Sitting of 21 January 1976

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

    Housing
    Mr. Welshasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list such figures as are available to him which illustrate the extent of Scotland's housing problems.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): Information is available in a wide range of published and unpublished sources and I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on Monday 12th January.—[Vol. 903, c. 76–77.]
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister satisfied that he has defined and identified in detail the exact nature and extent of Scotland's housing needs, and can he assure us of action as soon as possible to meet those needs in full? Is he aware of the enormous gaps in governmental mechanisms in Scotland to meet those problems? Is he aware that his own record shows all the flair and determination of a hibernating tortoise? When will he get himself and his Department organised into a proper Scottish Housing Department?
    Mr. Brown: I did not hear the last part of that, but I do not suppose that I missed much. I have been accused of many things, but never before of being a hibernating tortoise. Of course I am not satisfied. I shall never be satisfied until we have fulfilled our aim of giving every family a decent home to live in. But the completions, the approvals and the starts in 1975 are all at the highest levels of recent years.
    Mr. Campbell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many areas of Scotland,
    1314
    including my constituency of Dunbartonshire, West have no housing problem and that the problem must be concentrated in Glasgow and one or two other areas—[Laughter.]—in Scotland?
    Mr. Brown: There is nothing funny about this. There is a good deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says. It is precisely for this reason that we have issued a circular asking all housing authorities to give us the returns showing housing needs and showing comprehensively how they intend to tackle them. I am sure that they will confirm what my hon. Friend has said in the areas of many authorities.
    Mr. Monro: In view of the present high unemployment in Scotland, will the hon. Gentleman see how he could help the construction industry in relation to housing and other local authority construction by increasing the speed of approval of grants of all sorts which might bring work into that industry in the near future?
    Mr. Brown: There is no limit to the resources available for new house building. If the hon. Gentleman has any information about any delay in my office regarding approvals and so on, I shall certainly investigate it. But if he is talking about other construction work, or other work involving the building industry, there are limitations on public resources for housing improvement and so on. Those activities are labour intensive. But I repeat that the expenditure is still at record levels, so we are making a substantial contribution to the construction industry.

    Local Authorities (Staff)
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many officials were employed in local government at June 1975.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Milan): On the basis adopted in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 30th July 1975, about 258,000, which includes about 10,000 employees engaged on responsibilities transferred to local authorities on reorganisation.—[Vol. 896, c. 536.]
    Mr. Galbraith: Is the Minister aware that those figures represent a staggering

    1315
    increase of almost 50 per cent. in the number of local government officials over the past 15 years? Is not this vast and expensive growth of officialdom the real cause of so much of the discontent in Scotland? Surely, with this example before him, it is extraordinary that the Secretary of State should propose to set up an Assembly, which will mean more officials and higher taxes. How can he justify such prodigality of men and money, and what will he do to reduce the present increases?
    Mr. Millan: I should not care to go back over 15 years, but in that period local authorities have had considerably more responsibilities placed on them. These figures cover the provision of many essential local services. I would not accept the hon. Member's analysis of the reason for any discontent that there may be in Scotland and I do not want to go back over the debate that we have had in the past week. But he will know that, in the rate support grant and other negotiations with local authorities, we have already made it clear that we do not want to see increases in local authority staffing.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: But does not the Minister agree that many services in Scotland are still substantially short of skilled manpower? For example, will he assure the House that work in the social work services area, which is badly in need of more personnel, will not be subjected to any restrictions in staff?
    Mr. Milan: I could not say that it will not be subjected to any restrictions, but what we have said to local authorities is that some services obviously have greater priority than others for increased staffing if the staff are available, but that if increased numbers are taken on in those services, reductions should be made elsewhere to keep the figures within the guidelines that we have given local authorities.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that when local government in Scotland was reorganised, we were promised that it would mean economies in staff and resources? Is he also aware that not only local but all public authorities, from Whitehall downwards, have increased their staff? That is partly due to the burden laid upon them by this place, but will he do his best to ensure less legisla-
    1316
    tion and some economy in administration?
    Mr. Millan: Local authority staff include important people such as teachers. I have never known any hon. Member call on the Government to reduce the number of teachers. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that this is a long-term trend. Certain consequences have followed local government reform, but local authority staffs have increased over the years. At the moment we cannot afford to continue to increase at local authority level as we did in the past.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to be present at a meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Reidasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to be present at a meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers.
    Mrs. Bainasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to attend a meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Ministers of the Scottish Office attend Council meetings when matters of particular importance to Scotland are to be discussed. I would emphasise, however, that Ministers and officials attending EEC Council and Committee meetings do so as representatives of the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Wilson: Given the fact that Scottish Office Ministers have attended meetings of the Council of Ministers on only five occasions and given the importance of the EEC in all ranges of matters affecting Scotland, does not the Secretary of State agree that it is shocking that Scotland has not engaged in deliberations at Council of Ministers level more often?
    Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that an arrangement will be worked out whereby a Scottish Office Minister will always keep a watching brief, if not an active brief, on matters of interest to Scotland at the Council of Ministers?
    Mr. Ross: A watching brief is kept constantly. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no Minister attends the Council of Ministers without knowing exactly the Scottish interest and without being able to represent it.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of times a Scottish Minister has attended the Council of Ministers. Last year a Minister went there four times. Under the previous Conservative Administration, too, Scottish Office Ministers were sent to Europe. The hon. Gentleman has underestimated the number of times that Scottish Ministers have attended Council meetings. I assure him that when matters of importance to Scotland are dealt with a Scottish Office Minister will be present and he will ensure that our interest is well and truly understood and represented.
    Mr. Reid: When the Secretary of State next attends the Council of Ministers, will he discuss those EEC directives and legislation that will impinge on subjects to be devolved to the Scottish Assembly? Will he give some indication of current Government thinking in this area? Does he absolutely rule out the possibility of the Assembly having its own sessional committee to deal with such secondary legislation?
    Mr. Ross: It is too early at this stage to go into the Committee stage of a Devolution Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that attention will be paid to all those points. He suggested that I should raise certain matters when I attend the Council. He will appreciate that the agenda is laid down not always to suit any particular point of view but rather to deal with matters that have arisen. Important matters to Scotland will arise and I assure him that our opinion will be made known and represented.
    Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to establish a permanent and separate Scottish representative on the Council of Ministers would require the establishment of a permanent and separate Scottish State? Does he not further agree that it is a gross deception and confidence trick upon the Scottish people to argue for such a separate representative while denying standing for separation? That remark applies both to Opposition Members and
    1318
    to some hon. Members who sit on the Government side of the House.
    Mr. Ross: The suggestion of independent representation implies the status of independence. There is no reason for Scottish National Party or other hon. Members to deny that.
    Mr. Sproat: When the right hon. Gentleman next speaks to his European colleagues, will he clear up a mystery? Last Thursday, Mr. Lardinois said that no renegotiations on the common fisheries policy were taking place. Every time the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend the Minister of State speak, they say that renegotiations are taking place. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is telling the truth?
    Mr. Ross: We raised this matter with the Council of Ministers and it agreed to carry out a review of the policy. The Commission has been working on this issue. It has produced a working document, which is very helpful as far as it goes. We are pressing for proposals to be brought forward as soon as possible. Therefore, this reappraisal is taking place.
    Mrs. Bain: I recognise the Secretary of State's great interest in education matters. However, will lie ensure that a Minister from the Scottish Office is present when education is next discussed at the Council of Ministers? Will he bear in mind the possibility of university research being co-ordinated on a European basis?
    Mr. Ross: It is a bit much for the hon. Lady to expect me to promise that a Scottish Office Minister will go into every point that touches Scotland. That will depend on the importance of the point and on the ministerial relationship to it. It is important that whoever represents the United Kingdom should appreciate the importance to Scotland of particular aspects.

    Economic Situation
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the Scottish economy.
    Mr. William Ross: As I have said on previous occasions, the Scottish economy cannot be insulated entirely from the

    1319
    world recession which has seriously affected almost all industrial countries. The present level of unemployment in Scotland is a matter of grave concern, although the increase in the past year has been well below the average for Great Britain. Sustained economic progress in Scotland, as in the British economy as a whole, will depend on success in the fight against inflation and on achieving satisfactory growth in exports and investment.
    Mr. Taylor: Is not the Secretary of State ashamed to be a leading member of the Administration when there are 162,000 unemployed in Scotland? Bearing in mind that the Government's present policies appear to be offering no prospect other than a lot more unemployment when other countries are recovering, does not the right hon. Gentleman have an obligation to Scotland to resign his post and make way for someone who can offer a better prospect to the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: We are faced with a grave situation, but it will not be assisted by that kind of comment. The hon. Gentleman mentioned today's unemployment figure. The unemployment figure quoted in the Press this morning was a count taken on 8th January when 12,100 students from universities and colleges were included. Already most, if not all, of them are back at university or college.
    The hon. Gentleman should deal objectively with the facts of the situation. In Scotland there is a leaving date at the end of the Christmas holidays. People know exactly when these holidays fall. The number of school leavers plus adult students amounted to over 22,000.
    I do not deny that, even if we dismiss seasonal factors, the figure is serious. The total of unemployed rose by 4,300. That is a serious situation, but if we had taken the advice of Conservative Members, who voted against the Chrysler settlement, that figure would have been up by another 8,000.
    Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the action which the Government have already taken to support the Scottish ecenomy is welcome? Will he accept that it is a developing situation? In view of the pressures on the steel industry and the employment situation in that industry, will my right hon. Friend
    1320
    give an assurance, first, that the agreed dates of closure of plant under the Beswick Report will not be advanced and, secondly, that any change in the long-term manning position in the British steel industry will be taken into account in future employment policies for Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend knows quite well that I am not the Minister responsible for the steel industry, although that does not mean that I do not have an interest in it. I am certainly concerned about the developing position in the steel industry. Late last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced some measures, but not all the results have yet fed through into the economy. We cannot ignore that we are faced with a difficult situation and that unemployment has implications in policies beyond purely employment policies. Let no one think that we are complacent about it, but let us not be counselled by hysteria, propaganda or panic.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the Secretary of State accept that exchanges such as those he has had with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) are of little relevance to Scottish unemployment, which is extremely grave and deteriorating? The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) spoke about the steel industry. Is the right hon. Gentleman making representations—if, as we are told, he is Scotland's representative in the Cabinet—to ensure that the British Steel Corporation places a fair share of orders with the Scottish steel plants and does not cut them by three times the rate that it has cut orders to plants in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Ross: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures or suggestions. At all meetings affecting Scotland and concerning steel the Scottish Office has been represented, and its voice is not always unheard.
    Mr. Selby: Is it not a fact that there are two areas in England with a higher rate of unemployment than that of Scotland, and that this is not a geographic problem but one of the breakdown of capitalism?
    Mr. Ross: It is no great joy to say that the position in Wales, the North of England or the North-East is worse than

    1321
    that in Scotland. What it demonstrates is the effect upon the Scottish economy of the world recession. It is towards that and towards United Kingdom policies to deal with the whole country that we must bend our minds
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Despite the arithmetical gloss that the right hon. Gentleman might try to put on the figures, does he accept that one of the most disturbing features of these figures is the number of young people unemployed? Analysis shows that between 2,500 and 3,000 school leavers have been unemployed since they left school last summer. Putting that fact together with the Euroscot Report from the Scottish Standing Conference of Voluntary Organisations, which demonstrates a very high level of despair among young people in Scotland today, will the right hon. Gentleman say specifically what he is doing for young people, whose problem is the most acute?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is right. The number of unemployed young people in December was 2,900. That compares with nearly 15,000 when we had the last big school-leaving date, which was in August. I remember the posters of Opposition Members: they should now be changing them every week as young people find jobs, because 19 out of 20 of those who left school last summer have found jobs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Some have gone back to school."] They are not all back at school. The number of unemployed school leavers today is less than it was in August, despite the fact that between 16,000 and 18,000 youngsters—I do not have the precise figures—left school at the New Year.
    However, we have been producing plans for the employment of young people. Perhaps some of the conditions about how long they have to be unemployed before being eligible for schemes could be looked at again. However, hon. Members should not think that we are complacent about the figure: we are very concerned about it.

    Fishing Vessels (Construction)
    Sir John Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fishing vessels are at present being built in Scottish boat yards.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Forty-three fishing vessels are currently being built with assistance from public funds. There are also, I understand, two being built speculatively and four for export.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the present state of the fishing industry does not give confidence for the continued placing of orders for new fishing vessels, and will he take urgent steps to formulate a really effective fishing policy in the light of present circumstances?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, I would agree. I am concerned about the level of work in the boatbuilding industry, which has obviously reflected the uncertainty and, indeed, the difficult fishing years of 1974 and 1975. However, I think that the current scene on the catching side is improving and will ultimately lead to improvement on the building side as well.

    Fishing Industry (Oban)
    Mr. MacCormickasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding facilities for the fishing industry in Oban.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Oban and District Fishermen's Association recently submitted representations about the condition of the South Pier at Oban and its possible acquisition by the association as a berthing place. These are matters for Strathclyde Regional Council as owners of the pier and the association is being informed accordingly.
    Mr. MacCormick: I thank the Minister for his reply. I know that he is a frequent visitor to Oban and will be aware of the fairly chaotic conditions there. However, will he appreciate that at present Strathclyde Regional Council does not have the cash to put in train the works required? Will he put pressure on the regional council to make it negotiate with the association?
    Mr. Brown: That is a possibility, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the proposals submitted by Oban Town Council in 1966 to reconstruct the South Pier at an estimated cost of £200,000 were approved in principle, with a grant of 75 per cent. under the Fisheries Act 1955, but, for various reasons, they were not proceeded with. I can only repeat that it is a matter for either the Strathclyde

    1323
    Region or the Scottish Transport Group, which own the three piers between them.

    Scottish Development Agency
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of the Scottish Development Agency.
    Mr. Bruce Milian: My right hon. Friend and I are available to meet the Chairman as occasion may require. Close and continuing contact is maintained with the Agency at all levels.
    Mr. Crawford: In view of Scotland's appalling unemployment record—and here I should say that none of us on the SNP Bench wants Scotland compared with Merseyside, but rather with Norway and Sweden—will the Minister of State ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who tells us how valuable he is in the Cabinet, to press his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise the budget for the Scottish Development Agency to £300 million a year? Will he also instruct the SDA to carry out feasibility studies into the establishment of a Scottish motor corporation, a Scottish steel corporation and a Scottish electronics advisory authority so that the talking can stop and the action start? Only in this way can we get going in Scotland a really vibrant economy.
    Mr. Milian: I have no intention of instructing the SDA as the hon. Gentleman suggested. No doubt the SDA will take the hon. Gentleman's suggestions for what they are worth. The SDA itself, through the person of its chief executive, has said only this week that it feels that it has a budget with which it could do a very good job for Scotland. If it finds that it wants more money, no doubt it will tell us.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people on Merseyside are deeply concerned about the unemployment in Scotland as well as about the unemployment on Merseyside? We do not feel that the unemployed Scottish workers should be unemployed. Is it not disgraceful that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) should make statements of that kind, and is it not that sort of statement that will lead to the very backlash which I hope will not come from the English people?
    Mr. Milan: I can only absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I should add that in the recent crisis situation the workers at Linwood made it clear to the Government that they were looking not for a Linwood solution but for a solution for Chrysler United Kingdom Limited. If that sort of attitude would just occasionally impress itself upon the SNP, we should not hear offensive nonsense from SNP Members so often.
    Mr. David Steel: When the Minister next meets the Chairman of the SDA, will be discuss with him the possibility of the Development Commission continuing its work for a little longer than originally planned in the Scottish rural areas? The SDA will have many problems on its hands in the main development areas and the Development Commission is doing a good job which could, perhaps, be usefully continued for another couple of years.
    Mr. Milian: I have already dealt with that matter on previous occasions. We have arrangements to make sure that there is no hiatus in the work being done. These arrangements are satisfactory not only to the SDA but to the Development Commission itself. I have discussed this matter on more than one occasion with Donald Chapman, the Chairman of the Commission.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the House how much cash will be available to the Agency this year and next after allowance has been made for the functions which it has taken over from other agencies? Is he aware that we have made many attempts to discover that figure and that the Government have refused to tell us?
    Mr. Millan: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the White Paper on public expenditure, which I think will be published next month. The important thing is that there is no lack of money that is holding back the Agency. I do not believe that that will ever be the position.

    Nursing Staff
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the complement of nursing staff in the National

    1325
    Health Service in Scotland; and what is the actual number of nursing staff employed in the NHS.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): There is no nationally agreed complement of nursing staff in Scotland. The number of nursing staff employed is a matter for determination by each health board having regard to the requirements of the area and the resources available. At 31st March 1975 there were 47,550 nursing staff—whole-time equivalents—employed in the hospital service and approximately 3,700 in the community nursing services.
    Mr. Canavan: I thank my hon. Friend for his recent assurance that all the student and pupil nurses at Lennox Castle and Waverley Park hospitals will be offered continued employment in those hospitals. However, on the more general question of nursing recruitment, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that any staffing cuts as a result of the present economic situation might create a permanent gap in the National Health Service, because, when the economy eventually picks up, potential nursing recruits might be attracted to more financially rewarding jobs in, for example, industry and commerce? Does my hon. Friend agree that the present economic recession is an ideal time to step up nursing recruitment instead of reducing it?
    Mr. McElhone: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. This is a matter for the health boards. The total number of nursing staff in post on 31st March last year showed an increase over the previous six months of approximately 7 per cent. I am not aware of any proposal to reduce the number of qualified nursing staff, although the number has increased in the past year. In my hon. Friend's constituency the Forth Valley Health Board has had an increase of 9·2 per cent. as against the national increase of 7·7 per cent over the past year.
    Mr. Thompson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the problem that is arising in places such as Dumfries, where, because of the centralisation of all the main hospitals in the one town, the pool of nursing talent has been scooped clean? Will the hon. Gentleman consider decentralising the facilities that we are hoping to obtain
    1326
    in Dumfries and Galloway for the mentally handicapped and take another look at the provision of domiciliary services in the mentally handicapped sector?
    Mr. McElhone: I am not aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses, but I am prepared to look into the matter and to write to him.

    Marriage Law
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reform the marriage laws in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 as recommended in the 1969 Kilbrandon Committee's Report, paragraph 114.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): To extend recognition in Scotland to marriages of non-Christian religious bodies, as proposed in paragraph 114 of the Kilbrandon Committee's Report on the Marriage Law of Scotland, while incorporating the safeguards and changes on which the Committee's recommendation was conditional, would involve a fairly extensive Bill. I consider that it would be preferable to deal with the matter in a comprehensive Marriage Bill, which would also implement other recommendations of the Committee, but I cannot yet say when it will be possible to find parliamentary time for this legislation.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that recently an English boy serving in Her Majesty's Forces wanted to marry an Airdrie girl and that, because of his service to the country, he could not fulfil the residential qualification of 21 days? It cost him £23 to obtain a licence, together with legal fees, to marry the girl. Does not my hon. Friend think that this is a grave injustice? [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap at the price."] Bonny lassies in Airdrie are worth an awful lot more, but the lawyers and the sheriffs are taking the money. Does my hon. Friend think that some steps should be taken as soon as possible to end such a grave injustice being imposed on young serving soldiers who live elsewhere than in Scotland?
    Mr. Ewing: I am sure that the person concerned would consider the money well spent. However, I recognise that this is one of the prevailing problems in the existing marriage laws. It is one of the matters that we are considering. We shall deal with it as soon as parliamentary time becomes available.
    Mr. Hutchison: Will the Minister consider the possibility of the legislation that is contemplated in my Question being handled by a Private Member, with perhaps some help from the Scottish Office? It cannot be such a vast or difficult undertaking.
    Mr. Ewing: I do not discount the difficulties involved in such a suggestion, but I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall consider what he has said.
    Mr. Rifkind: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Divorce (Scotland) Bill introduced by my noble Friend Lord Selkirk has now completed all its stages in another place? Would it not be sensible for this place to find time to consider that Bill rather than to have two Bills running in double harness? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such a course would ensure that this necessary reform, which is desired by a strong majority on both sides of the House, was not delayed for many more months?
    Mr. Ewing: Divorce, while related somewhat loosely to marriage, has little or nothing to do with the Question. In fairness to the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick), I should say that his Private Member's Bill on divorce law reform will be coming before the House in the not-too-distant future. For the moment I prefer to leave the matter at that.

    Building Societies Association (Agreement)
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the operation of his recent agreement with the Building Societies Association.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The results available so far are disappointing. But the scheme has been operating for less than three months during the acknowledged quiet season for house purchase. I hope
    1328
    that the rate of successful loan applications will now increase significantly.
    Mr. Cook: Does my hon. Friend accept that those of us with constituents particularly affected by the restriction on local authority mortgages very much welcome the agreement that he has been able to reach with the building societies? Will he give an undertaking to press for a continuation of the agreement next year if, as seems likely, the restrictions on local authority loans continue? In the course of the negotiations will my hon. Friend undertake to consider the conditions of a mortgage under the agreement? Is he aware that there has been some criticism that the expectation of a 30-year future life for a dwelling house is over-restrictive and has excluded many houses that might have qualified for such a mortgage?
    Mr. Brown: I am aware of the difficulties. This is one of the specific difficulties to which reference has been made. We have encouraged housing authorities to discuss it with building societies at local level. We hope that an availability of resources will be forthcoming from the building societies. We are having early meetings with them to discuss future operations as well as some of the difficulties arising out of our experience of the current scheme.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the building societies take far more out of Scotland in the form of deposits and repayments than they ever put back in the form of mortgages? This means that many millions of pounds are leaving Scotland every year. Will he encourage United Kingdom building societies to invest more in Scotland, and especially for lower income groups and young married couples?
    Mr. Brown: The tedious repetition of false statistics is in accordance with the Goebbels technique. The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that the Nation-wide Society, which I think is the largest in Scotland, has recently been pointing out that his contention is not the case as regards that society.
    Mr. Welsh: What about the others? The statistics came from a previous parliamentary answer.
    Mr. Brown: The element that the hon. Gentleman deliberately ignores or distorts—this is why I accuse the SNP of not recognising the facts—is that home ownership in Scotland is at a much lower level than elsewhere. Therefore, the circumstances are entirely different.
    Mr. Welsh: That is the whole point.

    Loch Ness (Wild Life)
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to protect wild life in Loch Ness.
    Mr. William Ross: If there is evidence establishing that there is wild life in Loch Ness in need of protection, I shall carefully consider making use of powers available to me to provide the protection required.
    Mr. Jessel: Has the Secretary of State received any report about the three-hour seminar that took place in this building last month when substantial evidence of great scientific interest was given concerning the existence of a large animal in Loch Ness? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Loch Ness monster is in need of protection, because it is believed that it must feed on salmon which are prolific in Loch Ness and there may be commercial interests also seeking salmon that could jeopardise the Loch Ness monster?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman asked whether I had had a report of that seminar. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for agricultural and other matters in the Scottish Office attended the seminar. My hon. Friend was impressed, but I do not think that he was convinced. I believe that we should all have open minds in this matter. [Laughter.] If there were sufficient evidence available, I am sure that all those hon. Members who are now laughing would now be on their feet demanding that I should take steps to give protection. We possess certain powers and, if the existence of the monster is proved, we shall use them.
    Mr. David James: May I first thank the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for attending the seminar, which I organised? Is he aware that the visual evidence is at least as strong at Loch Morar and Loch Lochy as at Loch Ness, and only
    1330
    marginally less so in regard to Loch Shiel and Loch Oich? As one might be dealing with a species that is declining in numbers and that could even become extinct, would it not be better to play safe rather than to take risks and for the Secretary of State, without prejudice, now to extend protection to that species, which has now been designated "nessiteras rhombopteryx"?
    Mr. Ross: I believe that any action at the present time would be precipitate. I suggest that the best thing that can happen is for somebody to take a look at what is happening in the lakes in the Lake District to see whether there is any other life there.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the widely-held belief that the SNP, as with all things Scottish, has taken out a patent on the monster?
    Mr. Ross: So far as I know, that is not exactly true. I would point out that the two hon. Members who took the trouble to organise the seminar were Members with English constituencies.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that any additional powers are extended to cover Scottish Conservatives who, as a species, are disappearing quite as fast as the monster?
    Mr. Ross: I agree that there is every evidence of that happening. The Loch Ness monster has looked after itself reasonably well for 700 million—or maybe 70 million—years, and I do not think that it is in immediate danger in the present Session.

    Devolution
    Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the rôle which he foresees for himself when the Government's proposals for devolution are implemented.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: The proposed rôle of the Secretary of State for Scotland is set out in detail in Part V of the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy: Devolution to Scotland and Wales".
    Mr. Gould: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us believe that the Government's basic devolution structure is right, but we are nevertheless concerned about the possibility of long-term

    1331
    damage being inflicted by a political conflict between the Assembly and Westminster, as seems implicit in the White Paper proposals? Is it not better to seek to define as closely as possible the respective areas of competence and leave it to the courts rather than to the politicians to decide what is or is not valid Scottish legislation?
    Mr. Ross: The House has already debated this subject for four days and the matter mentioned by my hon. Friend was well aired. We said that we would further consider whether to use the courts. I was impressed by the fact that one newspaper, printed in Manchester, advocated getting rid of the Secretary of State altogether—with a certain measure of approval from the Liberal Benches. I assure the House that that report was rather exaggerated.
    Mr. Rifkind: As we have been discussing possibly extinct species, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, even if that report is exaggerated, the Government are considering reducing the powers of his office to meet criticisms of the White Paper?
    Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman believes that report, he will believe anything.
    Mr. Reid: Given the Secretary of State's new governor-general type of powers, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the statement—or, as I see it, threat—by the Lord President of the Council in the debate last Wednesday when he said that even if Scotland were to obtain independence, public opinion or international law might prevent it? What public opinion and what international law? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's belief that if the people want self-determination they have a right to it?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is right to try to make a better speech today than he did when he addressed the House on devolution. All these matters were relevant at the time and will be again. As for my having governor-general type powers, I must point out that the powers in the hands of the Secretary of State are governmental powers, and even in respect of more formal powers a Secretary of
    1332
    State is still subject and responsible to this House.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the White Paper that we were discussing last week has "green" edges, that its proposals about his powers are by no means absolutely definite, and that this whole scheme could still be qualified and modified in the weeks to come?
    Mr. Ross: I hoped that I had made the point clear when I replied to the debate last week, especially on the subject of change. Equally, I made it clear that in devolution the sovereignty of this Parliament must still be recognised.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has to reduce unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Milan: The measures I described in my reply to the hon. Member on 10th December are substantial ones. Since then my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced further steps, including an extension of the temporary employment subsidy and the community industry scheme, and the relaxation of some hire-purchase controls, which will benefit Scotland. The hon. Member will now be aware that our decision on Chrysler has saved over 5,000 jobs in Scotland.—[Vol. 902, c. 450–1.]
    Mr. Henderson: As one of the hon. Members who assisted the Government to save Chrysler, may I say how pleased we are to hear the concluding part of the Minister's answer. However, will the Minister explain to the 162,000 workers who are unemployed in Scotland when they can expect to see the unemployment rate brought down to the same level as in Norway, where unemployment stands at a figure of only 1 per cent.?
    Mr. Milan: I do not think that such comparisons are valid, but in answer to a supplementary question I cannot deal with the reasons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already said, and I confirm, that the unemployment figure in Scotland is far too high. It will of course come down when we get an upturn in the economy,

    1333
    which depends partly on the world trading situation and partly on getting inflation properly under control.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I welcome the steps taken so far by the Government to deal with temporary unemployment and so forth. However, is the Minister aware that on the Labour Benches there is great concern about the level of unemployment? Will he and other members of the Government reflect that what is required to change the situation is a radical alteration of course towards major reflation as quickly as possible? If he is still considering public expenditure cuts in the years ahead, does he not agree that such cuts will do nothing to help employment?
    Mr. Milian: I agree with my hon. Friend's earlier remarks. We should like to reach a reflationary situation as soon as possible, but I repeat that this means getting some other difficult economic problems under control, one problem being that of inflation and another the balance of payments. When we are able to deal with those matters, nobody will be more pleased than I to see the reflation that will be the real answer to Scotland's problems.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Having listened to the Secretary of State's plea in mitigation of the Scottish unemployment situation in reply to Question No. 4 and having impartially considered the matter, I should like to ask whether the Minister realises that the Scottish people will find the Government guilty, since any attempt to say when in office "I am not responsible, but somebody else is" will not wash.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fire of nationalism is what the people of Scotland will jump into out of the frying pan of high taxation, low employment and bureaucracy, which are the inevitable consequences of this frightful Government?
    Mr. Milian: I have never considered the hon. and learned Member to be an economic expert, and he has just confirmed my view.

    Special Rating Districts
    Mr. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce
    1334
    legislation to restore special rating districts.
    Mr. Milian: No, Sir.
    Mr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware of the indignation felt by many country folk at the fact that they are having to pay for services that they do not receive? Does he realise that in the past, if they did not receive these services, they did not pay for them? Can he give a categoric assurance that we are not facing a gradual edging of the population of the countryside to the towns and villages in order to set free more houses for second home owners?
    Mr. Milan: I think that I can give the hon. Member that assurance. His first point was rightly dealt with as a matter of principle in the Local Government Act 1973. I realise how a number of people feel about this matter, but I believe that the general principle in the 1973 Act is the right one.
    Mr. Corrie: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he expects any change in the situation in Scotland under which people whose properties are not attached to a main sewerage system still have to pay rates? Is he aware that there has been such a change in England?
    Mr. Millan: The English decision was made in entirely different circumstances. Sewerage in England is not provided by local authorities as it is in Scotland.

    Grant-aided Schools
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the phasing out of the grant from Scottish grant-aided schools.
    Mr. McElhone: There has been no alteration of the policy announced on 11th March last year—that the grant will be phased out over a period of six years beginning in the financial year 1976–77.
    Mr. Rifkind: Is the Minister aware that his decision last week to refuse the Lothian Regional Council permission to acquire Mary Erskine's School was a direct consequence of Government policy and has been greeted with contempt and derision, not merely by opposition parties but by the Government's own erstwhile

    1335
    supporters in the region? Is the Minister totally unconcerned about existing overcrowding in Edinburgh, or is he prepared to be blind and foolish rather than depart from a policy which has already been shown, in the eyes of Labour supporters, to be disastrous for the provision of education in Edinburgh?
    Mr. McElhone: The hon. Member should stop exaggerating the situation week after week both on the Floor of the House and in the Press. The school has 1,000 pupils. The programme will be, first, that the primary school will be phased out, leaving 600 secondary pupils. The number of schools involved in the catchment areas from where these pupils come is 13, with another 91 outside the Edinburgh area. We are therefore talking about the remaining 250 pupils. No evidence of serious overcrowding in the West End of Edinburgh has been put to me or my right hon. Friends. In any case, we are not fairly disposed to a scheme that will commit the Government to allow over £400,000 a year for 25 years.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Does my hon. Friend accept that the result of the decision will be no endowment of the fees of the remaining Merchant Company schools, and that there is a serious fear among the Labour movement in Edinburgh that more than 1,000 pupils will drop out of these schools and come into the State system next autumn? If that situation develops early in the autumn, will the Government be prepared to respond to it as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. McElhone: If it appears that the accommodation difficulties are becoming acute, of course we shall always take another look at them.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland encouraged all grant-aided schools to enter consultations with the local authorities with a view to becoming local comprehensive schools if they wished? By their recent decision the Government have completely gone back on their word.
    Mr. McElhone: I recognise the desire of the Conservative Party to perpetuate the need for grant-aided schools, but we do not concur with its policy. We are more interested in the pupils than in the buildings.

    LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND
    Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Advocate when he next proposes to meet the Law Society of Scotland.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I have at present no plans to meet the Law Society of Scotland. I am, of course, frequently in contact with the President of the Society on matters of mutual concern.
    Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with the Law Society the suggestion, put forward by hon. Members from both sides of the House during the devolution debate, that some form of judicial tribunal should decide whether a Scottish Assembly Bill is intra vires or ultra vires? Does he not think that this would help in some way to release the Assembly from the Westminster veto and that it would be more democratic and more legally acceptable than the White Paper's proposal that the United Kingdom Government should decide the vires of any Assembly Bills?
    The Lord Advocate: The Law Society of Scotland has submitted a memorandum covering the whole of the White Paper, including these matters, and it will be given careful consideration by the Government, along with all other representations.
    Whether to have a judicial review before or after the enactment of a Bill was discussed in the White Paper. Paragraph 57 refers to a review during the passage of the Bill and other matters are dealt with in paragraphs 61 to 65. The Government have an open mind about having a review after a Bill has been enacted and they are prepared to listen to the arguments, including the interesting arguments put during the devolution debate.
    As for other matters, including a reference to a court during the passage of a Bill through the Assembly, the Lord President and the Minister of State made clear during the devolution debate that the Government's mind was not closed on that matter, and they are certainly prepared to consider all the arguments presented to them. I am conscious of the advantages of a judicial review, but it must be recognised that there are also disadvantages.

    GLASGOW COURTS
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord Advocate when he next intends to visit the courts in Glasgow.
    The Lord Advocate: I intend to visit the courts in Glasgow soon.
    Mr. Taylor: I am very glad about that. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the anxiety in Glasgow about the substantial increase in the number of cases coming before the courts, particularly the sheriff court, involving violence? Is the Lord Advocate satisfied that the courts have the facilities to cope with this increase? Is he prepared to discuss with his right hon. Friends new policies to deal with the upsurge in violence?
    The Lord Advocate: The provision of courts is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Government are looking into jury accommodation, and plans for the new sheriff court building are at a very advanced stage and costings are being examined. There are no instant remedies for the problem of crime, particularly violence. Excessive drinking and the carrying of offensive weapons are two features that can be isolated and they can be usefully considered in the review being carried out by the Government in the light of the Thomson Committee's Report.

    DEVOLUTION
    Mr. Thompsonasked the Lord Advocate what discussions he has had with the legal profession concerning the White Paper on Devolution.
    The Lord Advocate: I have not, as yet, had formal discussions with the legal profession on the White Paper. However, in response to the Government's invitation, observations on the proposals contained in the White Paper have been received from the judges and from the Law Society of Scotland and the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates has submitted preliminary views on certain aspects of the Government's proposals. We are very grateful for these replies, which are being carefully studied.
    Mr. Thompson: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how the Gov-
    1338
    ernment will respond to section 9(9) of the Law Society memorandum, which suggests that the House of Lords should travel to Scotland to hear Scottish appeals? Would he not agree that a few breaths of clear Edinburgh air would do the most eminent legal minds a considerable amount of good and, apart from refreshing them, would make justice less costly for appellants in the supreme court?
    The Lord Advocate: I do not think that I want to go beyond my original reply. The memorandum and all its details are being carefully considered.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Is the right hon. And learned Gentleman seriously telling the House that the White Paper on devolution and the proposals about the Law Officers were prepared without consultation with the legal profession? Is that not typical of the incompetence with which this ridiculous scheme was framed?
    The Lord Advocate: The answer to the hon. And learned Member is in the negative.

    MURRAYFIELD RUGBY GROUND
    Mr. Fairbairnasked the Lord Advocate how many persons were charged with committing a breach of the peace at the rugby international between Scotland and Australia at Murrayfield.
    The Lord Advocate: None. One person was arrested outside the ground and charged with being drunk and incapable.
    Mr. Fairbaim: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that under the law of Scotland, jeering at the National Anthem of the Kingdom on a public occasion, as was done by many spectators at that match, is a breach of the peace, even if it is an expression of the republican ambitions of the nationalists?
    The Lord Advocate: I cannot accept the hon. and learned Member's account of the facts, or of the law. I did not have the good fortune to attend the match in question, but I watched the beginning on television and I saw nothing untoward. At every major sporting event that I have attended there have

    1339
    been signs of impatience from youthful enthusiasts who have had to queue for hours, and I think that that is what happened on that occasion.
    Mr. MacCormick: Is not the solution to this problem quite simple and was it not seen on television last Saturday when England played Wales? If it is possible for the English Rugby Football Union to play a Welsh song when Wales are the visitors, why cannot the antediluvian people in the Scottish Rugby Football Union play a Scottish song at their matches?
    The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member has made a sensible suggestion. It is desirable that there should be formalities on these occasions, but I do not think they should be protracted.
    Mr. Monro: I declare my interest. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Scottish Rugby Football Union plays the National Anthem as a mark of respect to our Queen and that it saddens the Scottish RFU, as it saddens most Scots, when a few hooligans treat it as an opportunity to show their disloyalty? Does he agree that they ought to take their bad behaviour elsewhere, or spend their energies cheering on Scotland?
    The Lord Advocate: I am happy to agree with the hon. Member.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Lord Advocate what further steps he has recently taken to ensure that the European Commission in formulating EEC legislation is adequately informed of its impact on Scots law.
    The Lord Advocate: I am satisfied, as a result of a discussion which I had last year with the late Dr. Much, then Director-General of the Legal Service of the European Commission, that the Commission is fully aware of the separate nature of the Scottish legal system and is anxious to take Scots law into account in formulating proposals for EEC legislation. I have always sought to assist the Commission in this respect—for example, by ensuring that, where necessary, advice on the law of Scotland is available to Commission working groups.

LEBANON (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
Mr. Amery Mr. Amery (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to protect British lives and property in the Lebanon.
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I am glad to be able to tell the House that there have been no reports so far of any injuries to the remaining members of the British community in Lebanon during the heavy fighting in recent days. Damage to property has, of course, been very heavy, but we have no means of knowing at the present moment to what extent British property is involved.
Our ambassador in Beirut has over the past weeks repeatedly warned members of the British community in Lebanon that they should seriously consider leaving unless there is some overriding reason why they should stay. We shall continue to watch the situation extremely closely and take whatever steps are required to evacuate the remaining members of the British community should it prove necessary.
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing our deep sympathy for all those who have suffered in the recent fighting. It is, however, difficult to see what practical steps outsiders, and particularly countries outside the Arab world, can take in an extremely complex and difficult situation without running the risk of making matters even worse than they are already.
Mr. Amery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that extremely delicate talks are taking place in Beirut between the Lebanese Government and representatives of the Syrian Government? I want to be careful what I say, and I shall fully understand if the Minister of State is cautious in his replies to my questions.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the so-called Palestinian forces that have entered the Lebanon from Syria the day before yesterday, yesterday and overnight are organised units which could not have come across the border without the connivance or agreement of the Syrian Government? Is it correct that they number several thousand? The BBC indicated that they now numbered 4,000

1341
more than yesterday, but I do not know what the exact figure is.
Does the Minister of State agree that this invasion from Syria could, if it were pursued much further, have very serious implications for the free world if it led to the destruction of the Christian community and the pluralist society in the Lebanon? Will he consider urgently taking up discussions with our partners in the EEC to make it clear that we cannot remain indifferent to the break-up of the Lebanon, still less to its conversion into a Marxist State? Would it not be of some help to our American allies in their current discussions in Moscow if we did so?
Mr. Hattersley: As the right hon. Gentleman said, discussions are going on almost literally at this moment. Like him, I do not want to say anything to prejudice the chances of those discussions ending with a degree of success. I shall therefore answer his questions with some caution. No caution is necessary on one point. We have made absolutely clear and public, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put it in his Christmas message to the Lebanese Prime Minister, that our commitment to the continued territorial integrity and independence of Lebanon is absolute. That remains our established policy, a policy we have tried to develop through consultations within the Community, with the United States of America and with the Governments of other countries whom we felt could help in these matters.
On the present military situation, I say only that on our evidence the Palestinian forces that have passed into the Lebanon are probably not as great as some reports have made out. If that is true, the first premise on which the right hon. Gentleman based his question—that they could not have passed over the border without the connivance of the Syrian authorities—does not necessarily stand. However, there would be grave implications if the conflict were to extend and to take on a wider rôle. I can give the assurance that the consultations we have carried on in recent months will be continued with the hope of our playing some part in bringing this issue to an end.
Mr. John Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question for this country is not whether the people of
1342
the Lebanon should decide to become a Marxist State or any other kind of State? That would be a matter for their own sovereignty. It is not our affair. For us the important issue is to insist in the United Nations that the Lebanon, like every other country in the Middle East and elsewhere, must remain free and independent and that no neighbouring Government or State should have the right to intervene with military formations. We should resist in the United Nations, and particularly in the Security Council, any attempt by Syria to do so.
Mr. Hattersley: I mentioned my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's message at Christmas which referred to territorial integrity and independence. That must mean that eventually the people of the Lebanon should have the right to choose the form of government they want, but I hope that they will be able to choose it in peace and in the shortest possible time.
Sir Anthony Royle: I recognise the need for the right hon. Gentleman to be cautious in his replies. Is he, however, aware of the reports this afternoon of the massing of troops by both Israel and Syria on the Lebanese border? Will he consider instigating consultations immediately with our European partners with a view to raising this matter in the United Nations Security Council?
Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is, I think, at this moment considering what conversations should take place between the various members of the EEC. The consultations which go on at that level are often best carried on privately rather than in the glare of publicity, but I understand that the French Foreign Minister said something about this sort of process in public earlier today. As the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, we must look initially to the delicate negotiations which are going on in Beirut and hope that they will bear some fruit.
Mr. Faulds: To return to the Question, I believe that there are about 1,000-plus British citizens still in the Lebanon. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we have available the means of extracting anything like a largish proportion of them if their position became intolerable?

1343
On the political issue, is it not a fact, if we are to get this whole matter into proportion, that on almost every occasion when the fighting has been renewed the provocations have been on the part of the Phalangists, whose behaviour has been anything but Christian, although they wear the emblazoned cross on their tunics? Is it not a fact that the right-wing leaders in Lebanon would barely have the competence to run the Battersea Dogs Home?
Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend is right in stating that about 1,000 British subjects are left in the Lebanon. That is about one-third of the total number there when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary first suggested that they should come home if there were no pressing reasons for them not to do so. Even if the airport remains closed and there are difficulties in travelling overland, there is a contingency plan to enable us to get the British citizens out in time and, I hope, in safety.
Concerning the second part of my hon. Friend's question, in these delicate times—particularly when some hon. Members are calling for action to be taken by the Government—I do not think that it would be wise or prudent of me to make judgments about the intentions or competence of any of the parties.
Mr. Tugendhat: I am sure that we should all like to pay tribute to the considerable efforts of the British diplomatic mission in Beirut. I was at Beirut airport last week. From what I heard from people there, it would appear that the scale of the fighting, the atrocities and the violence is even worse than reported. The embassy deserves some tribute.
I should like the Minister to be aware that we entirely support what he said about the integrity of the Lebanese territory. We also believe that nothing should he said or done that will prejudice the discussions taking place today. We believe that this is clearly a problem which is best solved by the Lebanese people and their Arab neighbours. If, however, any outside help should be required, will the Minister assure us that the countries of the European Economic Community will work together and not take separate and individual initiatives apart from each other?
Mr. Hattersley: Yes, of course the countries of the European Economic Community will certainly work together, and that means consulting each other. As is very often the case, however, not only in the Middle East but in other areas of the world, when the EEC is consulted it is often best for one member of the EEC with special associations or connections with a country or area to take the lead in these matters. I am not predicting it but am simply saying that that may be the kind of course to take this time.
I am grateful for the kind things the hon. Member said about the staff who remain in Beirut. I know that they will read his words with very great appreciation.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION FOR FRIDAY 30TH JANUARY
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Paul Dean

Mr. Peter Hardy

Mr. Arthur Palmer.

BILLS PRESENTED
  HOUSING (AMENDMENT) SCOTLAND
  Mr. Secretary Ross, supported by Mr. Hugh D. Brown, and Mr. Robert Sheldon, presented a Bill to amend Section 25(1) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
  WATER CHARGES
  Mr. Secretary Crosland, supported by Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. John Silkin, Mr. Joel Barnett, and Mr. Attorney General, presented a Bill to make provision for the refund of certain charges made by water authorities in England and Wales in respect of the financial years 1974–75 and 1975–76 and as to the scope of the powers of such authorities to make charges: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY (ADDITIONAL BENEFITS)
  3.43 p.m.
  Mr. John Golding: I beg to move
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the payment out of the National Insurance Fund of a heating allowance for pensioners and those on long-term Social Security Benefit and of a Christmas bonus for pensioners in 1976.
  In introducing the Bill I am able to express the strong view of the North Staffordshire retired members' section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, who have asked me to protest against the abolition of the £10 Christmas bonus, which was first pressed for by the Transport and General Workers' Union—and particularly by its general secretary, Jack Jones—through the Trades Union Congress.
  The TUC opposed the abolition of the £10 bonus and suggested, after its opposition had been unsuccessful, a heating allowance. My Bill attempts to implement the policy of the General Council that, in the absence of a 1975 Christmas bonus, there should be a heating allowance of not less than £10.
  While I do not agree with the Government in rejecting both the Christmas bonus and the heating allowance. I must acknowledge that they present a substantial case to answer. The promise at the February 1974 General Election to introduce the £16 pension for married couples and £10 for single persons was quickly fulfilled, and pensions have since been increased in line with the increase in earnings.
  The Secretary of State said of the Christmas bonus that:
  "A bonus is bound to be somewhat arbitrary in coverage and excludes a number of people who benefit from a general uprating."—[Official Report, 22nd May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 1624]
  Despite the fact that the Labour Government added a million widowed, chronically sick and disabled persons to those to whom the bonus was paid, there were many anomalies including the exclusion of those on long-term supplementary benefits. Many have opposed it as a sop and as being no answer to the problem of low incomes for pensioners and have
  1346
  drawn attention to the fact that the bonus was given tax-free to some who had no need of it at all.
  The Government therefore abandoned th £10 bonus in favour of paying a higher weekly pension than would otherwise have been possible. They have also now turned down the request of the TUC for a heating allowance this winter.
  The Minister of State, for whom I have the greatest respect, has said in a letter that
  "full consideration of this proposal within Government has led to the conclusion that it cannot be justified on grounds of cost; of the resources which have already been committed to raising the purchasing power of the pension and increasing the supplementary benefit discretionary heating additions; and of the generally unsatisfactory nature of lump-sum payments as a way of giving increased financial help."
  Despite those arguments—I hope the Government will accept that they have been fairly put—I still believe that bonuses should be paid. The Government have committed a psychological blunder.
  Let me talk first of the Christmas bonus. It was first introduced in 1972 as a once-and-for-all measure, a gesture to help those who were hardest hit by inflation. In 1973 it was linked to Stage 3 of the incomes policy. In 1974 it was paid again.
  Over these three years it became very popular, and only partly because it was neither taxable nor liable to be means-tested for supplementary benefit and rent and rate rebates. It was popular because it was something extra for Christmas, at a time of extra expenses. The Christmas bonus was welcomed because pensioners, who wanted to be able to buy presents for their grandchildren, to offer a drink to a neighbour or even to spoil themselves by buying a tin of salmon and the trimmings for Christmas could do so without great sacrifice. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for most of them to save from the present pension so as to be able once a year to enjoy a modest luxury or two.
  But although this was argued strongly by the North Staffordshire Transport and General Workers' Union retired members, that is not the main reason for my strongly supporting the restoration of the £10 Christmas bonus. In my view it was seen as a present, and people like getting presents.

  1347
  To those who argue, in the best English puritan tradition, that higher weekly payments are best, I ask the question "Have you tried this doctrine on your family, on your children or on your parents? Would you substitute presents by small increases in pocket money or allowances?" The answer will be "No".
  At Christmas I enjoyed delivering parcels from the Mayor of Newcastle-under-Lyme, Bill Welsby, to many people in my constituency, and was impressed by the pleasure the parcels brought. It was not the value of the groceries that pleased people but the thought that they had been remembered.
  The Christmas bonus, like Bill Welsby's parcels, helped to reduce the social isolation of many pensioners. It helped to make them feel wanted. I for one regret that it was not paid in 1975. It ought to be paid in 1976.
  The arguments in favour of paying a heating supplement are somewhat different. For me, one powerful reason is that it makes it easier to return to economic pricing, and this I advocate firmly. If extreme hardship is felt by pensioners as a result of higher charges, economic pricing will be harder to justify and maintain.
  We read today both that fuel charges are to increase in April and that the Government have decided that the tariff structure should not be changed in favour of the small consumer but that problem should be dealt with through social security. I agree with the Government's decision, but further social security action is required beyond the substantial increase in heating allowances already introduced by the Government.
  The difficulties faced by pensioners following the dramatic increase in fuel charges are well known to hon. Members. Additionally, both the Citizens' Advice Bureau service and the British Association of Settlements have kindly presented me with substantial evidence of the considerable hardship faced by pensioners and others. There is no time to spell out in detail the problems of the old. Many
  1348
  spend much of their time in poor housing on an inadequate diet. Studies have clearly shown that many old people live in temperatures below the minimum recommended for comfort and safety. Hypothermia is a dreadful indictment of our society.
  Although retirement pensions have increased by 32½ per cent. since August 1974, the prices of coal and coke, gas, electricity and oil to the domestic consumer have gone up by 52 per cent., 33 per cent., 48 per cent. and 41 per cent. respectively. Given that pensioners spend a much higher proportion on heating than do other people, the severe problem that faces many of them can be clearly seen. Those figures support the case for a heating allowance.
  Mr. Astley, of the North Staffordshire retired members' section of the T and GWU tells me that a little is better than nothing, but we should be prepared to give a lot. We do not want pensioners to be living in dread of their fuel bills this winter. We do not want them to be shivering in discomfort or becoming ill in consequence. The TUC has called for sacrifices from many trade unionists this winter, and I support that call. When it calls for help for the aged, we should also respond to that call for action.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Golding, Mr. R. B. Cant, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. John Forrester, Mr. Les Huckfield, Mr. George Park, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Gwilym Roberts, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. James Wellbeloved and Mr. Alec Woodall.

  SOCIAL SECURITY (ADDITIONAL BENEFITS)
  Mr. John Golding accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the payment out of the National Insurance Fund of a heating allowance for pensioners and those on long-term Social Security benefit and of a Christmas bonus for pensioners in 1976: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6th February and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

  Suggested Amendments
  Mr. Speaker: My selection of amendments has been posted, so I shall not go through it now. I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to

  '. After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section:—

  New Clause

  "CHARTER ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

  5

  1A.—(1) If, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of the Trade 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 practical guidance for employers, trade unions and 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.

  10

  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, practical guidance on matters relating to the freedom of the press must include guidance on 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 right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and to publish any article) and the question of access for contributors.

  15

  20

  (3) If no such charter has been agreed as mentioned above, or if a draft charter laid before Parliament (under subsection (1) above or this subsection) is not approved by resolution of each House of Parliament as mentioned in subsection (6) below, the Secretary of State shall after consultation with the Press Council and such of the parties referred to in subsection (1) above, such organisations representing workers, and such organisations representing employers, as he thinks fit, prepare in draft a charter, as follows:—

  25

  (a) where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be agreement among the parties referred to in subsection (1) above on any matter relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance as he thinks appropriate to give effect to that agreement;

  30

  (b) where, so far as there appears to the Secretary of State to be no such agreement on any of the particular matters referred to in subsection (2) above, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance on that matter as he thinks fit, and the Secretary of State shall lay the draft charter before both Houses of Parliament.

  35

  (4) 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.

  (5) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall provide for the constitution of a body which shall have the functions of—

  40

  (a) hearing any complaint by a person aggrieved by a failure on the part of any other person to observe any provision of the charter;

  (b) issuing to the parties a declaration as to whether such a complaint is well-founded; and

  (c) securing the publication of its decision.

  45

  (6) If a draft laid under subsection (1) or (3) above is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the charter in the form of the draft.

  50

  (7) A charter for the time being in force under this section may be revised from time to time by agreement between such parties as are referred to in subsection (1) above, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised charter before both Houses of Parliament.

  (8) If a draft laid under subsection (7) above is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the revised charter in the form of the draft.

  55

  (9) On issuing a charter or revised charter under subsection (6) or (8) above the Secretary of State shall make by statutory instrument an order specifying the date on which the charter or revised charter is to come into effect.

  take formally the moving of the substantive motion and to go straight to the discussion of the first group of amendments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, pursuant to the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the House suggests to the Lords the following Amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill:

  60

  (10) 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—

  (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."'

