not carry well enough. Tonight it will carry a long way. I repeated that question during Committee stage on 24th September. I asked that question but I had no answer. I have repeated the question

979
again and, since we have been so polite to one another so far, I am willing to give way this instant if the noble Lord would care to rise and answer my question on that point. Will he?
Lord BALOGH: I hope and believe that the situation in which companies refuse participation will not arise. If it did, the Government would need to consider it at the time and would naturally look at all the options open to them.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I must say that is better language than we have had hitherto. The noble Lord, when he was earlier twitted with the phrase about the strongest cards being a last resort, did say that that was in his unregenerate days—in fact, one of those unregenerate days was 24th September! But what he has said now is an improvement. It is vague and leaves a great deal open to guess-work—to hope as well as to fear—but I thank him for what he has said and I think it is probably a passage which we shall want to look at again at a later stage of the Bill.
I wonder whether I can go a little further, because back in February Mr. Harold Lever said this:
"It is very possible if they"—
that is, the oil companies—
"… did not agree to State participation, that the Cabinet could feel free, and indeed might feel obliged, to nationalise that portion of the licence that they thought right."
There is a threat. It may well be that it occurred in Mr. Lever's unregenerate days, but I want to make it quite clear to the noble Lord, who is always so patient when listening to what I say, that we shall want to probe at later stages what he has just said rather sharply and severely. I think that when he said that negotiation is to be voluntary, it was a slight over-simplification.
It rather reminds me of Lewis Carroll:
"'The question is'", said Humpty-Dumpty, "'which is to be master? That's all.'"
I am not sure it is not the case that in this regard the Government would like the oil companies to be rather like what Sydney Smith said of the bishops rather more than 150 years ago:
"What the bishops like best in their clergy is a drooping down headedness of manner."
That is what they are looking for. May I just remind the noble Lord, Lord
980
Balogh, that a great Parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, once said:
"If it is not right to hurt, it is neither right nor wise to menace."
There have been rumours of menaces. There has been language used by the noble Lord in his unregenerate days—that is, up to 24th September!—which carries with it a tone of menace. There have been copies floating about with, of course, the letterhead, or rather the name of the addressee, carefully removed, purporting to come from the Department to oil companies not among the "Seven Sisters" making it clear that unless they agreed to participation a farm-out would not be approved. The theme, the atmosphere, the mood, the style, the character, the whole context of what the Government have put before us in their arguments in support of this Bill have been simply this: "voluntary" means that all that is not compulsory is forbidden.
The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, pleaded—and I share his plea—for a little bit of sacro-egoismo so far as British industry and interests are concerned. He wants the maximum benefit for Britain. So do I. Whatever the other side may say, in what I believe to be distortion of the facts, the simple fact is that exploration activity in the North Sea is slowing down. At this moment there are two idle semi-submersibles—or one is a jack-up; the other is a semi-submersible—in the Firth of Forth waiting for jobs to do. The whole effect of the Government's proposals and policy reminds me of Tacitus' words in Agricola:
"When they make a wilderness they call it peace."
7.50 p.m.
Lord ENERGLYN: May I add to the noble Earl's remarks and may I take one by one the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, in objection to this Amendment. To quote: "We are in this for money." I agree with him, but the point is that the moment an oil drill hits oil one has hit a wasting asset. That is point number one. The noble Lord then went on to describe this North Sea as—and I quote: "A riskless field". If there was anything far from the truth, it is that. I follow here the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, that knowledge is something you gain and use. We would not have found the North Sea oil as

981
rapidly as we have so done had it not been for the primary research which was carried out in this country by wise Governments which allowed the oil obtained from the Akering oil field to pay for exploration which we geologists with this information could extrapolate out into the North Sea. We can now see the mechanism of the geological events which created these concentrations of oil in the deposits below the sea floor.