  Title
  In Title, line 4, at end add
  'and to provide for a charter on matters relating to the freedom of the press'.—[Mr. Booth.]
  3.53 p.m
  Mr. James Prior: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question Amendment No. 1, in line 13, leave out from 'journalists' to end of line 15 and insert:
  'including the right of journalists not to be unreasonably excluded or expelled from trade unions and to belong to the union of their choice and the right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union, the right of editors to commission and to publish or refuse to publish any material, and the assurance (subject only to editorial discretion) of access to the press of all contributors at all times.'.
  Mr. Speaker: With the amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the Question:
  No. 7, in line 64, at end add—
  '( ) In this section—
  "editor" includes any deputy of such editor;
  "material" includes any matter printed or intended for printing or broadcast or intended for broadcasting by television or radio'.
  No. 8, in line 64, at end add—
  ( ) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall provide that no member of any trade union shall be fined, expelled from any union, prevented or suspended from holding office in any union or be otherwise penalised or victimised by reason of the fact that he had refused to strike or work to rule or had continued to work on any occasion.
  Mr. Prior: I gather, Mr. Speaker, that we shall be entitled to vote separately on the amendments when the time comes. Is that correct?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. I see no reason why not at the moment, but I do not give a promise ahead on a matter of that sort.
  Mr. Prior: In the past 18 months we have had several debates on this issue and we return to it today. Although some
  1352
  of the Press publicity on the controversy has died, the issue is just as important now as it was on the first day it was raised. As was said in a recent leading article in the Sun—
  "freedom of speech is not something that belongs to editors. It belongs to everyone."
  As the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) said in an article in The Times in February 1975,
  "The free flow of information and ideas is more important to our society that any number of jobs in the newspaper industry. To pass a Bill which makes that freedom dependent on the goodwill of a union whose interests it conflicts with is to put it criminally at risk."
  The amendments give a further opportunity for the House to discuss whether there should be written into the charter as it now appears further safeguards to protect an aggrieved person. I should like to take the House through some of the reasons which underlie the amendments.
  A person who refuses to join a particular union specified in a membership agreement between union and employer can be dismissed without any statutory redress. That will be the position once the Bill is passed. He will have a right to go to the TUC Appeal Review Committee but no clear legal right against his employer.
  That same situation could have pertained before 1971, but in fact it did not. There were a few closed shops—particularly in the newspaper industry—but not many. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett)—I am sorry he is not here—in referring to associated membership of the National Union of Journalists, said that, although editors and associated members could be called out on strike, in practice they were not. There is a real fear that if the NUJ obtained a monopoly amongst working journalists it would seek to force managements to agree to a closed shop by means of a threat of strike action and, once it had achieved a closed shop, would exercise control over what could or could not be published, access of people outside the Press to write articles and

  1353
  access by certain journalists who were not full-time and not prepared to join. That is the position we fear would be created.
  These fears are not grounded just on hearsay or on hypothetical cases. They have arisen in the last few years when we have seen outside contributors prevented from placing articles in newspapers although the editor has agreed to their publication. One of my hon. Friends who does a good deal of writing for the Press asked to become a member of the NUJ but was told that he could not do so because his main source of income was not from journalism. He then proved that he earned more from being a journalist than he did as a Member of Parliament. He was still denied the right to belong to the NUJ.
  4.0 p.m.
  Therefore, it is enormously unsatisfactory that the situation should be left as it is. The real question we have to answer is "Does this constitute such an important limitation and threat to the freedom of the Press that special safeguards are required?" or, as the Secretary of State and Labour Members with some exceptions have said so far, "Should this be left to the good sense of the National Union of Journalists because in any case to try to introduce the law into this area could be self-defeating?" That is a fair interpretation of the two climates of opinion about the matter.
  The Opposition take the view that the law has a part to play. We are not seeking a wholesale reintroduction of the law as it stood in the Industrial Relations Act 1971. We have made that clear on many occasions. We have said that we believe that the amendments, albeit with perhaps a little tidying up, which were put into the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 were a basis upon which the whole House could unite over the issue of industrial relations. We believe that we should leave the law in that position.
  The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead thinks that the less time the House spends discussing industrial relations the better it will be for industrial relations. I am inclined to agree with him. During the past two years we have sought to reach agreement on industrial relations by which the House could stand for a
  1354
  number of years. The Opposition have and have always had, strong feelings on two issues—first of all, individual rights within a union membership agreement; second, the freedom of the Press.
  In a later suggested amendment to the Bill we deal solely with the problems of an individual's rights within the union membership agreement. However, in these amendments we are concentrating on the part of the Bill which deals with the freedom of the Press. That is why we are moving our main amendment, which is the amendment moved by Lord Goodman in another place. It is an amendment which has undergone a great deal of discussion in this House and in the other place. It was framed after a great deal of thought and after other amendments which went a good deal further had been rejected.
  The whole purpose of Lord Goodman's amendment was to get the maximum degree of understanding, and if possible, agreement between those who took the view that the law had no place in this issue and those who took the view that the law must protect the rights of the individual, especially the individual editor within the closed shop situation.
  If one looks at line 10 of the proposed new clause one sees that it says that
  "practical guidance on matters relating to the freedom of the press must include guidance on the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism, the application of union membership agreements to journalists"
  and the amendment would go on to add the words
  "including the right of journalists not to be unreasonably excluded or expelled from trade unions and to belong to the union of their choice and the right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union, the right of editors to commission and to publish or refuse to publish any material, and the assurance (subject only to editorial discretion) of access to the press of all contributors at all times."
  It is inconceivable to me that anyone reading that amendment could object to its contents. I earnestly ask Labour Members to read the amendment and to point out to me one single word with which they disagree. In my view it is reasonable beyond doubt. We must consider that amendment with Amendment No. 6 which adds,
  "(c) any rule, agreement, act or conduct which is contrary to the provisions of the

  1355
  charter shall be deemed to be contrary to public policy.
  (d) nothing in the charter shall be taken to restrict or abridge any right existing by statute of common law."
  When Lord Goodman put the amendment forward in another place, he said:
  "What we have tried to do is produce what we want with the least possible affront to the Government Benches. That is not an entirely simple matter. It has led to the ambiguities and difficulties in which we find ourselves. I make no apology for them. If we can avoid the so-called constitutional confrontation by a little ambiguity and obscurity in drafting, I am all for it. If we can make it clear that we are concerned not to encourage litigation"—
  I stress this point—
  "but to discourage it, to leave it as the last resort for the man who has no other means of redressing his injury—which is all we want—then, indeed, we shall be entirely satisfied".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3rd November 1975; Vol 365, c. 927.]
  That seems to be a very conciliatory position for Lord Goodman to adopt and that is the position we are adopting today. We are seeking to try to argue with the Government that this is the right way to deal with the situation.
  I turn to what has happened during the long passage of the Bill over the past 18 months. We started by asking that the matter should be referred to the Royal Commission. We had good reasons and good grounds for asking for that. After all, it was none other than Lord Devlin, a former Chairman of the Press Council, who stated:
  "The traditional way of thinking over public affairs is by the appointment of a Royal Commission. As it happens there is already one sitting—the Royal Commission on the Press."
  Right from the time the Bill was published it seemed to us right that we should leave the discussion of the Bill until the Royal Commission had had a chance to consider it. That is what we asked to happen. At that time we were told "No" because, it was said, the Bill was required so urgently that it was impossible for that course to be pursued. Yet here we are some 15 months later and the Bill has not yet become law.
  I do not think anyone can honestly say that the delay has made a great deal of difference to the conduct of industrial relations in the meanwhile. Therefore, it was a nonsense for the Government not to allow the matter to be discussed by
  1356
  the Royal Commission. Furthermore—this is the extraordinary way in which matters work out—I am told that during the past few days the Royal Commission has sent a note to various editors and papers suggesting that they should now give evidence urgently about their view of this particular part of the Bill. It has been a nonsense, and we should make ourselves look ridiculous if we did not recognise that fact.
  However, much to our regret that course was rejected. Even at this stage, especially as the Royal Commission is now interesting itself in this matter, I urge the Secretary of State to have a little more patience, to leave this matter alone for a little longer to allow the Royal Commission to look at it and then to bring whatever conclusions it reaches back to the House. I am certain that such action would greatly help our deliberations.
  The next step was that Mr. Alastair Hetherington and others asked for a charter to be drawn up. Again, that was rejected by the Secretary of State who said, at that time, that it was not necessary and that nothing was needed.
  Then, in Standing Committee, we proposed an amendment which, when reading it now, seems extraordinarily appropriate. It would have safeguarded the position of someone concerned with the dissemination of news, opinion or information and who genuinely objected to membership of the union on those grounds. That was turned down by the Government.
  We have gone out of our way to be as reasonable as possible in our amendments in order to try to attract agreement between the two sides. It was not until the House of Lords, which has no rules of order and therefore was able to deal specifically with the Press case, got hold of the Bill that it was able to write into it a charter which had been rejected in this House. The House of Lords wrote a charter into the Bill and, after much to-ing and fro-ing, we have got a charter and a body to administer it in the way set out in the new clause.
  The charter, as it stands, has no powers. The main difference between the two sides is the need for the charter to have powers for redress by an injured party—redress which would strengthen the

  1357
  hand of the individual against pressures on him by his employers who, in turn, had pressures put on them by the union. A charter with such powers would give strength to the employer to resist union pressure and would give the individual a fair chance of holding his job or of claiming damages if he lost it. The holding of the job is the most important part. Once a man loses his job, once he is thrown out of the union, he cannot get another job in journalism. If a man is thrown out of the union and therefore cannot get another job, he cannot write any more.
  This matter was well dealt with in the Financial Times which took three hypothetical cases and examined them in the light of the charter alone, doing nothing, which was the original intention of the Government, or strengthening the charter by the inclusion of the amendments which we are seeking to press today.
  First, it illustrated the case of the editor who was told by the National Union of Journalists that he must submit to policy and discipline. The second case referred to the journalist who was expelled from a paper or wished to work on a paper and was not allowed to do so. The third case related to the outside contributor who was blacked because he was not a member of the union or because the union objected to the content of his article.
  Following the procedure put before us by the right hon. Gentleman today, it is true that, if a case is taken to the court through the operation of the common law, the court will be able to form an assessment whether the treatment meted out to the particular individual was fair. But all the legal advice available to us from the House of Lords and outside bodies suggests that little is likely to happen as a result of trying to pursue a common law action. That is why we believe that Lord Goodman's suggested words, which are contained in a later amendment, are certainly the minimum required to protect the interests of the editor who is told by the NUJ that he must submit to policy and discipline but refuses to do so. Certainly the journalist who is expelled from a paper or wishes to work on a paper is excluded, and our amendments represent the minimum requirement to protect him in any way whatsoever.
  1358
  We do not deny that the charter is a step forward, but we think that it is a very weak step forward. By its very creation it breaks the principles enunciated by the Secretary of State throughout the earlier proceedings that these matters are best left entirely to the parties concerned to work out for themselves.
  A strengthened charter, together with our Amendment No. 3 dealing with public policy, does not automatically give the charter the force of law, but it leaves the courts to decide. My right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) are sitting behind me. I think that is the way we would expect the law to operate. In fact, an aggrieved person would not go to the courts unless he felt that he had a good case, and it would then be for the courts to decide.
  4.15 p.m.
  A strengthened charter would also strengthen the hand of the employer who was having pressure put upon him by the union in a case of expulsion or exclusion to say, "No, I shall not respond to your pressure, because, if I do, I think that the aggrieved person will go to the courts and he will have a good case for reinstatement". Therefore, the employer will be able to say that he is not prepared to proceed in that way. That considerably strengthens the position of the editor, or the aggrieved person, who will generally be an editor.
  Therefore, after many months—indeed, years—we come back to a situation where the House has not been able to agree on the wording which should go into the Bill. We believe that this is a vital issue. If this House does not concern itself with the freedom of the Press, it really does not concern itself with anything. We are asking that there should be a proper remedy for someone who is put into a position which he feels is against the interests of the freedom which he wishes to support.
  I do not believe that this House will be doing its duty unless it writes into the Bill the amendments which we have put down. I do not believe that those amendments can in any way be interpreted as being anti-union or legislation for the sake of legislation. I do not get the impression from talking to trade

  1359
  unionists that they feel strongly about this matter.
  From time to time right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that the law has no place in industrial relations. Yet many of us on this side and a few hon. Members on the other side of the House have spent a good deal of our parliamentry time in the last 18 months passing laws—whether it be the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act or the Employment Protection Act—which legislate the whole time on industrial relations matters.
  It is not good enough to say that the law has no place in industrial relations. If, in their early days, the unions had not sought the protection of the law, they would not be the strong forces in society that they are today. They needed the law when they were weak. It would be wrong of them to believe that they could disregard the law now that they are strong. In fairness, I do not believe that is the attitude being taken by the trade unions. Nor do I believe that they are harbouring the view still held by some hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Indsutrial Relations Act was all wrong and that, until it is wiped off the statute book, no sensible industrial relations policy is possible.
  The only people who try to keep that argument going are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they do so for purely political reasons. It is no longer a great bone of contention between the average trade unionist, shop steward and branch official. The evidence for that is readily available. If hon. Gentlemen opposite look at last week's Economist articles containing views collected in a poll carried out within the union membership, including those responsible for running the union, they will see that the vast majority of trade unionists do not take the same view as hon. Gentlemen opposite now take.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain why he said earlier that his party would never reintroduce anything like the Industrial Relations Act but now seems to be telling us that in his view the majority of trade unionists would welcome such legislation? Is it that his party always takes the opposite view to what trade unionists want?
  Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening a little more carefully, he would have heard me say that we thought that the best way in which we could help industrial relations was to stand by the Act passed in 1974 in which we were able to include a special provision to aid the position of the individual in a closed shop situation and that, provided that we could get agreement between both sides of the House that that was a fair position, it could then remain the law for a great many years. It has the enormous merit, for us at any rate, that it protects the rights of the individual in what otherwise could be a tryrannical situation. We are now getting cases coming forward day after day of people who feel deeply aggrieved by the action being taken by a small number of unions in certain selected areas.
  I believe that we could get agreement on this. It is the minimum amount of law which would be required. At the same time, the Opposition accept that for some time it is the maximum amount of law which should be permitted. But we believe very strongly that these amendments concerned with the freedom of the Press should have support from all parts of the House. I appeal to Government supporters who wish to see the maintenance of a free Press to give us their support. This is too important an issue to be decided on a strict party interpretation after all these months of argument. I appeal to Government supporters to recognise that, with this amendment, we have reached a situation which could be satisfactory to all parts of the House and which would give freedom to the editor and to the outside contributor which we all wish to see maintained.
  If our proposal is not acceptable to the Government, I am afraid that we must take it that they place the operation of a closed shop, with the tyranny which can come from the strict interpretation of that, above the importance of a free Press. That is not a situation that we ought to tolerate for one moment.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: I take issue with a number of the arguments of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), and I begin with his suggestion that this House has not made a decision. I remind him that the majority of Members of this House made a clear-cut decision. It

  1361
  was the unelected individuals along the Corridor who sent back that decision. They are not elected by anyone. They are not responsible to anyone. However, the elected part of Parliament made a clear-cut decision.
  What is more, I am sure that I carry many Government supporters with me when I say that I cannot accept what I regard as the continual nonsense and the recondite reasoning used about the so-called wonderful freedom of the Press. It may be a free Press for employers, for the Tory Party and for the interests of the City. It is completely free to them. However, in a recent publication by my own party it was made clear 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. A free press, therefore, in the sense of a varied or a balanced press is fast disappearing."
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the vast capitalist organisations which he criticises are almost all losing money on their newspapers? Who does he think will replace these big bad barons? Does he imagine that the State will take them over?
  Mr. Thomas: The matter at issue is not whether these newspapers are losing money. It is whether we have a free Press in Britain. That is the main and continuing argument. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft appealed to Government supporters to help his party to sustain the freedom of the Press. We do not accept that there is that freedom of the Press. We do not see any tears among Opposition Members when newspapers close down and journalists are made redundant, resulting in there being fewer and fewer newspapers. We do not hear any arguments defending the freedom of the Press then.
  Mr. Aitken: That is a travesty of the truth.
  Mr. Thomas: I am one of those who are very concerned to see that, in the light of this spurious argument about the freedom of the Press, the Government have given way to some extent to the pressures of the Opposition. These arguments are
  1362
  used to defend the so-called freedom of the Press, but in my judgment they are really being used in an attempt to deny to a group of workers the collective bargaining rights which the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 restored following the passage of the Industrial Relations Act 1971.
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman suggests that our Press is not free. May I ask him which countries he has found where there is a freer Press, either among the developing nations that he may have visited or among any of the so-called Socialist countries of Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union?
  Mr. Thomas: I shall not embark upon an argument about whether the British Press is freer than that of the United States or any other country. I question the premise that the British Press is free. It will not help the argument if I can show that the Press of any other country is more or less free than the British Press. Given, however, a situation in which 80 per cent. of the news media is in the hands of three large corporations, is that really freedom? It is pure oligopoly. We have three large corporations with their representatives down the other end of the Corridor who control our Press, and the Conservative Party in this House has used that fact in an attempt to deny a group of people working for the Press their rights which are being written into the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. What is more, the Opposition's concern is only for a restricted group of workers. They do not use the same argument in relation to workers involved in actually producing our newspapers. They have not said a word about SOGAT and the other printing unions which were being attacked by so many people a few years ago.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman would like to support us in trying to win the same rights for the printing and other unions as those we are seeking for journalists, we would be most happy. He will have our wholehearted support.
  Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Member cannot deny that if we were to add up the plethora of pages of discussion throughout this debate it would be found that almost 99 per cent. dealt with the freedom of the Press. There has been

  1363
  little about the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act or these amendments.
  Many people would say that there is a problem about the British Press because it is not free. If we are to deal with that, we would need a totally different and comprehensive approach. We must not tack on to a piece of legislation dealing with collective bargaining the kind of charter and amendments that are put forward here.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not object if I remind him of what he said in Committee. I agree with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft that my right hon. Friend made it clear that he was concerned to protect Press freedom. He said that the way proposed by the Opposition was not the way to go about it. We ought not to tack on a clause or a code of conduct to this legislation. My right hon. Friend said:
  "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 understood my right hon. Friend to say that he would very much welcome a charter that was freely negotiated between the trade unions and the employers in the industry. Now we are told that if the charter is not freely negotiated within 12 months this House will, if there is a majority in favour of it, impose the charter on the trade unions and the employers. We are told that contravention of the charter may be used as evidence before a court or tribunal.
  This is a fundamental shift in the position adopted by my right hon. Friend I am disappointed that he has given way and heeded the lurid stories we have heard. I have never heard such chilling stories about what might happen if certain groups took over the NUJ. Again, this has little relationship to the Trade and Labour Relations Act 1974. As I understand it, the NUJ already has closed shops. It has already got 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. membership in certain areas. It does not need a closed shop to make reality of the kind of horror stories we
  1364
  have heard from the Conservative Benches—if that was its intention.
  We have been told that the NUJ would force editors to join trade unions. The fact is that the union membership agreement is to be negotiated between the trade unions and the employers concerned. The point to emphasise is the definition of a union membership agreement. The Act makes clear that a union membership agreement is an agreement or arrangement which:
  "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".
  It has been made clear time and again that if the parties, in drawing up a union membership agreement, identify a particular class, they ipso facto identify those who are to be left out. If they want to leave out editors they are free to do so.
  We are told that the NUJ will deny access to outside contributors. This point is taken up in the amendment. I do not hesitate to say that the NUJ has every right to be concerned about the number of outside contributors who are taking away work from its members. It is right that it should have a policy about this. Every union has the right to be concerned about outside agency work or whatever it is called, work that takes away from the craftsmen in the union. I am afraid that far too many people have in the past taken a stand quite contrary to that which they would take in their own trade union branch if they were trade union members. They have been those with vested interests in this respect.
  The Government have simply put the Act back to a neutral position. The Tories made the closed shop illegal. The other end of the spectrum would be for the Government to say "You must sit down and negotiate a trade union membership agreement." They have said no such thing. They have said "There it is. If you want it, sit down and negotiate it."
  Mr. David Madel: Can the hon. Gentleman say a little more about his anxiety regarding outside contributors? Is it not a fact that contributors to a newspaper do not

  1365
  take away from the work of the craftsmen? What is happening is that something additional is being published by the newspaper, something which is of special interest to, say, local groups. Cannot the hon. Member see that it is not a matter of taking someone's work from people?
  Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Member reads the definition of a trade union membership agreement in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, he will see that the agreement is between employers and employees. These individuals who occasionally contribute articles—and the trade unions in the industry have no objection to that—are not employees. There is nothing in the legislation which says that if a union membership agreement is signed all or part of the outside contributions to a newspaper will stop. That is not NUJ policy, and it is neither encouraged nor discouraged by the legislation. Without the legislation the trade unions in the industry could still take a certain line on this. These people are not employees in the accepted sense.
  Conservative Members have tabled amendments because they believe that the charter proposed by my right hon. Friend does not go far enough. They tried to get their friends in the other place to do the job for them. Now they, too, are trying to inject into the charter some of the things they have to give up in the Industrial Relations Act. They speak of the right of journalists not to be unreasonably excluded or expelled from trade unions.
  If we are to begin deciding that kind of thing in the courts, we will have to examine the trade union rule books to see whether the correct procedure has been gone through. We will be back on the old escalator of Appendix 4 to the Industrial Relations Act—examining the detail of trade union appeals machinery and so on again. What a nonsense it is to talk in this amendment about belonging
  "to … the union of their choke".
  If that is not a charter of destruction for industrial relations, I do not know what is.
  Today the Sun newspaper has been mentioned as a beacon of our liberties. I could tell that newspaper that I wanted to work for it, but that I wanted to join
  1366
  the National Union of Seamen or the National Union of Mineworkers. The Opposition Benches echo with the claim that there are too many trade unions in this country—and too many trade unionists for that matter. The Conservatives' political schizophrenia leads them to demand that people should be able to join the trade union of their choice. In the last debate we were advised by them that any individual who did not agree with a majority decision of his trade union branch should rip up his card and join another union—and then, if he did not agree with that union, rip up that card and join another union.
  Amendment No. 1 speaks of the right of journalists to join a trade union of their choice. If the amendment were made, there could be 30 or 40 unions in the Press industry. Presumably that is what the Opposition want. They talk about the rights of editors, but no rights are given to trade unions. They want the proprietors, their friends along the Corridor, to have full power in the newspaper industry, and then they come out with all their pious nonsense about doing it to defend a free Press. I hope that the House will reject the amendment by a considerable majority.
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are seeking in the Bill to strip rights from individual trade unionists. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations upholds the right of individuals to be free to join or not to join any organisation. They cannot, under that charter, be required to join organisations, but under this legislation the Government will require them to do so.
  Mr. Thomas: To suggest that the hon. Member's party wants to defend the rights of trade unions is absolute nonsense. His party was willing to put the dockers, miners and any other group of workers in prison under its legislation. The Bill, with its clause on the union membership agreements, has nothing to do with the freedom or otherwise of the Press. The Opposition, by their amendments, are attempting to isolate a particular group of workers from the main stream of the working class and the Labour movement.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: As I understand the speech we have just

  1367
  heard, I do not believe that the Secretary of State has full support on this matter. It is extremely unlikely that someone would opt to join the National Union of Seamen and obtain employment with the Sun newspaper, because a union that did not carry on the business of the firm in which he was to be employed would not be operating there, anyway.
  Mr. Tom Litterick: He could be a shipping correspondent.
  Mr. Thorpe: If he were a shipping correspondent he would in all probability not be a member of the NUJ and might be precluded from making an independent contribution. That redounds on the raucous cheers from the Labour Benches.
  The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) asked whether there were any words or phrases in the amendment which any of us found unexceptionable. Every one of the basic liberties that he is seeking to preserve is totally unexceptionable. But it would be bad tactics to pass the amendment. It is not likely to achieve the result that I hope the whole House would like to see.
  My colleagues in another place, in the conditions of that time, supported all the Goodman amendments. My right hon. and hon. Friends, took a different view on 6th November. It is a finely balanced argument. I think that we have come a long way in persuading the Minister to produce a charter. No one need now argue why the Press is in a particular situation. The answer is that the right hon. Gentleman must think so, or we would not have the provisions of the charter written into the legislation.
  4.45 p.m.
  I want to see the talks succeed, and to see every relevant matter discussed round the table. As any lawyer knows, the inclusion of express matters for discussion is by implication an exclusion of everything else. All the matters in question should be discussed between the two sides of the industry. I have long believed that the sooner the two sides can get together for discussion, the better.
  I do not think that I shall be breaking any confidences if I tell the House that at the beginning of last year I wrote to the Guild of British Newspaper Editors,
  1368
  the Newspaper Society, the Newspaper Publishers Association, the National Union of Journalists, the Institute of Journalists, the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society, the Scottish Newspaper Proprietors Association and Fleet Street editors. I asked them all whether, if all the other bodies concerned were prepared to meet, they would be the only ones to refuse. They all replied that if everyone else accepted they would be prepared to meet under an independent chairman of whom they approved.
  When I had the agreement of 15 people I asked Lord Pearce to chair a meeting on 20th February last year. I made no attempt to get publicity for the meeting, because I thought it more important to find a solution. It is interesting to reflect how far the meeting went along the road to agreement. Lord Pearce wrote to the Secretary of State on 20th February to say that it was agreed by a majority of 13 to 2 that:
  "Provided the Press and Broadcasting are excluded from the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, they (the organisations concerned) would be prepared to discuss the framing of a Charter to safeguard the freedom of the Press and Broadcasting in the widest context and to prevent improper pressures from any quarter.
  The two representatives of the NUJ put forward a Motion: That irrespective of the outcome of the Bill the parties here should try to agree on such a Chater.
  This was lost by 12 to 2".
  The point is that there was an agreement that in certain circumstances there could and should be the widest possible discussion of all the matters involved.
  At this stage we should be trying to ensure that the talks start with the best possible good will on both sides. Although I disagree with much of what the Secretary of State has said in this sphere, I think that in the new clause he has set out certain general principles, and all the specific matters to which the right hon. Member for Lowestoft refers in his amendment can be discussed under the general heading of those principles. What is important at this stage is not how many conditions and preconditions are attached but what the outcome of the discussions is—the charter that comes before the House for approval. If the matters to which the right hon. Member for Lowestoft has drawn attention are not

  1369
  included or dealt with satisfactorily in that charter, I would believe it to be defective and deficient, and I would vote against it.
  There are two considerations. The most important thing is that the discussions should start, with the widest possible discretion on both sides, untrammelled and trying to forget what has happened and to reach agreement. Then we should have a long cool look at what comes out.
  The second thing, which I shall not argue at length, because it will come up on the next batch of amendments, is that what is agreed consequently should be not only acceptable to the House but binding on the parties who have agreed to it. That is much more important. I would much rather that these talks started in the knowledge that it was a perfectly free discussion, that any side could raise any matter it wanted, knowing that, at the end of the day, not only would it be bound in honour to enforce whatever was agreed, but that it would be binding within the law. I shall not develop that now, because the separate argument is to come.
  I therefore agree with Amendment No. 6, which provides that there could be an action for anything contrary to public policy. I do not think that it is preferable to the other amendment in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it is a second best. I do not dissent from any of the principles enshrined in the amendment, but it is tactically bad. That is why I cannot support it.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I am sorry that we appear to have lost the support of the Leader of the Liberal Party, especially since at an earlier stage that party took the same line in these matters and made eloquent speeches to that effect in another place. One is forced to echo the melancholy query of the Morning Standard of 100 years ago or so in regard to Sir Robert Peel's defection on the Corn Laws:
  "He has persuaded others by his speeches. How comes it that he has not persuaded himself?"
  Both of the speeches since the admirable, temperate and persuasive speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for
  1370
  Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) have been disappointing, that of the Leader of the Liberal Party for the reason I have given and that of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) because of the two basic misconceptions which seemed to pervade his speech—first, that there is a monopoly of the Press and no provision in law to contain or restrain it, and, secondly, because he appeared to equate collective bargaining, in which we all believe and which we all want to see flourish, with a monolithic structure which is not only unnecessary to the well-being of collective bargaining but may well be detrimental to it.
  I believe that the charter in the unamended form propounded in the new clause is vulnerable to three main criticisms. First, it would be unnecessary if we had a Trade Union Act which was wholly satisfactory. Unfortunately, by the later content of the Bill the Government propose to take away from it a good deal of its current virtue. Second, I believe it to be imprecise and insufficient in its content. Third, it is ineffective and unenforceable even in regard to such protection as it is designed to give.
  If we had a wholly satisfactory trade union law it should be unnecessary to include special provision for the freedom of the Press, because such a law would contain no threat to that freedom and consequently would call for no corrective. We should not then require the structure, at once elaborate and flimsy, of the charter in the new clause. Its alleged necessity arises from the defects of the Bill as proposed and particularly from the insistence of the Government on removing the two basic safeguards from the 1974 Act in regard to the closed shop and to exclusion or expulsion from a union.
  Both of those tamperings with the principal Act, both of those derogations from its protection of the citizen and the worker, are rightly the subject of general amendments by my right hon. Friend which are not to be discussed today. Those protections, which my right hon. Friend seeks to safeguard, go to the heart of the matter—the basic minimum protection to which the individual worker is entitled in a free society, be he journalist or joiner.

  1371
  The combination of the closed shop procedure, preventing the exercise of a preference, however reasonable, to join another trade union, with the absence of protection against exclusion or expulsion is incompatible with the maintenance of a free Press. It is a recipe for a conscripted conformity in a sphere which more than any other should be characterised by diversity and freedom. It makes possible and encourages a monolithic structure.
  I say to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, who seems to be leaving, just before he slams the door behind him, that I shall not detain him for more than 30 seconds, but this arises from his speech. I believe that a monopoly control of the personnel of the Press is as great a threat to freedom of expression as monopoly ownership—or even, in contemporary circumstances, a greater threat. The dangers of monopoly ownership have been long recognised in the country, in Parliament and on the statute book, but there is an equal danger in control of personnel. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on this in whatever place he is going to. I am sure that I have carried his assent.
  It is because of the insistence on these basically unsatisfactory features in the general corpus of our trade union law that it has been deemed necessary to make special provisions in regard to the Press. In this one instance it has been deemed prudent to temper the wind, both because matters regarding the Press are notoriously sentitive and because in this context there is not only a threat to the right to work, which is common to the changes in the general law that the Bill will bring, but also the added threat to free publication and the dissemination of news and ideas.
  It is because the law as proposed has these undesirable consequences overall, and because they present a peculiarly unattractive appearance in the context of the Press, that it has been necessary to clothe the reality of the matter so as give some outward semblance of decency. The result is this charter. In its unamended form, it is very much a case of the emperor's clothes; there is little substance in it, on a closer analysis.
  The first great defect of the charter, apart from the circumstances that make
  1372
  it necessary, is the clear contemplation that it will give approval in some form to the application of the closed shop principle—the union membership agreement—to journalists. In the words of the new clause, it will give
  "guidance … on the application of union membership agreements to journalists".
  So the application of such an agreement will be assumed, and the guidance that is given in regard to it is unknown.
  If my right hon. Friend's amendment is resisted, the inference surely is that the guidance is likely to recommend, or at least to sanction, the requirements of a union membership agreement for journalists as set out in Section 30 of the principal Act.
  5.0 p.m.
  It is true that the charter goes on to assume certain editorial rights. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, who has just left the Chamber, said that under Section 30 of the principal Act one was free to leave editors out of union membership agreements. That is true, but it is equally true that under Section 30 one is free to include them. There is nothing in the new clause that says or even suggests that editors will be immune from the application of the close shop principle. By clear implication, they will not be so immune, and the right to discharge their duties, which is expressly referred to in the charter, will or may have to be exercised within that framework.
  In the charter, editors have a right to commission and publish any article. However, that terminology is more apt to cover the occasional outside contributor than the professional would-be whole-time journalist who seeks permanent employment as a staff writer, if he is outside the magic circle of the union membership agreement. Therefore, it brings no help to him and, looking ahead, perhaps only a limited help to the outside contributor.
  Let us suppose that in the fullness of time all editors are in union membership—a situation that would certainly meet the desires of hon. Gentlemen. There is nothing in the new clause to prevent or even discourage that, and if all editors in the course of time come within the framework of union membership agreements and commission only contributions from fellow members in the specified

  1373
  union, there is nothing to prevent or even discourage them. There is nothing to help the outside contributor, who is outside the specified union, to market his wares and he has no remedy if, in a closed shop situation such as that, by some melancholy coincidence his contributions are regularly deemed unsuitable for publication.
  I want to make a few remarks on the mechanism for seeking agreements to which reference is made in the new clause. The clause proceeds on the hypothosis of agreement among the parties—employers' organisations and trade unions. However, it does not say "all" parties. It does not define the extent of the consensus at which it aims. Therefore, surely there is the danger that this dilemma will arise: if participation in seeking agreement is selective it will not be representative, and if, on the other hand, it is comprehensive there may be no consensus. If there is no consensus, guidance falls to be given by the Secretary of State, including guidance as to the application of union membership agreements. That guidance will presumably be given in all the rigidity that is now proposed and that we can see from the Government's rejection of the will of Parliament in 1974 on the subjects of arbitrary exclusion and of protection to the individual for reasonable cause in a union shop agreement.
  Finally, I turn to the question of the charter's effectiveness. Of what practical use will the charter, in its unamended form be to the aggrieved or injured journalist? It is true that he will have a right of complaint, but he will have no remedy. His complaint will go to a body, of composition unknown and procedures undetermined. What is certain is that no enforceable right is conferred on a successful complainant and no penalty prescribed for an offender—simply a declaration and publication.
  Of what use is that? In the terminology that my hon. and learned Friends use, it is what is called a brutum fulmen. A declaration in vacua would be of little use to the individual. In the Courts it is true that one can sue for a declaration in appropriate circumstances, but normally linked to the remedy of a declaration is the effective remedy of an injunction to restrain the continuance or repetition of the injurious act, or a mandatory injunc-
  1374
  tion to compel the proper thing to be done. However, none of that is in the charter. There is no injunction, no compensation, no restitution and no reinstatement—nothing.
  Therefore, we are left with the spectacle of the charter as a toothless wonder. That is admitted in Subsection (10) of the new clause, which says:
  "A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a charter … shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings".
  That provision at least is clear, if unhelpful.
  In the next paragraph the new clause tries to suggest the existence of some compensatory ancillary advantages which the charter would give. It is true that the new clause gives one no remedy—no liability arises in any proceedings—but it may help indirectly in other proceedings. Therefore, before the House approves this new clause it is under a duty to ask in what proceedings the clause can help, and how. The subsection refers to "the court or tribunal". We know that the question of the tribunal will not arise because there will be no recourse to an industrial tribunal for wrongful expulsion or exclusion, for Section 5 of the Act of 1974, under which that right arises is repealed under the Bill.
  Therefore, we are left with the possibility of an aggrieved journalist being given some assistance by this declaration in proceedings before the courts. In what sort of proceedings? It will not help him in an action for wrongful dismissal if he is dismissed on the grounds that he does not belong to a specified union within the union membership agreement of Section 30 of the principal Act. It will not help him, because Schedule 1 of that Act, in the amended form proposed by the Government if the Bill is carried, will specify in the clearest possible terms that such dismissal would be considered a fair dismissal. No court, in any proceedings brought before it, will prefer the murmurings of the charter to the clear language of statute carrying the unmistakable force of law, and say that a dismissal in those circumstances would be other than fair. Equally, it will not help him in any efforts to resist exclusion from a trade union, involving, as it would, exclusion from his livelihood. It would if the

  1375
  amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft were accepted, but not if it were rejected.
  If it were accepted it would be logical to accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment No. 3 to the main part of the Bill, which lessens the necessity for a charter because the basic imperfections of the situation are removed.
  What other possibilities can be suggested by which the charter can bring assistance to an aggrieved journalist who seeks a remedy in law? Presumably the Secretary of State does not envisage the freelance journalist bringing an action because his article has been rejected. I do believe that even the most optimistic solicitor would not give any encouragement to so tenuous a form of action as that. Therefore, on analysis, it is clear that there is no direct remedy in the charter and that the indirect remedies that are suggested are non-existent.
  I conclude that the charter, in the un-amended form in which it is provided for in the new clause, cannot assist the freedom of the Press or those who work in it, still less guarantee it. Its ambiguous and ineffective provisions are no substitute for the proper safeguards of the Act—those safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, unhappily, seeks to remove. However, at least the position can be improved by incorporating the text of my right hon. Friend's amendment, which I join with him in commending to the House.
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: The more I listen to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on the subject of law the more convinced I am that it is in the best interests of the trade unions to keep as far away from the law as possible.
  No one could complain that the matter with which we are dealing has not been adequately discussed in the House. Many hon. Members are rehearsing their speeches for the third and fourth time during the long period that has elapsed since this legislation was first introduced. It is essential, therefore, that we should get back to first purposes and find out what is the intention of the Government.
  The Government's intention is to restore the law to what it was in 1971,
  1376
  before the passing of the Industrial Relations Act. That is all that the Government intend to do. Indeed, that would have been done long ago had the Government not lost a vital clause on the closed shop which made it necessary to introduce this amending legislation.
  When the previous legislation was being discussed and when we were rejecting the Industrial Relations Act the newspaper proprietors had not woken up to the fact that there was a challenge to freedom prior to 1971, when the closed shop was legal and had been legal for many years. We heard nothing from Press proprietors about the challenge to Press freedom. We all slept easily in our beds, secure in the knowledge that the Press was safe and free—until, presumably, the Government's amending Bill came along and suddenly the newspaper proprietors and the people down the Corridors discovered that there was a menace to Press freedom. They used the most unparliamentary language in describing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a Fascist, for example, for daring to undermine the freedom of the Press.
  However, what threat are we faced with, and does it exist only in the imagination of newspaper proprietors? In common with many other hon. Members, I receive a good deal of correspondence. I have not received one letter advising me that any constituent of mine thinks that he is threatened by a lack of freedom in the Press. This is an artificial campaign sparked off by newspaper proprietors who have problems in negotiations with their journalists or problems on their staffs.
  The Bill affects the rights of 5 million people. I was interested to note that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said that there was little evidence prior to 1971 that the closed shop existed to a large extent. I am amazed that a man who pretends to have some knowledge of industrial relations could make a statement like that, because he should know that as long ago as 1966, when the last review took place, it was established that 4¼ million work-people in Britain worked under closed shop agreements. The figure is probably well over 5 million people today. The right hon. Gentleman should not state that prior to 1971 very few people worked under closed shop agreements.
  Mr. Prior: I should make myself clear. I thought I did in my speech. I was in this case referring to the Press, and I was saying that there were some closed shop agreements but, as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) pointed out, they were not strictly enforced before 1971.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Fletcher: I noted the right hon. Gentleman's words particularly. Perhaps I should have interrupted him at that point during his speech, because he said "There was little evidence of closed shops, least of all in the Press". It is apparent to me that he does not know that half of the journalists in Fleet Street are working under closed shop agreements. Therefore, to pretend that this situation affects only about 30,000 or 35,000 journalists is nonsense. It affects 5 million people working under closed shop agreements in industry.
  How does the trade union approach the question of a closed shop? The Bill does not give the union the right to demand a closed shop. Unions have to negotiate closed shops. As a trade union official I have been engaged in many negotiations for closed shops. Unions have to negotiate with managements. A management may say: "No, we are not prepared to recognise an exclusive closed shop for a particular union." The management may well want exemption from a closed shop, and may say "Our foremen and our supervisory staff should have exemption from a closed shop."
  Closed shops are a matter for negotiation between management and the trade unions. No one is forcing newspaper proprietors to have a closed shop. All they need to do is to say "No, we are not prepared to negotiate a closed shop with the National Union of Journalists"—in the same way that any other employer has that right. Therefore, why should they demand special preference?
  I am amazed that my right hon. Friend has introduced a charter. What other employer has demanded that he should also have a charter to give him rights to exclusive freedoms for supervisory staff, foremen and so on? Why is it only for the journalists? I am amazed that my right hon. Friend has given way to this pressure from a few newspaper proprietors and leading journalists. All
  1378
  that he should have attempted to do in this Bill was to restore the position to what it was in 1971, before the Industrial Relations Act.
  A campaign has arisen in the newspaper industry whereby we are told, with high-falutin' slogans, that the freedom of the Press is in danger. However, in fact, all that the proprietors want to do is to conduct their negotiations through statutory instruments and charters, instead of meeting face to face with their employees and negotiating or rejecting closed shop agreements.
  As has been said in the debate, to talk about the freedom of the Press is a nonsense in this context. The greatest indictment of the Press was made by a former Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, when he said that the Press had "power without responsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."
  No one can control the views that appear in the Press except the proprietors of the Press. We all know that, and that by and large the British Press is an anti-Labour Press and anti-trade union Press, and is constantly propagating the views of capitalism, the capitalist class and the managerial class and, in particular, the proprietors.
  I am amazed that my right hon. Friend has gone so far down the Corridors with them in order to try to find a solution to this matter. I am amazed that the Leader of the Liberal Party has now, apparently, been converted to the need for a charter. I congratulate him on his industry in writing to those many people to get them together to reach some consensus of opinion on the charter, and so on. My right hon. Friend will have to watch out, because he may become redundant. There may be nothing for his Department's officials to do if the Leader of the Liberal Party goes to these lengths to bring the two parties together.
  However, with or without a charter, in negotiating a closed shop and its terms and conditions the trade unions have only to send a letter to the proprietors or the managers saying "Please may we have a meeting? We wish to discuss with you the terms and conditions under which it might be possible for you to enter into a closed shop agreement with us." The NUJ would act in the same manner as

  1379
  any other trade union in Britain, and newspaper employers would act in the same way as any other employers.
  I pick them out for special reference. I am amazed that in our long discussions on this important matter, which affects the lives of millions of people—namely, of bringing again into legality something that the Tories made illegal in 1971—so much attention has been pinpointed on a narrow sector of the economy. I am surprised that a few people can print acres of propaganda against my right hon. Friend, against his intentions by means of this measure and against the Government.
  It seems that they do so in order to secure some small advantage in their negotiations with the NUJ. An indication of the power of the proprietors is given when they can get legislation adopted in another place and when my right hon. Friend is intimidated into producing at least a charter. If he has not gone the whole way he has at least gone some of the way in an effort to appease them.
  I hope that the amendments submitted by the Opposition will be rejected. I am prepared to support the Government amendment although I consider it is unnecessary. It contains no element of compulsion or statutory direction. I hope that after our experience over the past 15 months the House will now be able to come to its conclusion. That conclusion will be that every element of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, including the illegality of closed shops, will come to an end. That will mean that an obnoxious Act which has caused more industrial unrest than any other piece of legislation will finally be consigned to the dustbin of history.
  Mr. Madel: I did not think that we would hear the suggestion from the Government Benches that the Secretary of State is afraid of another place. That seems to be the suggestion of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher). The two matters about which the Secretary of State is most afraid at present have nothing to do with the Press. The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of the unemployment figures and afraid that the Dock Work Regulation Bill will not get through the House. Any suggestion that he is afraid of Press barons or those
  1380
  in another place is completely out of character.
  Most of the speech of the hon. Member for Darlington was devoted to asking why the newspaper industry has been singled out by his right hon. Friend for a special position. If the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the history of his right hon. Friend, he will remember that he worked in the industry as both an editor and a contributor. He realises that it is in a special position and that if certain things happen to the Press the results will be damaging for democracy. Indeed, on 3rd December 1974, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I think that the unrestrained exercise of trade union power in the newspaper industry could strangle that industry."—[Official Report. 3rd December 1974; Vol. 882, c. 1380.]
  We start with an agreement between ourselves and the Secretary of State that we need a charter and that the newspaper industry occupies a special position and needs special attention. The argument between us is whether the charter that the right hon. Gentleman proposes needs strengthening.
  Before considering that matter I must say that I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) is not in his place. I join issue with him on two matters. First, he indicated that local newspapers are biased. That is not the case. Most local newspapers are neutral, and many are as widely read as are the national papers. The idea that they are full of capitalist propaganda or anti-Labour Party propaganda is not borne out by the facts. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman suggested that my hon. Friends do not care very much if people lose their jobs as printers or as anything else. We do care. Any Member of Parliament is very concerned about an increase in unemployment. It is only necessary to consider the debates that we have on this topic to realise that concern and worry about unemployment is not confined to one political party.
  When the Secretary of State addresses the House I hope that he will appreciate that on certain matters we need clarification. Our worry is that this whole matter will be left to the NUJ. The question of what happens if the balance of power within that union is tilted in a different way has never been answered properly.

  1381
  On the question of an individual's right to join a trade union of his choice, how do we know that as the newspaper industry evolves a different trade union will not be created? I am not suggesting that the NUJ will be undermined; I am merely pointing out that as industry develops and as technology changes we are bound to see new unions created. The newspaper industry will not necessarily be exempt from that movement. In the Opposition amendment we make that point in terms of joining another union.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) will agree that the atmosphere in industrial relations has changed. There is no longer the fear of the law that earlier existed. My right hon. Friend has already made mention of that. Our real worry about the charter is that there is nothing in it to say that there can be an injunction, or that compensation can be offered if a person is dismissed or unreasonably excluded from a union.
  Another great worry is the access of contributors to the Press at all times. I do not think we can ever underestimate the contributions of special contributors—people with specialised knowledge. Surely it makes sense for the House to protect their right to make occasional contributions to local and national newspapers.
  The right hon. Gentleman must answer the points that we have raised about the inadequacy of the charter. He knows that the newspaper industry is sensitive, and he knows the power that it has. Indeed, four months ago he suggested what would happen if there were an exercise of trade union power in the wrong direction. It is up to the right hon. Gentleman to answer our questions. If the charter is not strengthened, and if certain things happen in the newspaper industry, we must face the risk of the freedom of the Press being impaired.
  Mr. Esmond Balmer: I think that we all owe a debt to Lord Goodman for the way in which he developed this argument in another place. On listening to the Secretary of State one might have thought that it was the Duke of Omnium and Gatherum, or even Dorset, who was carrying the case, rather than the Prime Minister's sometime lawyer and trusted emissary.
  1382
  So much attention has been drawn to the Press that our attention has been removed from the equally important argument about the freedom of the individual in the context of the closed shop. It is unfortunate that these two factors have become inextricably intertwined. I am sure that the Secretary of State would have gone a great deal further to meet our concern about the freedom of the Press if these arguments had not intervened.
  I believe that the position of the individual is still fundamentally unsatisfactory. There is a contract between the position of an employee and that of the member of a trade union. If an employee is unfairly dismissed by his employer his earnings and his job are preserved. He has the right to go to a tribunal, the right to be represented, and the right to obtain a written judgment. The Press has the right to be present and the individual has the right of appeal.
  On the other hand, if a member is unfairly dismissed from a trade union his position is in no way preserved. He may lose his job, and he will have to wait for up to two years for the union's procedures to be exhausted. At that stage the mechanism of the TUC is invoked. The individual has no right to be professionally represented. The Press does not have the right to be present and the individual does not have the right to obtain a written judgment or the right of appeal. I cannot believe that any democrat on the Government Benches can rest content with that position.
  At least the Secretary of State has gone some way to admitting that the Press is in a special position and is a special case. We have to admit that the position of the Labour movement in developing the freedom of the Press is an honourable one. The media of 150 years ago, such as the Gorgon, Voice of the People, Manchester Observer and Poor Man's Guardian, whose editor was one Hetherington, were landmarks in the evolution of a free Press.
  All of us wish to preserve the right of an editor to print what he wishes, subject to the laws of libel, and to invite contributions from those contributors whom he wishes to include in his publication. I thought that we were all at one on that point. Lord Goodman

  1383
  and others were convincing in saying that it was possible that in future that right might be lost.
  5.30 p.m.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) pointed to one of the dangers: that of having a total monopoly in the hands of a group of work people when it comes to the printing of newspapers. It has been part of the Government's thesis that trade unions are above the law and that therefore it is not constructive to proper solutions to introduce the law into industrial relations. But the Government have not hesitated to use the law against the individual, whether to harry the man who has not renewed his dog licence or the person who has not made the appropriate VAT return. The law has already been invoked to see that the right of the ordinary worker is supported against the employer. I believe that arguments advanced by Labour Members against the law are not valid. I believe that the dangers remain.
  I spent some part of the recess—to my profit and that of the Secretary of State for Employment—in reading the right hon. Gentleman's biography of Aneurin Bevan. I was struck by one passage in which he quotes Aneurin Bevan as saying:
  "We have actually reached the position where it would be true to say that the leaders of the Transport and General Workers and the General and Municipal Workers decide the policy of the Labour Party. … This power they have exercised ruthlessly and cynically".
  Mr. Robin Corbett: They used to.
  Mr. Bulmer: What happened in the past could happen again, could it not? The power could be developed ruthlessly and cynically. Is it not conceivable that, despite what was said by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher), powerful and cynical trade union leaders might seek to bend the power of the Press to their will. We must do all in our power to prevent this happening.
  I emphasise that the temptation exists. We have only to ask the question "When it comes to a matter as crucial as the freedom of the Press, can the Labour Party be trusted?" I believe that indi-
  1384
  vidual Labour Party members can be trusted, but when it comes to the dead weight of the trade union group, if I may coin a phrase originally used by the Secretary of State for Employment, that may not be the case. When it comes to the situation of the Secretary of State for Employment, I think that the question is unproven. We still do not know what happened when the Lord Chancellor finished his conversation with Lord Goodman and thought that he had achieved a compromise. At some point in the night something happened to prevent a compromise emerging. Perhaps the reason was that the Secretary of State took instructions. Perhaps he will tell the House why that change occurred.
  It appears that the liberty of the Press is now to be entrusted to the democratic traditions of the NUJ. It is reasonable to ask whether such a heavy responsibility should be laid on what to date has proved a somewhat frail stem.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services said some time ago that in a democracy it was right and healthy that any powerful body should be subject to outside scrutiny where abuse of its power could most harm the individual. That argument is as valid today as the day it was written in 1969 in "In Place of Strife".
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Employment will accept the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and refer the matter to a Royal Commission. The liberty of the Press is too important to be entrusted to those who have a vested interest on one side or the other. I believe that an impartial investigation is the best way forward.
  Mr. Corbett: I should like to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) for my absence at the opening of the debate. I was attending a spirited deputation of 100 school-children whose school is faced with closure. I regret my absence from the debate.
  I shall be brief in my remarks because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) said, "We have covered this ground many times before".
  The question was asked by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer)

  1385
  whether the Labour Party can be trusted with the freedom of the Press. I could become contentious and say that we need no lectures from Conservatives about the freedom of the Press. The Labour Party and the Labour movement led the struggle for even the kind of Press we have today. I do not believe the freedom of the Press should be entrusted to any single party represented in this House or outside it.
  The question to which we return yet again in this debate is not that enunciated by the hon. Gentleman but whether we can trust the industry itself to safeguard, care for, protect, preserve and promote the freedom of the Press. The answer given to that question by Conservative Members disappoints me. Underlying Opposition speeches in this debate, and indeed the amendments, is the attitude that the industry is not capable of looking after these matters. It is as though employers' associations, trade unions and other bodies—in other words, the people who work in the industry, at whatever level—cannot be trusted together to work out a sensible agreement to safeguard the freedom of the Press, knowing that, if they fail in that job, we in this place can take over the job from them.
  The Opposition go on to assume that one cannot trust them because they are not capable of reaching agreement. I regard that as a monstrous insult to everybody working in all sections of the newspaper and magazine industry, because they have not yet had the chance to reach such agreement.
  I wish to correct what may have been a mis-statement in the debate in the House on 9th December. It occurred when I was seeking to comment on the attitude of the Institute of Journalists in relation to an invitation sent out some days earlier by the NUJ to try to convene a meeting with the intention of agreeing a charter on Press freedom. I misunderstood a telephone conversation which I had had with the General Secretary of the Institute of Journalists, and I wish now to correct the situation. I entirely accept that the Institute of Journalists, then as now, is willing to enter into these talks with the NUJ and other bodies to see whether a charter on Press freedom can be agreed.
  Since we last discussed this subject, I am happy to say, events in the outside
  1386
  world have moved. As a result of some correspondence in which I have been involved there is now agreement between the NUJ and the Institute of Journalists that an attempt should be made to get the talks started. I was also happy to learn that the Newspaper Publishers Association, although not possessing at present an appropriate organisation to deal with the matter, has now told the NUJ that other bodies will be consulted to decide the best form of organisation by which to commence these discussions. It is not being too optimistic to read into the situation the fact that the NPA, representing the national Press in Fleet Street, is willing to take part in conversations.
  One of the interesting features of the long debates on this subject is that all parties with views on the issue of Press freedom say, with great sincerity, that they are the people who have the interests of the Press most at heart. The NUJ claims no monopoly in wishing to safeguard the freedom of the Press. The fact that that union has tried to reach agreement on a charter demonstrates that fact. The Institute has an important voice in these discussions and so, too, have editors who are members of neither body—for instance the editors in the magazine industry in which I worked recently. The Newspaper Society, the NPA and other bodies will all say they are interested in preserving the freedom of the Press.
  Given this starting point and common ground between them, why is the House of Lords insisting that it knows best? If we had an unfettered debate in this House on the freedom of the Press we would not get even the basic agreement which now exists in all sections of the newspaper and magazine industry.
  Mr. Prior: I think it is of great value to the House that the hon. Member has made his statement about the misinterpretation of the Institute's position. In a letter to Mr. Kenneth Morgan on 12th December last year, Mr. Farmer, of the IOJ, referred to the hon. Member's speech in the House, when the hon. Member said that
  "it is not now, nor has it been, nor have I any reason to suppose that it ever will be, the policy of the NUJ to try to force into the ranks of the union everyone who attempts to write for a newspaper."—[Official Report, 9th December 1976; Vol. 902, c. 305.]

  1387
  In his letter Mr. Farmer says:
  "The Union is committed to give its full support to any chapel which seeks a union membership agreement. Such agreements would require journalists to be members of the NUJ as a condition of their employment."
  Is there any possibility that the NUJ would accept the IOJ as a permissible alternative? That would help us a great deal.
  Mr. Corbett: This matter has been referred to in correspondence between the General Secretaries of the IOJ and the NUJ. In a statement on union policy on this point Mr. Kenneth Morgan said:
  "The Union's policy for many years has been to encourage its chapels to seek, and support those who sought, 100 per cent. post-entry membership arrangements."
  I know the House appreciates that there is a difference between pre-entry and post-entry closed shops. Under the post-entry shop, existing union arangements would not be disturbed for those people already working in the industry. The statement goes on:
  "That was its policy before our 'trial marriage'"—
  there was an abortive attempt at amalgamation between the Union and the Institute some years ago which, regrettably, foundered—
  "remained its policy during that period and appeared to be an acceptable policy to your council—though not to all of your membership—when the two councils got so far on the road to merger as to agree on a joint rulebook".
  At that time there was an acceptance by the 10J council of this NUJ policy on 100 per cent. post-entry closed shops. The IOJ decided it could live with them. Mr. Morgan's letter goes on:
  "In practice, we both know that throughout the Union's history some chapels have opted to follow the line of seeking 100 per cent. post-entry shops and others have decided not to do so. I expect that difference of outlook to continue. Our ballot last year held that decision should be left to individual chapels and would not be imposed on them by the National Executive Council or the Annual Delegate Meeting."
  I recognise the difficulty here. One has to make a judgment, but we have experience of what happens on the ground. There are plenty of papers along Fleet Street and in the magazine industry where members of the NUJ and the IOJ work quite amicably side by side and
  1388
  have done so for many years. In at least one of the Fleet Street newspapers where journalists are considering seeking a 100 per cent. post-entry closed shop there is no intention to disturb existing arrangements as far the IOJ members are concerned.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Prior: Would the hon. Member not agree, when he talks about what happens on the gound, that the ground has changed very rapidly in the last five years? Five years ago it would have been safe to say there was a reasonable chance of that policy being interpreted liberally and there would have been plenty of respect for individual conscience. I do not think the same thing could necessarily be said today, and that underlies many of the fears of the IOJ, editors and others working in the industry. They say we cannot go back to pre-1971 because the ground has changed.
  Mr. Corbett: I am sorry, but I just do not share the right hon. Gentleman's pessimism. I have great faith in the common sense of the people on the shop floor who have to live and work in this situation. I thought the right hon. Member for Lowestoft would have been slightly heartened by the recent NUJ ballot in which there was a fairly good poll, in trade union terms, when the grass roots spoke on these matters. However much of a firebrand an FoC or other individual member in a position of power may be, he has to get support from the people who work in the industry and who attend the chapel meetings. We have to encourage them to attend chapel meetings, but I have more optimism about the common sense of rank and file trade union members than has the right hon. Gentleman.
  The other heartening event since we last debated this matter again arises in the exchange of correspondence between the NUJ and the IOJ. The General Secretary of the NUJ says about talks to agree a charter:
  "There is no plot here to manufacture a breakdown in order to have the Secretary of State use some reserve powers which he may be given: we have said, and I now repeat, that we regard an agreed charter of Press freedom as superior to any which may be imposed on the Press by any Government."
  I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not misunderstand me

  1389
  if I say that one of the objectionable features about what he is proposing is that he will have reserve powers, in the event of a failure to agree within the industry, to impose something on it. I know this is not a task for which he would volunteer, and it is my great hope and strong belief that, if we allow the industry to get on with the job, there can be some agreement on this matter. I believe in the common sense of the people at all levels in the industry. We should leave them to get on with the job.
  Mr. Aitken: I agree with the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) that this debate must be seen in the context of changing events outside. It is worth pointing out that 1976 is likely to be a make or break year for the newspaper industry as a whole. Virtually every newspaper in Fleet Street is losing money, in many cases colossal amounts—sometimes up to £100,000 a week. New technology offers a way to staunch the financial haemorrhage, but if it is to be implemented there will inevitably be a large number of tragic redundancies and this will bring tension into industrial relations in Fleet Street, which could have disastrous consequences if it exploded into the sort of Luddite reaction we saw on the other side of the Atlantic when computer type-setting was introduced there. Therefore, against this sombre background of tension we must consider whether the Bill, facilitating as it does the creation of a closed shop in journalism, will help or hinder good industrial relations in Fleet Street.
  The Secretary of State's enthusiasm for encouraging the NUJ to seek a position of monopoly power in controlling access to the Press takes an unacceptable risk with industrial relations in the newspaper industry. I therefore support the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that it would have been much better to have referred this matter to the Royal Commission. The Commission is producing an interim report by the end of this month on economic conditions in Fleet Street. It is expected to have considerable consequences. It would have been much better if simultaneously it had produced a report on some of the industrial relations aspects that we have been talking about.
  1390
  Unless the Secretary of State is to have an eleventh-hour conversion to a Royal Commission, we must deal with the Bill as it is. He knows that developments on this issue have gone a considerable way since we first debated the Bill. At least he has recognised the special position of the Press, a position which he denied existed at the outset. The terms of the charter, however, are still far too weak and ineffective.
  The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) appears to think that the terms and the guidelines of the charter will be made more effective eventually but that they should be left weak now in the hope that all the parties will agree to strengthen them in the ensuing discussions. This approach is an abdication of parliamentary leadership. Press freedom is far too important for Parliament to opt out of its protection, even as a tactical manœuvre, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Parliamentarians and the people they represent have a right to lay down guidelines and to have a choice in the protection of Press freedom.
  The amendment is wholly right, and Labour Members are having to scratch around very hard to find ways of objecting to it. It protects the outside contributor's right of access to the Press and the editor's right to commission and publish articles. It protects the right of members of the Institute of Journalists to coexist with those of the NUJ. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead is undoubtedly right in saying that in many chapels there is peaceful coexistence between the Institute and the NUJ, but his faith, as he called it, that this would be of universal application is a triumph of hope over experience.
  Mr. Corbett: Give an example.
  Mr. Aitken: I shall give the hon. Gentleman one. Recently there was an industrial dispute in Birmingham. It was a serious dispute in which the NUJ members walked out and the IOJ members remained at their desks. The IOJ almost certainly preserved the jobs of the NUJ members, as was eventually recognised, and the dispute was amicably settled. In the course of the dispute there was a great deal of aggravation and considerable tension between the IOJ and the NUJ, and it would be wrong to suggest otherwise.
  Mr. Corbett: That was not a dispute between the IOJ and the NUJ. The dispute was with the management.
  Mr. Aitken: Of course it was a dispute between the NUJ and the management, but there was a great deal of tension between the IOJ and the NUJ in that situation, and to suggest that there is the hope of peaceful coexistence between the two is wrong. For that reason, some protection for this coexistence should be written into the charter. There should be a basic right in the charter for journalists not to be excluded or expelled from trade unions.
  The terms of the amendment are quite unexceptionable, and it is a matter of shame and embarrassment that the Labour Party should be opposing them. If Labour Members oppose them it is because the Labour Party has become the Jack Jones puppet show in which the voting strings are being pulled by the trade union bosses—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not Jack Jones. That is completely wrong.
  Mr. Aitken: It is Parliament's job to protect the rights of journalists and individuals, and that is why we should support the amendment.
  Mr. Skinner: It is certainly not Jack Jones.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Sir David Renton.
  Sir David Renton: I support the amendment—
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) should do his research more carefully. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) can carry on now.
  Sir D. Renton: That is typical of the arrogance we learn to expect from some Members opposite. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we may proceed with good manners. Sir David Renton.
  Sir D. Renton rose—
  Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way? He referred to my arrogance in making a few
  1392
  remarks to the hon. Member for Thanet, East. I could hardly match the arrogance shown by the right hon. and learned Gentleman when, in his capacity as a recorder, he turned out a witness who came to give evidence in overalls, and he told him to come back with some decent clothes on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite out of order in making such comments.
  Mr. Skinner: It happens to be true.
  Mr. Peter Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to comment in such a flagrant way on the conduct of proceedings in the courts? Is not that the kind of offence which should lead the Chair to name the hon. Member concerned?
  Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was accused of being arrogant. Was it not therefore entirely reasonable that he should point out that the right hon. and learned Member who was making that accusation had himself behaved arrogantly?
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely this whole thing is slightly irrelevant since the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has intervened in a speech which has not even started.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the House should keep away from personalities. Allegations against hon. Members should be put down in the form of a substantive motion. Good manners should be maintained and heat should be kept out of the debate.
  Sir D. Renton: I support Amendment No. 1 and I shall in due course formally move Amendment No. 8, which stands in my name and which is not incompatible with Amendment No. 1. It would be an addition to the amendment because it would form, in effect, a new subsection to the clause.
  If there is to be a closed shop and a charter for the freedom of the Press, however incompatible those two provisions might seem, we should make sure that there is genuine freedom of the Press. We should ensure that just as we have a

  1393
  right to strike—a right which is cherished on both sides of the House—there should also be a right not to strike but to continue at work if by his conscience and judgment the journalist concerned prefers so to do. Conflicts of loyalties may easily arise with a closed shop. The central governing body of a union is not necessarily infallible and sometimes makes mistakes. Sometimes the membership has come to the conclusion that the governing body was wrong. It is not papal in its infallibility.
  Mr. Cryer: Neither are editors.
  6.0 p.m.
  Sir D. Renton: I was about to come to the position of editors. Editors and management are not always right, neither are they always wrong. What is a member of the National Union of Journalists to do—I ask the Secretary of State for Employment to consider this—if he thinks that his union's instructions to strike are wrong and that his editor and the owners of the paper are right?
  We ought to face up to this situation. Should the journalist in those circumstances be allowed by law—we understand that the charter will become part of the law—to follow his sense of justice, his conscience and his judgment and do what he believes to be right, in the interests of the freedom of the Press and in the public interest?
  The situation which I have been trying to describe in broad principle has arisen in non-closed shop circumstances in a group of papers covering the constituency of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) and my own constituency. It has been referred to earlier in the House, but I do not think that the latest developments in the matter are known to hon. Members. I should therefore like quickly to remind them of the facts and inform them of the latest developments.
  Last June a dispute arose because of the management's proposals to install new machinery for printing the newspaper. The printers went on strike, and the editorial staff declined to follow the instructions of the headquarters of the National Union of Journalists that they should come out on strike in sympathy.
  What was the outcome of the dispute? The management had its machinery installed, and no printer was dismissed from
  1394
  his job. The only printers to leave did so voluntarily. The local courts fined some of the people who picketed, because they had broken the law. They were fined £5 or £10—sums which, as usual, the union paid.
  What happened to the journalists who remained loyal and continued to print the paper? One of them asked this question in a letter published in the Peterborough Standard of 21st November 1975:
  "What was their reward for thinking for themselves in a situation they didn't want, was none of their making, did not involve them directly, and could only end in a bloody nose from either their union or their employers?"
  All 36 of them were fined by the union sums between £15 and £50. Four of them—who had done no more than the rest but said more about why they were doing it—were singled out for the heaviest fines and were suspended from union membership for a year. I regard that, quite frankly, as victimisation. If the management somehow had behaved in a comparable way—I do not know quite how it could—there would have been the most terrible steam-up.
  The 36 journalists concerned—I think there were possibly several ladies among them—appealed to the union. I do not think that their appeal has yet been heard. It is to be heard by what I can only describe as some of the top brass of the union, some of whom had taken the decision to strike and some of whom had not, and therefore—
  Mr. Corbett: May I, on the basis of my experience, say that it is a disservice to describe the appeal tribunal as being composed of some of the top brass of the union? These people are directly elected by annual conference every year. They are rank-and-file people nominated by the branches. The appeal tribunal does not include any of the people who took the decision to strike.
  Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that someone joining any trade union or organisation on a voluntary basis undertakes to abide by the rules? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that in any organisation, whether it is the RSPCA or the NUJ, situations will arise in which there is a majority and a minority view, and that our democracy at the moment rests on the principle that the majority rule will prevail unless it is changed?
  Sir D. Renton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the correction. I still consider that my expression "top brass" is not inappropriate to the appeal committee. I am very relieved to know—because it is contrary to the information I had been given—that none of the people who took the decision to strike will be hearing the appeal. That is good.
  As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, in my opinion he has reinforced the case against the closed shop. I shall not try to follow his remarks in detail, but if he will think them out he will realise that that is what he has done.
  The House would be very unwise, when legislating in this new position of a closed shop, to do so in circumstances in which the freedom of the Press might be affected. Even in the days when people used to say "My country right or wrong", that attitude was modified by the British sense of justice. The expression, "My party right or wrong" may occasionally have appealed to some Members on both sides of the House, but it is not to my mind an acceptable proposition, nor is it aceptable in the minds of most hon. Members, especially in matters of conscience.
  We are concerned here with a situation in which a journalist may be working in the next room to an editor whom he knows and trusts, and a conflict of loyalty may arise between that journalist and—if I may use the expression again—the top brass of the union. They may be people whom the journalist does not know and may never have seen. He may, indeed, be out of sympathy with their general attitude towards union and Press affairs. Why should that journalist be penalised or victimised because he decides in a particular situation to remain loyal to his editor?
  Taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), may I ask why there should be union rules which permit that journalist to be penalised or victimised.
  Mr. Corbett rose—
  Sir D. Renton: I must finish. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very upset by what I am saying.
  Mr. Corbett: Not at all.
  Sir D. Renton: Yes, and the hon. Gentleman is trying to divert me from my main argument. He will be glad to know, as will the House, that my main argument is very nearly concluded. In my opinion this point is such a strong one that it should be dealt with in the Bill. I have attempted to draft an amendment dealing with it.
  Union members, in a closed shop situation, ought not to be victimised or penalised. They alone should have the right to decide whether to strike, as advised by their union, or loyally to stay at work and keep the paper going in the public interest.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have not taken part in other debates on this issue during the past 18 months and I shall probably be briefer than hon. Members who have taken part. The conciliatory tone of the introductory speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) was partly matched by the tone in which the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) put forward his view. I am grateful to hear from a member of NUJ the straight facts about how the union works. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I link him with his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who referred to people who do not strike as scabs. It is odd, in a Session of Parliament when there have been doctors' disputes and when the Secretary of State for Social Services has praised the doctors who did not take part in the disputes, that Labour Members should be so selective in whom they class as scabs and whom they do not.
  Unless and until it is established by the House that each individual worker, be he doctor, journalist, editor or joiner, has the right to stay at work if he decides to do so, the House will not have done its job properly. I hope that in replying the Secretary of State will answer the crucial question: as well as the freedom not to work, have we the freedom to decide that we shall work?
  It is only through the free Press that many Labour Members are sitting where they are and many of their Labour colleagues are sitting in County Hall. It is because the Press published so many scatter-brained schemes which took in the electorate. We have only to look at the

  1397
  by-election result at Woolwich, West after six months' experience of the second Labour Government from October 1974 to realise that.
  If I may remain non-controversial, my next point is that neither the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead nor the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) referred to editors, their responsibilities and how they discharge those responsibilities, nor did they refer to the individual rights of journalists. Clearly trade unions are important organisations, but they are made up of individuals, and the individual decisions made by journalists are more important than are the decisions made at branch meetings when attendance may be low. If hon. Members present constituted a branch meeting and a vote were taken now, the Government would lose that vote because more Conservative than Labour Members are here. That is how a trade union branch meeting works.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman seems to be very concerned about the freedom of the Press and the workings of democracy. How does he view the United Conservative Newspaper Co. Ltd., which shattered the editorial decisions of the Yorkshire Evening Press when it bought up that newspaper and closed it down? What did he and his colleagues do then about preserving the freedom of the Press? What will they do if one of the two London evening newspapers gets into financial difficulties? Which freedom of the Press and which editorial decisions will the hon. Member preserve?
  Mr. Bottomley: I should refer the whole matter of the freedom of the Press to the Royal Commission on the Press, which is the most appropriate body to consider it. If we consider the freedom of the Press only as a party political matter, we shall end up with four surviving newspapers, two of which will look like the Conservative Monthly News and two like the Labour Weekly. The Labour Weekly consists of seven pages explaining how wrong it is for one man to employ others and to build up a business worth £½ million and, on page 11, how to win £½ million on the football pools using Labour Weekly perm 27. I prefer the Press as it is at present.
  1398
  6.15 p.m.
  The question was asked: which country has a Press which is as free as ours? I am not arguing that we have perfect freedom of the Press. In some countries which have a Press which is less free than ours there are no rights either for journalists or for editors, but in some there is still the right for editors and journalists to go to the courts and say "We should not be repressed as we are being repressed". Normally, that is in an attempt to protect the Press from the Government, but it can equally be to protect the Press from arbitary decisions of groups of workers.
  It has been asked why we are not talking about other people who work on newspapers and why we are concerned solely with proporietors, editors and journalists. The clause does not refer to any other groups of workers. It does not refer to members of SOGAT, NGA or NATSOPA. Perhaps the Secretary of State will answer that question.
  The crucial factor is that while Labour Members ignore the responsibility of editors, while they ignore the rights of individual workers, while they are selective in their accusations of scabbing and while they are willing to deny to individual workers the right to stay at work, the case for believing that the Secretary of State's charter is ineffective has been made out. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the arguments put from the Opposition Benches are imperfect, he must at least accept that we have established that his protection is no protection for the people on whom the freedom of the Press depends. As citizens of a liberal democracy, we depend on the Press not only for reporting what we say but also for our knowledge of what is going on elsewhere—perhaps not always accurately, but we rely on the freedom of the Press.
  If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the arguments put from the Opposition Benches today and in the past 18 months, will he please put the case to the Royal Commission on the Press, which could give time for the newspaper industry to put forward proposals?
  Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I wish to say a few words about the forceful speech made by the hon.

  1399
  Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher). He asked why we should single out this one industry for special treatment. It was said in answer that the industry had already been singled out by the Secretary of State in the terms of the clause and by the very fact of the charter. But there are better grounds to rely upon than that the Secretary of State in his wisdom has chosen to regard the industry as being of special significance.
  All hon. Members would probably agree that next to the writ of habeas corpus a free Press is the greatest safeguard for our liberties as individuals. If we have a precious safeguard, it is surely gross negligence to risk a weakening, let alone a destruction, of that safeguard. There are those who ask why we cannot trust this industry to attend to its internal conflicts in its own good sense and its own good time. I respect that approach, and if we lived in a happier and less abrasive and argumentative industrial climate than we do there would be grounds for following that line.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said, however, times have changed significantly since before 1971. There is much more industrial trouble. Already we are beginning to see in the newspapers instances—there was one in the Financial Tunes—of blanks being left in the copy because permission had been refused to a contributor to have his contribution published.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft said, it was relatively unusual before 1971 to have closed shops in the newspaper industry. However, it is much more common now. Therefore, there is available to anyone who wishes to see it tangible and compelling evidence of increasing danger. Again, it would be all right if our experience led us to believe that union leaders—not only national union leaders, but local union leaders—were distinguished from everyone else in the country because they always made the right decisions in the national interest as well as in the interests of their members. However, not many hon. Members, including Labour Members, would go as far as to say that.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), who, I think, said not long ago that if the pro-
  1400
  posals go wrong the House can always intervene. A newspaper can be pushed over the brink to destruction in a matter of days. It can lose its freedom in a matter of days. By the time the Government get round to giving parliamentary time and the House gets round to amending the industrial relations law, it will be too late to save a newspaper and to preserve the freedom of the Press. After all, under our democratic system we operate on the basis of first past the post. That is why a Labour Government sit on the Treasury Bench on the strength of the vote of 38 per cent. of the electorate. That is why there are union leaders in positions of authority and power on the strength of a tiny proportion of the vote. Can we safely say that the future of the precious safeguards of our liberty can be left to the decision of union leaders who hold their position on so tenuous a democratic foundation? One has only to pose the question to realise that it is grossly negligent to entrust the freedom of the Press to that sort of pious hope.
  It is a question of not only the freedom of the Press but the freedom of people to exercise their talent. It is a question of holding one's job. If, as a result of conflict, a man gets the chopper and is told that he is out and expelled from his union, he has no effective right to challenge that decision. He has lost not only that individual job with an individual newspaper but his earning capacity. He has lost his ability to earn his living by the only talent he has developed sufficiently to enable him to do so. He has suffered a profoundly serious injury as an individual, but we must remember the consequences to those whom he serves through the exercise of his talent.
  I have no hesitation in supporting my right hon Friend's amendment. I am absolutely certain that if we followed the seductive words of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead and said "Leave it to them to decide in their own good way, leave it to them to exercise their common sense", the odds—not the certainty—would he that in a matter of months we should find that this precious safeguard to our liberty, second only to habeas corpus, had been fatally impaired. That is not something I am prepared to go along with.
  If people of good will and intelligence imposed upon themselves the frightful

  1401
  pain of going through the debates which have gone on for 18 months or two years, compared the contributions made in this Chamber, especially on the Government side, with those in another place and looked at their outcome, at any rate at the moment, I suspect they would say "If a democratically elected Chamber with a Government elected on 38 per cent. of the vote can give privileges and powers to unions whose leaders may be elected on perhaps 10 per cent. of the vote, then we think that the other place, the non-elected Chamber, has acted more in the interests of the country and democracy."
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I shall start by commenting on the observations made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and by several other hon. Members, including my two hon. Friends who have spoken in a tone of momentary criticism—my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol. North-West (Mr. Thomas) and Darlington (Mr. Fletcher). They have asked why we should have any special provisions to deal with the Press and why we should have the arrangements for a Press charter covered in this type of Bill in any sense at all.
  I point out to my hon. Friends, and to all hon. Members who have raised this matter, that I believe there should he special concern in the House for the freedom of the Press. I shall make no special philosophical comments about how far we have that freedom of the Press at present, but certainly it is the duty of anyone who believes in the freedom of this House to seek to do everything he can to enhance the freedom of the Press. It is true that many members of the Labour movement and trade unionists have played a most notable part in the establishment of such freedoms as do exist in the Press.
  Speaking for myself—perhaps I am prejudiced—journalism is my trade and therefore, no doubt, that influences my view that we must do everything we can to ensure that freedom is preserved and enhanced in the whole of the industry. I apply that observation not only to journalists but to others who work in the industry, including the other trade unions that operate in the industry. As a journalist I learnt a great deal of the
  1402
  profession from the members of the National Graphical Association. They were not members of the National Graphical Association in those days, because at that time the union had a different name. However, since we have been at the Department I, together with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, have sought to do our best to assist in overcoming industrial troubles in the industry—troubles that could play a most damaging part in interfering with the freedom of the Press. We have sought in every way possible to assist in that respect.
  I make no apology for saying that it is right that special attention should be paid to the methods by which we may preserve the freedom of the Press or, as I should prefer to put it, enhance its freedom. I believe that when we have the chance to put our proposals into operation we shall not merely preserve such freedoms as we have; we shall have a better chance of preserving those freedoms in the years to come than we have had for a long time.
  In my view, most of this debate has been conducted in a very different tone, if I may put it that way, from some of the comments made outside on our previous debates. However, whatever differences may remain between the two sides on this matter I hope that there will be no more wild accusations about myself or the Government wishing to strangle freedom in any sense whatever.
  The right hon. Member for Lowestoft began by quoting one of his favourite newspapers, the Sun. I shall quote one of my favourite newspapers on this topic. I shall refer to the leading article not in the Tribune, which has made some important comments about these matters, but in the Evening Standard of 4th November 1975. I shall refer to the conclusions of one of the most eminent editors in Fleet Street—in my belief, one of the greatest editors that Fleet Street has known in this century. In his conclusion of the article on the subject he said that after all the debate in this House and the House of Lords—and this is surely the more reasonable course—
  "the Upper House can admit defeat and end its opposition. Lord Goodman and his allies have made their point. They have reminded Parliament and all those concerned with newspapers that editorial freedom must not be jeopardised. Having done so, however, it would be wise for them to allow editors"—

  1403
  I must get out some other spectacles. I want to get the words absolutely correct, because I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to miss anything. This is necessary for his instruction.
  "Having done so, however, it would be wise for them to allow editors, journalists and publishers to attempt to draft an agreement of their own making, as some of them have shown themselves ready to do, without invoking the restrictive and abrasive influence of the law."
  However it may be argued, when that is the verdict of one of the most distinguished editors in Fleet Street, I do not think that it is any good anybody trying to continue the argument on the basis of accusations that we are trying to interfere with freedom. It is a matter of judgment how it should be done. After all the discussions we had in this House and in the other place, we have support not merely from that area but from elsewhere. I could also quote from The Guardian, which has played a big part in all the discussions that we have had over many months, which reached conclusions in much the same terms.
  Before dealing with the important proposal made by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and its association with the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft, I should like to refer to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). I do not propose to comment on the Peterborough case because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) indicated, that matter is being dealt with through the appeal machinery of the trade union. I merely wish to comment upon the remedy proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman for dealing with the situation. His remedy would involve far-reaching interference with the operation not merely of the National Union of Journalists but of other unions in the printing industry.
  We object in principle to provisions that seek to regulate union behaviour without real regard to the object of doing so. In this instance, our objections are increased by the fact that it appears to be that a union—whether of journalists, printers, or others remotely connected with the media industry—is not to have any powers to discipline its members and to demand compliance with its rules, which form the basis of the con-
  1404
  tract of membership. Moreover, there is no suggestion that an employee who refuses to comply with a union's instructions during an industrial dispute has to do so in the interests of safeguarding Press freedom or in order to comply with the provisions of the charter. The provision is blatant encouragement to strike breakers over a very wide area.
  The provision would also cause difficulties because there is a distinct likelihood of its being considered contrary to ILO Convention No. 87—the right to organise—which this country has ratified and which upholds the rights of unions to organise their affairs as they wish so long as they are in compliance with reasonable laws, which are not designed to restrict their right to do so. It is most unusual for the law to remove from organisations the power to control members who may be acting contrary to their interests, and we know of no law of this kind in existence in any country that has ratified ILO Convention No. 87. We doubt whether the authorities would consider this kind of amendment to be in accordance with the spirit of the Convention.
  Sir David Renton rose—
  Mr. Foot: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman interrupts me. I should say that I do not imagine that when he tabled the amendment he thought it might have these far-reaching consequences. Whatever the disease he proposes to remedy, this is certainly not the way to do it.
  Sir D. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman has read into my amendment far more than is there. The amendment would not interfere with the right of unions to impose a form of discipline upon their members. It deals solely with the right not to strike. That is only one feature of matters covered by union rules. The right hon. Gentleman has assumed far more from my amendment than is expressed or implied in it.
  Mr. Foot: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has so quickly intervened to point out that he did not mean the interpretation that I was placing on his amendment. However, that is what the amendment would mean if it were accepted. When an amendment of that nature is presented by a right hon. and learned Gentleman with

  1405
  his experience in drafting and knowledge of the law, I think that I am entitled to comment on the actual words. The amendment deals not only with strike breaking but with holding office, and many other matters. Therefore, I think that comment should be taken and considered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the amendment to which he has referred were linked to the one proposed by the official Opposition—that those who work in the industry should be allowed to opt in and out of whatever union they wish—it could mean the end of any effective trade union organisation in this industry, and that that is probably what they are after?
  Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend. That would be the consequence if we were to proceed in that way. However, I understand that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire does not agree with his own amendment now, so we should not proceed in that way.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the amendment being in contravention of ILO Convention 87. Is this a possible supposition, or has it been confirmed by the ILO? This is not a restriction on the right of a union to organise. As I understand it, it is a restriction not on the right of a union to ask a man to join, but to say to that man "You must not work."
  Mr. Foot: I have given the House the considered judgment of myself and the Department on the interpretation of the way in which it would affect the ILO Convention. I believe that is the situation, and it is an additional argument, beyond those which have already been presented, why we should not accept the amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire.
  I turn now to the principal amendment. One course open to me would be to go in detail through its provisions. I shall comment on one of or two of its provisions, but it is not necessary for me to go through them to the extent that I might otherwise have done, because of the intervention by the right hon. Mem-
  1406
  ber for Devon, North, who underlined one of the main reasons why we oppose the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft.
  We wish to see this charter brought into operation. I certainly acknowledge the efforts made on an earlier occasion by the right hon. Member for Devon, North to bring the parties together. I am sure that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) were seeking to secure a sensible and liberal—in the best sense of the word—settlement of the matter. Therefore, he has some knowledge, and his quotations of what took place at that meeting indicate some of the influences involved.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that if the amendment moved by the official Opposition were adopted it might impair the possibility of reaching a satisfactory conclusion to the talks on the charter. I think that he is right. His reasons may not be the same as mine and he may not go as far as we have gone in objecting to the amendment on the ground that it would make any chance of a charter impossible. But we have stated throughout the whole of this controversy that we did not want to lay down such previsions in advance, even if we agreed with most of them, because it would mean that the parties might never meet and that if they did meet they would be confronted with the difficulty of having to agree to certain provisions that the editors or proprietors wanted, that were cast-iron from the start, whereas provisions affecting the freedom of the Press and other questions that the journalists wanted were not to be insisted upon to anything like the same degree.
  I have always held the view that if all these provisions were insisted upon by the Opposition and by the other House, they would make the establishment of a charter, if not impossible, at any rate very much more difficult. I am glad to have the support of the right hon. Member for Devon, North in that proposition, even if he presents it not quite as strongly as I do. What he has said emphasises the strength of what we have said thoughout our debates on this subject.
  I come now to some of the objections to the provisions in the amendment. I shall not go through them all now. Some

  1407
  are matters touched upon in the charter itself, and are matters that have to be discussed and matters on which conclusions have to be reached if the charter is to be successful. But there are others, to some of which the Government have great objection.
  The right hon. Member for Devon, North indicated that he accepted the amendment completely, even though he did not think that it was the right way to go about it. However, I take the last few words,
  "(subject only to editorial discretion) of access to the press of all contributors at all times".
  If that were applied literally—"at all times"—it would forbid any industrial action at all. It would make industrial action by some people an offence against the charter. We could not possibly agree to the provision "at all times". It is contrary to what others have asked for, even when they have been making a moderate case.
  I take another example. There is a conflict between the absolute right of editors, as stated in the amendment,
  "to commission and to publish or refuse to publish any material".
  That conflicts in some degree with the next sentence,
  "and the assurance … of access to the press of all contributors at all times."
  That is a contradiction in itself. It used to be said that military intelligence was a contradiction in itself. This certainly is a contradiction in itself. We have pointed this out before in our previous discussions, but it has not been accepted.
  Perhaps I may underline what I am saying by recalling how we arrived at this situation—
  Mr. Prior: Will the right hon. Gentleman then explain why he takes the view that he does in view of the words in brackets,
  "(subject only to editorial discretion)"?
  Is not he making a meal out of words that are quite straightforward for everyone else to understand?
  Mr. Foot: I think that what I have said is the case. There is a contradiction between the two, which has not been resolved, as we have pointed out before. If the Opposition wished to resolve it they could have done so.
  1408
  Let me emphasise how we arrived at our proposals for the charter and how our approach, in my opinion and that of others who are fully capable of judging the matter, is a much better one.
  The best way to illustrate this is to relate what happened when the editors of all the London papers first came to see me in November 1974 to make known their objections, requirements or desires about what we should do in this legislation. They had anxieties about a number of matters. They had particular anxieties about the right of editors not to belong to a trade union. That was a matter that they emphasised most strongly. They also expressed anxieties about the access to the Press of all contributors.
  6.45 p.m.
  When I asked them at our first meeting whether they wished the Government to seek a method whereby the question of access to the Press might be resolved—and in my opinion this is the most important question of all, in a sense—and whether they wanted a system or arrangement whereby the question of access was dealt with by legislation, they said, "No"
  I agree that if we ever reached a situation—which I doubt very much—in which the National Union of Journalists or other organisations or bodies used their monopoly power to deny access to the Press to outside contributors or to other people throughout the country—I remind right hon. and hon. Members that most of the interference with access to the Press has not come from the NUJ but from the proprietors and other bodies, even though that is the alarmist talk which has been spread in some quarters—this House of Commons would have to do something to ensure that that scandal did not continue and did not take root. I agree with that, and I have said it on numerous occasions.
  But I have always said, as a prelude and as a postscript, that it is very difficult to do that by legislation. The talk is always about rights of access and the need to protect them against action by the NUJ, but this raises the question of the behaviour of the proprietors, editors and others. It is impossible to give a guarantee of access to the Press that does not deal with all the other threats that many of us believe to be much more real.

  1409
  It was precisely because of all these considerations, I am sure, that when I put the question to the London editors asking them whether they wanted legislation to deal with this matter of access, they said, "No. We are concerned about it in some respects, but we do not want legislation to deal with it." That has been the consistent attitude that I and the Government have taken throughout this controversy. It has never been understood in the other place. However, that is quite a common occurrence.
  Mr. Nigel Lawson: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman has given an assurance in general terms. Can he enlighten us a little more by saying more precisely how serious an action by the NUJ would have to be, in his opinion, to warrant his coming to this House with further legislative proposals?
  Mr. Foot: I shall not answer the question in the form in which the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) puts it, but I shall answer it in dealing with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel), who referred to a somewhat revolutionary paper in Bedfordshire known, I believe, as the "Bedfordshire Red Banner". He put some questions to me about what would be the circumstances in which, if the NUJ behaved in this or that fashion, the Government would take action.
  If I were to answer that question, I should equally be called upon to say what is to be done if proprietors sack editors. However, as I have said before, for every 1,000 editors sacked by proprietors, only half an editor—if that were possible—has been removed from his post by the operations of the NUJ. But if that became a serious menace to the rights of freedom, the Government would have to take action.
  Nevertheless, it is extremely difficult to think of any legislative way in which the problem could be tackled—and that brings me to the whole point of this discussion. It is the reason why we turned to the idea of a charter for dealing with this matter devised not by imposition from this House, but by the people working in the industry.
  That is what we sought to do, and that is how the charter was born. It is not the case that we were deeply resistant to any such idea. My hon. Friend the Mem-
  1410
  ber for Bristol, North-West quoted me accurately in the earlier debate. At that time we did not think it necessary to include the charter in the Bill. We have listened to the representations made from another place by Lord Houghton, who produced the first proposal for a charter, and to the repesentations of Mr. Alistair Hetherington, at that time the editor of The Guardian. I think that I was the first person in this House to welcome the charter proposed by Mr. Hetherington as an admirable document.
  It is no good saying that we have been resistant to the idea. We have listened to what people have suggested. This proposal on the Order Paper is the result of those general discussions. It preserves the principle that we should not seek to re-establish the ideas of the 1971 Industrial Relations Act. We have absolutely rejected that. That would be a most unwise course to pursue, in the interests both of industrial relations and of the freedom of the Press. We are in favour of making the charter work. We genuinely believe that it can make a first-rate contribution to ensuring that the freedom of the Press is better preserved.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) says that this charter is just a declaration. "What is the use of declarations?" he asks. In this year of 1976—the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence—that is an inappropriate question. Declarations can play a big part in the history and development of mankind. In some respects declarations have been more important than laws. I do not believe that the declaration should be despised. The trouble about trying to give legal status and backing to the charter is that we get back to the same old difficulties. We would be discriminating against one trade union. Logically, if we were to do that in the name of freedom of the Press, we should discriminate against the National Graphical Association, SOGAT, and the others. There is no case in logic in dividing one from the other.
  I say that we have set about this in a proper way. I hope that what will happen as a result of our further deliberations is that the House of Lords will consider the matter afresh. It has had three or four different opportunities to do so. I hope that it will understand that in the interests of

  1411
  good relations and for all the other reasons that I have given, the Government are not prepared to reinstitute sections of the 1971 Industrial Relations Act. We think it would be deeply offensive to members of the National Union of Journalists to pick them out and to say, "This union is not to be trusted to have the same rules applied to its industrial relations as the other unions have." If we were to do that, on the advice of these eminent industrial experts and consultants in another place, we would make it impossible for the NUJ to form the charter that so many in this House, I believe, are recognising is the right way to proceed.
  Obviously, if it is said from this House in advance that we are reinstituting sections of the 1971 Act to deal with the misdemeanours of the NUJ we would have to say "Goodbye" to any kind of charter. I appeal to the House, and certainly to the other place, to let us have the chance of putting this charter into operation on a sensible basis. Let us clear away the wild accusations that have been made.
  As a member of the NUJ I am proud that I belong to a trade union that has a better declaration about the freedom of the Press than any other union has. I do not say that the NUJ has always lived up to the ideals in that declaration. But that applies to other sections of the industry and to other people in this country. It is important to have that declaration. What will happen—and as a member of the NUJ I am proud of this, too—is that if the charter succeeds the code of conduct of the NUJ will be written into it.
  This House, if it really cherishes freedom as much as Tory right hon. and hon. Members like to pretend, should welcome that development with open arms and do everything it can to make the charter succeed. That is what I ask the House to do. We shall never do this if we say that these discussions can take place only under the shadow of the reimposition of the 1971 Act. We shall never tolerate that, and I do not see why anyone else should do so, either. In recent years, despite other difficulties—partly I think through the operation of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and other developments—there have been considerable improvements in industrial
  1412
  relations. Certainly the strike figures seem to prove that. We have still got a long way to go. We should state that we must have nothing more to do with the 1971 Act. In that way we are proceding in the right direction. That is the way in which we can also obtain for journalists and newspapers a charter of freedom that goes beyond anything they have ever had.
  Mr. Barney Hayhoe: The Secretary of State ended his speech with a typically emotive distortion of the arguments which have been put before the House today. As ever, his references to the 1971 Act were inaccurate. As ever, his understanding of the strike figures is woefully lacking. Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to equate the number of days that have been lost through strikes—which I am glad to say is down compared with the numbers in past years—with the number of months lost as a result of increased unemployment? It is the inter-relationship of this vastly increased unemployment which has made a change in the number of days lost through industrial disputes. The right hon. Gentleman should take no credit for the fact that there have been fewer strikes. This has been achieved at a cost in terms of human misery, as is portrayed by the present unemployment figures.
  We now seem to be agreed about the need for an effective charter safeguarding the freedom of the Press. What still divides us is the legislative basis for such a charter, the legislative provisions, if any, for the contents of the charter and the legal backing and basis of the charter provisions. Once more we have returned to this issue which is of fundamental importance in our free society—the protection and safeguarding of Press freedom. Some of us are now making our tenth or eleventh speech on this matter. Some might argue that we carry the parliamentary battle on this issue to the last ditch. A distinguished journalist once said to me that on the issue of Press freedom the las ditch is also the front line.
  There is nothing wrong in being in, and remaining in, the front line in defence of Press freedom. Perhaps editors and journalists are becoming bored with the issue—certainly not as much coverage is being given to it as was given earlier—but apathy and boredom are the allies

  1413
  of those who menace basic freedoms, not of those who seek to protect them. Therefore, we make no apologies for returning to this matter again.
  7.0 p.m.
  As is clear from the Order Paper, we are concerned about the wider issues of Press freedom and safeguards for the individual in the closed shop situation, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said in his powerful and compelling speech.
  The House should also ponder upon the important matters concerning victimisation which were raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), because they are issues that will arise again. Victimisation in the context of industrial disputes can go both ways. We ought always to be seeking ways to conciliate and methods of resolving differences which protect individual rights as well as the rights of the community, as far as we can. I am sure that all of us recognise that we cannot ensure Press freedom by legislation, but legislation can help.
  There have been references to the monopolistic control of the Press in this country. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) said that three organisations controlled 80 per cent. of the Press. We have thought it right that because the newspaper industry is of special importance we should legislate in a specific way for takeovers and mergers in that industry. That legislation helps to protect the freedom of the Press, but legislation can harm that freedom. We believe that the Bill, if passed un-amended, will do such harm.
  The Government's proposed legislation would assist the people who seek monopoly control of those who edit and write for our Press. Of course, the legislation would not make such monopoly control inevitable, or a probability, but it would make it more possible than if it did not go through or were not severely amended.
  Our debates have already served a useful purpose, because they have awakened people to the dangers implicit in the extension of closed shops within the Press. Whatever the result of the parliamentary consideration of the Bill I am sure that our debates on it have
  1414
  been well worth while, because people are now more alert to the dangers. It is less likely that the freedom of the Press can be endangered quietly and stealthily. People will now be watching with much greater care what is being done.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West referred to Labour's proposals for the Press. I suspect that he was quoting from the evidence given to the Royal Commission on behalf of the Labour Party. I wish that I had been able to intervene, but I wanted to check my reference. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has raised a serious question about the status of that evidence. It seems clear that it was not submitted to the Parliamentary Labour Party, and that many Labour Members were unaware of the contents. It was sent to the Royal Commission and is now quoted by an hon. Member as Labour Party policy. My reading of the proposals is that they would be very damaging to the Press and would, as every Socialist proposal would, impose a large, new bureaucratic burden upon a Press which is already finding it difficult to maintain its economic independence.
  The hon. Member also made great play with our belief, expressed in the amendment, that people should have freedom to join the trade union of their choice. The Secretary of State followed a similar line. It is clear that our intention is that it should be an appropriate union. We are seeking to say that a journalist should be free to join the NUJ or the Institute. All the talk of seamen's unions is totally irrelevant and befuddles the issue. It has also been suggested that our fears are groundless.
  Our debates have tended to concentrate on newspapers, but the Periodical Publishers Association, a substantial group of people, is also extremely worried. It says in a letter written in November that the Bill is
  "likely to contain the proposed voluntary charter".
  Its predictions were right. It said that the Bill
  "unsupported by any legal sanction and lacking any specific protection for editors or their contributors, threatens not only the independence of all magazine editors but also the very existence of those magazines whose editors and contributors are necessarily members of a professional body and cannot be members of a journalists union."

  1415
  There is no doubt that Marcus Morris, writing as the Chairman of the Editorial Committee of the Association, and presumably speaking for all his members, believes that the Government's proposals would have injurious effects on their freedom and very existence.
  Mr. Corbett: While the House always welcomes the views of such bodies, it is rather sad that the Periodical Publishers Association has declined ever since its formation, to take any interest in the improvement of industrial relations in the magazine industry, because it refuses to discuss anything remotely concerned with collective agreements.
  Mr. Hayhoe: That may be so, but I do not know whether the Association has a mandate to discuss those matters. It is likely that it does not, but I am sure that the hon. Member is not contesting the authority of the Association to speak, and to demand that we listen, about the serious challenge which the Government's proposals make to its members' freedom and existence. The hon. Member may feel that it will not convince him, but he must accept that it is speaking of genuine fears. I do not believe that the Secretary of State and his colleagues have moved an iota to allay those fears.
  Our amendment is concerned with the contents of the charter. The Secretary of State went through it with his debating pin, making textual, legalistic quibbles about drafting points. It is always possible for Ministers, backed by the resources of a Department to produce that sort of quibble about amendments. Our debate, which is about a serious matter, should not be conducted on that level. The Secretary of State recognises that there are serious differences between us. They are not helped by arguing about the detail of the wording. Points of detail on the wording can be resolved in private discussions. We should debate differences of opinion. Textual quibbling brings the House into disrepute.
  If the vital matters in our amendment—the right not to be unreasonably excluded or expelled, the right to belong to the appropriate union of choice, the right of editors to discharge their duties free of any obligation to join a union,
  1416
  and to commission, publish or refuse to publish, material, and assurances about access—are not included in the legislation any of the parties discussing the charter could veto their inclusion in it.
  The Government want us to agree that the application of union membership agreements to journalists is a proper subject upon which the charter should give practical guidance, and leave it there, but surely the House is entitled to lay down aspects of such agreements which should be covered in any charter. How can there be any objections to that? We have heard little, if any, objection to the detailed provisions of the amendment.
  The Leader of the Liberal Party, in a speech which the Secretary of State clutched to his breast, spoke about tactics. Is it tactically right to make these matters essential provisions of the charter? I share the doubts of Mr. Farmer, the General Secretary of the Institute of Journalists, about the possibility of obtaining an agreement about union membership agreements between the NUJ and the Institute. It may come, and I hope that it will, but expressing doubt about its likelihood is not the same as expressing distrust or lack of confidence in those who are concerned in this important industry. I do not accept the strictures of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on this point. There can be genuine and reasonable doubts about whether such an agreement can be made.
  What will happen if these fears are correct, if, when the charter is drafted, the matters which the Leader of the Liberal Party believes to be relevant and some of which some Labour Members think are important, are left out, or if no charter at all is agreed and the Secretary of State comes along with his version? I have no confidence at all that the present Secretary of State would produce a charter which would win widespread approval.
  The policy of the Leader of the Liberal Party is to wait and see. At least that has the merit of historic Liberal credentials, if nothing else—of postponing the awkward decision. He supports the contents of the amendment but thinks that, for tactical reasons, it should not be pressed now. He will not vote for it,

  1417
  although he announced to the Press shortly after the Recess that he would put down just such an amendment himself.
  It is much better to include these vital provisions. That is why I ask my right
  hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 299.

  Division No. 30.]

  AYES

  7.15 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maude, Angus

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Alison, Michael

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Mawby, Ray

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Arnold, Tom

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gorst, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mills, Peter

  Banks, Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bell, Ronald

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Moate, Roger

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Gray, Hamish

  Monro, Hector

  Bennett, Or Reginald (Fareham)

  Grieve, Percy

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Benyon, W.

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Biffen, John

  Grist, Ian

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  Blaker, Peter

  Hall, Sir John

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Body, Richard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hannam, John

  Mudd, David

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Neave, Airey

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nelson, Anthony

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Brittan, Leon

  Hawkins, Paul

  Newton, Tony

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nott, John

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Cranley

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Holland, Philip

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Buck, Antony

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Budgen, Nick

  Hunt, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hurd, Douglas

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Burden, F. A.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  James, David

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Channon, Paul

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

  Raison, Timothy

  Churchill, W. S.

  Jessel, Toby

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Clegg, Walter

  Jopling, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Cockcroft, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cope, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kilfedder, James

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Costain, A. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Critchley, Julian

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Crouch, David

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Knox, David

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Lamont, Norman

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Colin

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Silvester, Fred

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sims, Roger

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Emery, Peter

  Lloyd, Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Loveridge, John

  Spence, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Luce, Richard

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Farr, John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Fell, Anthony

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sproat, Iain

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stainton, Keith

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  MacGregor, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Stanley, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Stokes, John

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Marcus

  Madel, David

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Fry, Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mates, Michael

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Mather, Carol

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wakeham, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Wall, Patrick

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Walters, Dennis

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Wells, John

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Viggers, Peter

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Mr. John Corrie.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Edge, Geoff

  Lee, John

  Allaun, Frank

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Anderson, Donald

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Archer, Peter

  English, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Ashley, Jack

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Litterick, Tom

  Ashton, Joe

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Luard, Evan

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Flannery, Martin

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bates, Alf

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McCusker, H.

  Bean, R. E.

  Ford, Ben

  McElhone, Frank

  Beith, A. J.

  Forrester, John

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

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

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Bishop, E. S.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Freud, Clement

  Maclennan, Robert

  Boardman, H.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Booth, Albert

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  George, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Magee, Bryan

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mahon, Simon

  Bradley, Tom

  Golding, John

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gould, Bryan

  Marks, Kenneth

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marquand, David

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Graham, Ted

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Buchan, Norman

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Meacher, Michael

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Campbell, Ian

  Hardy, Peter

  Mendelson, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harper, Joseph

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cant, R. B.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Millan, Bruce

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Carson, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Carson, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Molloy William

  Carter, Ray

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Molyneaux, James

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Cartwright, John

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Horam, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Howell Denis(B'ham Sm H)

  Moyle, Roland

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Cohen, Stanley

  Coleman, Donald

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Newens, Stanley

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Huckfield, Les

  Noble, Mike

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ogden, Eric

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hunter, Adam

  Orbach, Maurice

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Ovenden, John

  Cronin, John

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Owen, Dr David

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Padley, Walter

  Cryer, Bob

  Janner, Greville

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Pardoe, John

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Park, George

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Parker, John

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  John, Brynmor

  Parry, Robert

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Johnson, Waiter (Derby S)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Pendry, Tom

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Penhaligon, David

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Perry, Ernest

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Judd, Frank

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Dempsey, James

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Dolg, Peter

  Kelley, Richard

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kinnock, Neil

  Radice, Giles

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lambie, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Dunlop, John

  Lamborn, Harry

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamond, James

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Eadie, Alex

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  1420

  1421

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Stallard, A. W.

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Ward, Michael

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Watkins, David

  Rooker, J. W.

  Stoddart, David

  Watkinson, John

  Roper, John

  Stott, Roger

  Weetch, Ken

  Rose, Paul B.

  Strang, Gavin

  Wellbeloved, James

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  White, James (Pollok)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Swain, Thomas

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Rowlands, Ted

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Whitlock, William

  Sandelson, Neville

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Selby, Harry

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Wilson, m Hon H. (Huyton)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Tinn, James

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Tomlinson, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Sillars, James

  Tomney, Frank

  Woof, Robert

  Silverman, Julius

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Urwin, T. W.

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Small, William

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

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

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Spearing, Nigel

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mr. Peter Snape.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Question accordingly negatived.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Thorpe: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, Amendment No. 2, in line 44, after 'decision', insert which shall be binding'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this amendment we are to discuss Amendment No. 4 to the Question, leave out lines 58 to 64.
  Mr. Thorpe: Many of the matters to which Amendment No. 2 relates have already been touched on in the previous debate. Therefore, my speech will be very much shorter than would otherwise have been necessary in dealing with this matter. Suffice it to say, without repetition, that the Secretary of State has thought fit to introduce the concept of a charter, which I and, I think, the House welcome as an advance. We have already agreed that there is a special case with regard to the Press, which is why this particular matter has been raised, and I think it is also agreed that since the repeal of Section 5 of the 1974 Act there is no longer any recourse to an industrial tribunal for anyone excluded or expelled from membership of a union.
  The charter provides a fairly widely-drawn group of matters which should be inquired into and, if possible, agreed upon by all sides of the industry. They are set out in subsection (2). I have no quarrel at all with that subsection. I think that
  "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 right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and to publish any article) and the question of access for contributors"
  covers most of the points which concern right hon. and hon. Members. However, what I find of considerable concern is that the right hon. Gentleman sets out quite plainly that there must be agreement within 12 months of the passing of the Act and that in default he himself will come forward with proposals. Then we have the whole paraphernalia of Parliament, the proposals will be laid before Parliament and any subsequent amendments will be laid before Parliament and Parliament must approve them. Finally there will be a Statutory Instrument announcing the date upon which the charter will become unenforceable.
  That is what it really amounts to. It is a most extraordinary thing that this House is to be used as a sort of clearing house to give a cloak of respectability and authority to something that is totally unenforceable. That will be the nature of the charter. The new body itself has not been in any way defined. That is a very odd thing. Parliament says "We shall leave it to the parties who are discussing it to see what they will do, whether they will have a glorified Press Council or something else." That may be the reason why it has not been defined. It has only declaratory powers. Therefore, one is entitled to ask whether this will be enough and whether it will be sufficient guarantee to both sides.
  Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may have said about the NUJ and its great declarations, I would have said that the annual delegate conference of March 1975 is not many moons away and we know what was passed there. I shall not refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory. We know how the executive was overturned in its decisions of April, which were no doubt more in line with the right hon. Gentleman's views than with those of the annual delegate conference. In the postal ballot many of these matters were reversed, and by a narrow majority there was only a narrow defeat of a motion to ban all non-union contributors to publications.
  While I believe it is right that both parties should be free and unfettered in their deliberations, I believe that at the end of the day what is agreed should in some way or other be enforceable. We have, as I have said, the annual conference, which is some indication of how the union was thinking only a year ago. We have the removal of the associate membership for editors. We have the Ferrybridge six and the extension of the Dock Labour Scheme, all of which are symptomatic of the climate of opinion in which we are operating. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman is basically asking the parties to the charter to say is "These are agreed principles provided that we have the right subsequently to break them."
  Why should the right hon. Gentleman be so frightened that principles that have been freely agreed by both sides should be subsequently binding upon them? I do not follow the logic of that. Before the right hon. Gentleman says "Oh, but remember the Industrial Relations Act and remember that people were being hauled up before the courts", let me say that that was a totally different situation. It was a situation in which the Government of the day had imposed certain penalties and made certain matters which were not a criminal offence punishable in the courts. But we are talking about something quite different. We are talking about a charter in which the parties involved will be coming together into discussion and consideration, and we are saying that, should they believe in the principles and wish to honour
  1424
  them, they should be regarded as binding subsequently.
  The logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument in saying that none of this must ever be enforceable is that a body of people who have once agreed on something which has been approved by Parliament must be protected from any legal proceedings if they subsequently fail to honour it. That is a most extraordinary doctrine. It is a doctrine that emanates from a Government who have a very curious view of the law, which is certainly not in accordance with the traditions of the Labour Party. It was the Labour Party which, to its great credit, introduced the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, so that the citizen should be on all fours with the Government of the day. It was the Labour Party which, to its great credit, extended the Legal Aid and Advice Act in order that the citizen should be able, without enormous financial expense, to have the protection of the courts.
  Therefore, I do not see why there is this terror of the independent procedures of either the courts or the Industrial Tribunal—I personally prefer the latter—being able to say that what people have agreed, those people should agree should be enforceable.
  When one looks at what has been drafted, subsection (10)(a) and (b), which in our suggested amendment we suggest should be excluded if the first amendment is carried—and it is consequential—one appreciates, first, that the concept that any such charter should be admissible in evidence is not relevant. This is no great gift. This is the state of the law as it is at present. It is simply verbiage. The law can take into account anything which is relevant and all evidence that is regarded by the court as relevant. Therefore, that adds nothing.
  However, first, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to shut out the courts. I want to tell him that he will not necessarily be successful. This is a statutory body even though it may not have power. Because the charter will be approved by Parliament, it will be a statutory body. Therefore, I believe that the courts will be in the same position as they were when, notwithstanding Section 4 of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950—which said that the courts should be

  1425
  totally shut out—the courts found that there were matters which they should properly examine. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should get his legal beavers to look into the Anisminic v. Foreign Compensation Act 1950–1969, 2 AC 147.
  The right hon. Gentleman may think that he is shutting out the courts. He is trying very hard, but he will not necessarily be successful in that regard. Therefore, he must look that point straight in the face—whether it is a jurisdictional or substantive matter that he is putting into the new clause. Indeed, there is one part of it which I do not believe is even enforceable.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that the powers will be to hear and to issue a declaration, and then to secure the publication of the body's decision. How will the right hon. Gentleman secure the publication of this decision? What happens if there has been a strike which has been caused by the engineering union which has caused a newspaper not to come out for three or four days? That has been the position not many hundreds of months away from January 1976. What happens then if a particular union which has a certain right to come out on strike and to prevent a newspaper coming out does not like that particular report, which may be highly critical of it? How will the right hon. Gentleman secure publication? What constitutes publication? Is it the London Gazette, or perhaps the ever-ready editor of Tribune, who wants to see the Government's wishes carried out?
  Even on this matter the right hon. Gentleman is making a promise which I believe he has no power to deliver. He cannot secure publication. I should be very interested to know how he thinks he will do it. The only way in which he could do it would be to have house-to-house distribution of the body's recommendations. Then he may be able to secure its publication.
  Subsection (10) has been taken from paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act. What the right hon. Gentleman has done, significantly, is to take all those words and to re-place them here, and then carefully to exclude the Industrial Tribunal which was available under the 1974 Act. In those circumstances there would be recourse to the 1974 Tribunal. I can understand that many right hon. and
  1426
  hon. Members think that if there is an industrial dispute the last thing we want to occur is what took place under the Conservative administration when people went to prison. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will indicate that it is our view that the issue of contempt does not arise in references to the Industrial Tribunal. That is the great beauty of the Tribunal. However, it can make a declaration which is binding. If the Secretary of State is prepared to accept paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the 1974 Act, he should logically carry it through by having the Industrial Tribunal.
  In this country we have far too many codes of practice which are totally unenforceable. It is rather as if the right hon. Gentleman has cast himself in the rôle of Moses and has said that he will accept the Ten Commandments provided that he can call them a code of practice and provided that their operation can be regulated as and when required. The right hon. Gentleman is becoming a sort of part-time prophet who hands down the Tablets as and when he thinks necessary.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is confident that there will be an agreement—I agree with him that that is what we must hope—I hope that the atmosphere of this debate will not hinder that objective. Indeed, that is why I voted as I did in the previous Division. I cannot see the logic of saying that what people have freely agreed between themselves will be a matter of agreement provided that that which is involved in the agreement does not take place subsequently. If that is the position, it is a waste of time for the House to consider charters, amendments and variations to Statutory Instruments such as the date on which they will take effect. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to do that, he is making a farce of Parliament.
  The logical implication of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that those who agree to certain conclusions and principles are so likely to break them that they must not be asked to make them enforceable and binding. That is not the way in which we should judge the parties to this agreement.
  The object of the amendment is to allow those who are in the industry to work out between themselves the principles of a charter. When they have done so, let us ensure that it is binding on both sides. That is the best guarantee that the principles in the charter will protect the freedom of the Press. If we do not do that, it seems that we are wasting a great deal of time in producing a charter which is totally unenforceable and of little effect.
  7.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I start from a position of common ground with the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). He and I are as anxious as each other to see a charter drawn up that will be effective and will be observed within the industry. I seek to dissent from his amendment on the proposition that it is necessary to make binding the decisions of the body constituted under subsection (5) so as to secure the effective operation of a charter within the industry.
  If Parliament were to lay down that condition it would have two detrimental effects on the aim that we have in common. First, I think it would make it considerably more difficult to secure the type of agreement that we wish to secure. It is one thing to ask a number of parties to agree on practices that they will commonly honour in circumstances when disputes about the way in which those practices are working out are matters that they will resolve between themselves, or to ask them to use the normal processes of the law to resolve such disputes, and another thing to get the parties to agree on a charter or code of practice in the knowledge that there will be a body that will be able to take decisions on the interpretation of the charter or the code and bind the parties to respect its decisions. That is the great difficulty that arises from the amendment.
  This is a situation in which we want a wide measure of agreement on a number of problems. This is not merely a matter involving two parties, two unions, or one union and one employer. We want to get a decision from a number of bodies. Experience of industrial agreements tends to show that such machinery as is set up for sorting out interpretations
  1428
  of agreements works best when it does not involve the creation in advance of a body that has the right to make interpretations and to bind parties. In addition, I believe that the industry does not wish to have an imposed charter. That is highly relevant to the amendment.
  If I am right in my contention that to carry the amendment and to make binding the decisions of the body set up under subsection (5) will militate against the creation of an effective charter and agreement, it follows that the possibilty of my right hon. Friend's having to make the charter is enhanced. I have a very great respect for my right hon. Friend's knowledge of the journalistic profession and the newspaper industry, and I am very much aware, having worked with him since March 1974, of his degree of sensitivity regarding the requirement of securing agreement in industrial matters, but I still believe that a charter agreed within the industry is infinitely preferable for the purpose that the House is seeking to serve. That is preferable to my right hon. Friend's having to serve that purpose himself.
  I take the point of the right hon. Member for Devon, North that there is a difficulty in bringing to the House for approval a charter that has been worked out by the industry, or worked out by my right hon. Friend as a result of discussions with the industry, and having it rubber-stamped and approved in both Houses of Parliament. There is a difficulty if we are to return it to the industry and allow it to deal with matters in its own way, ignoring or following it as it wishes. I take that point, but I do not believe that that is exactly what we are doing.
  That brings me to the legal effect of what we are seeking to do. When we discussed this matter with members of another place, their objections to the original formula were based on the standing of the charter in any actions affecting members of the Press that took place before the courts or industrial tribunals. It was then that we gave careful consideration to the type of legal action that would be influenced by the code of practice that we wished to see instituted.
  We detected three possible types of legal action that could or should be influenced by the consideration whether an

  1429
  effective Press charter was being honoured. The first type of action that we envisage involved unfair dismissal. We considered it relevant that a person dismissed from a newspaper office should be able to show, in unfair dismissal proceedings, whether he was acting in accordance with the charter. We considered that a person should be in a position to make that contention that that it should be a matter to be properly taken into account in determining whether there should be unfair dismissal compensation. That was one form of action that we thought important, and we believed it proper that it should be taken into account.
  The next matter that we considered was action in breach of contract of employment. Again, we though that to be proper action to consider in this context. The third matter, a much rarer occurrence, involves actions brought by a member of a union against his union. We thought that all three actions were appropriate and proper, and we sought to add them to the Houghton amendment.
  However, when we sought to advance that proposition to this House, we were accused of seeking unduly to limit to court actions the application and relevance of the charter. That is the reason why subsection (10) of the new clause appears in its present form. We were persuaded by hon. Members that other actions that we had not considered might arise. Therefore, subsection (10) is in a wide form. I do not wish to be forced to advance the proposition that one should specify particular actions, but the way in which the provision is now framed prevents the charter being used in such cases.
  Mr. Thorpe: In fairness to the Government, I believe that they should consider whether there is scope for a judicial order such as certiorari or an application under Rule 15 of the Supreme Court Rules. I do not think the Government have shut out the courts, but these matters should be open and above board. The Government should be prepared to say that there will be a right to go to the court and, if that is the case, they should specify the kind of tribunal involved.
  Mr. Booth: We do not intend to shut out the courts. If I understand my law sufficiently well, I believe that the type
  1430
  of order quoted by the hon. Gentleman could be raised only if one could show, on a point of law, that some consideration had not been properly taken into account in determining whether there was an action, or, indeed, whether an action had been properly considered. I repeat that we do not wish to shut out the courts. In the first instance we sought to ensure that there will be matters for the industry, but where existing causes of action exist in which such matters are relevant, the existence of the charter should be recognised by those bodies and any decision of the supervisory body should also be quotable in such actions.
  There is great difficulty in accepting amendments whose purpose is to seek to examine how far legal actions can be brought if we were to accept the propositions advanced. Is it possible that injunctions would be sought seeking to restrain parties or individuals contrary to decisions of the supervisory body? That is one possible type of legal action to be contemplated.
  I can also envisage the possibility of somebody seeking compensation or sequestration for failure to follow through an injunction. There might be a claim for compensation in which an injunction was not sought—for example, a claim for compensation following the failure of somebody to carry out the decision of a supervisory body.
  Mr. John Lee: Does it not follow from what the Minister says that if the law were to postulate the injunction procedure, there would be the possibility of contempt procedure? If people defy injunctions, surely that is what will follow, in the last analysis.
  Mr. Booth: I accept my hon. Friend's proposition, but surely such a procedure would follow from anything that led to an injunction situation. I should not like to deploy that case too fully. The legal effect in such a case may be somewhat uncertain. A court would have great difficulty in taking a decision in a case that involves no contractual relationship between complainant and defendant. However, if there is any doubt on this matter, it may tend to narrow the scope for any charter. Therefore, if we were to carry these amendments, it might give rise to actions for compensation in

  1431
  circumstances that might give no indication as to any limit on such compensation. That would be a further difficulty.
  In addition, if these amendments were to be carried, the House should consider the difficulty that would arise for those in the industry who wished to determine the membership and constitution of the supervisory body. As the new clause stands, part of the charter to be submitted to the Secretary of State, and by him to the House, would involve the constitution of the supervisory body and presumably would cover the way in which its membership was formed. Given the circumstances that a number of parties to the agreement must decide such a constitution, it must be pointed out that they will face difficulty in deciding a constitution that would put any one of them in a minority position in respect of a supervisory body that could take binding decisions on the interpretation of a charter affecting the party concerned, or individual members.
  Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that in those circumstances no authority will happily subscribe to the constitution of the supervisory body. If they cannot agree, they will not meet the requirements of the new clause in respect of a charter that is acceptable to the House. If the new clause were amended, the nature of the supervisory body would change. There would be created a supervisory body on the lines that we originally envisaged—a body as a forum for discussions between authorities in seeking to discover how the charter should be applied in particular circumstances. That body would be regarded as a tribunal or arbitration board, or even as a court, for the industry. That poses difficulties for the formation of the charter.
  The effect of Amendment No. 4 would be to remove a useful provision. I do not think it would be acceptable to the House to have a charter limited strictly to proceedings within the industry—proceedings that had no relevance to any legal proceedings affecting the people who work in the industry.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Surely the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is not necessary for this to be written in? If the courts regarded it as
  1432
  relevant, it would be admissible in evidence.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Booth: When we debated this matter previously, on a version of the Houghton formula, which specified the precise forms of legal cases in which decisions under the charter and the effects of the charter on those who work in the industry would be regarded as relevant, it was argued that by using this precise definition we were seeking to limit the matter. If the argument is that subsection (10) is unnecessary because courts can always make up their own minds whether a matter is relevant in evidence, that is a fair contention, but there is a value in the House's giving evidence to the courts that we wish the charter and the decisions of the supervisory body to be taken into account when these matters are considered.
  Subsection (10) removes some, if not all, of the problems created by the first amendment. It provides that the relevance of the charter is not strictly confined to the industry. It can be taken into account by a tribunal, or in a court action. While this may be unnecessary, it also ensures that a court will be able to read such provisions before deciding whether a matter in the charter is relevant evidence. Its value is that it shows that this House and Parliament feels the charter should be relevant.
  I request the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), in consideration of these arguments, to ask leave to withdraw his amendments. If he is not prepared to do so, I hope that the House will reject them.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: What a pleasure it is to be able for the first time to refer to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State by a more honorific title than has previously been our custom. The rest of what I have to say is less complimentary, which will not come as a surprise to him. We support the Liberal amendment and I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote for it.
  When the Minister started speaking, it seemed that he was saying that he was in favour of a charter as long as it had no conceivable legal effect. Later he seemed to be saying that he was in favour of a charter as long as it had, on its face,

  1433
  no legal effect—though he did not mind if it had a concealed and obscured legal effect. That is an unacceptable position.
  It is unrealistic and out of date to talk as if any breath or mention of the law being enforceable in this area is totally unapplicable. We do not believe that this is the case and that is why we support the amendment.
  I shall reserve my argument in substance for our own amendment in case the Liberal amendment is not carried. We have put down an amendment of our own, rather than allow the Liberals to bear the brunt of the debate, because on the basis of past experience, here and elsewhere, we thought the Goodman amendment was, if not fully acceptable, at least more acceptable than the Liberal amendment. If, however, the Liberals can persuade the House to accept the full force of legal validity, we are with them and we shall support them in the vote.
  Mr. Hooson: I understand the Secretary of State's wish to keep the law out of sensitive areas, but I do not believe he has done so here, nor would it be desirable that he should do so. I could understand him normally wanting to keep the charter outside legal spheres, but there must be an ultimate resort to the law and this is what our simple amendment is designed to achieve. It is the most effective amendment that could be introduced into the Bill.
  The Minister advanced two reasons why the amendment should not be accepted. First, he said that it would be difficult to secure agreement on the actual wording of the charter if it was thought by those involved that there could eventually be a resort to the courts. I believe that, where there are various bodies trying to work out a charter which would be a code of practice for the industry, they would be more likely to get a generally acceptable charter if they realised that it might ultimately be challenged in the courts.
  The Minister's second reason was that the Government did not wish to give the impression that the charter was being imposed upon the industry. No one is suggesting that this would be an imposed charter. It would be drawn up in voluntary negotiations and eventually sub-
  1434
  mitted to this House. That argument is not relevant.
  I take the view, advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), that the body referred to in the charter will not be shut off from the process of judicial review by the courts. There could be action for declaration in the High Court under the Rules of the Supreme Court, Order 15, Rule 16. That procedure is not shut off by the Secretary of State's proposed new clause. An aggrieved party could also seek a judicial order by certiorari or one of the other prerogative writs. That is not shut out.
  The third reason, which has already been advanced in more detail by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North, relates to the Anisminic case in 1969. Section 4 of the 1950 Act says:
  "The determination by the Commission of any application made to them under this Act shall not be called in question in any court of law."
  But that did not prevent the late Lord Reid, with his brilliant mind, driving a coach and horses through it in the House of Lords and finding that a court could interfere in any such circumstances to consider the question of the nullity of such decisions. It would not be difficult for an ingenious judge—there are plenty of them about—to look into any matter under the charter. The Government are misleading the newspaper industry if they pretend that they have shut out the courts. Our amendment proposes that the words "which shall be binding" should be added. Our other amendment is consequential. I do not think it is really necessary to include the subject of the second amendment if it is accepted that the charter is a code of conduct that governs relationships in the industry and is every bit as relevant as the Highway Code in relation to appropriate actions in any court.
  Provision is made in the proposals of the Government for a decision to be made and for the decision to be published, but what kind of decision will it be? I wonder whether the Government have considered that. In any event the decision is not binding on the industry generally, but it is, according to the wording of subsection (5), a decision between parties.