The third point I want to clear up is this—and I have sat through these debates trying to restrain myself because, frankly, the ministerial concept or the economist's look at this model is so terribly nave. Nature is not so naïve as to suggest, as the economists do, that you drive an oil well into great big tanks of oil; one of them may be dry; one may be half full, the other full. It is nothing like that at all. That oil has been preserved in those sediments and concentrated in anticlines affected by capricious geological events which have caused this oil to be disseminated through myriads and myriads of intercommunicating—and I underline "intercommunicating"—cracks. If the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, takes even a look at a photograph of any oilfield he will find that it is festooned with pumps. They are not put there for fun. We are in this for money, they say. The reason for those pumps is that when those cracks seal up you have to sink another well. What we are looking at in the North Sea is the embryonic development of oil under pressure. You are getting it cheaply, but it will not go on like that. Therefore, in participation you must look far ahead.
If I may change tack, had it not been for the fact that the British Petroleum Company had exploration finance at its disposal we would not own, as we do own, the substantial part of the Alaskan oil field. Let it be said and put on the record that it was the British geologists who had the foresight and skill to determine the existence of oil in that Alaskan plate. Do not forget also that what we are looking at in the North Sea is part of a plate and the pattern is now clear. The gaseous zone is around Holland; you move Northwards into the Shetland area: you arc moving towards the hot spot of Iceland which is the temperature zone from which the oil is being forced southwards. So there is a great
982
zonal area; not a tank, but oil capriciously held in anticline.
What will happen in the North Sea will happen in parts of the Celtic Sea, so-called. What will happen in the Celtic Sea will happen on the western seaboard of Eire, and we have to look that far ahead. Here I go along 100 per cent. with the noble Lord, Lord Ironside. We have to look and pay for knowledge. So I do not support, or even understand, the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, when he uses this kind of naïve picture of an oil field with all its hazards. My word! a mining company sinking a shaft would not accept these conditions. The hazard of putting down a shaft is enormous, and the same hazards pertain in the North Sea and will become more and more difficult. So I support this Amendment because I feel that the future of British interests would be better served in releasing capital to go out into the world to serve, as sterling has always served, as an international currency.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, started by saying that he would not be making a Second Reading speech, but it almost developed into that, and I fear that in the course of it he did not reply to many of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Strathcona. I intend to be brief because I caused a debate on the general question of participation on the Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part? When we were considering that some time ago. I drew attention at that time to this Amendment and how this would give the reassurance necessary to all those working on these activities in the North Sea and other parts of our Continental Shelf. It would be wrong for the Government to adopt a policy of not giving approval without the applicants having entered into a participation agreement. This is approval for many of the things in the Bill. The Amendment is aimed at putting into the Bill the Government assurances—that participation will be achieved by voluntary agreement—which have been given in the past. There cannot be any harm in putting that into the Bill, and it would do a great deal of good because it would reassure those outside.
My noble friends Lord Ironside and Lord Lauderdale have dealt with some of the points the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has made in his first reply, and we have

983
just had the benefit of the geological expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, who has pointed out some of the technical problems involved. He also reminded us about the BP interest in Alaska. Let us remember—and I hope the Government will—that the way in which we treat companies in our own waters may well affect the way they treat British interests abroad. An example of the difficulty an operator would face if the Government chose to wield the sanctions which they can use is in new model Clause 15 that we discussed earlier today. There, a Licensee may be unable to develop a field unless the Minister has approved a development programme. There is no way in which the Licensee can force a development programme to be accepted by the Minister. If he chose to refuse a development programme unless the company entered into a participation agreement the company concerned would obviously be unable to carry on its operation in the North Sea or other parts of our Continental Shelf. Then there is another example under model Clause 38. These are restrictions on assignment. The effect here is that a Licensee cannot assign his interest without the consent of the Minister. Assignments will probably form an essential part of financing, particularly in the case of small companies. It is likely that such a company in seeking to finance an operation would be unable to do so without accepting participation if the Government chose to abuse their power in relation to that model clause.
I should like to ask the Government this question, because we are worried by what has been happening so far. The participation discussions are going on behind closed doors. Can the Government tell us whether there have yet been any instances where companies have applied for rearrangement of interests in a licence and obtained permission from the Minister without also agreeing to participation in principle? Has that happened since the Government first announced their policy of participation? This Amendment will give reassurance to the industries which are operating in these difficult waters and having to tackle the technical problems which the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, mentioned. We feel strongly that it is a provision which should be in the Bill.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

CONCORDE: CORRIDORS AND LANDING RIGHTS
8.2 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will inform this House how negotiations are progressing with the many different countries concerned on the supersonic corridors and landing rights for the British Airways operation of Concorde aircraft. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In view of the importance of Concorde to this country as well as to France, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will not mind if I spread myself a little around the subject of my Question, but I can assure him that I shall be brief. Concorde is the world's first majorinternational collaborative venture in advanced technology and it is the largest and most complex commercial programme ever undertaken by two countries in peacetime. In one leap it has covered both the sonic and the heat barriers, and for the first time for many years given Europe the lead in commercial aviation which for so long has been dominated by the United States. Concorde will give to the world a new concept of social and international life.
There are some who say that £1,096 million, the total sum spent between the two countries, has been both wasteful and excessive, but let them not forget that 40 per cent. of this cost has been due to inflation and devaluation. Let them also realise the employment that Concorde has provided, the revenue from taxes that it has produced and that if the Olympus engines had not been developed our Sheffield class warships would be without their main power plants. All this expenditure represents only £40 million a year from each country since the conception of Concorde. The United States spent more on its abortive supersonic transport programme in a much shorter time than we spent getting Concorde operational.
In spite of these major break-throughs, Concorde's passage is still somewhat stormy and all the dangers are not yet passed; for instance, Concorde's certificate of airworthiness. The French Concordes have theirs. The British have only one more hurdle to overcome, so far as I know, and that is the temperature shear. I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that this has nearly been achieved and if he could confirm it this evening I am sure it would make everybody happy.
With regard to the London-Bahrein route, I understand that this is now in hand, but could the Minister let us know how this ties in with the Australian route, Bahrein being one of the refuelling airports? I should also like to know the position on the landing rights at Kennedy Airport at New York and in Washington, because I feel sure that the main reason for approval not being given for the landing rights in New York is basically sour grapes on the part of the Americans. Perhaps we might have an assurance that if diplomacy will not work in this instance the mailed fist in the velvet glove could be used.
The other people who, I gather, are not terribly co-operative at the moment are the Japanese. I believe that the Japanese anti-Concorde lobby is one of the strongest in the world. But surely Japan Airlines have an option on Concorde. Furthermore, Narita Airport, which was completed two years ago, has not yet been inaugurated but it is eminently suitable for Concorde operations. If, therefore, the Japanese are not going to be very helpful to us, perhaps we could be a little difficult to them and cut their quota of car imports into this country.
Could the Minister also please tell us what the state of play is with Nigeria over the route to South Africa. And with regard to the mildly unfortunate publicity in Tuesday's newspapers over the noise at Heathrow, perhaps the Minister could endeavour to see that in future the Press, and in particular BBC radio, give factual reports—as, for example, in this case. These noise tests were, in fact, proving and training flights. Therefore several different take-off techniques and procedures were carried out.
My last question refers to the traffic conference of IATA over the fare surcharge
986
which was, I believe, held yesterday. Could the noble Lord confirm that it is not going to be more than 20 per cent.? Let us not forget that 150 years ago anew era of transportation came in with the railway engine. At that time the railway engine was preceded by a red flag. Let us not let this happen to Concorde.
8.7 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has raised an interesting and a very important subject. I agreed so much with what he said when he opened his speech and laid stress on the idea that this is a new form of transport and a new concept. Concorde has always been controversial, not only from the environmental point of view but also from the financial point of view, perhaps just because it is new. Those who have flown in it can only have been greatly impressed by it. I know that I was. I pay tribute to the manufacturers for making it just large enough to stand up in. The extraordinary part of it is that it is just like any other aeroplane.