  1435
  The tribunal will have the right to hear a complaint by a person aggrieved by the failure of any other person to observe a provision of the charter and to decide whether the complaint is well founded. It can secure publication of the decision, but that is all. Is it to be said that the decision can be disregarded at the whim of any of the parties involved? Are we to understand that after all the trouble involved in formulating the charter, the careful discussions and the eventual submission to this House, providing a means of reaching a decision on a sensitive matter, either party can disregard that decision at will? That is an impossible situation. If one of the parties disregarded the decision, the individual concerned would inevitably seek resort to the courts and I should be surprised if the courts were unable to find an appropriate way of intervening immediately to secure a result in accordance with natural justice. Surely a party which has accepted the charter will not be allowed simply to set it aside at some whim or convenience.
  The Minister of State suggested three possible types of court action that could arise out of the operation of the charter, and I believe that these may be three among others. My experience of the law is that it often works in a peculiar way. The action which eventually reaches court is not that which one would expect. There is no need to include this provision about evidence in order to secure the result that the Minister wants. It is important for the health of the industry that the Government should come clean and say that they would regard a decision by this proposed body as binding between the parties.
  Perhaps I may give one example of the kind of problem that is likely to arise. It concerns the editor of the Hendon Times. He is a member of the NUJ partly because he also contributes sports coverage to national newspapers. In July 1975 he was accused by a trainee reporter of about a dozen offences against the union's code of professional conduct, which includes the following:
  "Every journalist should treat subordinates as considerately as he would desire to be treated by his superiors."
  That is an unexpectionable sentiment and is part of the code.
  1436
  The union's disciplinary proceedings were set in motion. The editor did not attend, and he was not expected to. He learned of the date of the hearing only by accident, and when he complained on that score the union official said he had not expected that the editor would want to attend in any event. The regional complaints committee recommended that most of the original accusations were baseless, but on the accusation relating to the rule which I have just quoted it recommended that he should be reprimanded. The national executive of the union considered the matter and hardened up the reprimand to a fine of £10. The man had not been heard, and he refused to pay. To give some idea of the validity of the proceedings the journalistic staff of the newspaper, to avoid any further problems, clubbed together and paid the £10 fine. That is an actual example of the sort of thing that people fear if the courts are not involved.
  It is necessary for the Government to reassure the country on this point and to accept that a decision by the body which is to be set up to interpret the charter shall be binding. It will be that in any event, and the Secretary of State knows it, but he should allow the country to know it.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Booth: A distinction needs to be drawn between seeking specifically to exclude the courts from the workings of the charter and the supervisory body, and specifically bringing the courts into the matter on new grounds. That is part of the distinction between what is proposed in the amendment and what the Government are doing. We have not sought specifically to exclude the courts. It is no part of our argument against the amendment that if it were carried there would be no further actions as a result, or no appeal against the supervisory body by an aggrieved party. Under the amendment, an appeal would be possible in the courts against a decision of the supervisory body, on the ground that there had been some misconduct by it. It might be on the basis that the decision was lacking in natural justice, or the contention that the supervisory body had acted outside its jurisdiction. It might even be that the body had made a gross error in law.

  1437
  The real difference between us is whether we want to create a new course of action, the effects of which would be uncertain. There was no dissent when I suggested that the amendment would probably lead to injunctions.
  Mr. Hooson: As it would simply be a dispute between parties, and since the decision would be binding only between the parties, I do not believe that it could give rise to injunctions before a decision had been taken between those parties.
  Mr. Booth: I do not want to cross swords with the hon. and learned Gentleman on this matter, particularly in view of his legal experience. I said that the matter was in some doubt and would depend on the question whether there was a contractual relationship between the parties. In some circumstances it could depend on the question whether the decision of the tribunal affected one of the bodies that was a party to the charter, or whether the action was in respect of an individual. There is considerable doubt on that score, and until a considerable time had elapsed we would not know whether a new basis of action would be created by the amendment.
  I do not think that the example quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman was particularly relevant, since it involved an
  attempt to exclude from the consideration of the courts the decision of a tribunal, in order that the decision could not be called into question. We are not seeking to do that. We are seeking to make quite clear, on the basis of law that already exists for specific purposes, just what the situation is. In cases of unfair dismissal, breach of contract of employment, and even where a union member is taken to court by his own union, we consider it appropriate that this provision may be quoted and referred to.
  We do not want to create any new basis of legal action beyond that. That is our position. It is based upon the two contentions that I originally made. The first is that the amendments would make it harder to secure agreement in the industry, and make it more likely that the Secretary of State would be required to produce the charter. The second is that they would create particular difficulties for the parties to the agreement in producing the body to supervise, in the knowledge that its decisions would have binding effect.
  It is basically for these reasons that we ask the House to reject the amendments.
  Question put. That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 294.

  Division No. 31.]

  AYES

  [8.20 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Alison, Michael

  Channon, Paul

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fox, Marcus

  Arnold, Tom

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Fry, Peter

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Clegg, Walter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Banks, Robert

  Cockcroft, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Bell, Ronald

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Cope, John

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Goodhart, Philip

  Benyon, W.

  Corrie, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Costain, A. P.

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Biffen, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Gorst, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Crouch, David

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Blaker, Peter

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Body, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Gray, Hamish

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Grieve, Percy

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Boyson, Or Rhodes (Brent)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Grist, Ian

  Brittan, Leon

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hall, Sir John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hannam, John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Emery, Peter

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hastings, Stephen

  Buck, Antony

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Farr, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fell, Anthony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Burden, F. A.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Holland, Philip

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Hordern, Peter

  Mayhew, Patrick

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Mills, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin

  Hunt, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Silvester, Fred

  Hurd, Douglas

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sims, Roger

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Moate, Roger

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Monro, Hector

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  James, David

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Spence, John

  Jenkin, Bt Hon P. (Wansf'd & W'df'd)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Jessel, Toby

  Morgan, Geraint

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Sproat, Iain

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stainton, Keith

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jopling, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Stanley, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Keave, Airey

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stokes, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Neubert, Michael

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

  Kilfedder, James

  Newton, Tony

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Nott, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Tebbit, Norman

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Knox, David

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margarat

  Lamont, Norman

  Pardoe, John

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Thorpe, Rt Kon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Penhaligon, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Lawson, Nigel

  Percival Ian

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Viggers, Peter

  Lloyd, Ian

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Loveridge, John

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Wakeham, John

  Luce, Richard

  Raison, Timothy

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Wall, Patrick

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Walters, Dennis

  MacGregor, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Wells, John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Madel, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Marten, Neil

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Mates, Michael

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Mather, Carol

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Maude, Angus

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. A. J. Beith and

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald.

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Mr. Clement Freud.

  Mawby, Ray

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Allaun, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Anderson, Donald

  Campbell, Ian

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Archer, Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Dempsey, James

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cant, R. B.

  Doig, Peter

  Ashley, Jack

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dormand, J. D.

  Ashton, Joe

  Carson, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Carter, Ray

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dunlop, John

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cartwright, John

  Dunn, James A.

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Dunnett, Jack

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Eadie, Alex

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Edge, Geoff

  Bates, Alf

  Cohen, Stanley

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Bean, R. E.

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Concannon, J. D.

  English, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Corbett, Robin

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Boardman, H.

  Crawford, Douglas

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Booth, Albert

  Cronin, John

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Flannery, Martin

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Cryer, Bob

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bradley, Tom

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davidson, Arthur

  Ford, Ben

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Forrester, John

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

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

  Buchan, Norman

  Deakins, Eric

  Freeson, Reginald

  Buchanan, Richard

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  1440

  1441

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Sheldon, Robert (Aston-u-Lyne)

  George, Bruce

  Maclennan, Robert

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Ginsburg, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Golding, John

  Madden, Max

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Gould, Bryan

  Magee, Bryan

  Sillars, James

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mahon, Simon

  Silverman, Julius

  Graham, Ted

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Small, William

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Marquand, David

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Snape, Peter

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hardy, Peter

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Harper, Joseph

  Meacher, Michael

  Stallard, A. W.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Mendelson, John

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stoddart, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Millan, Bruce

  Stott, Roger

  Henderson, Douglas

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Strang, Gavin

  Hooley, Frank

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Horam, John

  Molloy, William

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Molyneaux, James

  Swain, Thomas

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Huckfield, Les

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Moyle, Roland

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Thomas Ron (Bristol NW)

  Hunter, Adam

  Newens, Stanley

  Thompson, George

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Noble, Mike

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Tierney, Sydney

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Ogden, Eric

  Tinn, James

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Tomlinson, John

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Tomney, Frank

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Ovenden, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Owen, Dr David

  Urwin, T. W.

  John, Brynmor

  Padley, Walter

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Park, George

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

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Parker, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Parry, Robert

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Ward, Michael

  Judd, Frank

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Watkins, David

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Pendry, Tom

  Watkinson, John

  Kelley, Richard

  Perry, Ernest

  Watt, Hamish

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Weetch, Ken

  Kinnock, Neil

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lambie, David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Welsh, Andrew

  Lamborn, Harry

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Lamond, James

  Price, William (Rugby)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Radice, Giles

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Whitlock, William

  Lee, John

  Reid, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Litterick, Tom

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Luard, Evan

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Roper, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Rose, Paul B.

  Woof, Robert

  McCartney, Hugh

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  MacCormick, Iain

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  McCusker, H.

  Rowlands, Ted

  McElhone, Frank

  Sandelson, Neville

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Selby, Harry

  Mr. Thomas Cox.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, Amendment No. 3, in line 64, at beginning insert:
  'Subject to the terms of paragraphs (c) and (d) hereof'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking the following Amendments to the Question:
  No. 5, in line 61, leave out 'and'.
  No. 6, in line 64, at end add:
  '(c) any rule, agreement, act or conduct is contrary to the provisions of the charter shall be deemed to be contrary to public policy,
  (d) nothing in the charter shall be taken to restrict or abridge any right existing by statute or common law'.
  Mr. Brittan: We are now debating the Goodman amendment, the final proposal

  1443
  put forward by Lord Goodman in the House of Lords the last time the matter was debated. It is the crucial part of the whole debate.
  We have observed a significant change in the Government's position, although they do not like such change to be recognised. They now accept, in a way they might have thought they would accept but did not actually accept at the time, that wholly different considerations apply to the Press from those which apply to other industries. It took a long time for that to happen, but it has happened. They accepted, finally, the need for and the positive desirability of a charter, which, having initially been accepted with no great enthusiasm, is now presented by the Secretary of State as being not merely a palliative but a positive beacon leading, to an increase in Press freedom. We have seen even as a further compromise—I believe it was presented as such—the Secretary of State accepting the necessity that the charter should contain provision for machinery of adjudication about whether there has or has not been a breach of the charter.
  In the last debate the Minister of State seemed to imply that this machinery was something less than machinery of adjudication. He talked about discussing whether a charter was working and so on. He talked about whether this body would become a disputes body, as if that were most undesirable. However, when we consider the Secretary of State's proposal this body is described as one having the functions of
  "hearing any complaint by a person aggrieved … issuing to the parties a declaration … securing the publication of its decision."
  If that is not an adjudication body, it is difficult to think what is an adjudication body.
  We are left with a narrow but crucial difference between us. The need for the charter is accepted. The machinery for adjudication must be included. However, what the Secretary of State still objects to is any possibility that a breach of the conditions of the charter should lead to any method of enforcement.
  During the previous debate on the Liberal amendment much was made of the fact that the National Union of Journalists would be less likely to agree to a
  1444
  charter if it had any teeth to it. I suspect that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends find that an unattractive and unacceptable argument. It is an extraordinary proposition that we should put our faith for the protection of Press freedom in a document which is so brittle that it will not be regarded as acceptable by the National Union of Journalists unless it is still more brittle. In other words, the National Union of Journalists' good faith must be called into question—I should hesitate to do so—if it is really the case that it is prepared to agree only to a charter which is totally unenforceable. I do not believe that to be the case. Discredit is reflected on the right hon. Gentleman's confidence and faith in the National Union of Journalists if he should think to cast aspersions upon it indirectly in that form.
  I believe that if the House establishes the need for a charter which has teeth, the National Union of Journalists will accept that it is reasonable that the charter should be created and that subsequently, if there is a breach of that charter, there should be certain legal consequences. The Secretary of State alternatively says that if that argument is unacceptable we must wait and see. He stands ready in the wings to intervene if the threats to Press freedom prove as dire as they have been described by some of my hon. Friends. However, that is not the right approach.
  Surely the time to act is now rather than intervene at a time of crisis, when passions have already been inflamed and when action has already been taken which has led to a critical situation. It is surely infinitely less desirable for the Government then to come in with some form of emergency legislation to rescue the Press than for them now, when we are debating the question, to insert into the legislation a simple means of ensuring a degree of enforceability. Therefore, we suggest that it is entirely reasonable that there should be some limited inducement at least that somebody should take notice of an adjudication if the charter is broken.
  There remain the objections to any kind of legal action in support of the charter which have been put forward time and again from the opposite, now empty, Benches. The objections are

  1445
  essentially historic, if not atavistic. We recognise that those objections are real in the sense that they are genuinely and sincerely held by a large number of people in the Labour movement. It is to meet those objections, however unfair and unjustified we think they are, that we are supporting the Goodman amendment rather than putting down in our own name an amendment on the lines proposed by the Liberal Party which we have supported.
  We accept that historical recollections still loom so large with many Labour Members that it would be difficult to persuade them that the creation of a direct statutory remedy for breach of the charter was a sensible solution, however confident we may be that there would be no objection to it. That is why we are not supporting the full statutory enforcement suggested in an amendment moved by Lord Hailsham in another place and which the Liberals have also put forward.
  However, it would be a mistake to reject direct statutory intervention and the giving of any legal force to the charter. We propose a half-way house. A price has to be paid for following a halfway house proposal, and I shall come to that shortly. This is meant to be a genuine compromise, a way of giving some teeth to the charter while at the same time, meeting the historical objections of the Labour movement to the intervention of the law in this area. We suggest that this limited form of intervention meets those objections. We would not be intervening in a direct statutory way, and if we intervene in an indirect way there is ample precedent for doing so of a kind that the right hon. Gentleman cannot impeach.
  First, even in the direct statutory way, the idea that the law has no role in industrial relations is manifestly absurd for anyone to put forward, most of all a Government who introduced the Employment Protection Act and the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. The fact that the interventions of the law in those pieces of legislation were wholly one-sided is irrelevant. Its intervention at all is sufficient proof that the Government do not regard the law as being wholly without a place in this area. I cannot imagine that the Secretary of State would dare to say that it is right that the law should intervene
  1446
  but only on one side of the fence. It may be what the right hon. Gentleman thinks, but I very much doubt whether he would dare to say that.
  Secondly, the law has repeatedly intervened in industrial relations and in areas where one might have thought the trade union movement would find it most sensitive. Yet the law has intervened, and its intervention has been accepted without marches, strikes, campaigns or even any attempt to persuade the Secretary of State to introduce legislation to prevent similar interventions in future.
  Two examples have occurred recently. First, the AUEW was taken to court over the operation of its postal ballot. Nothing could more intimately affect the operations of the union, its internal workings and democracy than the operation of its postal ballot. Yet an aggrieved person was able to take the union to court and complain that the postal ballot provisions were not properly operated. The court found against the union, and the union, perfectly properly, rightly and, for once, to its credit, accepted it like a lamb.
  8.45 p.m.
  The idea that every time that the law intervenes in trade union matters there will be an outcry, a return to the Industrial Relations Act, workers in prison and demonstrations is manifestly absurd. It is a completely unrealistic concept which is conjured up by the Secretary of State when he is at the end of his tether and cannot think of any better argument with which to end his peroration. That is the reality of the situation. The trade union movement is used to accepting legal intervention.
  More interestingly, and more recently, in the dispute between APEX and ASTMS relating to SAGA, the trade union movement faced judicial intervention in that holy of holies of its operations, the Bridlington Agreement. The court dared to interfere in the operation of that agreement and to say in no uncertain terms what it thought of the way that the trade union movement was operating that agreement. Again there were no demonstrations and, as far as I know, no appeal and no deputations to the Secretary of State asking him to bring more legislation to this House to give further immunities to the trade union movement. It was accepted. The

  1447
  Secretary of State knows it, because he has said again and again about the legislation now before us in its third form that he accepts that the common law is all right. He is not against the common law. The common law is allowed to intervene in trade union affairs. The wicked beast which must not be allowed to get a toehold in the door is statute law. That is anathema.
  It is to reflect these prejudices, which are powerful and real, however illogical they may appear to the Opposition, that the amendment has been framed. It is precisely to meet the combination of history and atavism so profoundly at the depth of what Government supporters think.
  It is significant that the words used by Lord Goodman in his amendment are characteristic of the common law. What is said is that
  "any rule, agreement, act or conduct which is contrary to the provisions of the charter shall be deemed to be contrary to public policy".
  As Lord Goodman said, what he was seeking to do in that phrase was to revivify and to fertilise the common law. As Lord Lloyd of Hampstead—always a supporter of the Labour Party—pointed out, this provision gives no new statutory cause of action and provides no new statutory right of any kind.
  The Secretary of State maintains that by putting it in this way we are operating on very dangerous ground because a breach of public policy may provide the basis for a common law action. He said that when we last debated this matter. But the real truth is that that is exactly the purpose of it. He is mistaken if he regards that as being the trump card which will make the Opposition back away, because we have some remote idea of what we are doing, even though that may be a situation unfamiliar to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Of course, it provides the basis for a common law action. That is accepted. It does so precisely for the reason that I have expounded: that it is statutory action which is regarded as being so objectionable.
  The Secretary of State must accept that the common law is a growing organism and that this provision gives it the oppor-
  1448
  tunity to apply its own common law organic form of growth within the area of the charter on Press freedom. It provides a measure of guidance which the courts will be able to interpret as they go along dealing with realities which arise case by case and incident by incident. That is what it is meant to do.
  Much has been made of the fact that the exact extent of this operation and the precise circumstances in which the courts will accept the invitation to intervene are unknown. That, too, is correct. That was what I meant when I said earlier that there was a price to pay for adopting a procedure which was not ideal but was specifically calculated to meet the prejudices of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches. If we entrust this development to the common law—if we say that the degree of enforceability of the charter has to be one that cannot be prophesied because it is provided for by indirect provision—there is bound to be a certain degree of obscurity and uncertainty. But that is true very often when this House codifies or promulgates common law concepts such as those of reasonable care and reasonable foresight. That happens all the time.
  We choose the courts, as the repository of the wisdom and judgment of the community, to fill out the details of those vague phrases as the individual cases present themselves to the courts. There is a choice. Either we pass statute law setting things out in detail or there are general phrases such as "contrary to public policy" and there is an element of uncertainty. It is because the statute law seems so objectionable to Labour Members and the common law so innocuous that it was thought elsewhere to be a reasonable compromise to put forward this form of limited guidance to the courts which could lead to common law action but which fell short of giving direct statutory force to the provisions of the charter. I would have thought that that was a compromise meeting the objections put forward from the Labour Benches.
  I confess that when Lord Hailsham proposed direct enforceability and the Government had been opposing any kind of enforceability, and when Lord Goodman came out with this proposal, I

  1449
  thought that the Government would go nap on it and settle for the compromise. I overestimated the conciliatory nature of the Government in this matter. One of the advantages of intervention from the House of Lords is that the Government have a chance to think again. I very much hope that they will now recognise the motives and reasons behind this form of amendment put forward by Lord Goodman.
  I hope that the Government will see that there was a genuine desire to provide a compromise between direct enforceability and nothing. I hope, in the light of that recognition, that even at this late hour the Government will accept that although the wording may be imperfect and there may be room for doubt and change, it is on this basis that we should go forward to provide a charter which has real teeth as well as good words and hopeful aspirations.
  Mr. Aitken: I rise to support the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), simply because when one asks the inevitable question "What happens if this Press charter is breached?" one gets the answer, from the Labour Benches, "Nothing". It is this impotent silence that makes a complete mockery of the whole idea of the Press charter. The limited inducements towards enforceability proposed by my hon. Friend provide a sensible solution.
  The reason why we have this impotent silence in response to the question I asked is that it has become the eleventh commandment of contemporary Socialism that the law has no place in union affairs. The "abandonists" of the Labour Party have fostered the myth that because members of unions struck and marched when five dockers were put into Pentonville Prison in 1972 it would for evermore be foolish and dangerous to bring the law, in any form, upon these people again.
  The myth has been cultivated very carefully by endless repetition. That it is a myth is proved by the unions' reactions to the law. The fact that they flatly opposed the statutory forms of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 does not mean that they will refuse to obey any new statute, still less limited legal inducements of the kind that my hon. Friend proposes.
  1450
  That is true even of legal interference with their own rules and procedures. One has only to look at the Employment Protection Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the forthcoming Race Relations Bill, all of which reach deeply into the unions' internal affairs and procedures, to see that. It is clear that the unions have no intention of defying the law on any of those matters. The whole record of the trade union movement, with the exception of the period of the operation of the Industrial Relations Act, has been one of respect for the courts and the law.
  In the past four months alone there have been the instances of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers accepting a court ruling on postal voting, and the courts' determination of the extent of the operation of the Bridlington Agreement in the APEX-ASTMSSAGA case. These have dealt death blows to the Labour mythology that the law cannot play any part in union affairs. Despite that, the Rip Van Winkles of the Labour Party keep chanting their litany of hatred against the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, like an obsolete tribe of ancient Druids intoning an antediluvian creed.
  If some form of limited inducement of the kind proposed is not accepted the Labour Party will be putting itself into a position in which parties of past centuries found themselves when upholding the Divine Right of Kings and the Benefit of Clergy, arguing that one privileged section of society should be above the law. That is the logical outcome of what has been said by the Labour Party throughout these debates. The time has come to say robustly that law and the trade unions can be mentioned in the same sentence. My hon. Friend has proposed only a small step towards making the amendment enforceable. I suggest that hon. Members support the amendment.
  Mr. Madel: We have again to emphasise that for industrial relations and trade union matters there has always been a place for the law, which the trade unions have used to help themselves and to ensure that the law is carried out. I think particularly of the Health and Safety at Work Act, which is protecting trade unionists and which unionists will not hesitate to use if it is breached.

  1451
  The Secretary of State keeps saying that it the charter were breached, and if great difficulties occurred in the Press, he would intervene, but that he cannot possibly yet say what form his intervention would take. By then it may be too late. Newspapers or periodicals could be forced to close because of a breach of the charter. The Secretary of State knows how long it takes to get legislation through the House.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to consider the points that we have made, about the need to strengthen the charter and to give it teeth, before he says that we are not to worry, because there will be some form of law—but not yet. We are not proposing new, rigid statute laws. All we are doing is strengthening common law and giving the unions involved in the Press the chance to argue their case fairly in court. Who can say how the courts will interpret objections to and breaches of the charter, and how they will or will not strengthen it? Many members of the NUJ want this charter to have some teeth, and not to be so vague as to be hopelessly meaningless.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will consider paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 6 and realise that this is not rigid industrial relations law but pretty loose common law. Surely it will give the NUJ or any other union in the newspaper industry the chance to argue whether a particular matter in the charter, or any agreement or breach, is contrary to public policy. No one can say that we are trying to put any union in a straightjacket. We are giving unions the chance to argue on an equal footing. We cannot have a situation in which there was no law in industrial relations. In many ways the trade unions welcome the law when it gives them some protection, collectively or individually.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: I had an embarrassing time today trying to explain the Secretary of State's policy to two journalists who had assumed that the Goodman amendments would be accepted. I asked one of my hon. Friends whether I was wrong in assuming that they would not be immediately accepted—I expect that there will be a change of heart now-only to find that I was right. For the life of me, I could think
  1452
  of no sensible reason for the Government's refusing to accept them.
  I can see no point in this famous charter unless it has strength. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) talked about Rip Van Winkles and Druids. I can only repeat a description that I heard at a dinner the other day: "The trouble is, the Labour Government's sacred cows have their backs to the wall and have not noticed the wind of change". That remark, which might be more logical in an agricultural debate, still has relevance to this debate. The Government are sheltering behind a wall of prejudice and do not notice what is going on. Ministers are chewing the cud of complacency in the face of sensible opposition by many people in their own professions. I have done my best to defend the Government today. I hope that they will accept the amendments and make it easier for me to do so in future.
  Mr. Bulmer: My hon. Friend asked why the Secretary of State could not see the writing on the wall. The answer is that he has his back to it.
  The debate has emphasised only too clearly the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior).
  Had a Royal Commission examined the dangers that have been expressed, had it separated the paper tigers from the others, had it set out and concentrated our minds on the dangers and been composed of people with real knowledge and insight, we should be facing this matter more squarely than we are this evening.
  My hon. Friends and many people outside this House believe that the Secretary of State is not prepared to invoke the law to give backing to what has been agreed by both sides to be "reasonable conduct". If we move away from the law as the defence of proper conduct, what is there left? The Secretary of State is far too good a constitutional historian not to know what people such as Lord Justice Coke felt about the situation. Those who are aware of the growth of prerogative, whether it be the Crown, as it was in the days of Lord Justice Coke, or the trade unions today, will know that it is essential for the law to hedge round the ambitions of the sometimes over-mighty subject.

  1453
  Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will think once more whether it would not be a demonstration of his good faith if he allowed the charter to have some teeth. Perhaps he will remind himself "I have told the House that if the situation deteriorates I will bring forward new measures". In the past his right hon. Friends have expressed good intentions which they have been unable to live up to. One of the most noticeable was "In Place of Strife". It is inconceivable to believe that we could have trade union legislation today without the backing of the Donovan Commission. Equally, we cannot properly protect the rights and liberties of the Press without the backing of a Royal Commission. Will the Secretary of State consider whether, if the Government's income policy depended upon the consent of the trade unions which decided that they did not want this charter to have teeth, at the end of the day he could deliver the goods?
  Mr. Foot: First, I want to comment on the remarks made by those hon. Members who have said that in some way or other the Labour Party has insisted on trade unions being "above the law". The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was not so unwise as to use that phrase, but some of his Back-Bench followers were. I am glad that he did not do so, because it would be a most inaccurate explanation of the position. We have never claimed that trade unions should be above the law. Trade unions have never made such a claim, and we have never said that the law should not be interposed in union affairs.
  It has sometimes been necessary, for the protection of freedom in this country, that there should be trade union legislation to deal with the development of the common law or its apparent application. Often in trade union history measures have been passed by this House and then the law has appeared to be changed. I know that we have to be careful what we say about the judges, even those of 100 years ago. However, after the law has been passed the judges seem to take their own view of these matters, and it appears that the purport of the law that has been passed by the Legislature has been altered. Then, very often, cam-
  1454
  paigns have been conducted and efforts made by the Labour and trade union movements to secure changes in the law and statutory provisions to ensure that those loopholes are closed or the difficulties overcome. For example, there were the Trade Disputes Act 1906, and the Trade Union Act 1913.
  It might be said that the repeal of the Combination Acts originally was an intervention of the law, in the sense that it repealed those completely odious Acts, which had originally been introduced because of the operation of the law. Therefore, it is a semantic argument, of no purpose whatsoever, to say that the law should never intervene in this matter. What we are discussing now is whether there shall be law affecting these matters, and what it should be. Indeed, the Bill will be part of the law of the land when it eventually reaches the statute book.
  We are not arguing that there should not be legal intervention. The question is, what kind of intervention? I know that Opposition Members are very sensitive to any mention of the 1971 Act. I shall do my best not to mention it again during the whole of my remarks.
  Mr. Brittan: The objection is not to mentioning the 1971 Act. It is to mentioning it, first, inaccurately and, secondly, irrelevantly.
  Mr. Foot: I do not see how anyone could mention it irrelevantly in the discussion of this matter. After all, this is a Bill partly for the repeal of the 1971 Act, so it could hardly be irrelevant to our discussion. As for the inaccurate references, I cannot recall any such inaccuracy, but I dare say that if the hon. Gentleman is diligent enough he may be able to discover some inaccuracy that no other hon. Member can bring to mind. However, I come to the remarks of the hon. Member, roughly in the sequence in which he introduced them.
  The hon. Member started by saying that apparently we on the Government side of the House have now, belatedly become enamoured of the idea of a charter. He welcomed this advance as if he had been a passionate supporter of such a charter all along and had been dragged unwillingly along behind his chariot in this respect. However, the

  1455
  remarks that I made earlier this evening on this subject—I hope that I shall not be had up for tedious repetition on this account—were almost exactly the same as those I used on 12th February 1975, on Report. I shall forbear from quoting them to the House again, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that he would have been able to curtail that part of his remarks if he had recollected what I said then about the way in which I thought we should proceed—on the basis of this charter—and what I thought the charter could do for the whole matter that we were trying to deal with.
  The hon. Gentleman said that what we need is a simple means of introducing enforcement. Whatever he may say about the provisions of Lord Goodman and others, they are not simple. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman, who has a far greater legal knowledge than I have, should have expanded to the House a little more on the question of why he has carried the Lord Goodman amendments beyond the provisions that Lord Goodman wished, at any rate at one stage, to have.
  In view of the Opposition's claims that the effect of the amendment is so limited, it is worth drawing attention to the fact that the words "act or conduct" are in the amendment, as well as the words "rule" and "agreement"—which is as far as Lord Goodman originally proposed to go. Originally, Lord Goodman said "rule or agreement", and then the words "act or conduct" were introduced.
  Mr. Brittan: By Lord Goodman.
  Mr. Foot: Yes, but we criticise the "act or conduct" provisions as carrying the possible effects of this clause very much further. They open up potentially a very wide field for legal action, going far beyond voiding the terms of contract. That has to be taken into account.
  It is not a minor amendment, or what the hon. Gentleman described as "a simple means of introducing enforceability"; it is a very complicated provision. I think that I detected in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks an understanding on his part that the words are obscure. He can hardly deny it, because Lord Goodman, the author of this amendment—in both forms—with "act or conduct" in, or in
  1456
  the more limited sense—has on a number of occasions referred to their ambiguity and obscurity. The hon. Gentleman offers the excuse of saying that this is due only to the fact that the Opposition are seeking a half-way house to accommodate the Government and therefore the Government must be held responsible for the ambiguity or obscurity.
  At any rate, we are agreed that the amendment that the hon. Gentleman is asking the House to accent is the conclusion to the whole issue of enforceability, which has been central to our discussions. What he is asking the House to accept on his testimony, on Lord Goodman's testimony, and on my testimony, is something that is obscure, ambiguous and uncertain in its operation. It seems wrong that the House should deal with such an important matter in such a way. We are against interpolating into the law—especially as the effective means of dealing with the central part of the Bill—something that is, as the hon. Gentleman admits, obscure.
  Mr. Brittan: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to put forward at a later stage some clear governmental means of enforceability?
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Foot: I shall try to deal with that aspect, but first I believe it is my duty to make clear our objections to the way in which these matters are proposed to be inserted in the Bill. This is a matter of major consequence. I wish to state these facts quite clearly for the benefit of the House and of another place.
  The amendment would create new legal liabilities over a wide area. Constitutional questions concerning the way in which new legal responsibilities arise apart, it is unacceptable to the Government, in principle, for any person in the newspaper industry to incur, because of the existence of the charter, additional legal responsibilities that do not apply outside the industry in similar circumstances.
  If the objections on legal and constitutional grounds and on the ground of principle are not enough, there are ample objections on practical grounds for resisting the amendment. It cannot operate if there is no charter on Press freedom. In that event there will be no safeguards for Press freedom, enforceable or

  1457
  exemplary, ineffective or effective. But if the charter's provisions are to create new legal liabilities, that is the surest way possible of ensuring that the parties in the industry will not agree upon an effective and comprehensive charter. If the Secretary of State has to produce a charter there will be at least 18 months' delay before it can be issued. In the meantime, there will be no safeguards. If the charter comes from the Secretary of State rather than the industry, the basis on which it would most effectively secure Press freedom—namely, co-operation, agreement and acceptance—will be lost. Legal actions by individuals to secure redress for themselves, as individuals, cannot effectively secure Press freedom.
  As I have already emphasised, one notable feature of the amendment—I should have thought the constitutional purists who have contributed to these discussions might have taken this into account—is the uncertainty that will exist as to the extent to which it creates new legal liabilities. The courts would have no discretion to say what was and was not contrary to public policy; that would be determined by the as yet unknown contents of the charter. The only point at issue for the courts to decide would be whether or not a particular rule, agreement, conduct or act conflicted with the charter. They would have no discretion thereafter on the question whether such an act should be voided on account of the conflict, or on the question whether the conflict was detrimental to public policy.
  In the way in which the hon. Gentleman advanced his proposition I thought that I detected his own doubts. I do not believe that he has very much confidence in what he has proposed. I make it clear that we have no objection to the second part of the amendment, which refers to common law reference, although, as we have argued on many occasions, we think it superfluous when it provides that
  "nothing in the charter shall be taken to restrict or abridge any right existing by statute or common law."
  We do not think that that is necessary, but I make it clear that we are not objecting to that provision as being an obstacle.
  The obstacle arises in respect of paragraph (c)
  1458
  "any rule, agreement, act or conduct which is contrary to the provisions of the charter shall be deemed to be contrary to public policy …"
  The Lord Chancellor in the other place gave his view on the matter, and I am sure that he gave it the fullest consideration. He spelt out the legal difficulties arising from the novel approach and uncertain effect of public policy.
  It would be most unwise for this House, and, indeed, for Parliament as a whole, to seek to legislate in an irresponsible way and to ignore the advice given by the Lord Chancellor. That advice is to the effect that nobody would know for certain what would be the result of the law, when it could be invoked, and how far-ranging it would be. That is not only the view of the Lord Chancellor; in the main it was confirmed by Lord Goodman in the description of his amendment. This is a novel kind of proposal for dealing with the matter but it is a proposal which, on the face of it, has not been thought out at all. Therefore, however we seek to solve the problem. I do not believe that it can be solved in the way suggested in the amendment. I emphasise that all these arguments were pointed out in another place by the Lord Chancellor.
  When the House of Lords, on rare occasions in its history, decides to use its veto power to disrupt proposals sent there by this House, and when a measure is returned to this House, there is surely a responsibility on those who seek to advance such a proposition that goes against the previous decision of the House of Commons to present us with propositions that are at least clear. Instead, we have the exact opposite.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) tended to hide behind the shoulders of Lord Goodman. Admittedly, if one is seeking to shelter behind anybody's shoulders, it would be of some advantage to choose Lord Goodman's. But, even so, those shoulders are not big enough to hide this deficiency.
  The Opposition should have undertaken a little work on this topic. It is not good enough for them to say "We shall produce what Lord Goodman has said and present those propositions to the House of Commons because we cannot think of anything better".
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Perhaps I may take the opportunity to peek round Lord Goodman and put one matter to the Secretary of State for Employment. I fully appreciate the difficulty that the charter is not yet in existence and that by the time the amendment is effective the charter will exist and public policy can be related to it. The Secretary of State will appreciate that the traditional rôle of the courts is not to promulgate public policy, because they are chary of carrying out that job for the Legislature and the Executive. However, in identifying and interpreting public policy they will be helped, because public policy in this instance would be defined in the charter and its contents would be known and approved.
  Mr. Foot: We are asked to buy a legal pig in a poke. We are being asked to say that it shall be contrary to public policy for something to be done that is contrary to a charter that has not yet been devised. It would be a novel procedure for the House of Commons to seek to take that step—a step to which objection will surely be taken.
  Mr. Britton: Does the Secretary of State agree that that is somewhat misleading, because the charter has no effect until it is approved by the House? Although we are saying that contravention of the charter shall be in breach of public policy, we are not buying a pig in a poke, because we are not saying what will amount to a breach of public policy until we have seen the charter and approved it.
  Mr. Foot: That is all the more reason for not writing into the original proposal on public policy a provision the meaning of which nobody exactly knows. Surely what we write into such a provision should advance the situation, and be to some purpose. We know why Lord Goodman wants to include such a provision. He wants to make the charter as legally binding as possible—and, indeed, that is what Conservative Members want to secure. We believe that if that is the case, and if the House of Commons and Parliament agree, it should be done clearly and in such a way that everybody knows exactly what we are doing.
  Despite criticisms made of us to the effect that we have made concessions on
  1460
  lesser matters, we are saying that we are not prepared to make this part of the provision subject to legal enactment. We want legal enactment in other spheres, but we are not prepared to allow the law to enforce this kind of edict.
  If the Opposition want a proposition that contradicts that, they should present a clear proposition and not one that is ambiguous and obscure, even on the testimony of those who produced it and on the confirmation of the intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East. Such a proposition as this should not be placed on the statute book. The Opposition here and in the House of Lords had a multitude of opportunities to produce alternatives.
  When we have a situation in which a constitutional crisis arises from difference between this House and another place—some of us regard the intervention of the House of Lords in the repeated decisions of the House of Commons as a constitutional crisis—the onus is on the official Opposition to take account of that situation and produce their own remedy. They may not agree that it is a constitutional crisis, but it is certainly a constitutional rarity, and the onus on them is very strong indeed. Instead, they have produced a formula which, on every previous test, has been shown to be unworkable and to be one that should not be on the statute book. In that sense they have not produced a proposition that is worth considering.
  I do not want to go over old ground again. I know how sensitive the Opposition are about their unmentionable Act. Nothing would make me happier than never having to mention the 1971 Act again before my dying day. We are getting nearer to that delectable moment, and the quicker the House allows this Bill through, the sooner I shall take the vow never to mention that Act again.
  Mr. Ian Percival: It is such a pity that the right hon. Gentleman tries to rescue himself from his difficulties by misrepresenting what we say about the law and then makes such outrageous statements about it himself. I know he will forgive me if I take a minute or two to enlarge on that, as has so often been the task of lawyers on this side in the past.

  1461
  The right hon. Gentleman trotted out some of his old phrases about our referring to unions being above the law. What we complain at from time to time is the way in which he and his right hon. Friends seek, in so many instances, to put trade unionists beyond the law to a degree which I do not believe they want or expect. I am happy to echo the tributes paid by my hon. Friends to trade unions in this respect. With the exception of the conduct of some—not all—trade unionists in relation to the Industrial Relations Act in which they were egged on by the Labour Party for political purposes, the record of trade unions in the field of the law is one of which they can be justly proud.
  There have been many cases in which orders have been made against trade unionists in the High Court. Without exception they have been carried out. In many cases, when applications have been made for injunctions unions have given official undertakings in place of the injunctions and the terms of the undertakings have been scrupulously carried out. There was no suggestion in any of those cases that unions or unionists did not owe the same responsibilities and obligations as other people to the courts.
  The Secretary of State must stop misrepresenting what we say on that score. I am extremely happy to echo tributes paid by my hon. Friends to the respect constantly shown by one union after another for the law, save and except when a union is egged on by Labour Members to break the law.
  9.30 p.m.
  I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would stop this nonsense about the law being bad because of the way it is interpreted by judges. Law is bad because it is bad when it leaves this place, and that sets the judges the impossible task of interpretation. We must stop complaining about the interpretation which the courts put on particular legislation. They would not have to interpret it anyway if it was clear when it left this House.
  The Secretary of State used an expression which I think even he will agree is a silly way to talk about the law. He said—I wrote down his precise words—that he and his Government were not prepared to allow the law to enforce this kind of edict. Governments do not allow
  1462
  the law to do anything. The law does what we in Parliament say it should do. The law is simply a code that we lay down and is interpreted and enforced impartially by the courts, to the great credit of this country, as has been the case for so long.
  Mr. Lee: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman being a little disingenuous? Is it not true to say that although, in a strict sense, the judges do no more than interpret what we do, there are idiosyncrasies in the way some judges perform that task? Perhaps I may give an example, which is not in any way mentioned pejoratively. The present Master of the Rolls has a reputation for a liberal and imaginative interpretation of the law which has not always conformed with the views of his colleagues and has not always met with their approval.
  Mr. Percival: If we leave large uncertainties to be interpreted by judges, we must accept that judges are not all from one mould and that they will interpret the law according to what they believe to be the meaning and intention of Parliament. If we want to avoid that, we should consider what we mean to say in our legislation before we pass it, and then we would make quite certain that those idiosyncrasies did not occur—if they occur to the extent the hon. Member suggests.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that all the decisions of judges on industrial relations matters, from the Taff Vale judgment right through to Rookes v. Barnard were made by objective judges in terms of legislation which was incomplete? Is he asking me to believe that?
  Mr. Percival: Yes, I am, and without qualification. Many of us have spent a good deal of our time fairly close to what the hon. Member is talking about, and the one thing we know is that the administration of justice in this country is objective and impartial. It will not do for the Secretary of State and his colleagues simply to criticise what is being put forward in the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that the need for the charter arises out of what the Government are doing. But for their legislation, the charter would

  1463
  not be required. That being so, the obligation is upon the Government to find a way of giving the Charter some meaning and effect.
  One of my hon. Friends asked "What is the use of a charter without force behind it?" Does not that simple little question sum up the whole of this argument? If we could rely upon moral pressures, good will, and a willingness to obey all the terms of the charter, there would hardly be any need at all for a charter—or for any laws.
  Why is it to be said that in this area, where such a long time is being taken in hammering out anything that can be agreed and where there has been such full and lengthy discussion on what is needed, there is no need for the charter to have any teeth in it? We have only to look that question straight in the eye to see how silly it is. There is no point in having a charter without some force behind it.
  Having got that far, the next question is: upon whom rests the obligation to bring forward means of giving it teeth, whether it be a sacred cow, a paper tiger or a pig? The obligation must be upon those who have caused the necessity for it to bring forward measures and ideas for giving effect to what they propose.
  The Secretary of State has referred to some technical difficulties in what is proposed, but my hon. friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) himself referred to those difficulties in introducing the amendment. I hope that, looking back on it, the Secretary of State will agree that it was a very fair introduction.
  We are in some difficulty because we do not have the back-up that is available to the Government to help us in solving the Government's problems. We have very fairly said to the Government "These are some of the difficulties that we foresee. You may foresee others. Put your cards on the table and accept that there is need for something like this. Use all the forces at your command to help find a solution." In answer to that very civil, sensible and generous invitation we get nothing but waffle and hot air, as usual.
  Mr. Foot: The matter could easily have been sorted out. The Opposition
  1464
  could have said "Look at this unholy botch that Lord Goodman has produced from the House of Lords. Everyone knows that it is no good. Cannot we think of something better than that?" If that question had been asked, surely something better could have been produced.
  Mr. Percival: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that everybody should have done something about it except himself and those whom he had at his disposal. That is crazy. The Government accept the need for some such charter. I do not think they would have put down their proposal if they did not accept the need for it. It is difficult to think that they really believe that no back-up is necessary for it.
  Reduced to very simple terms, it is quite clear that the obligation rests upon the Government to put forward proposals, particularly if they say that all the proposals put forward by others are wrong. Let them put forward some better proposals. Unless and until they do so, I hope that the House will show what it thinks of them by voting for the only proposals that it has before it—the very sensible ones put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the amendments.
  Mr. Prior: I should like to wind up the debate by saying a few words as a non-lawyer. May I say to the Secretary of State, as one non-lawyer to another, that I have noticed from many experiences across the Front Benches that when we discuss legal intricacies the right hon. Gentleman either resorts to abuse or puts his head down and reads out his notes as fast as he can. Perhaps I can talk to him in non-lawyer's language which he will understand.
  The right hon. Gentleman claimed that Lord Goodman's amendment was a botch. If he considered it to be a botch and was prepared to accept something else instead, there was nothing to stop him putting down something else. From what he said, the supposition is that the Government did not like Lord Goodman's amendment because it was a botch and they would have accepted something else. I suspect that he would not have accepted something else because he is determined to have a charter which in no circumstances can be enforced.

  1465
  I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman this problem which arises on an enforceable charter. In past debates some Labour Members said that they wanted to give the charter a chance but that if it did not work they would want to come back in a year's time and expect the charter to be given teeth. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) put forward that argument in a constructive speech at an earlier stage in our discussions last Session. If that happened, the Government would have to introduce teeth along the lines suggested by Lord Goodman or along the lines suggested by Lord Hailsham in another place. That would entirely refute the arguments produced by the Lord Chancellor in another place that there is no place for the law in this type of activity.
  I draw the House's attention to what Lord Lloyd of Hampstead said on the subject. He does not take the Conservative Whip; I think he takes the Labour Whip. He is an eminent lawyer and is well versed in these matters. About this amendment he said:
  "The merits of the Amendment are simple; it introduces no new statutory cause of action and no new statutory right of any kind. It simply seeks to make a resounding declaration in favour of certain developments that the Common Law has been undergoing in the last 20 years or so, and gives the courts some encouragement to pursue that line".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3rd November 1975; Vol. 365, c. 954.]
  Lord Lloyd was in no doubt about the effect of the amendment. It introduces no new statutory cause of action but merely airs the common law. He went on to say that the courts and the judges had a remarkable, successful and good relationship in their dealings with the law relating to industrial relations over the last 25 years, and that in his recollection there had been only one case—Rookes v. Barnard—in which he believed that mistakes were made.
  I believe that to be the attitude of the trade union movement. We do not do the trade union movement justice. It is rather insulting to trade unionists to feel that they cannot go to the courts and defend themselves in the way that we all know they can. It is an insult to them to be put into a position in which the law can have no effect.
  1466
  The right hon. Gentleman and Labour Members have spent much time saying that we are trying to reinsert parts of the old Industrial Relations Act 1971.
  Mr. Ron Thomas Mr. Ron Thomas indicated assent.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Prior: I see the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), who has referred to that matter in earlier speeches, nods his head in agreement. Of course, one reason why Lord Goodman chose this particular form for his amendment was not to get the statute law involved in this issue but to be as conciliatory as possible and at the same time find a way of providing a remedy where the law was broken or seemed likely to be broken.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken), in a sentence which will certainly go on the record, said that the Rip Van Winkles on the Government Benches kept chanting the ancient litanies of their creed. My goodness, they have had a run on the Industrial Relations Act. If Labour Members really believe that what concerns the trade union movement at present is the abolition of the last vestiges of the Industrial Relations Act, their understanding is different from mine. They may have got rid of the Industrial Relations Act, but look at the unemployment they have got instead. If they ask any trade unionist or worker in Britain whether he is more interested in sweeping away that law or in having a situation in which jobs are provided, there is no doubt about his answer. The truth is that the Government have failed to provide not only employment, but the answers to protecting the freedom of the Press.
  For those reasons, we believe that these amendments must be put into the charter if it is to have any meaning. I cannot for the life of me believe that many Labour Members are not worried about what the Government are proposing to do. We know that for months the Cabinet was unable to make up its mind whether proper conditions should be written into the charter. It took the Government from April to October to reach any decision, and there were leaks in the Press about how many Cabinet Ministers were for and against. It is a

  1467
  disgrace to the House that we should put through this charter without proper remedies being made available to someone who feels aggrieved. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members on the
  Opposition side will support us in the Lobby.
  Question put that the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 298.

  Division No. 32]

  AYES

  [9.50 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Freud, Clement

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Alison, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Arnold, Tom

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Marten, Neil

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Mates, Michael

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maude, Angus

  Baker, Kenneth

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Banks, Robert

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Mawby, Ray

  Beith, A. J.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Bell, Ronald

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Gorst, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Benyon, W.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mills, Peter

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Biffen, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Moate, Roger

  Blaker, Peter

  Grieve, Percy

  Monro, Hector

  Body, Richard

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grist, Ian

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Hall, Sir John

  Morgan, Geraint

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Brittan, Leon

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Mudd, David

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hastings, Stephen

  Neave, Airey

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hawkins, Paul

  Neubert, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith Alick

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Newton, Tony

  Buck, Antony

  Hicks, Robert

  Nott, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Holland, Philip

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Burden, F.A

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pardoe, John

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Channon, Paul

  Hunt, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hurd, Douglas

  Penhaligon, David

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Percival Ian

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Clegg, Walter

  James, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Cockcroft, John

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

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Timothy

  Cope, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Corrie, John

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Costain, A. P.

  Jopling, Michael

  Renton Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Critchley, Julian

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Crouch, David

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Kilfedder, James

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Knox, David

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Durant, Tony

  Lamont, Norman

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Emery, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Silvester, Fred

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Farr, John

  Loveridge, John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fell, Anthony

  Luce, Richard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McCrindle, Robert

  Spence, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacGregor, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Sproat, Iain

  Stainton, Keith

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Trotter, Neville

  Wells, John

  Stanley, John

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stokes, John

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Taylor, Toddy (Cathcart)

  Wakeham, John

  Young, Sir G. (Eating, Acton)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Mr. Carol Mather and

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Wall, Patrick

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Walters, Dennis

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Doig, Peter

  Kelley, Richard

  Allaun, Frank

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Anderson, Donald

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kinnock, Neil

  Archer, Peter

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lambie, David

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dunlop, John

  Lamborn, Harry

  Ashley, Jack

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamond, James

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunnett, Jack

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Eadie, Alex

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Atkinson, Norman

  Edge, Geoff

  Lee, John

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  English, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Bates, Alf

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Litterick, Tom

  Bean, R. E.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Loyden, Eddie

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Luard, Evan

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Flannery, Martin

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Boardman, H.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Booth, Albert

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McCusker, H.

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Ford, Ben

  McElhone, Frank

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Forrester, John

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Bradley, Tom

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Buchan, Norman

  George, Bruce

  McNamara, Kevin

  Buchanan, Richard

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Madden, Max

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Ginsburg, David

  Magee, Bryan

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Golding, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Campbell, Ian

  Gould, Bryan

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marks, Kenneth

  Cant R. B

  Graham, Ted

  Marquand, David

  Carmichael, Neil

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Carson John

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Carter, Ray

  Grocott, Bruce

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Meacher, Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mendelson, John

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Millan, Bruce

  Cohen, Stanley

  Henderson, Douglas

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Hooley, Frank

  Molloy, William

  Concannon, J.D.

  Horam, John

  Molyneaux, James

  Conlan, Bernard

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Corbett, Robin

  Huckfield, Les

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Moyle, Roland

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Murry, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Crawford, Douglas

  Hunter, Adam

  Newens, Stanley

  Crawford, Douglas

  Hunter, Adam

  Noble, Mike

  Cronin, John

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Ogden, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Ovenden, John

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Owen, Dr David

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  John, Brynmor

  Padley, Walter

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Park, George

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Parker, John

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geolfrey

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Parry, Robert

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Judd, Frank

  Pendry, Tom

  Dempsey, James

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Perry, Ernest

  1470

  1471

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Silverman, Julius

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

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Small, William

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Ward, Michael

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Snaps, Peter

  Watkins, David

  Radice, Giles

  Spearing, Nigel

  Watkinson, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Watt, Hamish

  Reid, George

  Stallard, A. W.

  Weetch, Ken

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Stoddart, David

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

  White, James (Pollok)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Stott, Roger

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Whitlock, William

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rooker, J. W.