May I pay tribute to the Government and to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for having stood firm on the manufacture of this aircraft when many pressures were brought upon them to abandon it. They were right not to have been influenced by those pressures. For all that, it is agitating that we are in the position, with British Airways going to have three of these aircraft worth about £25 million each and due to start operations in three months' time, that at the moment there is nowhere in which we can drop the aeroplane. Put like that, it is rather frightening, but there are extraneous reasons. I understand that there are four potential routes: London to New York or to Washington, London to South Africa, London to Japan via Russia and London to Bahrein and thereafter to Australia via Singapore. Without question, the trans-Atlantic route is the most important one and it is the route for which the aircraft was originally designed. In trying to obtain landing or traffic rights for this route we must recognise two factors. First, there is a very important and powerful environmental lobby in the United States. Even if it is not big it is immensely powerful. Secondly, there is the reaction from other airlines which undoubtedly will lose traffic. While we

987
should be anxious to gain landing rights from America we must not fail to recognise those two very important points.
I hope that the Government will not be reluctant to point out to United States colleagues that under the Bermuda Agreement, which is the agreement by which we fly to and from America, America earns three times as much as we do by flying around the world, and twice as much as we do by flying across the Atlantic. Obviously, as 70 per cent. of the traffic under that Agreement emanates from the United States, the inclination would be to go on United States aircraft. Therefore, under that agreement it would seem that the United States is getting a fair crack of the whip. My understanding is that the Federal Air Authority, who are responsible for the Federal airports of which Washington is one, are basically well disposed towards the implementation of the Concorde service and are doing their best to be helpful. Of course, New York is a different matter because it is not a Federal airport; it comes under the State authority and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Air Authority, and obviously it will he less easy to get agreement with New York.
The most important route for our purposes at the moment is that to Bahrain. Although we have not yet got full clearance, I gather this is likely to be forthcoming and is not quite as worrying as it seems, even although British Airways intend to operate this from 21st January. If the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is able to confirm—if this does not pre-empt any issue, because I would not wish to embarrass him if negotiations are still going on—or to say whether he feels that these discussions are likely to come to a fruitful conclusion before 21st January. that would be extremely helpful. Once the London to Bahrain route is in operation, then it will be possible at a later date to extend the route to Australia and Singapore.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord could say something about South Africa and Tokyo. My understanding is that the South Africa route is virtually a "dead duck", because the only place where the aircraft can land on the way to South Africa is—quite extraordinarily—Lagos, and that at the moment is unsuitable
988
because the runway would have to be lengthened and it would take two years to lengthen it, even if the Nigerians were prepared to do it.
Tokyo, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has said, is obviously another place where landing rights ought to be obtained, but there, again, there is a colossal environmental lobby—almost larger, I believe, than that in America—and one has to accept that that is a substantial drawback and that one cannot force people. The problem about getting this route is where to land in Russia. Moscow is impossible, because the route from Moscow to Tokyo is too long. I understand that there is a place called Novosibirsk, which is a possibility, but there, again, the runway needs lengthening and one has to have an alternative airport. If the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, could tell us how negotiations are getting on and what progress is likely to be made it would be helpful, but I should have thought it was unrealistic to imagine that there would be any immediate chance of landing there. My advice to the Government—and I hesitate to give any advice over such a delicate matter, and one on which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, knows far more than I do—would be to keep hammering away (I use that expression gently) at the United States and not to despair even if they do not succeed at the outset. This is the most important route.