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Roper, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Thompson, George

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Selby, Harry

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Woodall, Alec

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Woof, Robert

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Tinn, James

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Tomlinson, John

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Tomney, Frank

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Tuck, Raphael

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. Dulwich)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Sillars, James

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Ten o'clock, further proceedings on the motion stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Motions relating to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill (Suggested Amendments) may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Snape.]
  Main Question again proposed.
  Amendment to the Question proposed:
  No. 8, in line 68, at end, add:
  ( ) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall provide that no member of any trade union shall be fined, expelled from any union, prevented or suspended from holding office in any union or be otherwise penalised or victimised by reason of the fact that he had refused to strike or work to rule or had continued to work on any occasion.—[Sir David Renton.]
  Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): The Question is the main Question—
  Mr. Hayhoe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My understanding was—discussions went on before the debate started this afternoon—that, since the main Question was to be moved formally, at this stage the Secretary of State would say something and give us the opportunity to comment upon it. I hope he will do that.
  Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is correct, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) has said, that there were discussions and it was agreed that if the Opposition wished to continue the discussion on the main motion this would be a convenient time to do it. I would have thought that most of the matters to be discussed had been dealt with in the earlier debate, but it is up to hon. Members to raise anything further. As I understand it, the motion has been formally moved.
  Mr. Hayhoe: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was suggested in the discussions we held earlier that a Minister would be talking on the main motion at this stage. I can understand it if the Government are not now
  1474
  willing to say what they intended to say when we mentioned this earlier.
  Having disposed of the amendments, we are now in the situation that the House can make a suggestion to another place about an amendment which could be made to the Bill. The constitutional position, as I understand it, is that if the House agrees to the motion which is before us in the name of the Secretary of State, and if the other place accepts the Bill with that amendment, the Bill will automatically become law after Royal Assent without having to come back here. In other words their Lordships would make the amendment to the Bill, and there would be no need for it to come back here. As I understand the constitutional position, they would be entitled to suggest other amendments, and there could then be a movement between the two Houses.
  I have no idea what the other place may decide. Once the motion is passed by this House, another place will have the option at any time, even if it is making other suggestions, to accept the suggested amendment, and the Bill with that amendment would become law. We should examine the implications. We are moving close towards agreeing a charter which, by any standards, everyone agrees will be unenforceable and the provisions of which will be largely indeterminate.
  Perhaps the optimist's views will come to pass and the various parties concerned will get together and produce a successful and satisfactory charter which will come to the House for our approval. If they do, I have little doubt that at least some Labour Members will do their best to undermine and render ineffective its provisions. But let us be optimistic and say that they do not succeed in that. Let us say that the House as a whole approves a successful and reasonable charter.
  One could continue one's optimism and envisage a tribunal which is set up but which has little to do, with no claims being made that there have been breaches of the charter because it is being honoured by all concerned. If matters go to the tribunal, however, one can continue to be optimistic by envisaging the parties accepting its decisions. That

  1475
  is the optimistic scenario which members of the Manifesto Group believe will come to pass. They believe that if it does, it will make a contribution towards safeguarding the freedom of the Press.
  But one must look at the more pessimistic scenario, in which the parties cannot agree on a successful charter. On some of the most important issues there will be a division. All the evidence available suggests that that is not a remote possibility. There is a chance that when the people concerned get round the table they will find it impossible to come to an agreement on some of the provisions. They might then indicate areas where they believe that the charter should be endorsed by the House and other areas where they feel that the Secretary of State's writ will have to run.
  Or perhaps we shall end up with no agreement. Under the reserve provisions of the right hon. Gentleman's motion, if nothing has happened after 12 months the Secretary of State will be entitled to place a charter before the House. Careful consideration needs to be given to what could happen then. The provisions might have to be implemented by a different Secretary of State. The present Secretary of State may have gone. His Government may be in office but he may have another post. We may have had a General Election by the time the parties have failed to agree. I assume that Labour Members would be worried about giving such a power to a Secretary of State in a Government of a different complexion.
  The Secretary of State should not rest on the formal proposition and the fact that we dealt earlier with specific provisions about the contents of the charter and whether it should be enforceable. The House should know his views if matters do not go according to the optimistic plan. What sort of time scale does he envisage after receiving a report that the parties cannot agree after a year of consultation? How will he discharge that responsibility?
  It is absurd to expect us to give a future Secretary of State such a power without knowing how this will be done. Will the Government have formal consultations with the bodies concerned or will they do it behind closed doors and then tell Parliament to take it or leave it? The Immigration Rules, for instance, were
  1476
  laid in draft and the Government took into account views expressed in debates upon them. Is that what the Secretary of State has in mind? It is wrong to give this major power to a Secretary of State, subject only to affirmative resolution, without hearing a word from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it is unfair to insist on some explanation, and I hope that he has had time to collect his thoughts.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: If the House of Lords rejects the Bill, it will become law nevertheless since it will have passed this House in the form in which it was previously rejected, but under the proviso of the Parliament Act it can nevertheless be changed if their Lordships adopt the suggestion in the new clause dealing with the charter. The House of Lords can accept or reject that addition but no more.
  Can the House of Lords amend the new clause? Can it have the same sort of discussion that has taken place in this Chamber today? If it can have a discussion on amendments to the clause, are those amendments, if their Lordships choose to pass them, within the proviso of the Parliament Act?
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) is certainly not unfair in the way in which he has phrased the question. It is perfectly true that conversations took place in which it was suggested that we should have further discussions after we had dealt with the amendments. On the other hand, I was under the impression that the debates on the amendments covered most of the ground. Therefore, although the procedure is fairly novel—I must not use the word "revolutionary" because it is offensive—I thought that there was some likeness between the kind of elaborate Committee debates that would take place on a series of amendments and a debate on the new clause. If the debates on the amendments had been so exhaustive that they covered almost the whole area, there would, I believe have been little left for debate on the clause.
  It has been suggested that we should be passing this Press charter without saying a word. That is an extraordinary comment to make taking into account the mountain of words that has been poured

  1477
  out on this matter over the past year. The way in which a Press charter might operate has been a theme throughout our debates.
  There have been only a few minor changes of words in the new clause that we now propose. Those alterations of wording do not make any difference to its substance. Therefore, we are not presenting a new approach to the way in which the charter should be discussed and how the Secretary of State would have to take action about the charter if there were no agreement between the parties.
  All those possibilities have been discussed. Whether Conservative Members or other hon. Members like the possibilities there is no case for saying that there has not been ample opportunity for their discussion. We shall do everything in our power to ensure that discussions about the charter are successful.
  The National Union of Journalists has already made it clear that it is eager to help, and at the time of the failure of the House of Lords to pass the Bill that union once again took the initiative of proposing that discussion should take place. Some other parties thought that it was premature to hold discussions while the Bill was going through the House. I hope that other parties will be eager to have discussions, particularly when the Bill has completed its passage through the House. I understand the attitude of those who have been reticent about having discussions because they believe that the final terms of the Bill have to be decided, but I do not think that it is justified. Therefore, I hope that the optimistic alternative described by the hon. Gentleman will be accepted and will be the way in which we proceed.
  It is true that it is possible that that will not happen, and that is why the alternative was introduced at an early stage some months ago. That was the alternative proposition of the Government having to produce the proposals for a charter. They still have to have consultations about it, incidentally, even though the other consultations have broken down. That proposal was introduced as an alternative several months ago, no doubt partly in order to encourage the first possibility of the discussions succeeding. There were also discussions about the time limit, and we were as accommodating as we could be.
  1478
  As I have emphasised many times, we certainly do not want a situation in which a charter has to be imposed by the Government in any sense. That is why we limited the period in which time would be available for discussions. I believe that that was sensible. It is for all those reason that I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have dealt with the previous position.
  I come to the hon. Gentleman's questions about the House of Lords. The Bill will go from this House to the House of Lords.
  Mr. Hayhoe: Having got to the point of saying that it is hoped that the optimistic option will be followed, the Secretary of State did not go on to deal with what will happen if that goes sour and what procedures will then be followed. How does he envisage himself discharging the responsibilities if the parties concerned do not come to an agreement?
  Mr. Foot: That is not a matter which should be covered in other than general terms in the new clause before us. I think that to go into detailed provisions about how every move should be made and how every report should be made to the House of Commons seems to be a quite unnecessary way to proceed and might inhibit the proper way of proceeding. If there is a breakdown, that will depend partly on the manner in which the breakdown takes place. Clearly the Government would intervene, and any Minister would presumably take account of how the breakdown occurred and how it could be repaired. Some repair of the situation would be necessary if the clause were to be fulfilled.
  I should not have thought that that was a matter which should be spelt out beyond the way in which it has already been spelt out. Some may criticise us for having made the provision too extensive. Some of my hon. Friends have put that point of view previously. None the less, we are safeguarded against the serious danger which my hon. Friends have feared—that there should be some legal provision of backing. Once again today, that has been rejected by the House of Commons by a substantial majority.
  Therefore, I hope now that the House, including those who would have preferred to have the legal backing, will

  1479
  agree to accept the clause and to back the charter as it stands.
  I come now to the questions raised by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I do not want to make prophecies. It is perfectly possible, particularly as the House of Commons has declared itself for the third or fourth time so emphatically on this matter, that the House of Lords will accept the situation and that the matter will then be dealt with without the Parliament Act being applied. That may be the best way for the matter to proceed. The House of Lords could accept the new clause. That would be the simplest way, because there would then not be all the great difficulties that might arise under the Parliament Act.
  However, if the House of Lords chose to insist upon its opposition to the Bill and we had to invoke the Parliament Act, unless the House of Lords agreed also to the part that we are dealing with now, it would not form part of the Bill.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Can the House of Lords amend it?
  Mr. Foot: The House of Lords could have discussions about the amendment. There may be some way of amending it—with the concurrence of the House of Commons, perhaps, in which case the Parliament Act need not be invoked. That is a different way of proceeding. However, if the House of Lords insisted upon its opposition again, the same kind of opposition upon which it has insisted previously, we should have to invoke the Parliament Act and ensure that it enabled the measure to go on to the statute book. I am sure that all hon. Members understand that if that were to occur this part of the Bill could be jeopardised and we would have to proceed by some other means. However, we hope that that will not arise. We hope that these factors will be taken into account in another place.
  Mr. Cryer: I think it would be helpful at this stage if my right hon. Friend could assure the House that if the extremists in another place seek yet again to oppose the wishes of the elected majority in this place, which tonight has demonstrated again and again by massive majorities that it has the will to enact the Bill, they will not be part of the overmanning prob-
  1480
  lem which is so often mentioned by Conservative Members in that they will all be joining the ranks of the unemployed.
  Mr. Foot: I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend's philosophic views but I am sure that, like myself, he wishes to see this measure on the statute book as speedily as possible.
  One of the concerns that we have all felt is that the argument about the Press has prevented the Bill from getting on to the statute book when it should have done. I am as impatient as my hon. Friend, and, because of that impatience and because of our desire to see the Bill, including these provisions, on the statute book as swiftly as possible, I appeal to the other place—I think that this is the best way to leave matters in an attempt to obtain this change in the law as speedily as possible, this clause about the Press which has been accepted by majorities in this House on a number of occasions—to take account of what has been decided so frequently on this subject by this supreme House of Commons.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, pursuant to the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the House suggests to the Lords the following Amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill:
  New Clause (Freedom of the press)
  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 twelve months beginning with the passing of the Trade 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 practical guidance for employers, trade unions and 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.
  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, practical guidance on matters relating to the freedom of the press must include guidance on 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 right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and to publish any article) and the question of access for contributors.
  (3) If no such charter has been agreed as mentioned above, or if a draft charter laid

  1481
  before Parliament (under subsection (1) above or this subsection) is not approved by resolution of each House of Parliament as mentioned in subsection (6) below, the Secretary of State shall after consultation with the Press Council and such of the parties referred to in subsection (1) above, such organisations representing workers, and such organisations representing employers, as he thinks fit, prepare in draft a charter, as follows:—

  (a) where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be agreement among the parties referred to in subsection (1) above on any matter relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance as he thinks appropriate to give effect to that agreement;

  (b) where, so far as there appears to the Secretary of State to be no such agreement on any of the particular matters referred to in subsection (2) above, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance on that matter as he thinks fit,

  and the Secretary of State shall lay the draft charter before both Houses of Parliament.
  (4) 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.
  (5) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall provide for the constitution of a body which shall have the functions of—

  (a) hearing any complaint by a person aggrieved by a failure on the part of any other person to observe any provision of the charter;

  (b) issuing to the parties a declaration as to whether such a complaint is well-founded; and

  (c) securing the publication of its decision.

  (6) If a draft laid under subsection (1) or (3) above is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the charter in the form of the draft.
  (7) A charter for the time being in force under this section may be revised from time to time by agreement between such parties as are referred to in subsection (1) above, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised charter before both Houses of Parliament.
  (8) If a draft laid under subsection (7) above is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the revised charter in the form of the draft.
  (9) On issuing a charter or revised charter under subsection (6) or (8) above the Secretary of State shall make by statutory instrument an order specifying the date on which the charter or revised charter is to come into effect.
  (10) 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—
  1482

  (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."'.

  TITLE
  In line 4, at end add 'and to provide for a charter on matters relating to the freedom of the press'.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, pursuant to the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the House suggests to the Lords the following Amendment to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill:
  Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out paragraph (d).—[Mr. Hayhoe.]
  Mr. Brittan: The House may possibly be relieved to learn that the suggested amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the Press charter or with Press matters. It is an amendment to delete a provision from the Bill relating to trade disputes on matters occurring outside Great Britain. It is no exaggeration to say that it is an amendment to delete a provision which would cause and encourage more strikes, none of which could possibly benefit those who took part in them.
  That may seem to be an extraordinary proposition but it is the literal truth, because the amendment relates to the definition of a trade dispute. The importance of that definition is that if a person is acting in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute he has considerable legal immunities. Such a person cannot be sued if he induces another person to breach a contract of employment. He cannot be sued if he threatens that a contract of employment will be broken. The protection provided by the law on lawful picketing extends only to those who do so in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
  If these considerable immunities are to be provided to those who act in the course of a trade dispute, it is vital that the definition of a trade dispute should be kept to what is strictly necessary for the purpose for which it is intended. The question is whether a trade dispute should be defined in such a way as to give this immunity to a whole range of actions which might be taken, despite the fact that they relate to matters occurring wholly outside this country.

  1483
  10.30 p.m.
  In the 1974 Act a compromise was reached. It was suggested that if those involved in a trade dispute were entirely outside the United Kingdom, it did not make sense that people taking industrial action in this country should have the protection of the law. The compromise was that a trade dispute should be regarded as existing if it was in respect of a dispute going on outside Great Britain, as long as the person or persons whose actions in Britain were said to be in contemplation or furtherance of the trade dispute relating to matters outside Great Britain were likely to be affected in respect of one or more of a number of specified matters. A man striking in this country in support of a trade dispute in Germany would have immunity from legal action if he was likely to be affected by the outcome of that dispute.
  The Government are now seeking to remove the proviso in Section 29(3) of the 1974 Act in such a way that a man in this country who strikes in support of a trade dispute overseas should have legal protection and immunity even though the outcome of the dispute will not affect him or his union if it is on strike.
  Our amendment seeks to delete that provision. We think that it goes far too wide in the protection it extends. In our numerous debates on this issue there has been considerable discussion about multinational companies and how their actions in one country are likely to have important consequences for workers in other countries, but that point is well met by the proviso in the 1974 Act. If a worker in a multinational company, Ford's for instance, can truly say that negotiations taking place in Germany will have implications in this country, he will have immunity. There is no need to go further. Indeed, it would be positively harmful to go further.
  Mr. John Page: Can my hon. Friend remind the House by what criteria the effect of a trade dispute in another country on a person here will be judged?
  Mr. Brittan: That is not specified in the Act. There was some criticism of the fact that we had not made clear the extent to which people in this country would have to be affected by what was
  1484
  going on abroad for them to have protection.
  We accepted this situation and said that, if the Government wanted to introduce wording which tidied it up, we would be prepared to consider it on its merits. We did not say that the wording was defective to the extent that it could not be given a meaning. The courts could give it a meaning on a case-by-case basis. I anticipate that, if it was held that it was reasonably to be expected that people in this country would be affected by the determination of a dispute abroad, protection would extend. If, however, it were merely a fanciful hypothesis that by some indirect chain of events there would possibly be consequences in this country, there would be no protection.
  That seems an eminently reasonable arrangement. The reasonableness of it can be gauged by the arguments put forward by Labour Members. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), whose political position is a little uncertain, argued in the debates that we should grant protection against suit in this country for workers who were striking in favour of grape-pickers in California. If the Bill goes through unamended, it will be possible for people in this country to strike in favour of grape-pickers in California or of people in South Africa, Greece and Chile and anywhere else in the world who are involved in a trade dispute. The only situation in which I suspect that this provision will not apply will be in relation to a trade dispute in the Soviet Union, because such a dispute would not be allowed to take place. In the event of trade disputes elsewhere, strikers here would enjoy the full immunity of the law.
  The only argument advanced in favour of that situation is the general one of international solidarity. The moment it can be shown that anyone in this country is likely to be affected by what is going on overseas, this protection, even under the proviso, applies. It seems that even when no one can benefit from what is going on overseas, the protection would still apply.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: It would be interesting to contemplate how many strikes have taken place in other

  1485
  countries in the past year and how many extra strikes would have taken place here if the foreign strikes had been supported as is suggested by this provision.
  Mr. Brittan: I agree with my hon. Friend. If this country was at the moment experiencing an unprecedented economic boom and was enjoying virtually a nil rate of unemployment, perhaps we could afford the luxury of passing legislation the only effect of which could be to encourage strikes on behalf of people in foreign countries and from which no one in this country could benefit.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden rose—
  Mr. Brittan: I shall give way in a moment.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Give way.
  Mr. Brittan: I have said that I shall give way and I shall do so, but I will not be bullied by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). My right hon. and hon. Friends will notice that whenever one mentions unemployment which is created by the Government the Left-wingers start shrieking and shouting and cannot take it. At a moment when unemployment is rising and when the Prime Minister has said how important it is to avoid strikes which are avoidable, the Government want to enact legislation which would encourage more strikes in support of international solidarity.
  Mr. Loyden: The hon. Member referred to the grape-pickers in California, perhaps to under-privileged Eskimos and to other countries where strikes are taking place. I should like to hear his comments on the subject of the Lancashire cotton workers who in the nineteenth century went on strike for the abolition of slavery.
  Mr. Brittan: The relevant comment is that that situation would have been quite unaffected by this piece of legislation. The strike against slavery would have been a political strike and would not have had the protection of this Bill as amended. I do not believe that the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, the Attorney-General or Uncle Tom Cobleigh would disagree with that proposition. It really has nothing to do with the debate.
  Mr. Booth: May I put to the hon. Gentleman, who is struggling, that the definition of a trade dispute in Section 29(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, covering
  "the physical conditions in which any workers are required to work,"
  would not cover a dispute over the question whether people worked as slaves or as free men?
  Mr. Brittan: I do not think it would, because the conditions relating to slavery are quite different. It is hardly necessary to bring up the issue of slavery at this stage. There were stronger reasons for being opposed to slavery than any of the reasons relating to this measure. It is not good enough to raise a dubious example from the nineteenth century when there are plenty of more valid arguments from the present day.
  There is no dispute as to the extent of the Bill. The reality is that Labour Members make no secret of the fact that they wish, at a time of mounting unemployment, to encourage industrial action which is likely to put more workers out of work because of what is happening abroad. In that situation, the people in this country could not by definition benefit from such action. That seems to us to be absolute nonsense, and that is why we support the amendment.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Following the nonsense to which we have just been listening, I want first to repudiate the suggestion—which will, I hope, be repudiated in more detail when we have a longer debate quite soon on unemployment—that unemployment is the result of what the Government are doing, when everybody knows— [Interruption.] Shouting will not throw any light on this issue. Everybody knows that the massive unemployment is the result of the economic system dominating our country, just as it dominates many other capitalist countries. There are 25 million working people unemployed in capitalist countries today.
  The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) gave the game away when he replied to his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page), who has the great merit of approaching these subjects with a certain degree of drastic honesty, in the style of Thomas Hobbes. He did so again tonight, and that is why I greatly prefer what he says

  1487
  to the kind of hypocrisy to which we have listened from the Opposition Front Bench this evening.
  The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby gave the game away when he made a most revealing answer to a very direct question. He made it clear that no issue concerning wage negotiations in another country, which involved an international company and which could be said to affect the interests of workers in Britain, could be regarded as coming under the definition of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. That is the real reason for the opposition to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to do.
  Mr. Brittan rose—
  Mr. Mendelson: If I am getting under the hon. Member's intellectual shirt, he must contain himself for a moment. I listened to him carefully. He must listen to me for a moment, and then I shall give way.
  10.45 p.m.
  That is the reason. It has nothing to do with far-away peoples, with slavery or with people who might be on strike in cases that no one can imagine. The hon. Gentleman and his political friends are concerned about real cases which arise in the real world—in international companies, where the negotiations concerned might be interpreted by a group of shop stewards in this country as having a bearing on the interests of British workers. The hon. Gentleman would then quote himself and say to his friends among the employers "We said in the House of Commons that under existing legislation, although some people"—for example, a group of shop stewards—"might argue that the interests of their members are affected, it does not apply". This matter, therefore, must be put beyond doubt and peradventure. That is one of the reasons why it is good to make the position clear.
  Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has deliberately, or not deliberately—I know not—flagrantly misrepresented what I said, although it was quite simple. There is no mystery about it. Under the 1974 Act as it stands unamended, if workers in this country are likely to be affected by what is going on abroad, they have
  1488
  the full protection of the law. If they are not likely to be affected, they do not have that protection. In interpreting the meaning of the words "likely to be affected", which is what I attempted to do, one will ask "Is that likelihood genuine or purely fanciful?" If it is genuine, workers have the protection that they should have. If it is fanciful, there is no reason why they should have the protection.
  Mr. Mendelson: That is the point. The hon. Gentleman is compounding the offence and confirming what I say. He was forced, in reply to the hon. Member for Harrow, West, to admit that he would regard what most people—who will be working people and trade unionists—regard as affecting the interests of workers as being not genuine. In order to put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery, in order to have him and his like not having any say or place in judging or influencing the judging of such a likely event, it is important to put the legislation beyond doubt.
  The hon. Gentlemen's second point concerned the other group of causes which he referred to as not affecting the interests of British workers. He is wrong on that count as well. The examples he chose were characteristic. That was what provoked my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) to bring up the subject of slavery. Despite the hon. Gentleman's arrogance in referring to the nineteenth century and the rest, what provoked the image of slavery in my hon. Friend's mind was the reference to South Africa.
  Has the hon. Gentleman studied the conditions in which workers are forced to work in South Africa? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Russia?"] Conservative hon. Members are in no position to give us lessons on the conditions of work in Russia. We have done more to criticise those conditions than any hon. Member opposite who shouts from ignorance. We know much more about it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—because the interesting thing is that hon. Members who are engaging in shouting have never studied working conditions. I know their range of ignorance because I know the hon. Members who are shouting. They know nothing about it.
  In South Africa at present, as I have seen myself—it is admitted by many

  1489
  entrepreneurs and industrialists there—the workers work in conditions of slavery. They are imported to work. They have to leave their families behind. They are not allowed to live with their families. On one occasion I spent a weekend in the home of the British Ambassador—not the present one—in Pretoria. He told me of his disgust, as a Christian, at having to employ in his home a cook who was not allowed to have her husband stay with her for even 24 hours under the same roof. The husband, who was lawfully wedded to the cook, had to live 12 miles away. Those are conditions of slavery.
  Mr. Michael Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman's weekend with the British Ambassador in South Africa in order in this debate?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said nothing which I know to be out of order. Indeed, if he had done so I should have called him to order.
  Mr. Mendelson: I have always taken the view that one practical example is more important than generalisations from any quarter. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston was provoked to use the image of slavery because when we mention South Africa we are talking about workers living under conditions of slavery. My hon. Friend was obsolutely right to mention it.
  The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby will not understand this point because he has no feeling for it, but situations may arise in South Africa, certain parts of Chile, other countries ruled by authoritarians, the Soviet Union or Spain where strike action is taken by groups of workers connected through international companies or for international reasons with workers in this country and who may make an appeal to trade unionists in this country. In that event we want the British people who respond to such an appeal to have the same rights and protection under the law as they would have if the strike were to take place in response to an appeal by a group of workers within the United Kingdom. That is why we want the legislation improved.
  Mr. John Page: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) did me the honour of comparing me with Hobbes. He has always reminded me tremendously of W. G. Grace, because he has a capacity for allowing matters which he does not wish to notice to float away.
  The great Dr. Grace was once in the middle of an innings at Gloucester, where he was the local coroner, when a policeman ran on to the field with a message saying that a body had just been washed up within the doctor's "coronary" area—if that is the correct expression. Dr. Grace, emulating the hon. Gentleman, said "Put it back in the river and let it float down into another area."
  The hon. Member for Penistone also said that I was honest. I always feel that he is completely honest in what he says because his is the authentic voice of Marxism. We can always hear from him the true, unencumbered voice of those who do not believe in a mixed economy and who simply wish to have an ordinary Eastern European Socialist State in this country.
  I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Gentleman in his emotionalism about the international solidarity of the underprivileged Eskimos. However, his speech deserves to be read and studied carefully. In effect, the hon. Gentleman said that a trade dispute anywhere in the world deserves the support of employees in this country.
  Mr. John Mendelson: No.
  Mr. Page: I think that when the hon. Gentleman reads his speech tomorrow and sees through the ebullience of the champagne of his words he will realise that I have given his words their true meaning.
  Mr. John Mendelson: That is a distortion.
  Mr. Page: It is not a distortion. It may be that the hon. Gentleman could justify or manufacture sufficient grounds for a trade dispute and strike in this country in connection with a dispute anywhere else. If I am wrong, I apologise in advance, but I think that the apology will have to come from the hon. Gentleman.
  I was entirely satisfied with the criteria laid down by my hon. Friend. It is clear

  1491
  that if there were a dispute in Ford of Germany it might affect workers in Ford of England. However, it would be wrong to say that if there were a dispute in Ford of Germany Chrysler or British Leyland workers should be able to take part in it. It seems altogether too remote.
  Mr. Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Page: I shall not give way. I have taken enough of the time of the House. I support my hon. Friend in the excellent, sensible and straightforward way in which he proposed the motion.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: I do not have much to add to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) but I should like to make a couple of points.
  The Opposition are proposing another step back to the Industrial Relations Act. They are asking that the courts should determine whether a group of workers are affected in the way suggested. Someone has to determine whether, under Section 29 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, a group of workers are affected by the definition of a trade dispute.
  Labour Members do not accept that the courts of Britain—many examples can be quoted—have any idea of what international working-class solidarity means. What kind of decision would the courts have reached when dockers recently—not back in the time of the slave trade; I do not know what Wilberforce would have had to say about that—decided to support the grape-pickers in California? There is no question that a court of law, as seen by Conservative Members, would clearly have said that that was not a trade dispute within the definition of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act before any amendment.
  It would seem that international capitalism can reach all kinds of agreements to exploit any country or group of workers. It can have investment strikes here or there, share markets, fix prices and so on, and nothing happens. When we suggest that with the growth of multinational and supranational companies working people of different countries ought to get together and take industrial action to support the kind of changes they want to see, it is suggested that the courts should issue injunctions, and all the rest
  1492
  which obviously follows, to make workers desist from their action as we saw, for example, when certain workers took sympathetic action. That, too, was in the Industrial Relations Act. A classic example was Cousins v. Torquay Hotels. There was an injunction in that case because the courts decided that the action taken was unacceptable in terms of the Industrial Relations Act.
  In terms of sympathetic action internationally, I remind the House that pro-Market Opposition Members did not hesitate to tell us that the only way that working people could deal with these large companies was to get into the Common Market, join together and fight them. Now they want to bring in the courts to examine each of these situations.
  There are many Government supporters who have a million and a half good reasons for being worried about unemployment, and we have been continually advocating policies which we believe would deal with the situation. If, however, the Government take advice from the Opposition and slash public expenditure, the figure will soon be 2 million.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Booth: The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that if any strike were called in this country in support of a strike abroad it would not be subject to trade dispute legal immunities unless the United Kingdom workers taking part in the strike were likely to be affected by the outcome of the industrial dispute abroad in respect of matters specified in Section 29(1) of the 1974 Act.
  My recollection of the way in which Section 29(3) came to take the form that it did is somewhat different from that of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). As I understand the situation, we are attempting in this Bill to restore the position to that which we had in the Bill originally presented in 1974. Therefore, it is not quite right to say that this is a compromise, because during the passage of that legislation an amendment was carried against the Government. There was a clear difference of opinion about what the position in law should be in respect of immunities for sympathetic strikers in support of workers abroad.
  Mr. Brittan: It is a compromise in the sense that it is a compromise between saying that there shall be no protection for anyone striking in support of what is going on overseas and the Government's now seeking to introduce a provision saying that there should be protection for anyone striking in any event in respect of what is going on overseas.
  Mr. Booth: Then may I proceed from that position? When the matter in the Bill now before us went to the other place, there was no objection. Therefore, we have a difference in this House about industrial disputes.
  On a matter such as this it is hard to say anything new, because we have debated it so many times before. However, the issue on this amendment can be summarised by saying that what the Opposition want to retain in our legislation is a selfish strikers' charter. They want strikers who are prepared to engage in industrial action in support of workers abroad when it is in their own interests to do so and when their own interests are directly affected to have legal immunity. However, when workers in this country engage in a strike in support of workers abroad for some altruistic motive or when they do so out of a pure sense of trade union solidarity, the Opposition do not want them to have immunity. They seek to retain this position in a way which makes the law ambiguous.
  Mr. Burden: What effect does the hon. Gentleman think that a strike in this country in support of a strike in another country would possibly have upon the strike in the country of origin?
  Mr. Booth: That would depend to a great extent on the circumstances of the strike. If the strike in this country affected a firm supplying components to the overseas firm, it could have an immediate bearing. It may be, as has been acknowledged by some Conservative Members, that it would have a greater bearing if the strike abroad was in a multinational company.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: There are some up-to-date examples of this. There was the action at the Innocenti factories at Milan and Turin which could have affected British Leyland workers and thereby State funds.
  1494
  Such action would be included in the hon. Gentleman's amendment but would none the less be referred to the courts. The point here is that the Government are trying to do no more than has been agreed between the international trade union movement—particularly the International Metal Workers' Union—and other Governments. This is an attempt to pull us into line with them.
  Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, the question was what effect a strike of workers in this country would have upon a strike in a factory overseas. Neither the amendment nor the Government's proposition uses that test. The test applied by the amendment is what effect a strike abroad would have on the conditions of workers in this country. The way in which the strike abroad would have to affect the conditions of workers here for those workers to have legal immunity is precisely spelt out.
  The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby takes a slightly different view on Section 29(1) from that which I take. He takes the view that it would not be a good enough definition to cover a dispute concerning whether workers were working as slaves. I may have been unfortunate in choosing that reference to the conditions in which people are required to work to cover slavery. Perhaps Section 29(1) (d) might appeal to the hon. Member. It could possibly cover slavery as a matter of discipline. I do not think anyone would deny that slaves have to work under slightly different conditions of discipline from those of free men.
  What we have to take into account is the point put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) a little earlier when he drew attention to the fact that it was not fair to suggest that we should reproach judges for differing decisions if we left the law ambiguous. I am relying on the hon. and learned Member to support me on this occasion because, whatever else it does, the amendment certainly makes the law ambiguous whereas the Bill will make the law extremely clear.
  Mr. Percival: I should like to respond to that invitation but I cannot. This is not a question of clarity. It is a question of what we are seeking to do. I hope

  1495
  that the Minister will address his mind to the crux of the matter. We are talking about immunities. We are talking about occasions when certain categories of people are taken outside the law. These strikes are sometimes very damaging to totally innocent people. The question is in what circumstances people who would otherwise be liable to civil process because of the damage they have caused should be immune from that process.
  My hon. Friend was right. This is a compromise. We are prepared to see the immunity extend to action in connection with action outside this country, provided that there is some interest, but why should the immunity be extended beyond that point, at the expense of innocent people?
  Mr. Booth: The hon. and learned Gentleman's précis hides an important issue. It is not sufficient that the workers have some interest. Their conditions will have to be affected in respect of the matters in Section 29(1). It is by no means clear that if Ford car workers in Germany were on strike a court would rule that that must affect, to use the words of the section,
  "(a) terms and conditions of employment"
  of Ford workers in Great Britain
  "or the physical conditions"
  in which they work. Nor is it clear that a court in this country would rule that
  "(b) engagement or non-engagement"
  of workers at Ford in Great Britain was affected by that dispute or that
  "(d) matters of discipline"
  of British workers would be affected by the dispute.
  The section also speaks of the right of workers to belong to a trade union,
  "(f) facilities for officials of trade unions"
  and
  "(g) machinery for negotiation".
  It is not clear that they would be affected. Those are the tests that the courts would be required to apply if the amendment were made.
  Mr. Percival: The Minister is right in saying that those are the questions of fact that the court would have to decide in each case. Therefore, one cannot say in advance what would be the decision
  1496
  in any case. If, however, a union were affected in any of those respects it should have no problem in satisfying the court that it was so affected, and on proof of those facts it would enjoy the immunity. What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Booth: There are two things wrong with it. One is that it cannot be said that it is always a matter of fact whether terms and conditions are affected. It is often a matter of judgment. The trade union official representing the workers concerned might argue that, if the German workers succeeded by their strike in raising their wages, that would improve the chances of his workers raising their wages, and that, therefore, their terms and conditions might be affected. But it would be a matter of judgment whether he was right.
  The other thing wrong with that approach is that it is not the proper test. My hon. Friends and I believe that the proper question is whether sympathetic action and the immunities that stem from it should stop at the borders of a country, or whether, if the principle is good that one should be protected when striking in sympathy with someone else, the protection should exist whether the person one is supporting is a black South African, a white Russian or a yellow Chinese.
  The hon. Member who spoke for the Opposition in Committee said there that he would favour workers in this country being protected when taking strike action in support of workers in another branch of their company abroad. He argued persuasively. The only trouble is that his argument does not fit the amendment. As I have demonstrated, that test would not be covered by the amendment. If the amendment is passed, the law will be not only difficult to apply but illogical. It will be based on self-interest in an area which should be governed by unselfishness and solidarity. I therefore invite the House to reject the amendment.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Percival: There are always difficulties in deciding questions of fact which involve a judgment of whether certain consequences will follow. But this is a difficulty in which the House puts the courts time and time again and they deal with it pretty well. Would the Minister

  1497
  say something about the innocent third parties who might suffer damage and who would be prevented by these immunities from bringing the actions which they would otherwise have been entitled to bring? That is what this is all about.
  Mr. Booth: I do not agree that that is the issue here. The innocent third party issue is not changed in respect of other sympathetic strikes. It would only be changed by this in that it could arise in other cases. Therefore, this is not an issue peculiar to this amendment and that is not the basis on which it would be decided. Either Conservative Members do not understand the British trade union movement or they want to insult it by suggesting that workers decide whether to support a strike abroad only on the basis of whether they have legal immunity. That is the last thing that enters their minds when deciding whether to support fellow trade unionists out of a sense of solidarity.
  Mr. Prior: If that is so, there is no point in changing the existing law.
  At 11.15 at night, on the day after we have heard that unemployment has reached between 1·2 million and 1·4 million, we are discussing whether to give legal immunity to people who strike in support of workers in another country, perhaps in a totally unrelated industry. If we think that this is Britain's problem at the moment, we are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Our problems are how to get our industry back to work, produce our goods at a price at which we can sell them abroad and do something to raise the living standards which the present Government have done so much to lower.
  Instead, the Minister tells us how further to damage our country and the interests of third parties who would have no redress. The time may have come for us to tell the Government what trade unionists are anxious to have. It is certainly not what the Government are seeking to do tonight.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 285.

  Division No. 33.]

  AYES

  [11.20 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Clegg, Walter

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cockcroft, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Alison, Michael

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cope, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Arnold, Tom

  Cormack, Patrick

  Grieve, Percy

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Costain, A. P.

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Awdry, Daniel

  Critchley, Julian

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Baker, Kenneth

  Crouch, David

  Grist, Ian

  Banks, Robert

  Crowder, F. P.

  Grylls, Michael

  Beith, A. J.

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Hall, Sir John

  Bell, Ronald

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hannam, John

  Benyon, W.

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Hastings, Stephen

  Biffen, John

  Dunlop, John

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Durant, Tony

  Hawkins, Paul

  Blaker, Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Body, Richard

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hicks, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Holland, Philip

  Bottomley, Peter

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Emery, Peter

  Hordern, Peter

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Brittan, Leon

  Farr, John

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Hunt, John

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Hurd, Douglas

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Buck, Antony

  Fox, Marcus

  James, David

  Budgen, Nick

  Freud, Clement

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

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fry, Peter

  Jessel, Toby

  Burden, F. A.

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Jopling, Michael

  Carson, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Channon, Paul

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kilfedder, James

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Goodhew, Victor

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gorst, John

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Knox, David

  Mudd, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Lamont, Norman

  Neave, Airey

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Spence, John

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Neubert, Michael

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Newton, Tony

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Nott, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Stainton, Keith

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Stanley, John

  Lloyd, Ian

  Pardoe, John

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Loveridge, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Stokes, John

  Luce, Richard

  Penhaligon, David

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  McCrindle, Robert

  Percival Ian

  Tapsell, Peter

  McCusker, H.

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Tebbit, Norman

  MacGregor, John

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Madel, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Trotter, Neville

  Marten, Neil

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mather, Carol

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Maude, Angus

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Viggers, Peter

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Mawby, Ray

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Wall, Patrick

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Walters, Dennis

  Mills, Peter

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wells, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Moate, Roger

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Molyneaux, James

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Monro, Hector

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Montgomery, Fergus

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Young, Sir G. (Eating, Acton)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Morgan, Geraint

  Shepherd, Colin

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson and

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Silvester, Fred

  Mr. John Corrie.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Sims, Roger

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Allaun, Frank

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Anderson, Donald

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Archer, Peter

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Coleman, Donald

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Ashton, Joe

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Flannery, Martin

  Atkinson, Norman

  Conlan, Bernard

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Ford, Ben

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Forrester, John

  Bates, Alf

  Crawford, Douglas

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Bean, R. E.

  Cronin, John

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

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Freeson, Reginald

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)

  George, Bruce

  Boardman, H.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Booth, Albert

  Davies Bryan (Enfield N)

  Ginsburg, David

  Booth, Miss Betty

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Golding, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Gould, Bryan

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bradley, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

  Graham, Ted

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Dempsey, James

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Buchan, Norman

  Doig, Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Buchanan, Richard

  Dormand, J. D.

  Harper, Joseph

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Duffy, A. E, P.

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Campbell, Ian

  Dunn, James A.

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Canavan, Dennis

  Dunnett, Jack

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Eadie, Alex

  Henderson, Douglas

  Carmichael, Nell

  Edge, Geoff

  Hooley, Frank

  Carter, Ray

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Horam, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Howeil, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Cartwright, John

  English, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  1500

  1501

  Huckfield, Les

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Rt Kon C. (Anglesey)

  Mendelson, John

  Small, William

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Millan, Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hunter, Adam

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Molloy, William

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Stoddart, David

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Stott, Roger

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Moyle, Roland

  Strong, Gavin

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Newens, Stanley

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  John, Brynmor

  Noble, Mike

  Swain, Thomas

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Johnson, Waller (Derby S)

  Ogden, Eric

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Judd, Frank

  Ovenden, John

  Thompson, George

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Owen, Dr David

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Kelley, Richard

  Padley, Walter

  Tierney, Sydney

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Palmer, Arthur

  Tinn, James

  Kinnock, Neil

  Park, George

  Tomlinson, John

  Lambie, David

  Parker, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lamborn, Harry

  Parry, Robert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lamond, James

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

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

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Perry, Ernest

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Prentice, Rt Kon Reg

  Ward Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Watkins David

  Lipton, Marcus

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Watkinson, John

  Litterick, Tom

  Radice, Giles

  Watt, Hamish

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Weetch Ken

  Luard, Evan

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  White Frank R (Bury)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  White James (Pollok)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Whitehead, Phillip

  MacCormick, Iain

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Whitlock, William

  McElhone, Frank

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Rooker, J. W.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Roper, John

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Rose, Paul B.

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wise Mrs Audrey

  Madden, Max

  Selby, Harry

  Woodall Alec

  Magee, Bryan

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Woof Robert

  Mahon, Simon

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Wrigglesworth Ian

  Marks, Kenneth

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Young David (Bolton E)

  Marquand, David

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Mr. Thomas Pendry and

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Sillars, James

  Mr. Peter Snape.

  Meacher, Michael

  Silverman, Julius

  Question accordingly negatived.

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

  SEA DEFENCES
  11.32 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Brotherton: I should like to bring to the attention of the House the necessity to build up more strongly the sea defences of this country, particularly following what happened on 2nd and 3rd January this year with the
  1502
  gales and the floods, especially on the East Coast, and what happened in Cleethorpes, in my constituency.
  In Cleethorpes 402 houses were flooded and damaged by flood water. I do not know how many hon. Members have seen what has happened in a house when water has come over a nearby sea wall. It is a grotesque, nasty, horrid and revolting sight. On the Monday following the weekend of the floods, I went to look at Oliver Street in Cleethorpes and I saw the most horrifying sights. The damage suffered by people who had, perhaps, just bought their houses, and damage to freezers, new carpets and so on, was immense. The

  1503
  whole thing was mayhem and destruction. I believe that the Louth constituency is entitled to ask that compensation be given to the people in the constituency whose houses were damaged.
  The first and most important thing for which we have to ask is that there be built a sea defence wall that is strong enough and high enough so that never again will what happened in 1953 and again this year occur in Cleethorpes, or in Norfolk or anyhere else on the East Coast.
  This means a lot of money. In my very short time as a Member of Parliament I have insisted that no public money that could be saved should be spent. The whole of my short life as a parliamentarian has been spent saying that we must not spend more money—except for one thing, and that is defence. I have said that I believe passionately that as a nation we must spend money on defending our people. I regard money spent on the sea wall at Cleethorpes to be just as much a matter of defence as money spent on the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force.
  To repair the sea wall at Cleethorpes will cost about £1½ million. That is an enormous sum. If we were to ask the Anglian Water Authority to take over responsibility for repairing the wall, it is possible that the Cleethorpes ratepayers would not have to pay that vast sum. If the authority takes over the responsibility of building the wall, I believe that it will be able to obtain 85 per cent. of the money from the Exchequer. That means that the ratepayers will have to pay only 15 per cent.—namely, a 0·3p rate.
  The people in Cleethorpes have suffered enormously. For example, 402 houses have been flooded. The people will have to pay a certain amount, and they are happy to pay the 15 per cent., but I think it fair that the taxpayer should pick up 85 per cent. of the bill if the Anglian Water Authority is prepared to take responsibility.
  I pay a tremendous tribute to those who have helped the people in my constituency following the flooding two weeks ago. Royal Air Force personnel from Binbrook gave enormous help to my constituents. The vigilante people who
  1504
  are members of a voluntary organisation also gave help. I was most impressed by the wonderful spirit that prevailed in my constituency and the way in which the people were working to help themselves. It reminded me of when I was a child in 1940, when it was clear that England was a fine country. When things were very bad in my constituency the people showed that they were prepared to help themselves.
  On behalf of the local council in Cleethorpes, I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the Environment. It has been said by some people that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered letters, but he has answered all the letters I have written. He answered the letters sent to him by the chief executive of my council. He granted us an interview yesterday and it proved to be a fruitful discussion. We also had an interview with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Secretary of State for the Environment has done everything in his power to help Cleethorpes. On behalf of the people, I am pleased to be able to thank him very much indeed.
  In addition to building the new sea wall strong enough and high enough, we are entitled to ask the Minister what sort of help he will give us in the immediate future. What has happened, for example, to my constituent whose moter car was hit by flood water? The vehicle was insured for third party risk only, and its owner was told by the council that the flood was an act of God and that the council could not help him. We ask the Minister to help the council to look after such cases. The council has spent about £11,000 so far on immediate help to people who have been affected by flooding. In addition, the council spent £90,000 to build up the sea wall. I believe it is possible that the Department of the Environment or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will give us 50 per cent. of that sum. I hope that the Government will support us if we ask the Anglian Water Authority to build us a wall and that they will also give us the 85 per cent. grant.
  While I would not, of course, suggest that ratepayers or taxpayers should finance people who were foolish enough not to insure themselves, I think that the

  1505
  Government could reimburse those, especially the old, who suffered losses through no fault of their own.
  We in Cleethorpes know that before the winds come again and the tide gets high it is the duty of ratepayers and taxpayers to help us. Helping the people of Cleethorpes by the provision of a sea wall is just as important as helping those in Wallasey, Norfolk, on the Thames or in any other part of the country. Defending our people from floods is just as important as defending them from the Russians, the Chinese or anybody else.
  11.42 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour across the Humber, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton), for allowing me to comment briefly on the subject he has raised.
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment—the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell)—is present to listen to the debate, and we are pleased by the distinction recently conferred on him.
  The New Year gales and the force of the sea demonstrated the inadequacy of sea defences, not only in Louth but also along the coastline of the old East Riding of Yorkshire, more clearly than at any time since the vicious storms that occurred almost exactly 23 year ago tonight. This inadequacy has been shown by the flooding of farmland in my constituency, by the further erosion of long stretches of coastline and by destruction and damage to much property in the north of my constituency.
  A letter has already been sent to the Yorkshire Water Authority and I shall write immediately to the Minister with details of the complaints of my constituents. I hope he will be able to give the Government's view of their responsibilities in this matter.
  We understand that the creation of invulnerable sea defences along a coastline of 50 or 60 miles is far beyond the capacity of ratepayers and possibly beyond the capacity of taxpayers as well, but the present defences are inadequate and a middle way must therefore be found. We all realise the present restraints on Government aid, but I hope that the Minister can affirm to local authorities and individuals the Government's willingness to
  1506
  discuss a sensible sharing of this immense task so that my constituency, from Flamborough to Spurn, can face future storms with increased confidence.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I am most grateful to hon. Members for allowing me to take part briefly in the debate. I commence with a memory of the 1953 floods in Essex and the excellent preventive work which was done after them. That brings me to our own local authority area of the Wirral, first on the night of 2nd January, which has meant expenditure of some £250,000, and, following the high wind on the tide last night, a further expenditure of £40,000. That is a first estimate, and we reckon that it might well be an underestimate.
  All I ask of the Government is that we should set our minds now, as we did with Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe in 1953, to preventive first aid of our sea defences, so that, without bickering and with Government backing we may see that the homes and land which have suffered this time may be protected in the coming storms. Surely we can do the same now as we did in 1953, so that the water authorities, the local authorities and the Government can get together and get the work done. In that way we shall avoid the havoc and expenditure which might otherwise be caused by the coming spring storms.
  11.47 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): May I preface my remarks by offering the thanks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) to the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) for his congratulations.
  I know that many hon. Members whose constituencies were affected by the recent gales are indebted to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) for using the opportunity to debate this topic tonight. I am equally grateful, because it enables me to express to the House the sympathy of my colleagues and myself for those who were distressingly affected by the severe storms during the first weekend of the year. I should also like to say how impressed we were by the way in which all the bodies responsible for essential services handled the immediate problems arising from storms which caused

  1507
  damage and flooding at various places along the coast.
  Hon. Members have tonight vividly described the consequences of the flooding in their areas, and the hon. Member for Louth has spoken at some length on the consequences of flooding in and around Cleethorpes resulting from the exceptionally high water level against which the present sea defences were unable to give full protection. As the hon. Member will remember from the meeting which he and the chief executive of Cleethorpes Borough Council had with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and me, Government responsibility for sea defences is administered by my Department.
  Before replying to the specific points which have been raised, I should like to deal with the general aspects of the problem. Most of the coast affected by the floods during the evening and night of 3rd January is low-lying and liable to serious flooding if the sea breaks through the sea defences. As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) reminded us, that was what happened in the disastrous floods of 1953. After those floods a committee was set up under Lord Waverley to examine the causes of the flooding and to make recommendations about action to be taken. Perhaps the most important of that committee's recommendations was that in areas liable to serious damage from flooding the defences should be improved to a standard sufficient to withstand another flood of the same proportions as occurred in January 1953.
  Over the years which followed the committee's report, the river boards and their successors, the river authorities, with internal drainage boards where appropriate, took action on the recommendation under the powers given in the Land Drainage Acts for carrying out this kind of work. With help and advice and generous grant aid—up to 85 per cent.—from my Department, virtually all the sea defences were built up to what is known as the Waverley standard. Just as important has been the maintenance of the defences at this standard. This is now the job of the water authorities, which in April 1974 took over responsibility from the river authorities for many miles of sea wall.
  I am pleased to say that all the reports indicate that most of the defences stood
  1508
  up well to the tidal surge on 3rd January, which in some places was slightly higher than the 1953 level. There were a few breaches and some of the defences were damaged, but a repetition of the 1953 disaster was averted and I think that the House should express its gratitude to all the engineers and others whose conscientious work over the past 20 years stood up to this test.
  I understand that the drainage authorities have already made preliminary assessments of the repair work which needs to be done to restore, or in some cases improve, these defences. My Department will do all it can to help by the provision of advice and, where appropriate, grant aid.
  I should perhaps explain that the powers enabling my right hon. Friend the Minister to pay grant aid for flood protection measures are contained in the Land Drainage Acts. In deciding whether particular kinds of work are eligible for grant, we are naturally governed by these statutory provisions. I need not go into all the details now, but it might be helpful to the hon. Member for Louth and others whose constituencies have been similarly affected if I outline the main points.
  The first and perhaps most important of the statutory provisions is that grant may be paid only in connection with the improvement of existing defences or the construction of new works. This means that repair and maintenance works do not attract grant. In most cases the difference between the repair of existing sea defences and their improvement is fairly clear-cut, but where the repair may involve some degree of improvement there is room for argument. Each case must be judged on its merits, and I can only suggest that where a drainage authority or local authority has any doubts on this score it should consult my Department's regional engineer. We shall naturally deal with these matters as sympathetically as we can, but it is only right for me to remind hon. Members that we are bound by the statutory provisions and that there will be some cases which, by the nature of those provisions, cannot qualify for grant aid.
  The only other provision which I need mention—again in an endeavour to be

  1509
  helpful—is that grant aid cannot be paid unless my Department has given approval to the work before it is undertaken. The reason for this is that we must obviously be given the opportunity to judge whether the proposed works are satisfactory before committing Exchequer funds. Again, my Department's regional engineers will be as helpful as they can in dealing with applications for approval as quickly as possible, but I would urge the authorities concerned to consult them before putting work in hand.
  Having dealt with the more general questions, I should now like to turn to the particular problems at Cleethorpes referred to by the hon. Member for Louth. I should first explain that the position at Cleethorpes is slightly unusual in that responsibility for the maintenance of the defences along the sea front rests with the borough council and not with the water authority. There are historical and legal reasons for this which I need not go into.
  It means, however, that as matters stand the council will have to bear the full costs of repairing and strengthening the defences, subject to any grant aid for which it may be eligible. I can therefore readily understand why the council has now asked the Anglian Water Authority to accept responsibility for these defences in the future. Whether the Authority will be prepared to do so is entirely a matter for the authority, but I know that the regional land drainage committee of the Authority—which will be responsible for making the decision—will give the request fair and sympathetic consideration.
  As the hon. Member knows, there will need to be agreement about the way in which the cost of long-term improvements will be met, but I can perhaps tell the House that the Authority will be eligible for an 85 per cent. grant from my Department for this work. I was pleased to hear that the council will be prepared to pay the remaining 15 per cent.
  The other questions raised by the hon. Member referred to the short-term measures for the repair and improvement of the defences. On the question of emergency repairs, I doubt whether the cost
  1510
  will be eligible for grant for the reason I mentioned earlier, namely, because it is unlikely that they can be regarded as an improvement. My Department will, however, be willing to consider this if details are given to the regional engineer.
  As to the short-term measures for improvement, the hon. Member knows that these proposals have already been discussed with our regional engineer and that he has agreed that the council should go out to tender on phase 1 of the works. From the information which we have been given, there is every prospect that this work will be eligible for a 50 per cent. grant, but obviously a final decisison cannot be given until we have received the formal application from the council.
  The hon. Member also raised the question of financial relief to the council. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is represented here tonight by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. Local authorities have, of course, a general emergency power under the Local Government Act 1972 to incur expenditure. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have been made fully aware of the anxiety of those authorities most severely affected about financial aid towards the cost of remedying and alleviating the effects of the storm and flood damage.
  In his statement on 7th January my right hon. Friend undertook to consider whether the amount and incidence of the expenditure in particular cases calls for some special financial arrangement. He has already promised that such claims will be dealt with expeditiously and sympathetically and I can only suggest that the Cleethorpes Borough Council should supply full details to the Department of the Environment as quickly as possible.
  There is also the question of a Government contribution towards the relief fund which has been opened in Cleethorpes. This is something which my right hon. Friend has said that he will look at. I understand that he will need to take into account such matters as the extent of the damage, the total value of the claim on the fund and the amount of money subscribed by the general public and by other local and public

  1511
  authorities. He will, of course, also need to take account of the extent to which the damage could or should have been insured against.
  All hon. Members will recognise that these are rather difficult matters when one comes to a decision in a case where a relief fund has been established and where claims are made on an ad hoc basis. It is clear that the Government have to lay down some acceptable criteria in deciding whether financial assistance can be justified, but I am happy to assure the House that where such a relief fund has been set up, and where damage is of the nature described in the debate as having taken place, all the claims will he dealt with sympathetically. Again,
  1512
  the initiative for submitting full details rests with the local councils.
  I hope that I have been able to satisfy hon. Members that the Government are ready to do all they can to help the authorities concerned with sea defences. The protection of our coastline—particularly the East Coast, which is subject to these tidal surges—is one of those public services which is too often taken for granted. If tonight's debate has reminded us all of the need for constant vigilance—and, I may add, constant expenditure on maintenance and improvement of the defences—it will have been well worth while.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  National Freight Corporation
  National Freight Corporation
  Brakes
  Brakes
  School Buses
  School Buses
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Roads (Planning Inquiries)
  Roads (Planning Inquiries)
  Scots Parliament Site (Perth)
  Scots Parliament Site (Perth)
  Drivers
  Drivers
  Local Commissioners (Reports)
  Local Commissioners (Reports)
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Houses Unlet
  Houses Unlet
  Ipswich Bypass
  Ipswich Bypass
  High Alumina Cement
  High Alumina Cement
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  M3
  M3
  Liverpool Docks (Floating Stage)
  Liverpool Docks (Floating Stage)
  Housing (Municipalisation)
  Housing (Municipalisation)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Members of Parliament (Security)
  Members of Parliament (Security)
  Patagonia (Welsh Colony)
  Patagonia (Welsh Colony)
  Terrorism Prevention (Wales)
  Terrorism Prevention (Wales)
  Balcombe Street (Incident)
  Balcombe Street (Incident)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  European Community States (Aliens)
  European Community States (Aliens)
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Traffic Wardens
  Traffic Wardens
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Mr. Jeffery Burt
  Mr. Jeffery Burt
DEFENCE
  Cyprus (Anzio Camp)
  Cyprus (Anzio Camp)
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Steiner Schools
  Steiner Schools
  Thanet (Primary Schools Admissions)
  Thanet (Primary Schools Admissions)
  Secondary Education
  Secondary Education
  Under-Fives
  Under-Fives
  Schoolchildren (Transfer to Private Schools)
  Schoolchildren (Transfer to Private Schools)
  Educational Services (Employees)
  Educational Services (Employees)
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Further Education (Disabled Persons)
  Further Education (Disabled Persons)
WALES
  Devolution
  Devolution
SCOTLAND
  Young Persons (Employment Abroad)
  Young Persons (Employment Abroad)
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Roads (Hebridean Townships)
  Roads (Hebridean Townships)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Rural Deprivation
  Rural Deprivation
  Kessock Bridge
  Kessock Bridge
  Hospitals (Fife)
  Hospitals (Fife)
  Renton (Bypass)
  Renton (Bypass)
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  Parliament Site (Perth)
  Parliament Site (Perth)
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Chile
  Chile
  Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)
  Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)
  United Nations (British Committees)
  United Nations (British Committees)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  British Council School, Madrid
  British Council School, Madrid
  Brunei
  Brunei
  Passports
  Passports
  Dependent Territories
  Dependent Territories
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Documents
  Documents
EMPLOYMENT
  Liverpool—Birkenhead Ferry
  Liverpool—Birkenhead Ferry
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  Industrial Language Unit
  Industrial Language Unit
  Dundee and Tayside
  Dundee and Tayside
ENERGY
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Sussex
  Sussex
  Gas and Electricity Disconnections
  Gas and Electricity Disconnections
  Petrochemicals (Scotland)
  Petrochemicals (Scotland)
  FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
  FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Ministerial Staff
  Ministerial Staff
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Cattle Imports (Irish Republic)
  Cattle Imports (Irish Republic)
  Cattle (Tuberculosis)
  Cattle (Tuberculosis)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Child Tax Allowances
  Child Tax Allowances
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Tax Collection (Wales)
  Tax Collection (Wales)
  Treasury Staff
  Treasury Staff
  Income Tax and Investment Income Surcharge
  Income Tax and Investment Income Surcharge
  War Widows
  War Widows
  Children's Incomes
  Children's Incomes
  Low-income Householders
  Low-income Householders
  Marriage Allowance
  Marriage Allowance
  Government Debt
  Government Debt
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Rents
  Rents
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
  Security Forces' Arms
  Security Forces' Arms
  Border Roads
  Border Roads
INDUSTRY
  Marathon Company
  Marathon Company
  London Dockland
  London Dockland
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Chrysler
  Chrysler
  Steel
  Steel
TRADE
  Television Sets
  Television Sets
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Control (Selective Restraint)
  Price Control (Selective Restraint)
  Licensed Premises
  Licensed Premises
  Hypermarkets
  Hypermarkets
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mental Patients
  Mental Patients
  Child Minders
  Child Minders
  Health Authorities (Staff Representatives)
  Health Authorities (Staff Representatives)
  Derbyshire Royal Infirmary
  Derbyshire Royal Infirmary
  Hospital Fees (Casualties)
  Hospital Fees (Casualties)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Hospital Beds (South Debyshire)
  Hospital Beds (South Debyshire)
  National Health Service Expenditure (Trent)
  National Health Service Expenditure (Trent)
  Doctors and Nurses (South Derbyshire)
  Doctors and Nurses (South Derbyshire)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The Chairman of Committees on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
The Lord Leconfield and Egremont—Took the Oath.

HOUSING: NORTH WILTSHIRE SCHEME
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to encourage the extension of the North Wiltshire District Council housing scheme in other housing authorities.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, about 40 local authorities have so far introduced schemes. We expect to be able to issue general advice in light of their experience and of the special examination now being undertaken by Sir Dennis Pilcher of the scope for local authorities to lease houses.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that information, may I ask whether she recognises that in the examination the valuable work already done by the North Wiltshire District Council in arranging lettings of otherwise empty properties should be taken into account? Does she further recognise that if this scheme could be brought to the attention of all the non-metropolitan and metropolitan district councils a great many houses which are at present unoccupied could be let?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, we are aware of that point and the attention of local authorities has been drawn to the scheme. Indeed, a great many of them have been in touch with the Department. I would point out to the noble Baroness
462
that the North Wiltshire scheme has not yet been in force for a year and that there have as yet been no changes of tenancy and no let properties taken back. It is difficult to examine the scheme until we see how it works out.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, is it not a fact that part of the principle of the North Wiltshire scheme is encouragement to let empty properties under a guarantee of return to the owner at the end of the short lease by the local authority, and that the principle, which the noble Baroness herself supported in the short debate, is one which could be applied in other places? Will the Department issue a circular encouraging its application by other authorities?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it could be applied but only where local authorities can rehouse the people concerned when the properties are taken back. That is the point which, as the noble Baroness will remember, I stressed in the debate and it is the reason why the scheme may not always be applicable to all authorities. As I said in the original Answer, a circular will be issued when we have made the examination and have received the recommendations from Sir Dennis Pilcher.

SCOTCH WHISKY: EXCISE DUTY
2.38 p.m.
Lord BELHAVEN and STENTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the widespread redundancies and short-time working in distilleries throughout Scotland, they will consider some reduction in the very high excise duty on Scotch whisky.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am of course unable to anticipate the Budget Statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making later this year in another place. I should mention that any relationship between reduced employment in Scottish distilleries and the current rate of excise duty on spirits is less direct than might be inferred from the noble

463
Lord's Question. More than four-fifths of Scotch whisky production is exported without duty payment. Spirits duty is payable on release of whisky from bond for home consumption, after it has matured for at least three years. It is still too early to derive any firm conclusions as to the effect of the 1975 Budget on home consumption, but duty-paid clearances for the first 10 months of 1975 were about 1 per cent. higher in terms of volume than those for the corresponding period of 1974.
Lord BELHAVEN and STENTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for that detailed reply. May I ask whether he is aware of the effect on the level of taxation levied by foreign Governments of the highly penal rate of taxation on Scotch whisky which is levied in this country? In relation to the Budget which is approaching, is it possible for the noble Lord to impress on his right honourable friend that a gesture on the part of Her Majesty's Government in lowering this penal duty might encourage the distillery workers and their families who are suffering most from the present situation?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, my right honourable friend had that point in mind when he prepared the last Budget. Had he maintained the duty in real term sat the level of 1970, the additional duty in 1975 would have been £120 per bottle. However, he raised the duty by only 64p per bottle because of the considerations mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord MOLSON: My Lords, at the risk of going marginally outside the scope of the original Question, may I ask whether the Government are aware that, owing to the high cost of grain, the amount of whisky distilled this year in Scotland was lower than it would otherwise have been? In view of what the Minister has said about the importance of this industry for exports, will the Government consider giving help to the whisky industry to maintain its stocks for five, six and seven years ahead, by which time the whisky will be saleable.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that was considered by my right honourable friend both before and after the last Budget, but he came to the conclusion that to act in
464
the way that has been suggested would be outside the strategy of the Budget. Furthermore, he felt that the producers of whisky had a remedy in their own hands. I understand that wholesalers and retailers normally receive two months' credit, and the answer is to reduce that term of credit.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that most people who drink whisky say that they do so for medicinal reasons? Therefore, would it not be of benefit to the whisky industry if doctors were enabled to prescribe whisky on the National Health Service?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, unlike my noble friend I do not take for the gospel truth everything that is said!
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that according to the medical profession whisky is the only alcoholic drink that is a non-depressant? With the present extremely depressing behaviour of the Government, would it not be wise to encourage the production of whisky?

CHILD CARE AND WELFARE SERVICES
2.44 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the advice they have issued to local authorities on procedures to prevent non-accidental injury to children occurring partly as a result of an incomplete exchange of information between responsible welfare agencies; whether they will take steps to revise or reinforce that guidance in the light of the report on the case of Steven Meurs; and whether they intend to take any further steps to prevent the occurrence of similar tragic events.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the need for the closest co-operation between all agencies concerned with children at risk and for a full and frank exchange of relevant information between all those involved has been a central feature of the guidance which has been

465
issued on this subject both by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and by other Departments who also have responsibilities in this field, and such guidance is kept under continuous review. It has been reinforced in guidance on good practice which has been prepared and issued locally by many of the area review committees which have been set up in England and Wales to co-ordinate the activities of all agencies involved in their areas. It will again be emphasised in guidance which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be issuing from her Department early next month.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that the breakdown in communications and some other ills which the welfare services experience, arise in part from the fact that over 60 per cent. of the workers in those services, with the exception of the Probation Service, are untrained? Would he agree that the 30 to 40 per cent., or minority, of trained and experienced workers naturally progress to higher points of the hierarchy where they are administratively employed? If that is so, can the noble Lord tell us what steps are taken by local authorities to draw on this reservoir of experience and training to provide in-service training for those who are not so qualified?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord has just said. It has been a matter of very grave concern to a large number of people who are familiar with the demands in the field of professional social work that so many people engaged in this work today are in fact untrained. But we are faced with a very serious problem. There is an enormous number of children who need some kind of visitation and supervision, and the local authority social services departments are like a vast army locked in battle. They have to deal with the enemy and do not really have time to disengage and look at what is going on.
However, the noble Lord is perfectly right; more money should be spent on the training of social workers. I am happy to say that a fair number—I believe a large number—of local authorities have in-service training schemes and further
466
training schemes in operation. I should like to think that those who occupy the higher administrative positions in local authority social services departments, having come up from the grass roots, are putting their expertise and their knowledge at the disposal of those who are in the course of being trained. But the noble Lord is quite right; this is a matter which we must watch carefully.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, would it not be true to say that the whole community stands condemned in this case—not only the social workers, but friends and neighbours of this poor woman whose child died? Does my noble friend agree that it is not actually so much expertise or training that is needed, but rather a little plain common sense, which cannot be applied in all the areas of social services but which in this case might have prevented this tragedy?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not so sure that it is as simple as that. This case reveals a regrettable, lamentable situation. But I understand that there was no complaint at any time from any neighbours who might have known of the situation. I come back to the fact that the case-load of the average social worker in our local authorities is enormous, and while I deplore what has happened I hope that we shall not go on from battered babies and battered wives to battering social workers who, on the whole, are doing a magnificent job.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord has just said, but was there not a real danger signal in this tragic case; namely, the failure to note the significance of the fact that the mother would not admit people to her house? Ought not the Government to impress upon local authorities the importance of recognising a signal of that kind, which is something which can be seen without very much training?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is a signal which is well known to experienced people within the field. Unfortunately, it is not always appreciated by the untrained person, and perhaps it was a little unfortunate that that was the situation in this particular case. But I do not think there is any need for the Government to impress upon local authorities that this is a particular point

467
which must be watched. This has already been pointed out. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that, following the guidance which my right hnourable friend sent out in April 1974, there are now all over the country area review committees which represent the same areas as those covered by the Area Health Authorities, and many of these committees have themselves issued instructions and guidance to social workers. I have here such a booklet which covers merely the borough of Lambeth, South-warkand Lewisham. It is very comprehensive and in the very near future it is likely that something similar will be issued by all the Area Review Committees appointed to deal with this kind of situation.
Lord WADE: My Lords, to revert to the original Question, may I ask the noble Lord whether the problem mainly arises from the incomplete exchange of information or from the heavy burden of work falling upon welfare workers in the various agencies? Which is the main cause?
Lords WELLS-PESTELL: I should not like to say, my Lords. I can remember that when I was in the Probation Service I had 200 cases, and I did not have time to talk to anybody, however much I may have wanted to do so. This was many years ago. The more case conferences there are, the more experienced social workers are being taken out of the field, and another tragedy is likely to happen. I do not know which comes first.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as a large number of women refuse to allow officials to enter their houses, can we condemn this social worker out of hand for not regarding it as a most unusual occurrence for a woman not to allow her to enter her house?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope we would not condemn the social worker. As I say, it is an extremely difficult situation. First, there is a question of individual judgment, which can be wrong on occasions. Then there is the pressure of work, and there are many other factors which have to be taken into account.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the last thing I was seeking to do was to condemn anybody. What I was asking the Government to do, in a case where there is a child known to be at risk and a refusal, was to emphasise the importance and recognise the significance of those two facts where they occur together.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that we are not unmindful of that and what he has suggested has in fact been done. Obviously, if my right honourable friend is going to issue further advice in the near future this may well be a point which needs emphasising again.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, in his original reply the noble Lord made no mention of Scotland, but as there has been reference to an exchange of information and area review committees may I ask him to ensure that this exchange crosses the Scottish Border? North of the Border the administrative and social welfare arrangements are slightly different from those South. This is an area where it is most important that this sort of information is available.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not sure of the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in this matter. I do not know whether or not it includes Scotland. My suspicions are that it does not, but I will certainly draw this point to her attention and see whether anything she may do and say in the matter is communicated to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord INGLEWOOD: But, my Lords, the noble Lord will agree that the Border should not be an Iron Curtain.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I seriously ask my noble friend this question? Is he aware of the fact that before the previous Government enacted the Local Government (Reorganisation) Act—I am not speaking from a Party point of view now—each county council and county borough had a special children's department under a children's officer? Is he further aware of the fact that under that reorganisation scheme each children's department as such was abolished and merged ino a general social welfare department? Does he not think

469
that it might be a good thing to reinstate the original children's departments, where the problems of children could have specific attention from skilled workers?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should be obliged if my noble friend would allow me not to answer that until I have been able to think about this and to consult my colleagues. But let me say here and now that with the passing of the children's departments and the children's officers we have lost a great deal of skill and competence.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that in this particular case of Steven Meurs the uncle complained, and was he not called "a silly old interfering man"?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will take the noble Baroness's word for that, but I was not aware of it.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while endorsing the Minister' tribute to social workers, may I ask him whether the Government would consider entering into sonic discussion with the Social Workers' Association with a view to dealing with problems of this character?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I know from my own personal knowledge that we are constantly in touch. There are 300 voluntary and professional organisations responsible for social work in this country, and I think I can say that we are in touch with them all, obtaining their views, their comments and their observations on the whole range of social services.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I revert to the noble Lord's answer to my original supplementary about the extent to which the existing pool of training and expertise is used for in-service and in-house training? May I ask him, in the light of his not absolutely concrete reply to that specific point, whether he will take steps to ascertain how far it is common practice in local authorities to make that use of those resources, and let us know the result of his inquiry?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall be glad to convey what the noble Lord has just said to my right honourable friend to see whether that kind of information can be obtained.

JUVENILE CRIME
2.56 p.m.
The EARL of LYTTON The EARL of LYTTON rose to call attention to the continuing growth of juvenile crime; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is chance that brings me here today. I put my name into the ballot box, and to my horror it was drawn out first; and so it is that I have an opportunity to come before your Lordships and, I hope, to achieve my object, all sublime, to call attention to juvenile crime. That is the subject on the Order Paper. But I have also been asked to call attention to something else. There are many distinguished speakers to follow, and it has been suggested that, as we are obliged to finish by half-past five, anyone who hogs the air for more than 10 minutes will incur the displeasure of the Whips. I have made my contribution by leaving my notes behind, hoping that I may forget half of what I wanted to say.
However, to revert, I have been interested in crime since, 50 years ago, I was handed over a young man on crutches and instructed to execute him for the second time, and to do it properly this time. Although that has no bearing on what I am going to talk about, it indicates my interest. Then, recently, when a report was headlined in the London evening newspapers to the effect that every London boy is a thief—some before they are 7, more before they are 10 and the whole lot by the time they are 16—I looked at it and decided that I would follow it up. That particular report has no special relevance to this debate because it is old, but it did bring to my notice one interesting fact which I have had confirmed throughout the world, and that is that crime is not caused by poverty in particular; nor by deprivation; nor, indeed, by something being wrong with a person's head, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, in their evidence to the Short Committee, indicated. The vast majority of delinquents stand in no need whatsoever of psychiatric treatment; they are normal. They are not "kinky"; they are naughty.
During the months which have passed since I won this ballot I have corresponded with chiefs of police from the Clyde, the Mersey and the Thames, in

471
Paris and West Berlin, Tokyo, San Francisco, Melbourne and other places. The replies have been pouring in, and, if possible, I will give a glimpse of what they say, but they have produced on my mind a certain pattern. Crime—I do not mean juvenile crime, but crime everywhere—has been rising considerably since 1950. In some countries juvenile crime bears a constant relationship, but even where it does not—and in many it does not; it is much higher—there is the distressing feature everywhere that younger children are committing more violent crimes, and that they are more frequently accompanied by girls. That happens everywhere.
While we are on the subject of girls, Scotland tells me that over the record of the past 20 years, for every one girl criminal there are 10 boys. So Scotland wins the good girl prize. That merely confirms my impression, which I have had for some 50 years, that the female sex is the nobler. However, things are unhappily changing, and when women take to crime the female of the species is more deadly than the male. A very responsible educational authority in London told me that there is a community, perhaps more than one, where it is very ill-advised for the teacher to separate two girls who happen to be fighting. The chances are that both will turn on him and they will both bite him. Long ago I had occasion to sew up the lips of one woman who had been fighting with another; but that is another story.
My Lords, I have tried to find out what is at the heart of the problem. A great deal of this can be taken in its stride by our police everywhere; and, before I go on, I will go back to one further result of my world survey, which is that round about 1969 the spirit of the 1969 Act seemed to be blossoming—everywhere. Captain Davy of New York writes to indicate his great admiration of the way we control our social services. The chap from San Diego indicates from his figures that roughly about the same time the same sort of thing was happening. Much to my surprise, it happens to be Tokyo rather than here where the 1969 Act is being carried out. They keep their eye on some 50,000 to 60,000 children in Tokyo; as they say that they would otherwise be deliquents. Is that not
472
exactly what we are trying to achieve: adequate supervision? I am not sure whether or not that 50,000 to 60,000 figure is very large because I am no expert, and the population of Tokyo is about 11½ million. But it is an indicator; and they have a nice little name for one of their methods. "Hello dear", I think the movement is called. I do not know enough about it. I feel that a visit to Tokyo would be a most useful result of all this reasearch.
I should like to congratulate Vienna on their being able to write to me to say: "This is not a topical subject. We have no problem." That is a city of 2 million. How do they do it? I do not know. In many other places it is serious. In many places the figures are not comparable; they are very suggestive but are not strictly comparable. In Melbourne, for instance, there were 27 homicides last year; but the age groups are different. They are different in Japan, too. It looks bad in Melbourne where all are under 21; it looks good in Tokyo, for there were only 5,000, but they were all under 14. So one cannot make a comparison.
My Lords, let us stick to this country. Scotland Yard helped me most. They did not brief me. I went in there and held one of their officers for questioning. When I do that with the police, I go on for two hours non-stop until he makes some confession or the other. It was the same with the Inner London Education Authority. I think I pinpointed the serious trouble. It appears that there are in London 200 dyed-in-the-wool, sophisticated criminals who have been before the police, each one, 30 or 40 times. What more can the police do? But there are only 200. They have committed every sort of crime. One hundred and twenty of the 300 motorcars stolen in London every day are taken by people under the age of 17 who have no authority to drive anything.
This is allied a little to truancy, but in order not to take up too much time, I want to concede that according to my inquiries the staffing shortage due to inadequate salaries has been the cause of a lot of trouble in all or in a great many schools; and that in May this year when the salaries were raised the light began to break almost immediately. Things are improving already. I want to say in

473
regard to truancy that it is difficult to find the true truancy figures. It looks like something between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent.; but that includes absentees and children with tonsilitis—for they have every sort of ailment. The real truancy figure may be something like 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. Again, by questioning until I got a confession, I asked what were the elements of this 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. which was resented at the recent Conference of Assistant Masters. What percentage is it? They want to expel certain children from the system. I think that somewhere there is a 2 per cent. figure.
My informant, who impressed me as knowing everything from A to Z—and if you want to know, go to the Inner London Health Authority, the head of the Secondary Department, and you will find out—suggested1 per cent. I am not sure myself that there is not a place for a statutory class of ungovernable boy. Unfortunately, when I said "ungovernable boy" this man also said "ungovernable girl", that it was half and half. That is what we have come to. There has been a decline in the behaviour of girls.
My Lords, I have been speaking for eleven minutes, but I did make two announcements and I will go on for one minute more to the end of what I was going to say. With regard to the matter of supervision, I overlap a little with the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, today on the subject of visiting. That is important. We must cover the matter of these difficult families. I think that some families should be put in care, and not the children. The families are responsible for them; they should be put in care and supervised. It is a question of "Like father, like son". Some of them are not up to it. My impression is that there is nobody except a policeman who has the right to enter a house at all. I am suggesting that there should be somebody like a statutory National Society for the Protection of Children who would go in with that right. I feel that the social services are becoming like father and mother confessors. They are getting a very happy and confidential relationship with the people in the houses and they do not want to be involved in criminal proceedings.
My Lords, I persuaded my noble friend Lord Leconfield and Egremont, against his better judgment, to make his maiden speech today, and I do not want to go on lest he has no time to make it.
3.10 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for introducing this debate this afternoon. We shall listen with great interest, I know, to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont.
Juvenile crime, and particularly the alarming rate of its increase, is a matter about which the public are rightly concerned. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has given us some figures. Some of our most persistent and violent criminals are now under the age of 17. About a quarter of all serious crime involving violence, and more than 40 per cent. of all burglaries and robberies, is committed by children under the age of 17. I too regret that the number of girls committing crimes is on the increase. I believe it to be true that last year there was a 16 per cent. increase in the crimes committed by girls, and the amount of crime committed in London rose alarmingly as well.
What is particularly disturbing is that neither the courts, the police nor the local authorities seem to have been able to deal with the problem. Not surprisingly, the public is becoming increasingly alarmed and is losing faith both in the penal system and in social workers. Law and order is an issue about which people feel strongly, and the public are puzzled because juvenile crime is on the increase at a time in history when more money than ever before is being spent on the education service, on social services and better housing, when there are grants for urban aid, and when poverty, although always something which is relative, is not the grinding poverty of the past. Better material circumstances may have brought a great many good things, but they appear to have brought with them increased lawlessness. In this debate we shall all find it far easier to state the problems than state the solutions. It seems to me that the great value of this debate today is the opportunity to make some constructive suggestions as to what might be at least some of the ways out of this present tragic situation.

475
One common cause of concern is the operation of the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act. This Act is regarded as a failure by almost everyone. I suspect the primary reason why it has not worked is because there have not been available enough resources to implement it. Nevertheless, many people would like to see more power restored to the juvenile court. One of the questions which must be asked is what magistrates could do unless there were to be increased resources to build what is believed to be the necessary number of community homes. One would have to ask, in our present economic difficulties, what would be the cost of such a policy. I believe the latest official figures show that the cost per young person in secure accommodation is now between £7,000 and £8,000 per year. It will undoubtedly be more next year.
Before we contemplate more secure accommodation it seems to me that two questions should be asked: First, could we spend such sums of money more usefully? If my figures are correct, we are spending on each child in such accommodation the equivalent salary of a full-time fully qualified social worker and a full-time fully qualified teacher. Furthermore, one must ask the question whether secure accommodation is the best way of dealing with the problem. According to the statistics I have seen—I hope I am interpreting them correctly, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will correct me if I am wrong—the official figures seem to indicate that there is only a 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. success rate. "Success" means that the young offender does not commit another offence for another three years. In those circumstances, I do not think it is possible to conclude that further secure accommodation would necessarily be the answer to juvenile crime. It is perfectly true it may be the answer for some offenders; and the question that should be asked is whether the right people are going into the right places. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if we are to find something constructive to say, we have to meet the very real fears of the public which is concerned about the breakdown of law and order, and to do so it is necessary to show that the causes of juvenile crime are indeed far more complex than may at first be supposed.
476
Any proposals must meet these fears and must be realistic at a time of economic stringency.
One of the considerations which I believe we can take into account is the variety of responses there are to an adult who commits a crime. There appear to be far more alternatives than those open when a juvenile commits a crime. For an adult there is prison, probation, community service, fines and other penalties, whereas juvenile courts can only make supervision and care orders. It may well be that other alternatives ought to be available. For example, it has been suggested to me that a young person put on a supervision order ought to be under the care of the Probation Service. Alternatively, I know a number of people, experienced in the care of juvenile offenders, who would like to see introduced a community service scheme for young offenders. I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, if he could say in his reply whether such a proposal would require legislation or whether this is something which could be introduced immediately. There is no reason why such a matter could not be incorporated into a supervision order and the courts could attach a condition requiring it. It would be vastly cheaper than residential care and it is a system which could make use of volunteers.
Secondly, I believe we should consider a much greater use of professional foster homes for the care of young offenders. I believe that Kent County Council is already trying an experiment and paying professional foster parents a suitable sum for the care of a young offender. Again, this scheme has the immediate economic advantage that it is infinitely cheaper than residential secure accommodation. But the far more important reason is that for once in his life it would allow a young offender to build a real relationship with caring adults. I have no doubt the Home Office is studying in detail the Hammersmith experiment which is now being carried out. Under this scheme, children can each day be at a centre from nine in the morning to eleven at night. They do not live in t they go home to stay with their parents. The time-table of each child is tailored to that child's needs. The child comes to the centre because of a truancy or because it has committed some crime. In this way

477
the child remains in the circumstances in which it will inevitably find itself when it leaves the organisation that is looking after it. In the meanwhile, it is receiving professional help. I wonder whether we should be considering further projects in the light of this experience. The great advantage of this scheme is that the child's relationship with its parents is maintained. I believe that these suggestions could at least be put into effect immediately.
If we are going on to consider the underlying cause of juvenile crime—which I believe are matters which should be considered in a debate such as this—there are other matters affecting the long-term good of society that we should look at. After all, when a child finally comes before the court, it comes at a time when something has gone seriously wrong. It is not something which happened that day or the week before, it must have been accumulating over a long period. All the evidence of research shows the fundamental need of every child to build secure emotional relationships in the early years of life. One has only to compare the active, energetic, interested, inquiring, happy child of two with the listless, bored, "could-not-care-less" attitude of the depressed and disturbed adolescent hanging about waiting for something to happen, to see that life can change very much if a child does not have the right start.
I believe that, as a society, we have concentrated so much on the physical well being of children that we have neglected the emotional and spiritual side of their development. Over the long-term we need to look at the teaching of young people about marriage and family life, a theme we touched on last week in the sex education debate. Surely health education should mean teaching girls and boys about the responsibility for looking after children, not just feeding them and keeping them clean, with a roof over their heads. Children who have not had the experience of a happy home cannot in their turn pass on that experience to their children. It is one of the important points made by my honourable friend Sir Keith Joseph when he talked about the cycle of deprivation.
Marriage and motherhood are of vital importance, and in our anxiety over the
478
Sex Discrimination Act to see there is no discrimination in employment we should not allow girls to feel guilty because they wish to give their undivided attention to bringing up a family. It is a vital job in the community and if they are not successful in doing this job society will pay a very great deal later on.
Continuing my theme, I believe that more could be done in the Hospital Service to help mothers, when their babies are born, to understand their children's needs; and when a mother takes her baby to a clinic for inoculations and regular physical check-ups it would be an opportunity for education to be given on the emotional needs of children as well. After all, only a very long period of public education and administration has made the prevention of so many physical illnesses a success story of the 20th century. Now we should look constructively at the other side of a human being's life to see whether we can be equally successful there.
We also need to look again at the planning of our cities. Tower blocks, the destruction of whole communities and totally inadequate play space, are, I believe, some of the causes of children growing up to be delinquents. Those of us who have been privileged to have places in which we could play as children, where we could climb trees, run about and enjoy ourselves, must appreciate how fortunate we were and how difficult it is for many young people in society today. Indeed, I was interested to read a report on vandalism by a Working Party connected with the Home Office Standing Committee, which says this about playgrounds:
"These, though more primitive and less expensive than fully equipped Sports Centres, were generally felt to make a really worthwhile contribution to combating vandalism. Most authorities are aiming to provide an adequate number and for the future they contemplate providing such facilities on all new housing estates. Some local authorities spoke highly of the value of 'adventure playgrounds' with less stereotyped equipment than the usual playgrounds."
I believe we have been singularly unimaginative in the past over the planning of some of our cities. I hope we have learned from these lessons and will be able to do better in the future.
This is a short debate and so I should like to conclude by making a plea for

479
full co-operation in this whole area between the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment. So many of these problems cross all three Government Departments and what one of them is doing ought to be done in conjunction with another. We have already criticised local authorities for their lack of cooperation, but we need to see that such co-operation is taking place at the centre as well. I am glad to see that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester is to speak later in the debate. It is for him to speak of the spiritual side of a person's life, but I was most interested to read in the paper recently that among the fastest growing youth movements in the country are the Girl Guides and the Brownies. The reason given for this was how muddled young people are today about the principles in which they believe and how comforted they were to join an organisation which set out a set of constructive principles which they could believe and follow.
I think that in all this we must consider the spiritual and moral side of a person's upbringing. Everyone needs a code in which to believe and by which to live, something by which he can measure his behaviour throughout life. At the end of the day we need this acceptance of responsibility by adults, whether they be parents, teachers, social workers or engaged in the medical profession, seeking constructive ways to help a group of very unhappy people doing a great deal of damage within society.
3.24 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He has laid it down that we must not speak for more than ten minutes and if I exceed that time I hope he will move that I be no longer heard. I shall then subside gracefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said some things on the moral and spiritual side with which I find myself wholly in agreement. She has said some other things which I think are rather unfortunate but I shall hope in these few minutes to put There was a time when I felt the need to her right more firmly than I would have done before the days of women's equality. be chivalrous but that no longer applies.
480
Like others of your Lordships, I have been involved in these special topics for many years. In 1963–64 I chaired a committee at the request of Mr. Harold Wilson who was then the Leader of the Opposition. This committee included the present Lord Chancellor, a former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and other distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. We were concerned with the prevention and treatment of crime and we introduced in our Report what might fairly be called a new approach to juvenile delinquency. In this connection we were particularly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, who is not with us today. In that Report we laid heavy stress on the need to avoid treating children as criminals wherever possible. That was the basic theme of our approach to juvenile delinquency, while recognising of course the need for law and order. I am sure that all members of that Committee are proud to think that this approach has been so largely given effect to in subsequent legislation.
This is where I come to the noble Baroness, if I might obtain her attention for words which may seem rather harsh. She said that not sufficient resources had been given to implementing the Act of 1969, and I entirely agree with her, so we are totally at one there. I am sure the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, do not need to have guidance on that point; obviously not enough resources have been devoted to that. The noble Baroness said that this Act was agreed by almost everyone to be a failure—I believe those were her words. That, I am afraid, I regard as a nonsensical remark. It just is not so. There must be many people both here and elsewhere who do not agree at all and so the noble Baroness simply must extend, if I may say so respectfully, her circle of acquaintances. If she moves just a little outside her own burrow she will find an awful lot of people who think that that Act was one of the greatest benefits in the treatment of young delinquents in this century. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will take it from me—and I say this with all respect to someone who is now on terms of complete equality with all of us here—that that remark of hers will be regarded in many circles as most regrettable. I must say that,

481
because to say less would be too old-fashioned—
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am quite prepared to stand to be corrected by the noble Earl, but I should not like him to think that I had asked only about one other person before engaging in this debate. I have consulted as widely as I can—and I know a number of people engaged in the social work profession—before reaching any conclusions. I will accept that the conclusions that I reached have been my own.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, might I intervene as a peace-maker? Is it not a fact that the social services are about 75 per cent. untrained and that they are doing their best under difficulties, but they have not been as successful as they should have been?
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the ten minutes are slipping away with all these interventions. At any rate, the noble Baroness has recorded her view. She has moved in a certain circle and has found some people to agree with her. I only tell her that when she says (I think I am reporting her correctly) that almost everybody regards it as a failure she is saying something which is simply not true—that at least I must say—although I have no doubt that she herself imagines it to be true.
It was said of the philosopher Kant that he started from both ends of the road at once and never met himself in the middle'—I am referring to myself now and not to the noble Baroness. One is taught here, in approaching the question of young delinquents, that we must think in terms of the vast majority of young people, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the relatively small number whom one might call the hard-core of intransigents or whatever you like. Speaking very rapidly, I would say that we are moving entirely in the right direction with regard to the vast majority. I think we ought to move away much faster than we are doing from institutional treatment. We ought to do much more in the way of intermediate treatment and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he speaks, will have something to say about the treatment of people in their homes. At any rate, that movement I entirely applaud. Nevertheless, we are left with a hard-core of these people—and everybody knows
482
that the whole social life of young people, in particular, can be wrecked by a relatively small number—and the crucial question is: what do we do about the small number? Here, we have to find some new solution.
I do not think it is to be found in our Report of 1964. I do not know exactly where it is to be found. The phrase, "We need more secure provision" is all right up to a point, but that suggests that you just lock these people in and try to prevent them from getting out. That in itself is very unconstructive, so we have to find some method of applying a firmer and more moral discipline, very much in line with the ideas of anyone who has looked into this subject. We have to find some way of treating the minority on different lines from the vast majority. But in each case we must remember that the approach must be constructive and that each person—whether we say he or she is easy to deal with or difficult to deal with—has an immortal soul and is just as important from the angle of the community which is trying to do justice to him or her.
Before I conclude, I will say one word on a different subject. One can talk about the treatment of crime, the causes of crime or the prevention of crime and all these are very much entangled. But may I say one word about the causes and the prevention of crime, taking my illustration from one section of the community where crime is admittedly higher than the average? I am talking of the black community, and my experience comes mainly from Brixton. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is well aware of this, because he himself, in one of his Ministerial capacities, has been of the utmost assistance to organisations of black people who are trying to help their fellows in Brixton.
If you look at the causes of the especially high delinquency among young black people, not only in Brixton but everywhere, these factors suggest themselves. There is a feeling of alienation from their parents' background, there is poor housing and conventional teaching and education do not allow for the social background of the child. Anybody—any elderly person or any young person not brought up in their milieu—who has had to deal with any black children must find it very hard to communicate with them, to understand what they are saying,

483
and to make them understand what one is saying, and they suffer very much in that way in the schools. Finally, there is unemployment which, to speak in round terms, among the young black community is double the national average. Those are exceptional factors which undoubtedly produce a much higher rate of crime than the average, though many of the problems are petty.
If these problems are to be solved the Government and local authorities will have to provide money and facilities for much better training in vocational skills, and many more special incentives to bring industry into the areas concerned. This is perhaps the most glaring instance of where more resources arc required, but it is only one illustration of the general question. My Lords, when we talk about coping with juvenile delinquency, are we humbugging ourselves? Are we failing totally, as I believe we are, to provide the resources necessary to deal with the problem?
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down may I join issue with him on his use of the term "black"? I have done a lot with black people and have lived with them, and I can indicate, for example, the Uganda-Asians who are in this country now—an excellent community with whom there is no trouble at all. Let the noble Earl go to Neasden High School and have a look at them. There are communities with difficulties. There are the West Indians. But why not distinguish? Not all black men are alike, any more than all white men are alike.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I did not say they were, but the noble Earl and I are both of the same decade in this life, and it is just possible that he does not realise that black people now like to be called "black" I was not aware of that until a few years ago.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, they are not all the same.
3.35 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, what we are debating this afternoon, thanks to the initiative of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is not simply part of an international phenomenon and is not simply an integral part of the general growth of crime in this
484
country over the last two decades; it is a specific problem of great gravity in its own right. The figures that perhaps indicate this most clearly are those that were produced by Commander Marshall of the Metropolitan Police towards the end of 1974; and this is a useful date, for a reason that will appear a little later.
He pointed out then that in the Metropolitan Police area, over the years from 1969 to 1973, the number of arrests of people of all ages for indictable offences had gone up by about 18 per cent. Of those people, the number over the age of 17 had increased by 10 per cent., while the number of juveniles under 17 had increased by about 60 per cent. It is a specific problem, nothing to do with the general increase in crime in this country. He went on to point out that in 1973, of all the arrests for indictable offences in the Metropolitan Police area, some 31 per cent. were arrests of juveniles. That amounts to something like one juvenile in every 25 living in the Metropolitan Police area in 1973, and that trend apparently continued well into 1974.
May I stress that we are not considering offences of triviality—larceny of a milk bottle or being drunk and disorderly or matters of that nature. In the year 1973, in this area, over half of those who were arrested for the offence of burglary were juveniles, and this is an offence which can cause grave psychological harm, apart from the physical loss that may be sustained. Thirty-nine per cent. of those who were arrested on a charge of robbery were juveniles and that amounted to 1,000 cases in 1973 alone, which was over twice the number some four years earlier. Fourteen per cent. of those who were arrested on charges of wounding were juveniles—again, about 1,000 people in the Metropolitan Police area alone.
The reason why I ventured to indicate that the year ending 1973 was perhaps a helpful one for your Lordships' consideration is that that was at a time before mass unemployment had begun to make itself felt, and before inflation had begun seriously to erode the standard of living of the mass of the community. Therefore, it seems a little difficult in those circumstances to attribute this substantial rise in juvenile deliquency purely to environmental factors. Of course,

485
they have properly to be considered and can properly be inquired into. The effects of bad housing that have already been mentioned, the effects of job insecurity or job monotony, the effects of poverty—all these may properly be inquired into. But although there are areas of slum housing and of great poverty, by and large over the last decade those areas have diminished in this country, and perhaps it is not very logical to ascribe the rise in juvenile delinquency to those factors. Equally, one can properly look at the background of these juveniles; the number of cases where they have been influenced by coming from broken homes, and perhaps by the general decline in moral or religious values in the community as a whole.
Perhaps I might mention one specific matter— the general decline in respect for the rule of law that has arisen in this country over the last few years. I do not want to make Party political points this afternoon, but I hope it will be considered a fair comment if I say that it is improbable that children will have the greatest respect for the rule of law if they have been brought up in families which thought it either clever or funny to defy the Industrial Relations Act, however deplorable a piece of legislation that may have been. I think that it is improbable that children will grow up to have a very pronounced sense of right and wrong if they have been brought up in families who consider that it is normal or natural to make overnight a profit of millions of pounds on the purchase and sale to the community of a piece of land that it needs for housing.
It is no doubt helpful to analyse the long-term causes that may have given rise to some of this juvenile delinquency, but I believe that at best that can give rise only to long term and incomplete solutions. To take a specific example, if one could investigate the backgrounds of 100 youngsters on a football match special train who had behaved like thugs and smashed it into pieces, whether their team had won or lost, I doubt very much whether, in relation to each of those 100 children, one would be able to say that so many came from broken homes, so many were living in high rise flats, so many came from areas where they
486
were temporarily out of work, or whatever it might be.
I would expect, of course, that factors of that nature would play a very material part in relation to the large majority of those children. Where that is so it is only right and proper that the 1969 Act should be so operated that those children are treated with the utmost possible sympathy and leniency in order to rehabilitate them into both their families and the community. But there is, as has already been mentioned, among others by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, a small group of persistent offenders whose cases are rather more troublesome. Again in the Metropolitan Police area, the same figures showed that there were some 100 male juvenile offenders whose offences between them totalled 3,735—many of them serious offences, many of them offences of violence. It was no answer of the social worker who is reported to have said to a police officer, "These kids wouldn't have such a bad record if you police didn't keep arresting them."
In relation to this small number of serious and persistent offenders, there are immediate remedies that must be sought, remedies rather more urgent than those which can be provided by long-term investigation. First of all, there is the manifest lack of secure places in community homes. I believe that in July of last year there were 220 such places for the whole country and that the Government then indicated that they would be prepared to grant a further £2 million towards providing more places. This is estimated at providing not much over another 100 such places. Secondly, in many of the major areas of this country there are no remand centres to which young people can be sent. Unhappily, the result is that those young offenders are sent instead, quite unsuitably, to local prisons where they are liable to mix with extremely undesirable company.
Thirdly, the very lack of these secure places in community homes encourages magistrates to make unruliness orders. They have nowhere to send the juvenile offenders by way of a community home, and therefore they feel obliged to send them to prison, which is so unnecessary. Fourthly, the 1969 Act as it is operated and as, of course, it provides, means that there are no sanctions whatever for a

487
court where a fine is imposed but not paid by a juvenile, or where a supervision order is made but broken by a juvenile. There are no means by which the court can then proceed to deal with the person who has broken the order.
Fifthly, there is the question of care orders. I should have thought that the magistrates on juvenile panels, who have great experience of these matters, ought to have been entrusted with the power to determine what kind of care a particular offender should be given and, perhaps, what is the minimum length of period for which that care should be applied. Your Lordships will know that the present position is that there is no power to do anything except make a care order. The local authority may then, if they wish—and only too often even though they do not wish, because they have no alternative—simply send the child straight home where, as often as not, unhappily, further offences continue to be committed.
It appears to be not unreasonable to suggest that the juvenile courts which have such vast experience might be entrusted with the power of determining which are the appropriate cases for residential treatment. Indeed, the present inability of juvenile courts to make such orders is having precisely the opposite effect to that which was sought under the 1969 Act, in that because there is no power to make such orders the alternative course is taken of sending children either to a detention centre or to borstal training when it is not really suitable or in the child's own interest.
In a word, my conclusions are these. First, that there is a long-term inquiry into the long-term causes of juvenile crime which can provide only long-term solutions; secondly, that the overwhelming majority of these young people can properly be dealt with by the utmost leniency, kindness and tolerance; thirdly, that there is a small number of offenders who must also be dealt with by leniency, kindness and tolerance but for whom, in addition, a degree of firmness is necessary not only in their own interests but also in the interests of the community as a whole. When the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, replies to this debate, I hope that he will indicate that the Government propose to amend the
488
1969 Act and to provide under that Act the resources by which, in the appropriate cases, that degree of firmness, in the interests of the community, can be applied.
3.48 p.m.
Lord LECONFIELD and EGREMONT: My Lords, I crave your indulgence on this occasion, as it is the first time that I have addressed the House. I see no reason why your Lordships should choose to listen to me. I am young and feel very much in awe of the collective experience that I see gathered here today. Perhaps, however, the urgency of this debate can be my best excuse for speaking at this time. There can be few members of this House who are better fitted to draw our attention to this problem than the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Before the war, he was a youth club leader in Bermondsey. He has long manifested an exceptional ability to communicate with and understand the young and his word must have a special significance for us today.
The statistics which your Lordships have heard speak for themselves and I shall not attempt to add to them. All I wish to say is that there are no geographical frontiers to juvenile crime. It is as ubiquitous as the machine gun and is the central concern of nearly every police force in the world. I have received information from the Prefect of the Paris police, set out with characteristic French clarity, which proves how seriously the French regard juvenile crime. It is, perhaps, some comfort to us—a small comfort, God knows!, but some comfort—that they are just as perplexed as we are about the problems of its eradication. In certain areas of the United States the authorities have quite clearly reached the point of despair.
If I may be allowed to develop a personal note, recently I worked for a year on the East Coast of America. The threat of wanton violence and damage to property there, as I could see from firsthand experience, has become so extreme that the police are on permanent patrol in the corridors of certain schools. This is a terrifying example to have before us. It is really this that has emboldened me to take part in this debate, because its memory has never left me. It is precisely this that we must do our utmost to avoid. The importance of understanding and

489
conquering juvenile crime must not be underestimated. We must try everything. Our objective must be to use every weapon, the sophisticated and the simple. It is a cliché to say this, but nevertheless it is true; if crime by the young can be contained, the problem and prospect of adult crime will inevitably be diminished.
Several attempts have been made by successive Governments to do this. The last of these was the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Out of this there has undoubtedly come a more compassionate attitude towards young offenders; a desire to cure rather than to punish. But many criticisms have been levelled at it, particularly by magistrates. As their experience must of course be drawn upon in the fight, these criticisms must be heeded. It has been said that the Act is aimed too much at the casual rather than the chronic offender; that under its terms the greatest care is lavished upon those one-time offenders who would anyway be unlikely to evolve into the hardened adult criminal of the future; that too little deterrent is provided for the hard core of habitual juvenile criminals.
It has also been observed—this is very important—that the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, by guiding social workers away from specialisation, conflicts with the 1969 measure, which gives additional extremely specialised tasks to the social workers at precisely the time when they are not equipped either by training or direction to bear them. What is certainly true is that the juvenile crime rate continues to rise and it is far beyond my competence to suggest an easy solution. Perhaps the most that can be done is to put forward a desirable pattern that might be aimed at; a pattern that incorporates both the traditional and the advanced, for there can be no over-simplification of positions on this matter—no "sloganeering" of Left or Right.
First, we have in this country one overwhelming advantage. Our police have succeeded over the years in building up a unique relationship of mutual trust with the rest of the community. This relationship exists for a number of reasons, some historical, some sociological. Governments must not only recognize this but must capitalize on it, as I am sure the present Government with their very humane record on this subject have every inten
490
tion of doing. In capitalising upon it, they must not only employ the most sophisticated methods of detection but they must also have regard to the old social dialogues and contacts that were so well established by the beat. I believe it is fair to say that Dogberry and Verges must not be entirely spurned in favour of Sherlock Holmes. In dealing with juvenile criminals, the police often find themselves playing simultaneously the role of social worker and law enforcement officer. Through their juvenile crime bureaux they often attempt the near impossible task of combining these two. More often than not they succeed. These bureaux have done a great deal to destroy the image that so many young people previously had of the police; that is, solely as agents of punishment. Let us see, my Lords—as I am sure the Government have every intention of doing—that they are given to the full the support they deserve.
Next—I am sorry, my Lords, I am going on too long—let us try to increase the liaison between the courts and the social services. The one is often apt to think the other too lenient or too rigid. A remedy here might be at least a partial return to the kind of specialisation that the 1970 Local Authority Social Services Act did away with. Clearly there must be some degree of uniformity of approach, either imposed from above or voluntarily arrived at. At least social workers dealing with juveniles should have the necessary training over and above their general qualifications to perform this exceptionally difficult and specialised task. Surely this is the very least that society and the Welfare State can do for these children.
There are still grounds for hope even in the most extreme areas. Recent publicity given to certain events in the North-East can be contrasted with another incident. I do not know how many of your Lordships read the recent report in the Sunday Telegraph of an experiment which is being conducted in Newcastle. Approximately 100 children are suspended each year from Newcastle's large comprehensive schools. Each of these comprehensives has now set up a special control unit through which the hard core—about 12 in number—of the disruptive element is extracted from the rest of the schools. These pupils then receive special attention in a separate part of the building. The idea is that they will eventually

491
be filtered back into the main stream. Teaching at these special units is naturally aimed at a lower level, but it is conducted by teachers who are regarded as being of a particularly high quality. A psychologist—I know that one runs away from the word "psychologist" but I think in this case it is apt—is often called in to help and the emphasis is on persuasion rather than discipline. The Nuffield Foundation is closely monitoring this experiment which so far appears to have shown signs of achieving a remarkable success.
My Lords, I cannot profess to have any personal knowledge of this experiment, but I hope it is not impertinent of me to ask the Minister whether, when he replies to this debate, he will tell us what value the Government place upon it; for I believe it is no exaggeration to say that the result may prove decisive—I hope it is no exaggeration to say this—for the future of education in this country. This is a big subject and I have already spoken for far too long. When today we see violence and brutality all around us it is scarcely surprising that it should also exist among the young. But surely we owe it to them to shun the simplistic solution in which the level and severity of the punishment is merely increased. Such a solution turns the casual offender almost overnight into the hardened criminal. There is little reason to imagine that it succeeds in deterring the chronic offender.
If I may be impertinent enough to suggest it, what is needed is a real, compassionate understanding of the background and the motives that lie behind each case. At the moment the necessary machinery for discovering these is available in the local education authorities, the police, the magistracy and the social services. What it needs now is additional synchronisation, further encouragement and—above all—the will.
3.59 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, it falls to my very pleasant responsibility to be the first to welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat. He made two mistakes: the first was to say at the beginning of his speech that he could see no reason why we should not listen to it;the second was at
492
the end of his speech, when he said he had spoken too long. Apart from that I found what he had to say immaculate.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I think the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, said he saw no reason why we should do so, did he not?
Lord SOPER: My Lords, the combination of youth and fervour warmed our hearts and, I think, our minds. We listened to the noble Lord, for what he said was an admirable expression of the exhilaration and confidence of youth, and that charitable attitude which is not always concomitant with youth. At the same time, he obviously wished to show us the kind of qualities which have already endeared him to us. We shall with expectation look forward to further contributions that the noble Lord will no doubt offer to us in this House.
My Lords, here I must declare an interest. I am responsible for the care of some of these delinquent youths and girls. What I have to say will no doubt be coloured by that experience, but I hope that at the same time it may make some contribution of credibility. I venture to make two preliminary comments which I think are necessary in a debate as wide-ranging as this. One is that no doubt these figures are accurate—and there can be no question but that there has been a lamentable rise in juvenile crime—but there are certain mitigating factors which should not be ignored. One of those mitigating factors is the increased probability of detection, and the other is the greatly increased opportunity of criminal action in a multitude of Acts which before were not appearing on Statute Books, but now so do.
That does not in any way justify the belief that we should, with some kind of complacency, regard a temporary aberration from a general condition, but I think it persuades all of us who have some experience in these matters that we are dealing with a situation which primarily is not to do with what we theologians call "original sin". I very much doubt professionally whether the amount of inherent evil has varied very much over the centuries. I deplore that. It is impermissibly high, and it may be a confession of our own ineffectuality as ministers of the Gospel to reduce it.

493
My Lords, what seems to me to be the inference in the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon is that we are in a particular set of environmental circumstances which, bearing upon this basic quality or disquality, produce the kind of statistics which we deplore, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that there is a distinction to be drawn between those causes which, being long-term, require long-term remedies, and those immediate issues which require immediate and practical conclusive evidence, and, when that evidence is arrived at, conclusive acts to deal with it. Yet it is part of the business of this House, in a debate on juvenile crime, to consider some of those environmental circumstances which have promoted the increase in crime, or so it is assumed. I would begin by casting some little doubt on the generally accepted thesis that if you are looking for juvenile crime, look for a broken home and you will find juvenile crime.
An interesting comment was made by a bunch of experts looking at the relationship of broken homes and crime. They came up with a suggestion—fascinating to me—that where a grandmother lives in the same house as the first and second generation, there is a greater likelihood that the children and grandchildren will be better behaved, which seems to suggest not so much that the quality of family life is the matter at issue, but its continuity. I am certain that families which stay together, bickering and quarrelling as they do, nevertheless contribute a particular quality to the family life which, although it is endangered, is not finally impaired by the various quarrels which take place from time to time. The continuity of family life rather than its quality has to be taken into account. In other cases, it may be that the causes of breakdown in family life are identical with the causes of juvenile delinquency, and one is not contingent upon the other.
My Lords, it has already been said that unemployment should not be regarded as conclusive evidence because the rapid increase of unemployment is very recent. I would prefer to think that the uncreative leisure which many young people and children find available today must be taken into consideration. It reminds me of what Gibbon said about
494
bread and circuses in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He said that in the Augustan era there were 67 public holidays in a year, but by the time Nero was playing his violin, the number had increased to 167. I am fairly certain, out of experience of contact with the boys and girls for whom we seek to care, that it is the absence of the kind of opportunity to be had from the Boy Scout movement or the Girl Guide movement, or the acceptance of those chances; it is the aimless leisure of so many youngsters which contributes considerably to the apathy towards moral issues, and is accentuated by the even more dreadful and scathing conditions of juvenile unemployment.
My Lords, I cannot forbear to comment on the increase of the availability of weapons of one sort and another, and the encouragement given by the media to consider that virility and growing up are both associated to some extent with the expression of violence, not least the violence which is also sexual, a matter generally disregarded, but which in matters of this importance are to be taken together in many respects. I am quite sure that one of the answers which can be given to the point on unemployment and uncreative leisure is something along the lines of public service, something along the lines of youth work, which is required as a second stage of the education process which, when it ends at 15 years of age, induces truancy to a very large degree in the concluding years as well as in the earlier years of that schooling, and is irremedial under conditions where increasingly those who leave school are plunged into a world where they are not required to accept the kind of discipline properly adumbrated by other noble Lords already this afternoon.
I believe further that we cannot disregard the increasing availability of alcohol. I know that this is the sort of drum I am inclined repeatedly to bang, but I am quite sure I am right, and make no apology for saying that the introduction of the beer can and the availability of alcohol and the record of ever-increasing figures of the intoxication of the young, is one of those environmental indications which go some way at least to explain the increase in that kind of crime often committed, not by

495
people who are blind drunk, but by those sufficiently intoxicated not to care very much what the moral issues happen to be. It is for those reasons that I do not find myself totally surprised at the increase in juvenile crime, but I do find myself at somewhat of a loss to see what, in the present circumstances, can be done about it. However, I would make various random suggestions.
My Lords, as have others, I have been impressed by the effectiveness of the 1969 Act, where the necessary resources are available to put its articles into effect. I should like to see, where supervision orders are provided, that both parents should be required—if there are two parents—to appear at court to be told what is going to happen. Over and over again probation officers have told me that when one or other of the parents comes to court—or when the mother, as in most cases, comes—the provision is not properly recognised and the likelihood of it being carried out, or the conditions for which the parents should be responsible for being carried out, are minimal. I should like to see some kind of centre; if you like an attendance centre, which is totally separated from the police force. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, great admiration for the work of the police forces, but to be quite matter of fact and simple about it, it seems tome that where there is tension between the police force and the juvenile delinquent, it is quite impossible to expect that the juvenile delinquent, when expected to attend an attendance course on Saturday afternoon, will not regard it as an imposition, and will not regard those who impose it or regulate it, or supervise it, as his enemy. What is more, attendance centres can quickly become thieves' kitchens.
My Lords, as I have spoken for ten minutes, taking off the minute in which I was congratulating the previous speaker, perhaps the House will allow me to make one other observation. I will certainly try to make it briefly. If you have no religious background—and we are living in the first secular age for many, if not the overwhelming number, of these young people—then where are they to find the challenge of the moral issue? Is it not significant that those who officially have kicked out religion have had to reintro
496
duce what they call "self-criticism", which reminds me very often of the Methodist class meeting, which, whatever its failures and disadvantages, at least posed to the faithful regularly the contribution that they could make to the good, their failure so to do, and the difference between the way they were behaving and the way in which they ought to behave.
My Lords, some kind of self-criticism is absolutely imperative for those who are expected to live according to laws which are regarded as just and right. If they are not found, then where are the stabilising and disciplined principles to be found? I of course accept the principle that it is against the God who is our heavenly father that we sin; it is against Him that we commit our faults. Supposing there are many today who cannot subscribe to that particular belief. Is it not imperative that they should find somewhere a standard in the community in which they live, in the behaviour of their fellows, which is mandatory, which is obligatory or at least has such high validity as to persuade them regularly to consider their own lives in its light'? That is not a pious hope. It is, I think, the inevitable and irreducible need of any final recovery from the lamentable condition of juvenile delinquency which can only, in my judgment, be finally abated and controlled within a society which sets an example which the young people are ready and willing to follow.
4.12 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, my reason for speaking in this debate is that for very many years I have been treasurer and on the executive of the Kent County branch of the National Association of Boys' Clubs, and I can say that the boys who have been through our hands have acquitted themselves extremely well in the world, and there has been as far as our records can tell, no instance of crime. Before continuing I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for initiating this debate. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord who has made his maiden speech, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, and to say how very pleasant it is and how appropriate to have such a young man speaking in a debate of this kind; to see a young face in this House is most cheering.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount. It is pleasant because he is juvenile and not delinquent.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I would say that I quite agree that the figures are really terrifying—juvenile crime up 33 per cent. last year; and I think 40 per cent. of the whole spectrum of crime is juvenile. Also I heard the noble Earl say that in the Greater London area 12 boys out of 12 by the time they leave school have committed a theft or some petty crime. I thought in fact the actual figures were nine out of ten. I find that very hard to believe, although apparently it is in this report. I will not speak about girls, because in regard to juvenile crime among girls I know nothing. I would only agree with the noble Earl that the female is the more deadly of the species.
My Lords, what I am about to say I have said in this House many years ago. The 18th century French philosophers Voltaire and Rousseau said that crime was only caused by poverty and bad Government. It only shows how time has proved them utterly wrong. From my own experience I know very many people who have been brought up in very poor circumstances who would never think of committing any crime. On the other hand, I have known one or two people who have been brought up in quite good circumstances who have committed crimes. It shows that we must not believe everything that philosophers say.
We must try to cure the cause. I think it is a tragedy when young people have to appear before a court. It is the cause we must get at and try, if we can, to eradicate. And it is obvious to all your Lordships and to everybody that the cause lies first in the home, and later on at school. I think the home is probably the most important influence. I would wholeheartedly agree with the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Soper, that broken homes are a great cause of this. There are many mothers today who I do not think need to go out to work but yet do go out to earn more money, perhaps to get a second car. I think it would pay dividends if the State, the Social Security services—some people might think it is bribery—could
498
pay mothers to work in the home and not go out to work. After all, what is a more important job in life than bringing up children, and bringing them up correctly'? I can think of no more important occupation. Many parents today give their children the most magnificent Christmas presents and birthday presents to salve their consciences because perhaps in other ways they have neglected them. We do really want the mothers in the home.
May I tell your Lordships something a friend of mine told me. He is somebody called Waddington who has just come back from China. This ought to appeal to a lot of the Party opposite—perhaps not in this House, but to a lot of their colleagues. He went round some schools in China and was very impressed by the good discipline of the children. He said to one of the teachers: "What happens if you happen to have a very unruly child?" The teacher said: "We send them back to their parents". Then my friend asked: "When they come back to the school and they are still unruly, what do you do?" The teacher replied: "We then banish the parents to forced labour. We punish them". Of course, I am not proposing that we should do that here. But it does rather take up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who brought up the question of family care, that the parents are really to blame; you cannot blame young children. I have a friend who some years ago was going round a very big comprehensive school. He said: "I think it is a superb place; you have everything you need. But there is one remark I would make: your pupils appear to be very bad-mannered." The headmaster said: "Manners are a relic of the feudal age. We don't teach manners."
I think that teachers to a certain extent are to blame, too. I quite agree that the majority of teachers really do their utmost to do a good job, but there are a certain number of teachers who might be eradicated from the system. I knew two young people who were anxious to be teachers, and one was a teacher for a very short time. On the second day a small boy came up and abused her in extremely foul language. She complained to the headmaster and the headmaster said, "I am sorry, we cannot do anything about it. If I do, the parents will come up and make a fuss and go to the local