Once the Concorde is in service anywhere, once it is seen to be the excellent aircraft that it is, once it is seen that the ozone layer is not mutilated every time the aeroplane goes through it, and once it is seen that every time the aircraft flies every cow within a radius of 100 miles does not slip its calf, then I believe people will come to accept the aircraft and realise that it is a substantial leap forward, and it will then be wanted by other airlines. In this case—and I think this is very important—it is not only high finance that is the cause of the problem. You are really having to alter the hearts and minds of people who feel very concerned about something which is new, which may appear to have an effect upon the environment and which is an emotional issue. You cannot force that, but it is my contention that once you can get the aircraft in service in any part of the world people will gradually realise that it is not quite

989
the bogy it is supposed to be. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not be prepared to give up and will not get too anxious if efforts to get landing rights are not immediately successful. I hope that the Government will, nevertheless, quietly go on hammering away until they achieve the desired object.
8.16 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, expressed the hope that I did not mind his raising the matter this evening. Not only do I not mind but I welcome the Question, and I am grateful to him for the constructive way in which he has put his points. Similarly, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the way he has presented his points to me. I shall endeavour, as always I hope, to give the facts as fully as possible.
It has been agreed that British Airways and Air France will start Concorde services simultaneously on 21st January 1976. I have heard it said that there has been some delay on the part of the British Aircraft Corporation in delivering the British aircraft and that this has presented some difficulties to British Airways compared with Air France, and I think I ought to put the record straight for a start. There has been no delay on the part of the British Aircraft Corporation. The fact of the matter is that right from the beginning it was agreed that the first aircraft off the production line would be the French, the second off the line would be British, and each succeeding odd number would be French and each succeeding even number British.
This is an Anglo-French production; some of the parts are made in this country for the French-assembled aircraft, some of the parts are made in France for the British-assembled aircraft and the French get their parts first. Therefore, inevitably, they come off the production line first. At one time the gap was about five weeks; it has been closed by the British company and they will be able to deliver an aircraft to British Airways in time for the start on 21st January 1976. The start will be to Bahrain and, as the noble Earl has said, Bahrain is an important part of the developing route pattern.
There have been certain delays in getting the necessary clearances. In the endurance flying, Concorde made a
990
number of flights between London and Bahrain along supersonic corridors which have been agreed with the countries concerned. Some of these countries have asked for changes to avoid towns, military targets or other special areas by a wider margin. We needed to find a route to meet the requirements of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, but at the same time to satisfy the Concorde's operational needs. It will be understood, therefore, that it has not been a simple operation, but I understand that proposals have been put to all these countries and I am confident that agreement will be reached in good time for that initial flight. This route will be the first regular Concorde service that British Airways will operate. It is important in its own right and, as the noble Earl has said, it is the first leg of the proposed Concorde service to Singapore and Australia. It makes sense therefore, both commercially and for operational reasons, to start with the service to Bahrain.
Then we have to complete the plans for the extension Eastwards of supersonic corridors with India, Indonesia and Australia. It was not possible to reach agreement for supersonic transit of India in time for the endurance flights in the summer, but discussions in respect of the commercial service are continuing. The series of flights last summer between Singapore and Melbourne have demonstrated that Concorde can operate over that distance non-stop and with a good payload. There have been those who have doubted this in the past. It was thought by sonic it would be necessary to have a refuelling stop at Darwin. This is not so. There will be a non-stop flight from Singapore to Melbourne.
The Australian Government have adopted a very helpful and pragmatic attitude to Concorde. The flights already made were over a supersonic corridor agreed with the Australian authorities. This will enable British Airways to carry a satisfactory payload into commercial service. Flights into Melbourne airport should not raise any significant noise problems. However, the Australian decision will depend on the outcome of their consideration of the Environmental Impact Statement. That statement has been laid, and Concorde was warmly welcomed in Australia last summer, and I am hopeful of the outcome of the EIS.

991
My Lords, I was asked about New York. Obviously, this is a service which will be especially attractive and one in which the savings in time and fatigue will be particularly important. But the applications by British Airways and Air France to operate to the United States of America have to go through the statutory process to assess the impact on the environment of the planned services to New York and Washington. We believe that the best way is to assist the statutory procedure towards a successful conclusion, and this is what we have been doing. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, used the phrase "hammering it home with the United States". I am not quite sure whether that is exactly what he said. We have not followed the "hammering" technique. I would rather believe that an aggressive attitude here could be counter-productive, We have given the utmost co-operation to the United States authorities, and have given them all the information absolutely freely. I think we shall get over the various hurdles satisfactorily.