499
M.P., and so I cannot do anything about it." So she gave up teaching.
Television has been mentioned. I quite agree that on television the whole time we see this appalling violence. You do not get that in children's hours, but the trouble is that many children do not go to bed when they should do and their parents allow them to sit up to see these scenes of violence. I think the noble Lord, Lord Soper, brought up the question of high-rise flats. Perhaps it was not him, I cannot remember. There again, when you bring up children in what I can only describe as a concrete jungle, it is very difficult for them. I give these nature trails for children from schools—State and other—at my place in Kent. I am a great believer that the nearer to the beauties of nature you can get children, the more chance they will have.
I have now spoken for 10 minutes, but I should like to say that I quite agree that there is great economic stringency at the moment. But if the Government and future Governments could give more money to the formation of boys' clubs—I am not speaking about girls because I do not know anything about girls regarding juvenile crime—if you organise runs, play games, climb hills and sail, keep them interested, that will solve a great deal of these problems. If only we can take them away from the "box", and make them do things instead of watching other people do things, that would be of great help. As I have run my time, the only thing I would end up with is that we must try to root out the cause. It is terrible to have these young people going before the courts. Bringing them before the courts is not the cure. We must try to eradicate the cause. I know that it will take a long time, but it is in our power to do so.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, at this time in the debate perhaps I might intervene for a moment to remind your Lordships, with all due deference, that this is a short debate, and in order to enable my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich to give an adequate reply to the various points raised, I would suggest, with great respect, that noble Lords remaining should limit their speeches, if possible, to eight minutes.
4.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, only one half minute then for those little courtesies to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the maiden speech that was given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, and just a word in support of what my noble friend Lord Soper said about not exaggerating the picture. It is bad enough, and I should not like to be accused of complacency, but my figures do not entirely agree with those given by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I understand that the proportion of indictable crime, in the sense of persons found guilty, during the last four years has hovered at about 22 per cent. to 24 per cent. and has not varied very much.
In my area of Leicestershire—I take no credit for this—last year the number of known juvenile crimes was reduced by 12;½per cent., and even when it was at its worst it was running at 3½ per cent. of the total youth age group coming into any trouble with the police. This is always a dangerous argument. I remember very well, when the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was speaking in one of our early debates about university unrest, he said:
"It is quite true that we are dealing with a minority. But make no mistake, as soon as you touch that minority they will become a majority."
We have not quite come to that pitch with juvenile crime yet, but it is something we have to be on the look-out for.
I have been in close touch with both the police and the social services in my area of Leicestershire, and Leicestershire is one of the few provincial areas where there is an adequate juvenile crime bureau working in close touch with the social services. I am very impressed indeed with what they are doing. The social services are doing a splendid job among what we might call the more hopeful cases. I was recently in one of their community homes where I think I can say they have mastered the problem of truancy—which is a great achievement—partly through co-operation with the schools. The children have to go over all parts of Leicester and a good deal of Leicestershire to get to their old schools, but cases of truancy are now very rare through a mixture of kindness and firmness. There is no time to go into the

501
details of which I could inform the House because, with the further reduction to eight minutes, one is reduced to a form of almost telegraphese if one is to say anything at all.
I think that I must move on to try to answer in some very inadequate way the challenge thrown out to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, although I feel that the ground has been well prepared by what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Soper. I have my own thoughts about youth unemployment, about broken and disturbed homes, about urbanisation. All these things have contributed to a society in which juvenile crime can flourish much more easily than it would in societies of different kinds.
But, if I am asked whether there is a root cause, I find myself answering it like this: I do not think that any society can hold together cohesively unless it has what I call vertical loyalties as well as horizontal loyalties.
We live in an age when horizontal loyalties are very strong. The peer group among youths of certain ages, the trade unions, the professional associations, every group that feels it has a common interest, congeals together if necessary against everyone else, and the number of enterprises in which there are vertical loyalties—loyalties running right through a family, a firm or even a school—are rather hard to find. I know teachers in schools whose behaviour appears, either accidentally or intentionally, to undermine the authority of the home and parents.
All this represents one of the root causes of our troubles and I do not see the cause of it so much in sex and violence on television as in the illusion that is being spread in this country by the interviewers in the media that if only the common man knew all the truth, he could debunk every known authority on every subject. This is an extremely damaging and dangerous element in our nation. No nation can live without myths and legends to incorporate a spirit of loyalty that can really inspire the self-criticism of which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, spoke. I endeavour to give my life so that, so far as possible, people can find an expression of loyalty in their service of Almighty God, the maker of all things and all men: but even if they stop
502
short of that, there is still this upward and downward relationship of love and care, respect and responsibility, however one likes to describe it, which binds together different levels in every society and in every enterprise.
That is why the Girl Guides are doing such splendid work. I have Scout troops in my diocese who arrive at their Scout meeting with their knees pouring with blood because they have been stoned by young thugs on the estate: thugs whose only objection to them, I am sure, is that they are adhering to a form of society with a loyalty which it is their desire to undermine and resist. Thus, we will not cure this problem in a mini-debate, though we have to throw our best thoughts into the pool, and this is mine.
4.34 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I wish first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Leconfield and Egremont on his maiden speech. I like to think that it was perhaps encouraged somewhat by a meeting we had about a year ago at my old college at Oxford. I also congratulate him on coming to sit on these Benches. My Lords, I have only two points to raise today. The first is that this Motion is very much a logical follow-up to last week's debate on sex education in schools. Though of course not all juvenile crime is the result of subversion in education, I maintain that a significant proportion is encouraged by it. Since the decline in the influence of the churches, that discipline and training has evaporated. Since the abolition of National Service, that discipline and training has gone. Many of the schools which were the bastions of mental discipline are in danger of going and the reduction in the Forces, especially in the Young Soldiers battalions, have removed another prop. One has only to read of the affairs of schools like Tyndale to realise the consequences of the acts of the lunatic subversive fringe in our educational system.
What a neck for Mrs. McColgan to try to hoodwink us into believing that the "rank and file" is not a part of the International Socialists set up. Their "Little Red School Book" is notorious and their pamphlets on, "How to get your teacher the sack" and, "How to cope with the police" cannot, at the greatest stretch of the imagination, be

503
good training for the young to support law and order. They and the Maoists set up cells in whichever schools they get their feet in. I know of the most repulsive of their leaders who actually got a student to steal his master's papers for the use of the Socialist Worker. My Lords, read Militant or Young Guard.
The second point I wish to raise is about alcoholism among the young. In my research for last week's debate I came across a very real worry among responsible educationists, especially in South-East London, on this subject. There has been a terrific—there is no other word for it—increase in juvenile alcoholism; the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred to this. The drug culture is on the decline but teenage drunkenness, often leading to crime, is on the increase. I am told that statistics are available from the Metropolitan Police. Can we have them today? For example, are not the majority of wanton acts of vandalism by the young triggered off by drunkenness? Many parents do not help. "We like a drink. Why not the kids?" is often their attitude. Television advertisements do not help. At one time over Christmas 17 out of 20 "plugs" were for "booze". Nowadays it is not every landlord who can tell a 13, 14 or 15-year-old girl from one of 18. In one school I know of, 14 and 15-year-old girls were tipsy in class at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. There is definitely a connection between drug-taking and drinking. My informant was told by the well-known Sister Patricia of the Anglican Community of St. Mary the Virgin of young girls, being cured of hard drug-taking, returning to the Community to be cured of alcohol addiction, and vice versa.
Serious crime, vandalism and assaults are often the result of drink or a combination of drink with barbiturates or amphetamines. How often is the offence of taking and driving away the result of that combination? Supermarkets and delicatessens now sell "booze", some at all hours, to teenagers. Permissiveness now runs right through the whole spectrum of society and nowhere is it more apparent than in alcoholism and the young. Could the Government produce some figures? I am sure that if the incidence of crime with teenage drinking could be effectively demonstrated we
504
should be on the way to controlling this modern plague. Do not tell me that the teenage vandalism of railway coaches, football buses and so on is done by sober people.The Western Morning News carried a front page picture on Monday of a vandalised Cornish church. It was completely wrecked—pews, Bible, choir stalls, the lot. Do not tell me that this was done by those who arrogantly boast that they are not Christians. No. These latter-day iconoclasts are young vandals subverted one way or another, and I have given your Lordships just two of the possible ways.
4.39 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, because of the shortness of time for this debate we must curtail our remarks. This is difficult for those of us who feel we have quite a lot to say on this issue. I sincerely thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for introducing this debate because many of us have wanted to air our views on this subject. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, on his maiden speech; his enthusiasm for the subject was indeed refreshing to all of us, and certainy to those in my age group, and we look forward to hearing from him often in the future.
As all speakers in this debate have explained, juvenile crime is increasing at an alarming rate. The escalation has been noticed, commented on and worried about by some of the most important bodies in this country, among them the National Council of Women of Great Britain, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Police Federation, the Magistrates Association, the Justices' Clerks Association and the National Association for Probation Officers. Also, every single juvenile court magistrate in the country is deeply worried and upset.
Time is short and I shall therefore restrict my comments to my own view of what I observe on my own bench, together with other views about families and the way some children are brought up. I sit in a very busy juvenile court in a large conurbation North of London. We have three juvenile courts every Wednesday and I sit as chairman on Wednesday mornings. The main increases in crime in my court are in burglary, criminal damage, taking and driving

505
away and mugging. All those are extremely serious crimes. What can we do about them? The answer is, practically nothing. We can send any of these offenders to an attendance centre for up to 24 hours. I suggest to the Minister that that could perhaps be extended, because it amounts only to 12 alternate Saturday afternoons. We can fine them but, again, it is very difficult to fine, for example where one knows that the mother in a one parent family is on social security. There are detention centres. We know we can send boys to detention centres, but they are now usually released in six weeks. Then there is borstal. One can send an offender to borstal for nine months, though that case has to go through the Crown Court. However, offenders are very often released after three months. We can also make a care order whereby the offender is placed under the care of the local authority. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, quite rightly said, magistrates have absolutely no authority whatsoever; they can put the child into the care of the local authority but they do not know and have no authority to know—what happens afterwards. I can, and do, say that I recommend that the child should go to a community home, but that is as far as magistrates are now allowed to go. We have practically no authority at all and the children know it. They know that our hands are tied.
I believe we need to ask ourselves why this situation has arisen. I, like my noble friend Lady Young with her vast knowledge, also blame the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. I know that it was full of good intentions but I feel that all of us who were dealing with the problem at the time knew that it was implemented far too early and without adequate provisions being made by the Government of the time. I do not feel that this was anybody's fault. The Bill was pushed through. If I remember rightly, there was an Election coming up and everybody wanted this particular legislation on the Statute Book. It has, in many instances, been a very bad piece of legislation; its provisions have never been caught up with and, so far as I can make out, will not be so for a very long time.
Secondly, I blame parents. Some noble Lords have mentioned the "box."
506
Parents and children alike are "box" conscious. Parents also fail to communicate with their children as they used to do in my young days. Granted that was a very long time ago, but parents should be made aware that they should communicate with their children. They do not seem to talk with them, and children certainly do not communicate with their parents. That goes through to the teachers as well. Also, parents may be frightened of their children. This seems incredible, but children these days are loquacious, very good at backhanding their parents, very good at being rude, at having no manners and no discipline and at simply walking out on their parents. The parents lose contact. They are frightened to tell little Billy to return home earlier than he has been doing. This morning I had a boy in court who had had many previous convictions. The social worker said that matters were very much better now because, when the child came home at weekends from the community home, the mother had reached agreement with him that he was to be in much earlier than in the past. I asked how late this 14-year-old boy stayed up. "About half past three or four o'clock in the morning", she replied, "but now I have come to an agreement with him that he will come home between twelve and one." A young child who is out on the loose with the gang which he has been with all his life will naturally go back to the gang and get into more trouble, as he did, so finding himself before my court this morning. So parents are unable and often unwilling to supervise their children.
Clearly, I must acknowledge that most teachers and social workers are excellent people. However, as we all know, a great number are untrained and—more significant and, I believe, more pertinent to this problem—many social workers and teachers who are responsible for the children have themselves been through training colleges and schools and in their adolescence have learnt no discipline and have been against law and order. I am afraid that, to my knowledge, it is quite certain that some of them—it is only a small minority, but it is a significant one —are not teaching discipline or law and order in the schools because they do not believe in it. After all, if teachers and social workers do not teach what we

507
think is right for our children, the generations will move on and those children will become undisciplined parents who, perhaps break law and order themselves.
I believe, however, that we are all responsible, as one noble Lord has said this afternoon. We are responsible as a community. We have allowed the morals of the country to go down a slippery slope. We are not yet at the bottom, but I wish we were and that we were gradually creeping up again. We have not said "No", often enough.
What of the future? What can we suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to the Home Office and to all those who have to deal with our children? As has been pointed out and as we all know, there is a hard core in nearly all the big cities. Probably that is not so in the country—I have no knowledge of the country—but, unfortunately, there is a core of hardened criminals in the big cities. I know that because they come back again and again. They never seem to have had enough of me. I do not know why—perhaps I do not frighten them enough. Possibly that may be the clue. Perhaps we may succeed if we make the punishment at borstal or the detention centre fit the crime, though only for a short time, so that the offenders do not want to go back there and would prefer freedom to once more getting across the law and being recalled to borstal or the detention centre.
However, the hard core does not contain the normal juvenile delinquent. We really must see whether we can do something more for them. I should like many more community homes, purely because, in my experience, to take a child away from its home and environment and from the gangs it has been with, teach it something and return it home must be valuable. The parents will have been kept in touch in the meantime and the child can return home in about two years' time. That is what used to happen in the days of the approved schools but now, as I say, we on the bench are not even allowed to say that the child must go to a community home.
I have touched on care orders. I strongly agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I should like to see community service. I know
508
that it is very difficult because the type of community service has to be extremely carefully thought out by those in charge. Clearly, it is no good sending a thug to look after an old lady and paint her walls, but one idea which I have had something to do with is putting young people in charge of people who are very much less fortunate than themselves, people such as subnormal children, or even subnormal adults, or subnormal teenagers; people who can be understood by a child and be seen to be worse-off. It is extraordinary how these young people have no idea that there are other people who are so badly-off.
We obviously need more playgrounds and leisure activities. This point was forcefully brought to my notice last week after I had sent a boy to Ashford Remand Centre for three weeks. He asked whether he could please go back because there was something to do all day, and he enjoyed it. We on the juvenile benches are having considerable trouble because magistrates are not willing to sit on these benches. They realise that the end product is hopeless. Their hands are tied. They cannot do what they want to do with the juveniles who appear before them. I have had considerable trouble recently in persuading younger people to put forward their names for service on the juvenile bench. My Lords, my time is up; indeed, I must apologise for having exceeded my time. Those are my few comments on this subject.
4.51 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: My Lords, first I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, on his most interesting speech and to express the hope that we shall often hear him in the future. We are all naturally concerned to note the growth of juvenile crime in this country and, indeed, throughout the world. But I am sure that we should all agree that it is important that we should not exaggerate the size of the problem and that we should avoid statements that might undermine the confidence of young people in themselves and their status in society. Young people certainly do not read reports of our debates, but they often read newspaper headlines and placards which reflect adversely on their generation. They

509
frequently see on television other young people, and indeed adults, behaving m a wild and irresponsible way. Unfortunately, there is no one to point out to them that the vast majority of young people are in fact well behaved—as well behaved as we are.
For example, only about 5 per cent. of those under 17 years of age are delinquents. The corresponding figure for girls, a very interesting one to me, is 0.6 per cent. It seems that we should try to discover the reasons for this most significant difference in relation to sex. Perhaps the Home Office could instigate an inquiry into this field; it would have all the material available. One factor in the sex difference relating to delinquency is the degree of expectation among adults about juvenile behaviour. Let us take violence for example. In a girl it may be regarded as psycopathic and she may be thought to be in need of treatment. In a boy violence is, more often than not, regarded as natural, within fairly wide limits. In most homes parents take it for granted that the girls will help with the domestic work and the washing up, will look after the baby and do the shopping. Help may be asked of the boys, but it is less likely to be taken for granted.
This difference in relation to sex is found not only in homes where people are well behaved; it is also found in homes where there are delinquents, as Charles Dickens himself knew only too well more than a hundred years ago, to judge from reading The Old Curiosity Shop. Speaking both as a former juvenile court chairman and a present member of a secure accommodation committee that is specially responsible for the welfare of young people in closed accommodation, I agree with those of your Lordships who have suggested that we should have a wider approach to this problem and that we should consider some of the related factors, as well as what we believe to be causes.
One of the related factors is undoubtedly truancy. Many of your Lordships have referred to it, and we know that it is a major problem in many of our comprehensive schools. Apart from the disruptive influence in the school itself, and the risk which the truants may run if they get in touch with anti-social adults, there is also the long-
510
term handicap for the juvenile in that he is missing his education and may go throughout life without the certificates which he might otherwise have earned. But as truancy is a major educational as well as a delinquency problem, I wonder whether the DES and the Home Office might consider a special investigation into this field. They might, for example, ask selected local education authorities to hold conferences to which the truants themselves might he invited to contribute and to express their views on education. This might seem an extraordinary suggestion. Nevertheless, I believe that it would not be impossible to find intelligent delinquents and truants who would make a useful contribution. I do not think that there is enough interchange of ideas between young people who are regarded as problems and the adults who take responsibility for them.
I also wonder whether local authority housing programmes could make more provision for the needs of young people. I realise that today local authorities almost always provide open spaces, but what I believe are also needed are well equipped rooms which could be used as centres for community projects associated with the immediate neighbourhood. These need not be used exclusively by juveniles. But the adults living in the neighbourhood would not expect juveniles to use these rooms unless it was stated quite explicitly in public that they were intended for juveniles as well as adults, and possibly chiefly for community projects in which young people would be involved. It seems to me essential that if these projects are to be useful and are to contribute in a way that will really benefit young people, the young people themselves must have a real say in the organisation.
Finally, I wish to refer to the closed accommodation in community homes. I am fully aware of all the many problems associated with community homes at the moment, particularly because there are not nearly enough of them. But I wonder whether in the homes, all of which, so far as I know, are full, more attention could be paid to the educational needs of the young people. There tends to be an assumption that in a community home the most useful work would be done in a practical way, but some of the boys in community homes whom I have known

511
could work quite well for their "O" levels; in fact, they do quite well if given the opportunity. But in making that suggestion I am fully aware of the difficulties associated with it.
5 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, yesterday evening I was in a borstal talking with young people who are some of the casualties of our society and a reflection on the community in which we live. Before they come to the open borstal—I am a member of the board of visitors—they pass through Strange ways Prison for allocation, and here these young people aged between 15 and 21 spend 23 hours a day locked up. They come to borstal because they have rebelled against their unsatisfactory way of life. At the present time, one of the main causes of these crimes may be put down to the difficulties of getting a job, as has been said today. The anxiety and uncertainty before leaving school, and the feeling of not being wanted or needed, make them confused and hostile. In many areas the long leisure hours cannot be filled with enjoyable and interesting pastimes because there are none. The choice seems to be work for a few if they are lucky but drinking and sex for all who want it. Discontented young people are flocking together and forming disruptive gangs who rob, stab and beat up innocent people. These young people need a meaningful challenge in life. They need to be motivated to want to take part in useful occupations by good leadership, instead of drowning their sorrows in false outlets, such as drinking and drugs, which lead to their unsocial behaviour.
My Lords, yesterday a recall to borstal told me he had wanted to join the Army more than anything else. He and his probation officer had worked together to this end, and he had at last been accepted. One night before call-up he went out, got drunk and committed a stupid crime. Now he knows that he has thrown away the only thing he wanted and the only challenge in his life. He bitterly regrets his folly. This could be the turning point in his life, when he sees no chance of succeeding. The example set by many adults seems to be that of selfishness and fiddling.
512
Many firms are often frightened to prosecute in case of strikes, so that young people learn that it is possible to get away with dishonest practice. Young people with difficult home circumstances and problems of learning, living in large impersonal buildings and attending huge comprehensive schools, must find it practically impossible to keep an individual identity with any dignity. Often, the only way that anyone will take notice of them is when they truant and turn to crime. We have an after-care service, but would it not be better to have a preventive before-care service? Our society has changed. More temptations are displayed. Thieving, like any other infection, spreads. It seems that we now have an epidemic with which to deal.
My Lords, there are several organisations trying hard to help young people at risk, but they are drops in the ocean. The community service volunteers never turn down anyone who wants to volunteer. They ought to be congratulated for what they are doing. So often young people involved in crime have graduated from children's homes to community homes, to detention centres and then to borstals, passing from one social worker to another. No longer are they individual people: they have become institutionalised clients. The community service volunteers encourage young people to want to give, rather than always being at the receiving end, and to help each other, so gaining confidence. I hope Her Majesty's Government will encourage more schemes in the community, but unless these have good, trained leaders who can properly supervise they will have little likelihood of succeeding. I also hope that Her Majesty's Government will see the need for a nationwide health education programme to teach children about the dangers of alcohol, the need for hygiene and child care. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. Otherwise, how are we to halt the cycle of growing violence and crime which leads to so much unhappiness and family breakup? My Lords, I now just have time to thank the noble Earl for having initiated this debate, and also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, on his excellent maiden speech.
5.4 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, as indeed the noble Baroness who has just concluded speaking has rightly said, the House is greatly indebted to two people today: first, the noble Earl for having initiated this debate and, secondly, the noble Lord who made his maiden speech this afternoon. I had the pleasure of knowing his father only fairly briefly in my life, but I know what enormous pleasure it would have given him to have heard his son make his maiden speech here this afternoon. We all look forward to hearing him again, and I do so particularly because I found myself in very large agreement with what he said to the House today.
At the end of this debate I think it would be right for me to say that the Government welcome particularly the contributions of those Members of the House who have recognised, as I think many have, that juvenile crime is a social malady in regard to which effective treatment requires that we diagnose and deal with the causes as well as the symptoms. To debate this important subject on any other level might be a welcome relief to our anger, our frustration and our fears, but it would do little to reduce the incidence of juvenile offending or to treat, control and re-educate those young people whom we are most concerned to help.
At the outset I should like to comment on the statistics of juvenile offending. These have been mentioned by a number of Members of your Lordships' House, including the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Recorded crime in England and Wales has more than doubled in the last 20 years, and in these circumstances it would be astonishing if the age group under the age of 17 had been immune from this general trend. Indeed, it certainly has not been immune from this trend. There is, however, no evidence that the juvenile crime rate is increasing at a seriously disproportionate rate. Boys under 14 and girls under 14 were responsible for 7 per cent. and 4 per cent., respectively, of all indictable offences leading to convictions in 1974, and these figures have remained constant over the last four years. Boys aged 14 and under 17 were responsible for 19 per cent. of indictable offences in 1974. This figure
514
has been rising at a rate around 1 per cent. each year, starting from 16 per cent. in 1971. The figure for girls aged 14 and under 17 was 12 per cent. in 1974, the same percentage as for 1973. This represents a rise of 1 per cent. from the 1971 figure. If, however, we look at the total number of juveniles found guilty before the courts and also—just as important in some respects—those cautioned by the police, the figures have risen from 176,000 in 1970 to 229,000 in1974, a distressingly formidable rise. What we cannot be sure about is how much of this rise is due to a greater awareness by the public of crime and a greater willingness to report it, or to increased activity and successful detection on the part of the police, particularly through the valuable work with young people of their juvenile bureaux.
The number of juveniles found guilty before the courts of indictable offences rose from 79,138 in 1973 to 92,879 in 1974. Although the most common juvenile offences remain theft and burglary, and some of the cases of theft are probably comparatively minor offences, we have to accept that young people are responsible for a significant proportion of detected serious crime. I accept also that there is a hard core of recidivist, disturbed and violent juveniles who have so far proved unresponsive to all the measures available to help and control them. The young people in this group are a danger to themselves, to their schools and to the community. There can be little doubt that offending by juveniles, both in its extent and in its growing seriousness, presents one of the most intractable current problems in the field of social control and child care. What, in these circumstances, then, ought we to be doing about it? The police role in dealing with juvenile offenders is clearly of the utmost importance.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have a very limited amount of time for I fear we have to end within two and a half hours. I do apologise to my noble friend, if I may so refer to him, but I cannot give way. As I was saying, this is recognised by the police themselves. The great majority of forces in England and Wales have special arrangements for dealing with juveniles who come to their

515
notice. Over a third of forces operate formal juvenile liaison schemes which cover both those who have already committed an offence and those who are at risk of doing so. In addition, juvenile bureaux are established in the Metropolitan Police district and several other force areas. They are mainly concerned with gathering information about the juvenile after he has committed an offence—whether, for example, by summons, by caution, by supervision or by some other means.
A number of noble Lords have discussed the present law relating to children in trouble, the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which, as my noble friend Lord Longford pointed out, he had a great deal to do with in the years prior to 1964 when there was a committee of the Labour Party sitting to discuss the series of problems that we have been debating today. As the House will know, the Act has been under review, both by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in conjunction with his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security, the Welsh Office and the Department of Education and Science, and by the Social Services Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee of another place. The Select Committee published its findings in September. These have now been considered by the Government in conjunction with their own review and we hope to make a statement soon. I cannot anticipate this statement today but there are one or two things which I should like to say.
The strong and differing views which this legislation continues to provoke, are not, I think, focused on the general aims and philosophy of the Act. I think my noble friend Lord Longford was right in what he said about this. Those are to keep children and young people out of the criminal justice system whenever possible, to provide support for them in their community and, if they have to come before the juvenile court, to ensure that the measures available to deal with them are sufficiently varied and flexible for each child's individual needs. These aims, as in 1969, continue to receive general assent. We cannot reinstate the previous system, and we should, I think, resist the temptation to think that all would somehow be all right if in some magical way
516
we could go back to the situation before the passage of the 1969 Act. The inescapable fact is that the rise in juvenile offending over the last five years has outpaced our capacity to find resources to deal with it, and we have no evidence that these upward trends would have been arrested if the law and treatment systems had stayed as they were.
As a number of noble Lords have indicated, there is undoubtedly a shortage at present of specialised secure accommodation for children both on remand and for those requiring longer-term treatment. There were 155 places in existence by the time the 1969 Act came into force. On the 31st March last year, there had been a distressingly small increase on that fairly low figure. The figure of 155 secure places had risen to 193. However, at the moment a further 57 units are under construction and 95 more are in the provisionally approved programme for 1975–76. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made the point—and I have great sympathy with it and anybody speaking from this Bench must do so—that the cost of providing secure accommodation is a fairly substantial one. But I must say from my travels around the country with my responsibilities, first, to the Probation Service and second to the police, that there is overwhelming pressure for more secure accommodation from the police, from the Probation Service and from many magistrates, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, will confirm. We simply must have more secure accommodation; although I recognise with the noble Baroness that the cost is distressingly high.
The Regional Planning Committees established under the 1969 Act saw a need for a substantial increase in secure accommodation first for assessment purposes (the purpose served by the former remand homes) and, secondly, for relatively long-term treatment in community homes with education on the premises, the former approved schools. The plans produced by the committees, as amended, include proposals for the provision of 480 additional secure places. Two hundred and three of these are in observation and assessment centres, and 277 in community homes with education on the premises. To encourage local authorities to meet regional needs within a reasonable period

517
of time, the Government have taken power in the Children Act 1975 to enable them to make grants to local authorities to meet the costs of providing secure accommodation. One particular benefit of the early provision of additional secure accommodation in observation and assessment centres will be to speed up the implementation of the Government's policy of phasing out the remand of young persons to prison, which I think gives many Members of this House grave disquiet; that still in this year we are sending people of this age to prison. I think it has to be an urgent priority so far as any Government are concerned to do something to deal with this situation.
Although the main responsibility of providing secure accommodation in community homes is a local authority responsibility, it is recognised that among the boys and girls committed to the care of local authorities there is a tiny minority who are so disturbed and disruptive that they not only recieve no benefit themselves from treatment in a community home, whether or not in secure accommodation, but severely obstruct the treatment of others. For such children the Department of Health and Social Security are to provide and administer directly three establishments, known as youth treatment centres, with a high staff ratio, specialised facilities, and a programme geared to the provision of care, control and treatment over a period of several years. The first of these centres—St. Charles Youth Training Centre—was opened in 1971 and currently provides 38 places. The building of an additional 12-place secure unit is planned to start at the end of the year. A second centre is being built in the Birmingham area where a further 62 secure places for highly disturbed children will become available during the summer of next year. A start on the third centre, at Wakefield, will be made towards the end of 1976 which will add a further 76 secure places.
But, my Lords, I would add this. The successful care, control and treatment of delinquent children can only be carried out, whether in the community or in an institution, by men and women with the proper training, experience and devotion to this difficult and sometimes highly unrewarding task. Despite the great increase in the strength of social service departments over the past five years,
518
there are not enough, there never were enough, and in all likelihood there never can be enough, of these men and women. I accept at once that the additional responsibilities which were laid on local authorities under the 1969 Act came at a particularly difficult time. They were faced with the Seebohm reorganisation, the loss by promotion or movement to other jobs of many highly experienced and qualified child care officers, and by the prospect of a major revision of areas following the Local Government Act. These changes did not make their task any easier.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the powers of the juvenile court. It is, of course, true that juvenile magistrates have lost their previous power to ensure a period of residential treatment for a child by means of an approved school order. This order, together with the fit person order, has been replaced by the care order which commits the child to the care of his local authority, and places on that authority the responsibility for deciding where and how he shall be treated. This is the most fundamental change at present made by the 1969 Act; the second is the replacement of probation by supervision.
But those sections of the legislation which would withdraw existing powers of the court have not yet been implemented. However as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said, she is by no means satisfied with the situation. Notwithstanding this, attendance centre orders are still available for boys from the age of 10 upwards; detention centres are available for boys aged 14 to 16 and borstal training for both boys and girls from the age of 15. In addition, the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 which enlarged, extended and restated the powers of the court to order offenders to pay compensation to their victims applies also to juveniles. This means that the juvenile court can now order compensation to a maximum of £400 in respect of each offence proved, the same sum as for an adult offender. In the case of a child under the age of 14 the court shall, and may in the case of other juveniles, order the parent or guardian to pay unless satisfied that he had not conduced to the commission of the offence by failing to exercise proper care and control.

519
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked whether community service orders could be extended to children. The answer is they cannot without further legislation. They are not covered by the 1972 Act. I agree that these orders have been highly successful. My noble friend Lady Wootton, and those also associated with her, who were involved in the recommendation which led to the creation of these orders, may look back upon this proposal with a great deal of pride. Nevertheless, apart from legislation, we still have a great deal of work to do in extending community service to the rest of the country so far as adults are concerned. As the noble Baroness will know, there are formidable pressures at the moment on the Probation Service.
My noble friend Lord Longford raised the question of intermediate treatment. These schemes are now available in all areas. I recognise at once that we have an inadequate amount of information about them. I am told the Personal Social Services Council is undertaking a study of this particular type of treatment and we look forward to reading the results of that study. The noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, raised a question about the situation in Newcastle concerning disruptive school children. This is one of a number of local projects which involve the establishment of small units in schools for pupils who are particularly disturbed or difficult. In Newcastle the Department of Education and Science is sponsoring research by the Nuffield Child Psychiatry Unit into methods to deal with maladjusted children. This research is looking into a variety of methods to approach the problem. The Government will follow the progress of this experiment with a great deal of interest.
I hope what I have said this afternoon demonstrates that the Government recognise the serious problems we are confronting in this field. I must emphasise that although society may be justified in demanding a measure of retribution to deter young people from crime, this by itself is insufficient. For true protection something far more positive and fundamental is needed. First, we must seek to build a society in which the needs of our children for security, for loving support and for an opportunity of self-fulfilment
520
are met within their homes, schools and places of work. This is a task which cannot be a matter solely for the Government. It concerns us all.
Secondly, our defence must rest upon a juvenile law which is humane, flexible and effective. It must now be our united task to work together—juvenile courts, local authorities, schools, the police and all concerned at local level—to develop a constructive approach to deal with these problems. As I have said, the Government will shortly be coming to Parliament with proposals based on their consideration both of the Select Committee's Report and of the results of their own review. Thirdly, as has been said by many speakers in today's debate, our society relies upon a responsible, well-trained and adequately staffed police force which commands the respect of the community it serves. Here there has been a highly encouraging development recently, in that 1975 has been the most successful year for police recruitment in the history of the police service. Certainly in many areas the situation is still far from satisfactory. Nevertheless, the situation has improved noticeably in the year 1975.
I accept at once that we cannot expect a quick or easy answer to the problem of juvenile deliquincy, a problem which is clearly so deeply rooted in our society. We certainly cannot look to the past for an easy answer; there never was a golden age. We must keep in mind the truth expressed in the 1968 White Paper Children in Trouble, that the aims of protecting society from juvenile delinquency and of helping children in trouble to grow up into mature and law abiding persons, are complementary and not contradictory, and in that situation I think we have some grounds for both hope and confidence.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, it remains for me to thank all those who have taken part, especially the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, who I am certain will realise that his grave apprehensions were wholly unjustified. As I cannot comment on everybody's speech, I shall be writing to all who have taken part—including asking how it was that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, managed to make one of the most distinguished speeches in four

521
minutes. I shall be writing to the 50 or 60 people outside your Lordships' House who helped me, including police chiefs all over the world. I shall be wheeling their documents in my wheelbarrow to Scotland Yard for processing. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CASE OF MR. D. C. ANDERSON, Q.C.
5.26 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN rose to call attention to the case of Mr. David Colville Anderson, Q.C.; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Its purpose is to call attention to the case of Mr. David Colville Anderson, Q.C., with a view to persuading Her Majesty's Government to re-examine the case and, if they are not satisfied by that alone that he should be exonerated and reinstated, to arrange an independent inquiry into the case. I understand that Mr. Anderson will be presenting a petition to the Prime Minister calling for the effect of his conviction to be set a side by appropriate administrative action, and for his reinstatement. I should add that there is an amendment to the petition calling for a public inquiry first. I believe the ratio between the signatories for the one and the other is about two to one. I hope the noble Lord in his reply will agree on behalf of the Secretary of State to receive this petition and the supporting signatures in Edinburgh on behalf of the Prime Minister and give it full consideration.
The case of Mr. David Anderson, to which I am venturing to draw your Lordships' attention, is that of a Scottish Queen's Counsel who served for twenty-six years in the RNVR, including the whole period of the 1939–45 War. He was mentioned in despatches and he was also decorated by King Haakon with the Norwegian Freedom Medal. He served from 1960 to 1964 as Solicitor-General for Scotland, for most of the time without a seat in Parliament; but in December 1963 he was elected MP for Dumfries in a by-election which was caused by my coming to this House. He
522
did not stand in the 1964 Election. Between 1964 and 1972 he conducted some 27 public inquiries, and also conducted many trials as an honorary Sheriff. In October 1971 he was appointed by Lord Clyde as one of the two part-time chairmen on the establishment of the Industrial Appeal Tribunals in Scotland. In October 1972 he was appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the new post of Chief Reporter, as head of the Scottish Public Inquiry system with the rank of Under-Secretary in the Civil Service. He has been happily married for 27 years to a lady whose father was a distinguished Queen's Counsel and later a Judge of the Court of Session. They have a daughter and two sons, all of whom have done well.
In December 1972, within two months of his appointment as Chief Reporter, Mr. Anderson was conducting a Public Inquiry in Ayrshire, the first major one in his new post. He was staying at the Tower Hotel in Troon. On 22nd December, he was charged with having conducted himself in a disorderly manner on 18th December and alarming two girls, both aged 14, while with his motor car, and that he did commit a breach of the peace. At this stage there was no mention of the details of the offence. Mr. Anderson was not made aware of these until he received a written complaint—that is, a summons—in which he was further charged with approaching the girls during the hours of darkness and suggesting that they accompany him in his motor car to a quiet place to engage in judo exercises with him, and with offering them £1 each for walking on him, jumping on him and kicking him.
This hardly tempting offer from an elderly gentleman on a winter night the girls, needless to say, did not accept and the man drove off. The charge did not specify a time, but it was established at the trial that the offence took place within a few minutes of 8.30 p.m., and this was December. Mr. Anderson was tried in the Sheriff Court at Ayr on 21st and 22nd May 1973, under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954. He plead not guilty, and gave evidence that he had not left the hotel except for a two-minute stroll at about 11 p.m. to get some air before going to bed, and had not used his car that night. The incident had taken

523
place over seven miles away on the outskirts of the town of Prestwick. The hotel proprietor at Troon and his wife supported his evidence. However, Mr. Anderson was convicted and fined £50. In consequence, he was dismissed from his post and from the Civil Service, and has been unemployed ever since.
In Scotland an accused has no right to demand a jury trial. Jury trials are directed by the Crown Office to be held only in cases likely to involve long imprisonment. There is a right of appeal to the High Court of Justiciary, which Mr. Anderson exercised, but the Appeal Court is limited to consideration of a stated case, which is prepared by the sheriff who has himself tried the case. The defence then has the right to propose adjustments to the stated case but the sheriff is not obliged to accept them. In this case, the defence senior counsel, who was at that time himself a sheriff principal and vice-Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and had been present throughout the trial, signed ten pages of adjustments which in his view reflected the evidence.
The sheriff, however, rejected the lot except for one minor sentence which dealt with a procedural step. He also refused to grant counsel a hearing upon these adjustments. Such a hearing, again, is not obligatory but it is normal practice where the considerations are serious and the consequences grave. The Appeal Court decided that on the facts as stated by the sheriff—and I would emphasise "as stated by the sheriff"—he had been entitled to convict. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, who presided, said that the question of reliability of the evidence and identification was one for the Sheriff and not for the Appeal Court.
Under summary procedure in Scotland, no official record of the proceedings is taken, but in Mr. Anderson's case the senior shorthand writer used by the Crown to record evidence in jury trials took a complete unofficial record of the evidence. This was on the instructions of Mr. Anderson's solicitors and with the consent of the Court. The 178-page record so made could not be looked at by the Appeal Court, but it would be available to any form of inquiry that might be subsequently ordered.
Having lost his appeal, Mr. Anderson then petitioned to the equitable powers of the High Court, technically known as the Nobile Officium. I understand this is an extremely rare procedure. His petition was rejected as incompetent, on the ground that a form of appeal was provided by Statute and had been used. He then petitioned the Secretary of State for a Royal Pardon but this, too, was refused. His Member of Parliament, Mr. Alexander Fletcher and Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, the advocate, who is also an M.P., thereafter called for an inquiry in a debate on the adjournment which took place in another place on 11th April 1974, to which the Secretary of State for Scotland himself replied. I shall come to this in a minute or two.
Mr. Anderson's dismissal from his post and from the Civil Service resulted as a direct consequence of his conviction. I am drawing attention to his case not on that account but because there are many people in the Churches and in the law, both in Scotland and in England, in the Services and elsewhere, who are, to say the least, uneasy about the proceedings and about the conviction, and who feel strongly that the case needs to be raised again and that an inquiry into the whole circumstances is necessary. For example, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the very reverend the Lord MacLeod of Fuinary have each written to say that they believe the conviction and subsequent dismissal require re-examination. There are also over 1,000 signatories in all. For my part, I cannot claim to know Mr. Anderson at all intimately, but those who do consider that the offence of which Mr. Anderson was convicted is quite out of character. Having read the transcript of proceedings and thought very long and deeply about the case, I share the belief of many who are much more qualified to judge than I that the evidence certainly does not warant a conviction and that the Secretary of State should appoint an inquiry to examine afresh the circumstances of the case and make recommendations.
We all make mistakes, my Lords, and I have no intention of blaming anyone; but if, as I believe, the Sheriff was mistaken in finding Mr. Anderson guilty and

525
was mistaken in his selection and interpretation of the evidence which he submitted to the Appeal Court, it seems clear that there was no way under existing procedure that his mistakes could be remedied. We are then faced with the situation that not only was there a miscarriage of justice in this case, but that there is nothing to stop a similar miscarriage in future unless and until the law governing summary jurisdiction procedure in criminal cases is amended. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to tell us that a review of the law is in progress and that we can expect recommendations soon.
I have been told that the defence evidence in the stated case was disallowed at the instance of the Crown Office. If this is so, it means that the Crown intervened to prevent the Appeal Court having before it evidence for the defence, including evidence not challenged by the prosecution. That would surely be a constitutional and legal outrage as well as an insult to the Appeal Court. If it were the normal practice in Scotland, that would only multiply the scandal. If this is the practice, I submit that it should end forthwith and never be allowed to occur again. In his reply to the debate in another place, the Secretary of State spoke of the need to maintain public confidence in the system of criminal justice in Scotland. Nothing could undermine such confidence more than failure to admit such mistakes when they occur and failure to take whatever steps are appropriate to mitigate their effects.
To show that mistakes have been made in this case, I am bound to go into some detail. I shall start with the points on which Mr. Anderson's case seems most vulnerable. He, too, made mistakes. I would imagine that this would not be the sort of action that a lawyer would take in the normal way, but I am not a lawyer. One of the grounds on which the Secretary of State refused the demands for an inquiry was that Mr. Anderson had written a letter to the Crown Agent which he subsequently withdrew. In it he stated that he had been out in his car and had spoken to two girls. The Secretary of State gave the impression that what Mr. Anderson said in his letter must have been true. Even Secretaries of State can make mistakes, but I am bound
526
to say that when the Secretary of State publicly revealed in the debate for the first time the existence of this letter, I, too, was shaken. But now I understand Mr. Anderson's reasons for writing it. I hope that on reconsideration Mr. Ross will also understand them.
One might ask: who, except under duress, ever admitted an offence of which he believed himself not guilty? Why, my Lords, hundreds and perhaps thousands every year do this in minor motoring offences. In such cases clients are often advised that the chances of acquittal are not better than even and that to save time, trouble, expense and publicity it is sensible to plead guilty. I doubt whether Mr. Anderson would have taken this course had he consulted an independent lawyer first, but even advocates do odd things when they fall foul of the police and their whole career is at risk.
Bear in mind, my Lords, that when Mr. Anderson wrote the letter he was not aware that he was to be accused of inviting the two girls to engage in judo with him and of tempting them with £1 each. For him, to avoid publicity was all-important not only if he was to retain his appointment but also because he was in the middle of an important public inquiry which the Glasgow Herald had recently estimated to have already cost £250,000. He thought that, if his case was taken along with the minor offences, it would probably pass unnoticed. After all, asking two girls the way to Troon in the dark might technically be a breach of the peace, but it was scarcely an heinous offence, warranting dismissal from the Civil Service.
But why, I may be asked, should he think it likely that he would be convicted if he pled "not guilty"? This is a difficult point, but Mr. Anderson was well aware that rumours had been in circulation, particularly in legal circles, about the circumstances in which he had resigned as Solicitor-General—rumours of which the sheriff was bound to have heard and which were likely, in Mr. Anderson's opinion, to influence him subconsciously. Mr. Anderson has always maintained that these rumours were unfounded, except in the case of one trivial incident in 1958 which he admits was an error of judgment on his part, but no more, and was certainly in no way in breach of the law.
There was yet another reason why he wanted to avoid publicity, to which he attaches the greatest importance in the light of his experiences in Norway during the war. He considered that there was a security aspect to the matter, and I will return to this later. But, meantime, what I want to make clear is that it was because of his preoccupation with the security implications that he went to see the Crown Agent. Whether or not he gave the Crown Agent that impression, I do not know. The Crown appeared to have accepted that the letter did not represent Mr. Anderson's recollection, for at the trial not only did they make no reference to it, but they held out publicly as Mr. Anderson's recollection the letter which he had submitted to the police when charged. The letter corresponded not only to Mr. Anderson's evidence in court, but also to his verbal replies to the police when first interrogated.
There was another reason why Mr. Anderson had doubts about his chances of a successful defence. He had been told categorically by the police, when they first interviewed him, that it was his car that had been identified. This is admitted by the police in evidence as recorded in the verbatim report. Moreover, the recorded evidence of the two girls shows clearly that the car they saw on the night of the incident was quite different from the car which they subsequently said was very like the car at the incident, though one said that she could not be sure. That brings me to the central question of identification, both of car and of man. I shall deal first with the car.
Within minutes of the incident one of the girls, who said she was interested in cars, wrote down on a piece of paper, which was kept and produced in court, the make, the colour and the registration particulars of the car as completely as she could remember them. The particulars were—a Chrysler, bright blue, with letters BSC and L as the year, and numbers which she wrote down as containing a 4 and a 5 and another different number which she had forgotten—a different number, my Lords. She said that she thought it was a Chrysler, as her mother was learning to drive one, a saloon, and she had thought this to be the very same car. Mr. Anderson's car was not a Chrysler but a Triumph; not
528
a saloon but an estate car; not bright blue but dark bluish-green, which I believe the makers describe as Mallard. By contrast, the same girl described Mr. Anderson's car as green when she saw it at the hotel.
Mr. Anderson's car had the registration letters described by the girl, but no 4 in its number. Its number was 555. When cross-examined, the girl was positive that the numbers were different from each other, and she worried about the right order. Mr. Anderson's 555 in a row do not have a right or wrong order. The second girl said that she took no interest in cars and had the impression only of the registration letters which she thought were BCS, which denote Ayrshire, not BSC which is an Edinburgh registration.
Two days later, when the girls were taken by police to look at cars outside hotels in Troon, they said that Mr. Anderson's car was "very like" the one at the incident. Under cross-examination it emerged that one of them meant "very like in size", and she said it would have been "more like" the car at the incident if it had been a saloon instead of an estate car. The other said that she recognised it because it was dark and dirty and looked very like the car which she had seen at the incident.
The sheriff, however, rejected the girl's evidence about the car number, on the ground that he thought she had, "no clear view of the number", and said so in his Stated Case to the Appeal Court. Yet the verbatim notes record that she said she had had a "quite distinct" view of the number plate from very close range for several minutes, in lighting which the sheriff himself described in his Stated Case as "very good". There was not a shred of contrary evidence. Nor is that all. Having thus rejected the written evidence of one of the girls, the sheriff, in his note at the end of the Stated Case, said that he accepted the evidence of both girls "in its entirety". Yet he did not accept either their evidence that they were not alarmed or the description of the car which they gave immediately after the incident. So much for the so-called identification of the car. I now turn to the identification of the man.
The Secretary of State, in the debate in the Commons, attached great importance to the identification of Mr. Anderson by the two girls. This took place

529
from within a police car at a range of 30 to 40 yards. The car was drawn up at that distance from the police station, at which it had been arranged for Mr. Anderson to call in his car at an agreed time to hand in a photograph of himself for the purposes of identification. The two girls sat together in the back of the police car, with two policemen in front. This broke two of the rules which are approved by the Chief Constables (Scotland) Association as necessary in the interests of reliability. In the adjournment debate in the other place, the Secretary of State claimed that the rule referred to did not apply as it appeared under the heading "Guidance in Relation to Identification Parades" and that the arrangement was not an identification parade.
Let me quote the words of the rule. Under a section headed "Detection of Crime", it reads:
"Where it is necessary that witnesses should have an opportunity of seeing a suspect who is not in custody and whose whereabouts arc known, only one witness at a time should be present at the place where the suspect is expected to appear, so that one witness should not influence the other."
The rule does not say "at the place where the identification parade is held". Cross-examined, the police witness agreed that the purpose of the rule was to avoid one witness assisting or affecting or consulting the other—to use his words—"in any shape or form". Clearly, it is even more important to avoid this if there is no formal identification parade, and if the witnesses are children. The fact remains that even if, technically, no rule was broken, the method of identification adopted was irregular and inappropriate, and the irregularity was not justified by any emergency.
Another rule was also disregarded. I understand that it is proper practice that witnesses should be given no lead when trying to identify. Yet the girls agreed in evidence that they were expecting the arrival of the car which they had seen at Mr. Anderson's hotel, and that they expected its occupier to be the person whom they had been brought specially out of school to identify. And identify him they did—a walking stanger at a distance of 40 yards. When one of the girls was asked in court how she had identified him, she replied that it was by his nose. Yet she agreed that she had
530
not really noticed the nose of the man who had accosted her; nor had the police noted it in the description which she had given soon after the offence.
Some reliance might reasonably have been placed on this so-called identification if Mr. Anderson had resembled the description given to the police by the girls on the night of the incident, but the description did not fit him at all. In court, one of the policemen read out from his notebook the description of the man which each girl had given to him when interviewed within two hours of the offence. The man described differed from Mr. Anderson in at least five particulars. The man's hair was described as white or blond—Mr. Anderson's was then darkish brown. They described the man's complexion as pink—one girl said "muddy"—but Mr. Anderson's is pale. They described his eyes as large and open in shape—Mr. Anderson's are somewhat narrow. As to his height, one put it at 5 ft. 6 in., but Mr. Anderson is over 5 ft. 9 in. His eyebrows were described as thick and grey—Mr. Anderson's were scanty and light brown. They also described him as well-built, whatever that may mean. At the time, Mr. Anderson might have been more accurately described as slight.
To crown all, when the first girl to give evidence in court was asked in the course of her evidence—not at the start of it—to identify the man who had accosted her, she pointed to the shorthand writer. There is no suggestion whatsover that he was involved, and when asked whether she was sure she said that she thought so, but it was a while ago. The significant point is, not only that he bore no resemblance at all to Mr. Anderson, but that out of about 16 men in front of the girl he most closely resembled the description she had given to the police. He had white hair, a ruddy complexion, thick grey eyebrows and thick-set build.
I am told that in most trials that would have been the end of the case. The procurator fiscal asked the girl to look around the court and she eventually pointed to the dock, where Mr. Anderson sat in isolation. Before leaving the matter of identification, I should refer to the evidence of Mr. Anderson's wife. The two girls agreed in evidence that the man was wearing a heavy grey/black tweed overcoat with a pattern and a tweed cap. Yet

531
Mr. Anderson's wife testified that she had helped Mr. Anderson to pack, and to put his things in the car, and had seen him off that day, and that the only coat and headgear he had with him were an unattended plain fawn raincoat and a brown felt hat. Her evidence was not challenged by the Crown. This was one of the many facts in the 10 pages of Adjustments which the sheriff refused to state to the High Court.
My Lords, the gravamen of the charge seems to me to lie in the word "alarm". There is no evidence that at the time of the incident the girls were alarmed. The girls said in evidence that the man came up behind them and said, "Excuse me." He was polite, well-spoken and sober. He asked the way to Troon. He said he came from Edinburgh and was staying in Troon. When asked by defence counsel whether she was upset in any way by the incident, one of the girls replied, "No, not really. I didn't really think about it till I came home and started to tell my mum." She also said that she did not think her friend was upset, either. She added that when they were walking away she and her friend were laughing about it. And the young assistant at the garage where they stopped on the way home, when asked by the procurator fiscal whether they seemed definitely put out and excited, said they were "not unduly excited." The girl told her mother that she thought the person was a bit of a crank.
That, my Lords, may have been a shrewd observation. Nobody would make a proposition such as the girls say was made unless either he was suffering from some mental illness or else he was sure the proposition would not be accepted. If the man's purpose was to damage the character and credibility of someone else, he would want the proposition to be so extraordinary that it would catch the headlines but at the same time so unattractive that there was no chance of its being accepted. If, on the other hand, the man was mentally ill, I submit that he ought to have been medically treated, and not convicted and punished. But the evidence is that Mr. Anderson was normal. I suggest that logic and medical opinion, therefore, point to impersonation.
So much for the credibility of the girls. No discredit to them; they were very young. But what about the probabilities and improbabilities? Is it likely that anyone, let alone an experienced advocate, would have told the girls where he came from and where he was staying? In the words of a former convener of the sheriffs principal, who has signed the petition and who was for 12 years the senior sheriff in Scotland, the conduct alleged against Mr. Anderson was "wildly improbable in a man of his character and intelligence".
All the circumstances would seem to make Mr. Anderson a most unlikely person to have gone out that night. He had spent the previous night in the train coming back from London with his wife. He had had a 20 minutes' break at home for breakfast and had then had to drive 80 miles across Scotland in mid-winter to an inquiry which began soon after 10. He spent a full day conducting it and then had to catch up with his work after three days in London. One important production in the case was his letter, dated that day, which was delivered with his completed work to his Civil Service Department. There was no time other than that evening during which he could have done the work, which would have taken about three hours. The evidence of the civil servants on this was not challenged at all. But the police thought it likely that Mr. Anderson was the man.
Why? Basing themselves on the statement of the man involved that he came from Edinburgh, the Ayr police got in touch with the Edinburgh police. Now the Edinburgh police had information which related to incidents reported to them between nine and 16 years previously and which purported to involve Mr. Anderson. As I have said, he has always strongly denied involvement in any of these incidents, except the one to which I have already referred when a young woman who lived in the same street where he had his chambers spoke to him in a railway carriage on the way back from a function in the constituency he was then nursing, and before the journey was over he had agreed to take her to see a film. For some reason that has never been explained to him, she was accompanied by a policewoman when

533
he met her at the cinema. His admission in that case seems mistakenly to have been interpreted as an admission that he was also involved in the remaining incidents which apparently occurred between early 1958 and the end of 1963. He has been given the precise date and times for only two of those, both of which were in Edinburgh on 28th December 1963, at times exactly stated. For these two he is able to prove from independent witnesses that he was in Perthshire that day and could not have been in Edinburgh at the times of these alleged incidents. If it is said that admission of one incident makes him liable to be thought to have committed all the others and he can prove not to have been there for two of them, then the same applies in reverse. Clearly, however, it was on the basis of these incidents that the police concluded, as they no doubt put it, that he had, "done it again."
Here we come to the most curious aspect of the case, and there are some who feel it may be the most grave. I have already referred to Mr. Anderson's Norwegian decoration. The citation was signed by their Foreign Minister, Halvard Lange, as well as by the King in person. Now Mr. Anderson's services not only benefited Norway but also had a bearing on the strategic control of parts of the Arctic and North Atlantic, and thus were correspondingly distasteful to the Russians. Mr. Anderson has evidence to show that they did not forget. Several very high ranking NATO commanders have signed his petition. These include two Vice-Admirals who have each commanded our Polaris fleet and another Flag Officer who was Vice Naval Deputy to the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and also the Air Marshal who commanded the Berlin airlift, and a recent Supreme Commander in Northern Europe.
In 1969 he submitted to Security, through the late Lord Reid, a report of the approaches which had been made to him. In reply he was told that it had been decided to take no action, and Lord Reid added that he was right to have submitted the evidence. In 1972 he reported again through a friend who had recently resigned from the service. He was told that the Security Service would be making a report to the Crown Agent. Ten days later the then Lord Advocate
534
telephoned him to say that he was being considered for the new post of Chief Reporter. It is hardly credible that the Government would have appointed him if they had concluded that all his very detailed evidence about Norway and the subsequent harassment he had endured were just figments or delusions. If Mr. Anderson was being impersonated it could, of course, have been by Russian agents, but the point is that all this gave rise to a good deal of rumour.
Some of the early incidents are reported to have involved the use of a car number similar to Mr. Anderson's, although the man was again said to have borne no resemblance to him. He believes that the whole history, taken together, may well point to an attempt to discredit him, possibly so that his account of his experience in Norway would also be discredited if he reported it. The later incidents each occurred when he was prominently in the news. The two said to have taken place in Edinburgh when he was in Perthshire, were only two weeks after he had become a Member of Parliament at the widely reported Dumfries by-election. No further incidents were reported for nine years until this Ayr incident just after he had been made Chief Reporter and was again in the news.
No doubt to the police Mr. Anderson's brief reference to his involvement with a foreign Power must have seemed beyond belief, and merely reinforced their presumption that he was abnormal. Who would blame them? No doubt also his counsel was right not to raise the matter at the trial, for the effect on the Sheriff might well have been the same. However, the fact remains that in the petition which has been raised and which will be presented after the debate there is an impressive body of testimony as to Mr. Anderson's normality, integrity and stability of character: statements by his family doctor, reports by psychiatrists whom he was advised to consult in 1964, naval commanders under whom he served, schoolmasters who educated him as a boy, 12 of those who served with him on the bench of the Industrial Appeal Tribunal, and so on—shrewd people in touch with local feeling. Twenty-three of the witnesses and objectors from the inquiry he was holding in Ayrshire when he was charged and numerous friends and