My Lords, I will now indicate the sort of processes involved. In the summer of 1974, informal discussions were held between the British, French and Americans on the technical data required for the Environmental Impact Statement which, of course, the American regulations demand. These were followed in January 1975 by formal talks with the United States Federal Aviation Administration, and the draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued in March.
Time then had to be allowed for representations to be made, and during April 1975 the FAA held extensive public hearings in Washington, New York, and in the Dulles area. Well over 100 organisations and individuals were represented at the hearings, and thousands of people wrote in. The next stage was for the FAA to revise the Environmental Impact Statement in the light of the evidence received, both oral and written, and to seek additional information from the United Kingdom and French Governments. The final Environmental Impact Statement is expected shortly. Further developments depend on that. I hope I have been able to indicate that it was not a simple matter for us to get a "Yea" or "Nay". I hope it will be
992
agreed that what we have been doing has been the most helpful approach to the problem.
I was asked about the service to Japan which, as has been said, will involve a supersonic corridor across the USSR, with a stop at Novosibirsk in Siberia. We shall need to agree not only on a supersonic corridor through the Western parts of the USSR, but also on a suitable alternative aerodrome sufficiently close to Novosibirsk. The environmental impact of Concorde has been discussed very fully between Russian and Anglo-French experts, and a further tripartite meeting is to be held before the end of this year to see what progress has been made towards providing the supersonic corridor and airport facilities that we and the French require. When these matters have been settled across the USSR, we shall then turn to the next stage of getting agreement with the Japanese.
My Lords, I was asked about the route to South Africa. I understand that the routes to the United States of America, Australia and Tokyo will fully use the five Concordes that British Airways have on order. British Airways would have liked to operate Concorde to South Africa, but to be competitive with existing aircraft it is necessary to make no more than one refuelling stop somewhere in West Africa. As of now, there is no runway available that would be suitable for Concorde. I cannot say what attitude the countries of Western Africa might take to a service to South Africa, but clearly, this might also be a problem.
With regard to landing rights generally, traffic rights under the terms of our bilateral air service agreements are mostly already available, subject, in some cases, to commercial arrangements between British Airways and the other airlines concerned. But in addition to agreeing supersonic corridors over several countries, we have to obtain permission to land at airports where aircraft noise is a local problem. The experience we are gaining in this will stand us in good stead when, as each problem comes along, we solve it.
Turning to fare surcharges, I cannot say what the ultimate position will be, but we are looking for something below 20 per cent.; something just below 18 per cent. would be satisfactory to the parties, in my

993
view—nothing like the punitive figure some people have been endeavouring to impose on the supersonic service.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, about the temperature characteristics of certain flights. It was a fact that we experienced certain phenomena which the French did not. The French have now cleared their Concorde with their certificating authority, but it was thought, in view of the experience we had had with the effect on the auto-pilot at altitude in the Middle and Far East, that we had to go back and do some more flying. This is being done. There is no reason to believe that a satisfactory solution to the problem will not arise.
I was asked about the situation at Heathrow following recent endurance flying. Some critics have seized upon some infringements, and have made much of them. We are examining the results of
994
that flying very carefully to see what improvements can be achieved at Heathrow. I will say again that the results of noise measurements are fully consistent with noise measurements made at Casablanca at the end of last year in accordance with the ICAO noise measuring techniques, and on which the evidence submitted to the United States Federal Aviation Authority and other authorities was based. At this point, we should bear in mind that when Concorde comes into commercial service, this aircraft will account for less than 1 per cent. of movements at Heathrow, out of a total of 800 movements in one day, and that only when Concorde is operating all the services that we now envisage. I cannot believe, therefore, that there can be any decisive objection to a start for this really magnificent product of British industry.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past eight o'clock.