535
neighbours who know him closely are among over 1,000 petitioners. I believe that the actual figure is 1,006, although I see from the Scotsman that it seems to have gone up to 1,010.
There were 130 lawyers who signed the petition, including 106 solicitors from 25 towns all over Scotland, and those who have read the verbatim notes are at a loss to understand how he could have been convicted. They regarded it as incomprehensible that the sheriff held back from the Appeal Court even the police evidence which favoured the defence, such as the description of the man by both girls which was read out in court from the policeman's notebook, so different from Mr. Anderson, or the police car test which showed that not less than 40 minutes' absence would have been needed from the hotel.
In the absence of the omitted evidence it is important to understand that all that the High Court could, or did, decide was that the sheriff was entitled to convict on his statement of the facts. It is true that the High Court did stress, both in Mr. Anderson's appeal and in his later petition to them, that the sheriff was an experienced one and that therefore all must be well. The Secretary of State in his turn adopted this reference to the sheriff's experience. Undoubtedly the sheriff was experienced. He had been sheriff substitute of Ayr and Bute for a great many years. But it does not follow that he was infallible. Since the Secretary of State has introduced this argument I am bound to tell your Lordships that there was another appeal from the same sheriff five months later by a Mr. Livingstone. I shall quote the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, who presided over both appeals. Speaking of the same sheriff's conduct in the later appeal the noble and learned Lord said:
"His questions savoured more of the role of cross-examiner than of presiding judge".
He then went on to say that the sheriff's conduct—and I use his words:
"disclosed that he was adversely inclined towards the accused,"
and also that he had failed to remind the jury about a defence of alibi. The appeal was allowed. I venture to suggest that it was unfortunate in the light of
536
the subsequent case that the High Court and the Secretary of State relied so strongly on this sheriff's experience to support a presumption that there had been no miscarriage of justice towards Mr. Anderson.
I ask your Lordships to note that the situation in the Livingstone appeal came to light only because it had been a jury trial and that the proceedings had been officially recorded by a shorthand writer. On this point I must draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to fresh evidence which has come to light. There is the evidence of Dr. A. J. Bain, the Edinburgh psychiatrist whom Mr. Anderson was advised by the late Professor Sir D. K. Henderson to consult in 1964, about the time of his resignation as Solicitor-General. After six sessions, Dr. Bain could find nothing wrong with Mr. Anderson, but Mr. Anderson had pressed him to provide some health reason to justify his resignation. Dr. Bain was later concerned that what he had reported had been misinterpreted by the then Lord Advocate. He asked Sir David Henderson to see the Lord Advocate at the time but the meeting was refused. Seven years later, in May 1971, Dr. Bain felt obliged to place on record from his case notes what had happened. He died the next year. He asked that the contents of this memorandum should not be disclosed for three years. That period has now expired.
Second, after his death his widow sent Mr. Anderson the correspondence Dr. Bain had about him. The correspondence included a letter dated 6th April 1964 from the then Lord Advocate to Dr. Bain which makes it clear that although the Lord Advocate himself thought the evidence was overwhelming, he had not been able to extract any admission from Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson had, of course, volunteered information about the incident in 1958 to which I have already referred.
Given the limitations of Scottish summary procedure—no right to jury trial, no official record of the evidence, although a career may be at stake, and therefore no means of ensuring that the stated case is in accordance with the evidence; given also that abnormal and unreliable means were used by the police to obtain identification, given the strong

537
prejudice against Mr. Anderson arising from the belief that he had been involved in past incidents, all but one of which he has always strenuously denied, and that one a trivial matter over 17 years ago about which he denies any impropriety; given the palpable unreliability of the evidence of the two young girls, as shown by the written evidence, whose descriptions of the man himself, of the car and of the clothing each indicate some man other than Mr. Anderson; given also that the balance of probability was that Mr. Anderson did not go out that night—he was of good character, he had just been appointed to a new and important post, he was tired after a long journey, he had work to clear up, and his car was parked under a floodlight by the hotel's glass door in such a position that the hotel proprietor could scarcely have failed to notice if it had been away for more than a few minutes, let alone 40 minutes, which is the minimum time that would have been needed for Mr. Anderson to go to Prestwick, talk to the girls and return to the hotel. Given all these things—and that is without bringing in the security background with the implications it contains—surely much greater harm will be done to public confidence in Scottish justice if no inquiry is held than if an inquiry is allowed. Certainly over 1,000 people who signed the petition think so—an impressive cross-section of responsible opinion, both in Scotland and in England. This House may feel that no one would have gone to such very great lengths, through the courts, through the Houses of Parliament and bringing his case personally to the attention of so many people individually, if he had not had the strongest and firmest belief in his own innocence.
My Lords, I recognise that any Government is reluctant to allow an inquiry in one case lest it form a precedent for a flood of similar demands in other cases. I venture to think that, if there are strong reasons to believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice, that is a reluctance which ought to be overcome. If, as in this case, it also appears that the miscarriage of justice has occurred through a defect in the system—through the inability of the system itself to correct the mistake in the sort of circumstances which have arisen in this case—then there is all the more reason for having an inquiry.
I am not asking your Lordships to pass judgment on Mr. Anderson now, one way or the other. I am calling the attention of your Lordships and the Government to this case because I believe that it should be a matter of public concern and that the most careful and conscientious consideration should be given by the Government to the petition signed by over 1,000 people which will shortly be presented. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will be able to say tonight that the Government have changed their mind. If not, I hope that the Government wall agree to accept the petition and will decide to grant it, or if they are not entirely satisfied that there has been a miscarriage of justice from that alone, will set up an independent inquiry to review the case in all its aspects. I must apologise for keeping your Lordships for so long. I hope you will think, as I do, that it was worth raising this matter. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers,
6.7 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for spending so much time on this complicated case and for setting out as clearly as he has done the facts which are available. I do not know Mr. Anderson personally; I am not involved with Mr. Anderson in any shape or form and I did not sign the petition, although if I had done so I should have been in impressive company (as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has pointed out) of over 1,000 petitioners, all of whom asked for a public inquiry, including many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, eminent lawyers, clergymen, professional people of all kinds—including many friends of mine in this House and outside: people, above all, of integrity, knowledge and, I would suggest, compassion.
I know of the particulars of the case only from the documents sent to me, unsolicited, by Mr. Anderson. I have studied them with great care and although it was stated in another place that his use of material was highly selective, I must say that in the material he sent to me I was favourably impressed by the fact that he made available both the cons and the pros. I was also enormously impressed by the constancy of his family and

539
his friends, which I take as a reason to react.
I was also filled, as was everyone else—with the thousand people who signed—with an unease which has caused me to intervene in this debate, although, as I have said, I do not know Mr. Anderson.
There is one thing I want to say here and now—the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, touched upon it; namely, the security aspect. I must say this because it is one of the things which discouraged me about the approach. With the revival at the present time of the "Reds under the beds" syndrome the arguments which I found the least plausible were those of a political conspiracy, an enemy conspiracy, which deliberately framed him both in the Edinburgh incident referred to, which led to his resignation as Solicitor-General, and in the incident we have been mainly discussing, of the two girls at Prestwick.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the debate in the other place, said that the account of the security or, if you like, Soviet involvement, was of quite extraordinary complexity. I agree. As a wartime director of plans and operations of political warfare, I am always surprised at the ubiquity and omniscience which we attribute to the KGB or, for that matter, to the CIA. The preoccupation of Mr. Anderson with the security aspect reminds me of the once-only reference by Lord Haw Haw on the Nazi Radio to the British town clock which stopped at five past twelve. It was what we called in those days a self-propagating "SIB". People in dozens of villages and towns all over Britain whose clocks had stopped—not necessarily the town clock; it could have been the clock in the high street—insisted that Lord Haw Haw referred to them, and that there must be a spy in their midst. They were really furious when the counter-espionage discredited the reports—furious because it implied that their town did not deserve a spy. I am not suggesting that the KGB are incapable, or would be incapable, of dirty tricks. On the contrary; I know of plenty. But I find it difficult to accept the long, long memory, and the long and tenuous reach of Moscow alleged in this case. As was pointed out, Mr. Anderson had an official mission in Norway at the end of
540
the war to forestall the Russians, which he executed effectively. But if everyone who frustrated Soviet intentions at that time, a quarter of a century or more later is to be given the black or the red spot, then Black Rod had better start worrying about the security of most of your Lordships' House.
Without any disrespect to the offices concerned—that of Solicitor-General or chief reporter of the Scottish public inquiry—I very much doubt indeed whether Soviet espionage would regard these offices, or the men in them, or even the background of Mr. Anderson, as a target for their sinister intentions. I am quite prepared to accept that Mr. Anderson believed that he was such a target, but I do not accept the ramifications, the ingenuity or, in this case, the extravagant misuse of resources by the KGB. I think Mr. Anderson probably did believe that, very much in the same terms that people took as an insult the fact that Lord Haw Haw had referred to their town yet they were not credited with having a spy. Those reservations do not at all prevent me from supporting the plea in this case for a public inquiry.
My reasons are completely uncomplicated. I am not involved personally with Mr. Anderson, but I do share with a great many people—including the eminent judges, Sheriff principals and lawyers who signed the petition—a serious misgiving about the Ayr trial, about the method, above all, of identification, and, incidentally, of the dismissal of the alibi put up, substantially, I thought, from the evidence by the hotel proprietors. As an old police court reporter, familiar with the sheiff court and other criminal courts from my early days, I have been always seriously concerned about the method of identification. It is so easy wrongly to identify, not by mischief but because of bad memory, of bad light, or bad almost anything. Therefore, in the case of this breach of the peace, where Mr. Anderson was fined £50 and was ruined as a public servant, which took place at Prestwick 8 miles away from Troon, the proprietors of the hotel in Troon were prepared to justify, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, pointed out, that he had been in a hotel at the time, that he had been heavily closeted with his work, and that his car was conspicuously there all the time. When Mr. Anderson was under

541
suspicion, the police arranged with him to hand in a photograph at a prescribed time at the police station. The two girls involved in the case—I am repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, because, I think it is important—were together in the back of the police car posted 40 yards from the police station when Mr. Anderson arrived by arrangement. The girls together—not separately —identified him as the man who had accosted them, although their description on the evening of the offence, as has been pointed out to the police, did not coincide with Mr. Anderson's actual appearance, or his hair, or his build, his complexion, or his height, or his eyes. The hazard of wrong identification is one with which all concerned with human rights are all to familiar. The police also are concerned, in conscientiously carrying out their duties. In Scotland, the Chief Constables have laid down rigorous procedures for this. In this case, the procedures condoned by the sheriff fell far short of the minimal safeguards which any one of us in respect of human rights would feel entitled to expect.
Mr. Anderson, with the loyal support of his family and others, has been fighting his conviction since 1973. I hope the Government will reassure the 1,000 concerned people: and if I may say so I hope the Government, with some sense of compassion, and above all respect for human rights, might accept the call for a public inquiry for a man whose career has been blighted. I stress and reinforce what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Because of the unease which has been created in so many minds by this case, we should call for a revision of trial procedures.
6.18 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn in his Motion drawing attention to the unhappy case of Mr. Anderson. I should also like to declare that I do not personally know Mr. Anderson. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I received a brief from Mr. Anderson unsolicited. Like many other Members of this House, and many Members in another place, I added my name to a petition some months ago calling for an inquiry, both in this case and over the general issue of the fairness of the exist
542
ing appeal procedure as shown up by this case. I therefore very much welcome what has been said by my noble friend and, indeed, the way he has said it. My noble friend has been for many years an eminent politician, both in Scotland and in Westminster. I do not think there is any Member of this House who has more experience in public life and in the judgment of political issues, who could have put his delicate case more convincingly. I hope very much that what he has said will be weighed very carefully by Her Majesty's Government, because the speech of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has expressed the very deep concern felt by a wide selection of people in Scotland.
As a layman, I recognise that the case of Mr. Anderson has been through all the legal procedures possible, and that any action by the Government must be for an exceptional reason sufficient to overcome the charge of interfering with the due processes of law. I believe in this case there is a good reason. It is simply that Mr. Anderson's case illustrates a glaring weakness in the appeal procedure. It is because of this that Mr. Anderson did not receive a fair hearing at the appeal stage, not necessarily through the fault of any individual, but because of the system.
On reading the case of Mr. Anderson a number of points of detail strike one forcefully, and most of these have been dealt with very carefully by my noble friend. To me, the most important is that here was a man who is a past holder of a high office of State; was then the Chief Reporter of Public Inquiries; served, as we know, in the Navy with distinction, and is a family man with three children. Here was an eminent man accused, convicted, and ruined by what one can only describe as a trivial charge. His reputation and his life were virtually shattered.
I would suggest to the House that many lesser men would have walked away from this situation, from further adverse publicity, after striving to clear their name through the courts. But not so Mr. Anderson. He has shown the same courage and tenacity that he showed in his distinguished war record. Rather than let time heal the wounds, he left no stone unturned both to prove his innocence and to expose the present weakness of the

543
appeal system. Each time he has, of course, exposed himself to further painful publicity, both to himself and to his family. As we know, he sought a Royal Pardon from the Secretary of State. Then his case was debated in another place last July, and now we have this debate today. Then, of course, as my noble friend said, he will shortly be submitting a petition to the Prime Minister.
His brave efforts, I suggest, have not gone unrewarded. He has received enormous, widespread support from many eminent Scottish people in all spheres of life; I think that the most convincing thing to me is that the support has come from all spheres of life. I believe that that petition is a sufficient reason for the Government to consider very carefully and sympathetically setting up an inquiry. Why has Mr. Anderson received so much support? In my view, it is because the evidence against him in that case, the disputed identification, indeed the procedure of identification as my noble friend described it, and the subsequent limitation of evidence on appeal showed up this glaring weakness, which in his case was an apparent unfairness at his trial and indeed a major defect in the present system.
In another place the Government's reply to the debate, which of course took place before the petition was raised, was based on two arguments. The first was that the present law on the question of appeal had stood the test of time for many years; and, secondly, that the Thomson Committee were already reviewing this sort of appeal procedure. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, when he comes to reply, can say how soon the Thomson Committee are likely to report and whether their terms of reference really cover the type of case of Mr. Anderson?
In supporting my noble friend's Motion, I should like to add my plea to the Government that the petition on behalf of Mr. Anderson demonstrates deep and serious disquiet over his conviction, and indeed the effect on possible future cases. That petition is supported by a wide section of people. I hope that, like all good democratic Governments, the present Administration will recognise that this is a demonstration which is sufficient as a reason for setting up an inquiry. No other course, I submit, will
544
bury the feeling that there was a miscarriage of justice in this unhappy case.
6.25 p.m.
Viscount CALDECOTE: My Lords, I think I should make clear at the outset that I have signed this petition for David Anderson. It is a sorry story of a man in public life whose character and reputation have been destroyed. The issue that has to be determined is whether the prima facie case that this was a result of a miscarriage of justice is so strong as to require a full inquiry. I sincerely believe it is and that an inquiry is essential, the outcome of which will be either to justify the action that was taken or to exonerate David Anderson and restore his character.
My Lords, I first knew David Anderson when we served together in the RNVR. He was a normal, energetic, conscientious, patriotic officer, devoted to the Royal Navy and to his native Scotland. I cannot believe that that man changed into a twisted, unhealthy, dishonourable crank such as is implied by the alleged evidence on which he was convicted, and accused without conviction. There is no point in repeating the long and detailed history the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has so carefully and accurately put before your Lordships, but I should like to emphasise two points.
First of all, in 1964 I understand Mr. David Anderson was accused privately on the basis of a police file that had been maintained without his knowledge from 1957–58, about that time. No prosecution had been made, and he did not, I understand, know anything about this file. At that time he was then coerced—perhaps "blackmailed" would not be too strong a word, but certainly coerced—into resigning as Solicitor-General for Scotland. It appears to have been very odd behaviour for the officials concerned. I do not doubt that all of them at all times acted in the course of what they believed to be their duty as they saw it. But I do not think we can get away from the fact that that kind of action, that kind of coercion, was more akin to the Star Chamber than to British justice. Those events before 1964 which we are told were on the police files, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has indicated, almost certainly affected the attitude of the police to Mr. David Anderson in

545
1972. It affected him in relation to the incident which took place at Prestwick, or was alleged to have taken place, and it no doubt contributed to his conviction.
Because of Scottish law, as the noble Lord indicated, no adequate appeal was possible. In those circumstances, those two circumstances taken together, surely we must come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case of miscarriage of justice which has ruined David Anderson's life. There is, in my view, a clear and exceptional case for a full inquiry. If the Government refuse an inquiry—and I deeply and sincerely hope they will not—they will have to state their reasons. I hope they will not say that the expense and effort is not justified, for no expense is too great to rectify injustice of this magnitude. I hope they will not say we cannot have an inquiry because action at the time by certain people has to be covered up and kept confidential. No doubt, as I say, they all acted honourably in the circumstances of the time and in their own understanding of their duty. Perhaps at the time certain actions may have been in the national interest. There is no need now to keep those actions confidential. It is totally irrelevant.
I hope the Government will not use the argument of security, as I have heard it used in other sad cases. That is irrelevant now, too. I hope they will not use the argument that we must not create a precedent. Surely British justice is far too precious a jewel to use that argument. I believe that British justice has apparently been distorted. It stands accused of recklessly and irresponsibly destroying the character and life of a conscientious, patriotic public servant.
If a full inquiry is refused—and, as I say, I hope it will not be—not only will a person's character have been ruined without proper justification, but the fair name and the world-wide reputation of British justice will be forever tarnished. Can there be a better reason for a full inquiry? So with all the sincerity at my command, I implore the Government to accept the suggestion, request, petition for a full inquiry, so that we may know the truth of this matter, and the action taken may either be justified or Mr. David Anderson's character restored.
6.31 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in his very full exposure of what may be a grave injustice. The points of the case have been sufficiently gone into, and I think have proven quite definitely the need for an inquiry. The system of appeal to a summary trial by a sheriff is certainly regarded with great unease by a great many of my friends who are lawyers, and is under investigation at the present time. I have signed a petition calling for an inquiry. The whole matter was brought to my attention by a friend of mine who sent the papers to me, and when I read them it appeared to me that there was no doubt.
I do not want to reiterate arguments which have been so ably put by people who have studied the case and done a great deal of work on it. What I want to do is to assure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and the Scottish Office, that the unease is real and great in all political circles and in many circles in Scotland, and that they cannot maintain what I am afraid has come to be regarded as a slight characteristic of the Scottish Office, an obstinacy about this matter. If they look at the list of people they will see that it covers a wide field of public ability and interest throughout Scotland.
The matter has now come to a point where an inquiry must be held in order either to clear the name of the Scottish Office or, as I hope, to clear the name of David Anderson. Like the noble Viscount, I would also implore the Scottish Office not to thrust this aside as they have done in the past, but to at least inquire into it.
6.33 p.m.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for rising at this time, but I have listened through the whole of the debate. I knew Mr. David Anderson, and still know him, and I shall not make any assessment of him one way or the other. In the course of this debate, certain things have been said of which I disapprove. Indeed, I heard the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, say that this was a condemnation of the appeal system in Scotland. I did not want to interrupt the noble Earl, but in what way did he think that the appeal system in Scotland was

547
failing? If he wants to get up and tell me now, I am willing to give way.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I was obviously too loose in my description. I was referring to the specific case, as in the case of Mr. Anderson, where the sheriff was sitting by himself with no jury. No oral evidence in the case was taken down, and the appeal, as I understand it, was based purely on law and not on the facts.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I am willing to accept the noble Earl's explanation, but I am certain that he will be grateful to me for having allowed him to put it right, because I think that on the whole the Scottish legal system operates very well indeed. I did not like Lord Drumalbyn's reference to the police in Scotland, as though they were building up a case without evidence. The noble Lord has considerable experience. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, spoke about coercion. That was the word he used.
Viscount CALDECOTE: My Lords, I did not speak about coercion by the police.
Lord HOY: No, my Lords, but by the Scottish Office. This was a reference to the Secretary of State for Scotland at that time, who is this day a very distinguished Member of your Lordships' House. Indeed, if I recollect correctly—and I will be corrected if I am wrong—at that time he was ably served by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I do not know, and I must ask, because I am referring to the noble Viscount, Lord Muirshiel. I cannot remember who was at the Scottish Office at that time. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was there at that time as a Member of another place.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I intervene? I am not quite clear what date the noble Lord is talking about. I left the Scottish Office in 1960.
Lord HOY: Then I think the noble Lord was there at that time.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: No, my Lords. I think the position was that what my noble friend said—and personally I do not wish to endorse it in any way—was that the
548
date in question was 1964. That is what I understood. I have been listening very quietly but intently to this debate.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I, too, have been listening very carefully to it. No matter who was at the Scottish Office at that time it would not deter me from saying what I am about to say now. Whether it was one Party or the other, so far as Scottish law is concerned, we have been fair and gone out of our way to be fair to anybody who has been accused of any trouble.
All I want to say to your Lordships this evening is that this case has been gone through on a considerable number of occasions. I have a great regard for Mr. David Anderson, and I should not like to think that he had been convicted unfairly. I should like to think that if there was any suspicion of doubt, at all, that it could be given in his favour. At the same time, when we are debating an issue of this kind, I do not think we are entitled to use the opportunity to malign people who are responsible for the law in Scotland. The police, the law departments in Scotland, the Lord Advocate's Department, have all done a job for which we ought to be grateful. Before your Lordships reach any conclusion about this, while we are always thinking of seeing that justice is done to the person who is charged, I hope we will remember that we are grateful to those people who administer the law in our country, and I hope that we shall be as fair to them as we are to the accused.
6.38 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I do not wish to occupy much of the time of your Lordships' House. It was not my intention to intervene, although the papers came into my possession. I read them and was deeply impressed by the arguments the papers embodied, but when I hear my noble friend, who was a colleague of mine in the House of Commons for many years, defending the Scottish Office, I recall a case which occurred many years ago in Glasgow when the question of identification was the crucial point. It was the famous case of Oscar Slater, who was accused of murdering an old lady not far from where I resided in the Garnet Hill district of Glasgow. The whole case against Oscar Slater depended on identification. In the course of the

549
prosecution, several witnesses appeared and proved conclusively that they had witnessed this person, Oscar Slater, in the neighbourhood where the crime was committed. It was on the basis of the identification that he was convicted and sentenced to death, but was reprieved. Eighteen years afterwards, largely because of the submissions and the persistence of the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, it was decided to hold an inquiry, and Oscar Slater was pardoned. I have never forgotten that case, and largely because of my experience at that time—and the knowledge that this man, although he may have been guilty of other crimes, was in the end not proved guilty of this offence —I have always been somewhat suspicious about this issue of identification.
I hope the Scottish Office will not refuse to hold an inquiry or give some credence to the petition that is to be submitted to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the ground that the police never commit an error of judgment. I have had other experiences and though I have great admiration for our police force in the United Kingdom, particularly in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, one must occasionally exercise some prudence, some caution, in accepting everything that the police say in the course of a prosecution. In the circumstances, I am inclined to support the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in asking that the Government agree to an inquiry.
6.42 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, at this stage we are asked to comment one way or the other on the conviction of Mr. Anderson or the effectiveness of the Scottish legal system. However, I must say that when I looked at the papers which were sent to noble Lords and others, I was astonished at the way in which this appeal was conducted. To take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, who was discussing criticisms of the Scottish legal system—and far be it for me, a mere Englishman, to enter into that in any detail—if a person is convicted and on appeal in a summary case the only information which is laid before the superior court is that which emanates from the sheriff who convicted him on what is called a stated case, then the defence has the right to put in amendments to the stated case. As I understand this matter, the defence lawyers
550
acting on behalf of Mr. Anderson put in 10 pages of suggested amendments and all but one item in those 10 pages were then struck out by the sheriff before it went to the Court of Appeal. That is all I know and it strikes me as a very difficult situation for a defendant to be in, when going to appeal, if he cannot present the case in his own way, if his defence is not allowed to submit any argument it pleases, and if those arguments can be struck out not even by the prosecuting side but by the sheriff who convicted him in the lower court. I hope this matter is being looked into by the committee about which we have heard.
The matter which really concerns me and about which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, spoke, is this: having looked at all the papers that have been sent to me by Mr. David Steel, who has taken a considerable interest in this case and has gone into it thoroughly, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, have had occasion to notice cases where persons have been convicted largely on evidence of identification and subsequently have been found to be innocent. I recall going to the Court of Appeal to hear a case which was in the list and while waiting for it to come on I listened to a case in which the evidence of identification was by a polite officer who was actually sitting next to the convicted person in a gas board van which was alleged to have been stolen. The person was convicted on the basis of the identification of the policeman who was sitting next to the accused for several miles until he was alleged to have opened the offside door and pushed the policeman out. After the man was sent to prison somebody came forward and asked for that offence to be taken into consideration in connection with another matter. The convicted person then appealed and, of course, got off on the basis of the confession of somebody else. If even policemen can make mistakes of identification, how much more likely is it that teenage children may do so?
The Government are themselves seized of this matter and have appointed a committee on identification procedures under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin. They must have done so because of the number of convictions which have subsequently been overturned or have been the subject of a free pardon,

551
because the persons concerned have been found to be innocent. One must, therefore, ask how many other people have been convicted largely on the basis of identification evidence where findings of innocence have not later emerged. One must assume that if there is a large body of cases where people have later been exonerated, we are perhaps looking at the top of the iceberg and that there are many innocent persons suffering now largely because they have been convicted on the basis of identification evidence.
For this reason I warmly support the demand made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that at least there should be a public inquiry. That is the least we can ask for if the 1,000 people who signed this petition—and, surely the many others in addition who would have signed had they read the evidence—can be reassured that a miscarriage of justice has not taken place in this case.
6.47 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, this is a case about which there must be and surely will be an inquiry. It is merely a question of time. When public anxiety on a matter of justice such as this reaches a certain point, it must be assuaged by an inquiry, and if an inquiry is denied, public pressure will go on rising. There must be an inquiry and the Government only discredit themselves by continuing to resist holding one; that is, when the point has been reached at which it is clear that an inquiry must be held. That was the common factor in the cases of Dreyfuss, Adolph Beck and Oscar Slater, to which my noble friend Lord Shinwell referred, and a great many others—the extraordinay resistance shown by Government over years and years until finally they had to give way, as they will have to give way here and justice was done.
Here is a case in which a man is destroyed because one other man chooses to believe in the identification of two children who had seen the man they spoke of for the first time. How can anyone say that that is safe? I really urge the Government to accept the inevitable and say. "This is a case which at some point must be inquired into and it is better to do it now than to build it up
552
and up", as one found in Dreyfuss, Adolph Beck and Oscar Slater. The more one holds it back the more inevitable it becomes, and the more discreditable it becomes, hen it does come.
6.50 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, Parliament has a traditional and honourable role as the place where individual cases can be raised for redress of alleged wrongs. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has raised the case of David C. Anderson and I can have no complaint about that. My only regret is that this gives a fresh airing to unfortunate circumstances that were already fully discussed in a debate in another place on 11th April 1974. I am afraid that, like my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on that occasion, I have no real comfort to offer the noble Lord. I should make it clear at this stage that what I shall say in the course of this debate has the full support and agreement of my right honourable friend.
It is important for the House to bear in mind what is the extent of the Secretary of State's function in a case of this kind. His prime function is to uphold the rule of law. What has been done by a court of law must be presumed to be duly done and its orders upheld unless there is reason to doubt its correctness. His second function, and one that the Secretary of State, like his predecessors, finds one of his heaviest responsibilities, is to consider whether there are any reasons to doubt the correctness of a verdict. If information comes to his attention that the court's verdict appears to have been in error—that a person who was innocent may have been convicted—then it is his duty to investigate the case and weigh up the fresh issues carefully against the court's decision and, if there are sufficient grounds, to provide a remedy. For this purpose, he has been given the extraordinary power to make recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy.
I have referred to it as an extraordinary power because such it is. The Secretary of State is not empowered to re-try a case and decide on the merits of a conviction on the evidence at the trial. Leaving aside his lack of powers for the moment,

553
even a Court of Appeal armed with a transcript is in no happy position to do that where there is evidence sufficient in law, for it has not heard the witnesses under oath and examination and observed their demeanour. What is required, if ho is to exercise his powers in a case of this kind, is some additional information—some further factor—not before the court, which points towards a miscarriage of justice. it cannot be some fanciful or unconfirmed doubt or possible alternative explanation. It must be a factor of substance.
I am sorry to have taken so much of your Lordships' time in this explanation. But it is of importance since the main substantive factors not before the court in this case were not, to the Secretary of State's mind, of a disincriminating nature. The issue before the court in this case was whether on the evening of Monday 18th December 1972 Mr. Anderson was involved in an incident with two girls in the Prestwick area as the prosecution alleged or whether his alibi that he had been all the time in a Troon hotel was correct. The court heard the evidence of the witnesses and convicted Mr. Anderson, as the Court of Appeal held it was entiled to do on the evidence. Mr. Anderson took the further step of applying to the nobile officium of the High Court of Justiciary but his application was unsuccessful. He subsequently applied to the Secretary of State's predecessor for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy. The latter—now the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and a Member of this House—examined the case with, I am sure, the care which successive Secretaries of State have shown in such cases, and concluded that there were no grounds which would justify him in recommending exercise of the Prerogative. In view of the nature of the offence of which he was convicted, Mr. Anderson's appointment as Chief Reporter to the Secretary of State for Scotland was terminated.
Before I turn to the circumstances in more detail, there are some preliminary points which I should like to make in view of the criticisms which have been made of summary criminal procedure in Scotland and of the right of appeal in summary cases. First, I am rather surprised by the wide-ranging nature of the adverse comments made by the noble Lord, Lord
554
Drumalbyn, and other noble Lords. The number of cases disposed of annually by the summary criminal courts in Scotland—these are the sheriff court and the district court—is well over 200,000. I am not aware of any general feeling of disquiet in Scotland about these courts and their procedures. I say this with some confidence since, as it happens, we have recently received the main report of the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure, which has carried out a detailed review of procedures in the criminal courts of Scotland. It stated as one of its general conclusions the following:
"It became apparent to us early in our deliberations and from the evidence we received from our witnesses that our existing system of criminal procedure was fundamentally sound and that improvement was all that was needed and not radical change".
It went on to say:
"We consider it of the highest importance to preserve the basic distinction between solemn and summary procedure and we have been at pains to ensure so far as practicable that none of our recommendations affect the summary nature of summary proceedings".
The second point I should like to make at this stage concerns the right to demand a jury trial. The noble Lord has commented that an accused has no right to demand a jury trial in Scotland. This of course is true, but again I should like to refer to a conclusion of the Thomson Committee. The Thomson Committee considered whether an accused person served with a summary complaint in the sheriff court should have a right in certain serious cases to apply for trial by jury, a matter earlier considered by the Grant Committee on the sheriff court. The Thomson Committee stated that all its witnesses were opposed to this proposal and that it shared the views of the witnesses and of the Grant Committee in opposing it.
The third of my preliminary points concerns the right of appeal. It has been criticised for its limited scope—what right of appeal in criminal cases has not? The criticism may well be justified and it may be that the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure, now that it is quit of its main report, may be able to devise some practicable improvements in the nature of the appeal. But it is the present law of Scotland and has been for many years; nor could inadequacy in rights of

555
appeal be quoted as evidence suggestive of a miscarriage of justice in the court of trial.
The last of my preliminary points is that, whatever may be said about aspects of the case such as identification—to which I shall return later—there is no doubt that Mr. Anderson was duly convicted in accordance with the criminal law of Scotland.
At this stage, I should like to make reply to one or two questions put to me in the course of the debate, and to do so before talking about the facts of the case. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Drumablyn, mentioned the fact that no official record of trial proceedings need be kept of summary criminal procedure. I would remind him that, in respect of Mr. Anderson's trial, that trial was similar to others under summary criminal procedure in Scotland. As I have said, the Thomson Committee will look at appeals as the next stage of its study of criminal procedures. I cannot say what will be its conclusion on that issue. The noble Lord, Lord Drumablyn, also referred to the fact that a decision by an experienced sheriff in a subsequent case was commented upon adversely by the Appeal Court.
I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to go into detail about another case. I believe that the noble Lord will be aware that it is difficult to draw conclusions by a comparison of two individual cases. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also asked how Mr. Anderson could have been appointed a chief reporter, if there was no substance in his report to the security service. I can best reply to that by quoting what my right honourable friend said in another place on 11th April 1974:
"Mr. Anderson had…conducted a number of public inquiries satisfactorily on a fee-paid basis before he was appointed to the Civil Service as a full-time Chief Reporter, and the obvious assumption is that he was considered by all concerned to have the qualifications for the job and to be a suitable person for a Civil Service appointment, subject to the satisfactory completion of a two-year probationary period of service."—[Official Report, (Commons), 11/4/74: cols. 697–8.]
I turn to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who asked how soon will Thomson report and will the terms of reference be wide enough to
556
cover appeals in cases such as that of Mr. Anderson? I can respond by saying that the report on appeals is expected in about a year's time. The Committee has just sought written evidence about appeals procedure, and its terms of reference are wide enough to allow it to consider appeals in summary cases such as this.
I shall now deal with the facts of the case. These were that the police were called in as a result of an incident in which two young girls were put in fear and alarm by a man who approached them and made offensive suggestions to them in a street in the Prestwick area on the evening of 18th December. Police inquiries suggested the possibility that Mr. Anderson, who had been resident in a hotel in Troon on that night, might have been the man involved. When they called at the hotel they interviewed the proprietors who informed them, as they subsequently gave evidence, that, to their belief, he had been in the hotel all evening, though not in their sight. The police afterwards interviewed Mr. Anderson and asked him if he would be willing to take part in an identification parade where he could be seen by the girls.
He subsequently informed the Crown agent that he declined to take part in such a parade,
"to protect the repute of my post",
but he offered to obtain and provide a photograph of himself for identification purposes. However, before this was handed over the police, as they were entitled to do in their function of investigating crime, made other arrangements with regard to possible identification. They arranged for the two girls to be at a place at which Mr. Anderson arrived and they identified him as the man they had met. He was then charged.
At the trial Mr. Anderson put in the special defence of alibi and, as I have said, the sheriff, performing the court's function of reaching decisions on disputed facts, heard the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defence and reached his verdict. Here I should like to make three points about the trial, relating to identification, an aspect of the case to which noble Lords have devoted some attention. The first relates to eye-witness visual identification itself. It is a known fact that it is fallible;

557
known from cases in which subsequent evidence fortunately was obtained which showed it to be fallacious. Secondly—and this too is a common experience—there were differences in detail between the girls' attempt to describe the man they had met in words to the police and Mr. Anderson as visually identified. Thirdly, the identification has been attacked on the grounds that in the arrangements made in lieu of an identification parade, the police did not take a step recommended to reduce the possibility of witnesses influencing each other in their identification. Identification was, of course, a key issue which was fully canvassed at the trial and, as I have said, there are no grounds for argument that the trial was not propely conducted and concluded according to law.
I turn now to the relevance of these points to the Secretary of State's functions—and this is very important. It might be suggested that they are factors to be weighed in the scale, as there are factors of this kind in many criminal cases. But they were issues already before the court, and they could not be argued to be of sufficient weight, without additional considerations or information, to justify Ministerial intervention on a judgment duly made by a court of law.
As to additional information, the matter of greatest substance must be the statements made to the Crown agent, the official head of the Scottish prosecution service, and two senior Scottish Office officials by Mr. Anderson between his being charged and the time of the trial. In a letter of 26th December 1972 to the Crown agent he gave a circumstantial account of his leaving the hotel on 18th December 1972 and meeting two young girls in the Prestwick area and upsetting them, although presenting an innocent explanation of how this occurred. When interviewed by two senior civil servants on 10th January 1973 about the possible effect of the offence charged against him on his employment he also referred to a meeting, unfortunate and perhaps misjudged though innocent, with two young girls as the explanation of the charge.
Subsequently he wrote to the Crown agent to the effect that, after further thought, he had come to the conclusion that the incident of which he had given
558
an account took place on another date. In a letter to the solicitor to the Secretary of State for Scotland he also gave an explanation of the account given to the two senior civil servants—to the effect that it was a speculation by him on how he could have so caused alarm unintentionally and forgotten about it. I shall not go beyond what the Secretary of State said about those events in another place except to say that this is not the sort of additional information that would justify him in intervening in a verdict of a court of law.
My Lords, as to other factors Mr. Anderson has been an assiduous correspondent, in particular alleging a long-term plot against him by a foreign Government. As to the plot, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his speech in another place made the statement, with the authority of the Home Secretary in view of his security responsibilities, to the effect that he (the Home Secretary) had investigated Mr. Anderson's assertions but had concluded that there was no justification for further review or independent inquiry. I should make it clear that, in relation to Mr. Anderson's conviction, this is relevant only in so far as it raises the hypothesis that Mr. Anderson was deliberately impersonated at Prestwick on 18th December 1972. All I can say is that I am advised that there is no evidence to confirm or support such a possibility.
As I have said, my Lords, his powers in relation to the Royal Prerogative are among the most anxious the Secretary of State possesses. It is no duty of his—very much the opposite—to cast doubt on decisions duly reached by courts of law. He cannot retry a case; nor can he appoint some other person to act as a judge and retry it on his behalf. But, if representations are made to him that a miscarriage of justice has occurred by the conviction of an innocent man, then, in a case like this, his recommendation for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative is the only remedy and he must examine all the existing facts, and any further relevant facts which inquiry might produce, and consider whether the exercise of the Prerogative can be justified. This is what the Secretary of State has done. This is what his predecessor did early in 1974. The present Secretary of State reviewed the case later in 1974. In each case they

559
came to the conclusion that no further action was justified.
This it not to say that the mind of the Secretary of State is closed. Secretaries of State must, and do, remain open-minded on Prerogative cases and are always prepared to consider new information if it is forthcoming, and certainly the petition which is to be submitted could be considered in that light, as indeed would Dr. Bain's memorandum if it can truly be described as being new evidence. But if the proposal here is for some general review of the facts and factors, which have been gone over many times before, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State does not accept that there is a case for it or that it could assist him in the Prerogative decision, which it is for him alone to take.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not want to say anything about this particular case or about the action of the Secretary of State, but I must say this. In England summary cases are tried by magistrates. There are very many more than 200,000 a year; there are 21,000 magistrates; and there is a very much wider range of jurisdiction. In every case where there is a conviction by magistrates there is an absolute right of appeal to the Crown Court to have the case reheard ab initio—witnesses, cross-examination, and all. After 50 years' experience of the Bar and four, very nearly, as Lord Chancellor, I consider this an absolute necessity for the protection of the subject.
7.10 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful, first of all, to those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate today. I am also grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham for intervening so powerfully at the end with his brief but very cogent comment.
As I say, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, who I thought, if I may say so, slightly misrepresented what I said, because I was not attacking the police in any way whatsoever. I was merely pointing out that they had made a mistake in the rules concerning identification, and anyone can make a mistake. As to what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said,
560
he has given an indication of what the Secretary of State would require by way of further evidence. What I should really like to say to him is this. Here is a case which was sufficiently important for the procurator fiscal to refer to the Crown Office from the start. It was put straightaway in a category different from that of the normal case. That being so, there is some reason for saying that, because of its implications, it needs special consideration.
In this case, unlike other summary cases, a full verbatim report was taken and transcribed. My complaint is that that full verbatim report has not been considered and cannot be considered, it appears, at the present time. This seems to me entirely wrong. The noble Lord talks about the facts having been gone over, but so far as I know nobody has seen the verbatim report. With permission, I shall put a copy of it in the Library, so that noble Lords can look at it for themselves. I think that this is something which the Secretary of State must look at and must study, and decide whether the sheriff took account of all the evidence when he prepared his stated case for presentation to the High Court. Unless this is done, there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction.
It is all very well to say that this is the way in which matters are normally dealt with in Scotland and the way in which they have been dealt with for a very long time. I must say that I find this a curious argument for the Labour Party, of all Parties, to use, which claims to be a Party of progress and change. If something can be shown to be going wrong here, and if special action has to be taken, then it should be possible to take it and to correct the mistakes, as I said earlier. I say that the first action that should be taken is for the Secretary of State to have a careful look at the verbatim report, and make up his mind on the subject. If he is satisfied, after looking at it, that the sheriff was entitled not to put the evidence into the stated case, then this is a matter on which I might have to ask noble Lords to make up their own minds again at a later date. But I say to the noble Lord, with the greatest of respect, that I do not think that it can be said that this matter has been fully explored. The noble Lord wishes to intervene?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I intervene merely to say that I hope the noble Lord will accept that the Secretary of State does not view this matter in the light of being a Party politician. The noble Lord's reference to the Labour Party, I should have thought, should be struck from the record.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think I can strike anything from the record, but what the noble Lord was saying, in effect, was that this is the way matters have always been treated in summary jurisdiction cases for a long time past, and I was commenting that this was an odd thing for the noble Lord to say. This is, of course, not a Party matter. I was complimenting the noble Lord by saying that the Labour Party had claimed to be a Party of progress. I am asking for the progress.
My Lords, I think that this debate has been conducted in a very fair manner. I accept the position that the noble Lord has taken up as of now, within the present range, but I hope that when the petition arrives and is being studied—and I am quite certain that the petition will be accompanied by a copy of the verbatim report—this will be taken into consideration in full because there must be some way, where mistakes are made, to look at them and decide that they should be put right. My Lords, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

OVERSEAS STUDENTS' FEES
7.15 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN Lord GLADWYN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds they have recommended that the increase of fees to be paid by overseas students from 1976–77 as an interim measure should be twice those paid by British students. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suppose I should begin by declaring my interest in the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am the chairman of what is called UKCOSA, the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs, an independent body which does its best to protect the interests of overseas students in this country, for whose welfare we surely ought, not only in our own interests, as
562
I shall seek to show, but also, I think, largely out of some remaining sense of obligation, to pay special regard.
My Lords, according to the latest statistics there are about 95,000 of such persons in the United Kingdom, but if you subtract the 20,000 nursing students (who of course get paid for their invaluable services), together with language assistants (who are also paid) and another 17,000 or so who are in the private colleges, in the Inns of Court, in industry or business, and so on, you get an approximate total of 53,000 who form the effective overseas student population of this country. Of these, the largest section is that of university post-graduates and undergraduates (15,000 and 10,000 respectively), closely followed by those in further educational colleges (21,000, mostly from the Commonwealth), while the polytechnics absorb about another 6,000. Of the 53,000 it is thought (although for some extraordinary reason there are apparently no statistics on this point) that about 23,000 are supported by some kind of scholarship award or grant; and among them, of course, are the officially sponsored students, whose fees are paid for them anyhow by Her Majesty's Government, by their own Governments or by international agencies. All the remainder—that is to say, about 30,000; but, as I have indicated, there might well he more—are dependent on their families or local communities in their home countries, or on their own personal savings, if any.
Naturally, some of these people have means of their own, more particularly, though by no means always, if they come from rich or what might, I suppose, be called nouveau riche countries. But the great bulk, chiefly from the poorer Commonwealth countries, find it extremely hard both to find and to make do on the £20 to £30 a week, which is now about the minimum required for mere existence in the United Kingdom. This is all the more the case if, like many of the post-graduate students, they are, not unnaturally, married. It is, I need hardly say, this category which is hardest hit by the recently announced 30 per cent. increase in the fees which they pay, which for those in universities and advanced further educational establishments, as they are called, will now come to no less than £416 a year, as compared with £250 a year in 1974–75, home students paying

563
only £182 and, in some cases, £150 for the same facilities. There is, therefore, unhappily, good reason to suppose that, given the economic climate now prevailing all over the world, a fair number (and possibly even, I am afraid, a large number) will now simply be forced to pack up and go home.
Should that happen, then, apart from any other consideration, Britain will be deprived of the £1,000 to £1,500 a year which they, the people who may go, spend in this country, and our balance of payments will therefore presumably, pro tanto, be unfavourably affected. Indeed, it has been calculated—and this is an interesting point—that for every 1 per cent. of students who leave there may well be half a million pounds or more loss of income to set against the saving in fees. Under this showing, therefore, a loss of no more than 5 per cent. of students (shall we say, about 1,500?), could result in a net financial loss on balance to this country. Nor can it be denied that in a general way we stand to gain enormously if overseas students go back to their country with a good opinion of Britain and capable of putting their acquired skills to good use in the lands from which they come. Furthermore, they will tend to favour good relations with Britain and look to us as natural trading partners. Up to this point I hope that your Lordships will agree that I have confined myself to a simple statement of uncontestable facts.
It is with this background that I approach the recent decision, made public in a Written Reply to a Private Notice Question in another place on 16th December last. What must strike any observer is that this procedure bears what might be described as a sinister resemblance to the procedure adopted in 1967 (when discrimination was first introduced) by the Labour Minister of Education. In both instances it must be assumed—we can hardly assume otherwise—that the intention was to avoid any criticism that might be voiced in Parliament of a measure of which, in its heart of hearts—if that is not an absurd expression in the circumstances the Government were probably ashamed.
It is true that the present Minister has been cleverer than his 1967 predecessor;
564
for on the face of it he seems to have squared the Vice-Chancellors—something which his predecessor, as noble Lords who heard the debate in this House in February 1967 will remember, signally failed to do. It is, however, a pyrrhic victory since the recommendation of the interim report of a Joint Working Party of the Vice-Chancellors' Committee and the University Grants Committee runs directly contrary to the great bulk of the arguments involved. It is true that, as an interim, or short-term measure, the Working Party suggested that the fees of all students (that is to say, both home and overseas students) should be increased by 30 per cent. to keep them, in real terms, at the 1975–76 level. It was no doubt hoped in this way to create or to seem to create an atmosphere of impartiality. It does not appear to have occurred to the Working Party that such a measure would increase the deplorable discrimination against overseas students initiated in 1967, and all overseas students will be aware that the vast majority of their home-based colleagues do not pay a fee—in any case, 60 per cent, less than theirs—but, in effect, have them paid for them by the State, by one means or another.
Above all, the present Minister has seized on the Working Party's tentative recommendation without seemingly having paid attention to other features of this rather tortured report, whole paragraphs of which—I hope I shall not bore your Lordships—are well worth quoting. For instance, in paragraph 27, it says:
"Overseas members of universities have always been most welcome and their presence has itself contributed a special dimension to the quality and character of the work and achievements of the universities.… There can be no doubt that Britain benefits from the cross-fertilisation of ideas and cultures and the mutual understanding that are fostered by the international movements of students and scholars."
How true! A little further, one learns that:
"…one main effect of higher fees, other things being equal, might be to reduce the numbers of applications from overseas students in a way related to the ability of the student or his government to pay. Any seriously diminished opportunity to recruit overseas students would be of academic disadvantage to the British universities. Apart from the general stimulus and educational influence that comes from the presence of able people of

565
overseas background, their entry, especially at the post-graduate level"—
and I emphasise "post-graduate level"—
"…increases the concentration of students with advanced training and exceptional ability in a way which makes the British universities more attractive and academically productive."
It concludes with the striking words:
"A substantial increase in discrimination in fees (or perhaps even any further increase in the level of overseas student fees) could be very damaging to the universities."
That is what the report declares.
My Lords, quite apart from this strange way of leading up to a proposal for a large and discriminatory increase in the fees payable by overseas students, the Working Party moreover says that it will welcome wide discussion before making final recommendations and that if it is felt to be in the national interest—thereby passing the buck back to the Government—to limit or reduce the size of the subsidy at present provided for the education of overseas students, all kinds of alternatives should be considered including the mitigation of numbers by quota and, even, a "tariff-quota" system in respect of which, not unnaturally, it sees grave difficulties.
My Lords, one of the simplest solutions, to which it does not allude, is that all fees payable by qualified—I repeat "qualified"—overseas students might as an excellent form of "aid" be met out of the existing budget of the Overseas Development Ministry, pruned, perhaps, of some of its present, more questionable, items. Such a reform might be all the more acceptable in the light of the recent report by M. Tindemans on the future of the European Community to the effect that we should
"…gradually transfer to the Community a substantial part of national appropriations intended for development cooperation (major development projects, food aid, financial aid) and in coordinating the remainder of our activities in this field."
That is what is proposed by M. Tindemans. In other words, that eventually we should have a common aid programme as well as a common agricultural programme and, no doubt, therefore, a common policy as regards overseas students fees all of which ideally could be met out of common funds.
As for students from the wealthier and oil-rich countries—to which we know in the last few days attention has been drawn
566
in the Press—I would draw noble Lords' attention to paragraph 33 of the Working Party's interim report:
"While there are strong temptations to charge what the traffic will bear in the case of wealthy oil countries—and indeed it has become fashionable to talk in terms of 'paid educational services' involving the imposition of full-cost charges on a contractual basis—there are good reasons for caution in moving in this direction. Such schemes are simple only when they involve courses mounted specially and the normal practice of charging the full cost can be applied, and they are also likely to conflict with the paramount need for the selection of individual students to be a matter for the admitting university to decide and not one that can be subsumed by inter-governmental agencies or private contractors."
Again, the report says that.
My Lords, turning now from the virtual condemnation of the Government's recent action by the Vice-Chancellors' study group, we might profitably recall what was stated in the Overseas Development Ministry's White Paper in October last. Here, when describing its admirable policy of More Help for the Poorest, the Ministry observes that:
"We believe that it is essential that a poverty-focused aid policy has to be related to the circumstances of each individual country and that one has to proceed by means of detailed programmes related carefully to the circumstances and wishes of each country and not by way of general guidelines to be applied regardless to all countries."
It adds:
"We shall continue to offer training and further education in this country for those who require it and for whom the appropriate facilities are not available or cannot be economically provided nearer home."
It must be clear to any unprejudiced person that the latest fee increases contradict both these laudable aims in that they hit rich and poor students alike and actively discourage those from the poorest sections of the poorest countries from taking up training opportunities in the United Kingdom, no doubt in fields where there may well, as things are, be spare capacity in our own educational establishments—a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, is going to dwell in his forthcoming intervention.
Noble Lords will now possibly be in a position to judge whether the recent action of the Government was at all reasonable; and if they are not so persuaded by me, I feel they will be unable to resist the much more powerful arguments put forward by Professor Rolf

567
Dahrendorf in his splendid article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph. Why then did the Government do such a foolish thing? To save a little money? But it looks as if even this objective will not be achieved. To quieten apprehensions of certain local education authorities? Perhaps. Or was it to appease some of their supporters, or others, who do not care for foreigners, of whom, according to Mr. Enoch Powell, there are already far too many in this country? Quite possibly, I fear.
As to the local authorities, the new increases and the associated DES Circular to them (14/75) is only a further proof of the lapse of interest in overseas students following the flat rate increases that came into effect last year These increases were at least the same for British as for overseas students—that is, not discriminatory—and the then Secretary of State, Mr. Prentice, asked local education authorities and universities to exercise their discretion in cases of hardship. Yet in Circular 14/75 there is merely a reference back to an earlier circular on the question of using discretion.
Admittedly, the allocation by the University Grants Committee of hardship funds to universities seems to have met, or may have met, the needs of students in difficulty as a result of last year's increases, but whether it will do so in the wake of the much larger increases proposed for the coming year is very doubtful. In the State sector colleges, where the largest number of overseas students are studying (as well as the largest proportion of students from developing countries), the local education authorities do not seem, unless I am wrong, to have waived fees in cases of hardship. The same arrangement may therefore be totally inadequate to meet the hardship which these fresh increases will cause. Special central arrangements will obviously be required. I hope that the Government realise that.
But, my Lords, whatever the reason for the Government's foolish action, and whatever the steps taken to mitigate its effects, one thing stands out a mile. Her Majesty's Government's policy discriminates heavily between home and overseas students, a thing that no other advanced European democracy, save only
568
the Irish Republic, has ever ventured to do. Indeed, in many of these democracies (including the Federal Republic which, admittedly, has a quota but not a serious quota) no fees whatever are charged, and in France there is only a nominal fee equivalent to £15. France, surely, is in a position very similar to our own. She stands, as we do, at the head of an important language and cultural area and she has, as we have, certain continuing responsibilities as a one-time head of a world-wide Empire. It is true that, under the French system, there are more university students than with us; it is true that the students do not usually, as usually with us, have a tutor or the equivalent of a tutor. This applies to all French students and therefore there is no discrimination in this respect. But none the less, 9 per cent. of the total French university student body—that is to say some 60,000 as opposed to our 25,000—are from overseas. The very idea of penalising seekers after knowledge in metropolitan France is foreign to the French mind, as it should be to ours, were we not in some danger of being overwhelmed by an inward-looking and indeed a provincial mentality that can probably only be countered by the triumph of the European idea and the consequent gradual formation of a more outward-looking democracy.
The real trouble with our present system, which results in such ultimately self-destructive measures as the latest discriminatory increase in student fees, is, in fact, that there is no body, and certainly no person, responsible for considering the problem as a whole in the general interest of this country. All the many Ministries involved have their own axe to grind, some of them very small and local axes. Eventually some compromise emerges from the machine which is then perhaps rubber-stamped by the Cabinet. But since there is no governmental spokesman for the unfortunate overseas student himself, it is inevitably the grievances of some local authorities, or even the complaints of those who dislike foreigners—and particularly dark foreigners—to the effect that our own students are not getting a fair deal, which carry the greatest weight.
After the last fuss we made in Parliament some eight years ago, an attempt was eventually made by the Foreign and

569
Commonwealth Office to remedy this situation to some extent; but with the transfer of Mr. Kershaw to other duties, and with the change of Government it seems unfortunately to have faded out. This is a great pity—particularly as in May 1974, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, now a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, agreed to regard it as part of his Ministerial responsibilities to take an interest in matters affecting overseas students. Was the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, consulted before this discriminatory increase in fees was made? I suppose he was. It would be interesting to know.
Moreover, apart from fees, there are a number of issues (some of which I hope will be taken up by other speakers) still in need of urgent consideration, I could list them very briefly as follows: the continued unclear and unworkable vacation employment regulations for overseas students; the absence since 1963 of any guidance from the DES to local education authority colleges on the welfare of overseas students; or since 1967 from the Home Office on admission procedures and immigration regulations; no established contingency arrangements for emegency situations such as faced students from Biafra, Uganda, Cyprus and Ethiopia recently; continued discrimination against overseas students in local education authority hostels—that is, differential charges for overseas students in hostels attached to polytechnics and technical colleges; the need for a more adaptable successor scheme to the Overseas Students Welfare Expansion Programme (OSWEP); the Government-sponsored housing subsidy programme administered by the British Council; and, finally, the exploitation of overseas nursing students as cheap labour with little concern for their educational needs.
My Lords, I would not wish to restrict my intervention today to a simple denunciation of a policy, wrong in principle and increasingly counter-productive in practice, which no doubt, given our Parliamentary system is as such irrevocable. So I will end by making what I hope will be thought to be some constructive suggestions. If the decision is indeed irrevocable, specific safeguards for privately-sponsored students already here are essential, including some central fund
570
(comparable to the University Grants Committee fund for universities) for those students who are unable to pay the increased fee in the State sector. For the future, increased financial assistance for good, poor students from the poorer developing countries wishing to start their courses or further their studies in the academic year 1976–77 surely could be provided. This could be done by enlarging the OSFAS scheme (the Overseas Students Fees Award Scheme) to include more students in a wider range of study levels than in the existing scheme. At present, only one in four needy applicants receives an award for the payment of his fees under this scheme, mostly at the post-graduate level. With even a modest injection of funds OSFAS could play a much more important role in countering the effects of high fees on poor students on useful courses.
I also think it is most important that the Government should set on foot a wide-ranging inter-Departmental study of the effect of the increases on overseas students, which is related both to the White Paper on overseas aid More Help for the Poorest, and to the final report of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and the University Grants Committee, when that is shortly to become available. This study should cover the capacity of United Kingdom teaching institutions (staff, equipment, accommodation and so on) to provide courses related to the actual needs of overseas countries. For instance, short practical courses connected with actual projects might well be given priority over longer courses. That suggestion has been made and I think it is a very good one.
I must say in conclusion that I earnestly trust that the Minister who is to reply will be able to say that he regards these proposals at any rate as reasonable, and that he is prepared to adopt them in accordance with what I feel may well be the general desire of the House of Lords. For it is precisely in this sort of sphere that our House can, if it so desires, mobilise a wealth of really informed opinion to which even the vast and entrenched bureaucracy might with advantage pay some attention. It is consequently not entirely without hope that I await the Ministerial Answer to my Question.
7.43 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, although I do not go the whole way with the case that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, this evening, I should like to thank him for initiating this debate. With his wide knowledge of the subject the noble Lord has undoubtedly put questions to the Government which require answers if the Government are going to follow a policy of widening the differential fee. The noble Lord has also reminded us of the advantages of attracting overseas students into our universities and colleges. Their presence is of mutual value and it is part of the tradition of our universities that entry should be on the ground of academic attainment.
I expect the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, will remind your Lordships far better than I can that his Report made the point that in higher education contacts may be made which will be of value personally, commercially or diplomatically in future years. For those reasons, I refute the argument sometimes put forward that it is not in the interests of this country to educate men and women who may return immediately to their own countries to work. The fact that in 1973–4 some 74 per cent. of overseas students were from developing countries surely reinforces this argument.
But can we afford the existing financial arrangements? I concede to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whose knowledge is so much greater than mine, that in other countries universities seldom charge differential rates. Would I be right, perhaps, in claiming that we ought not to forget that few other countries have this system of pure grants for their degree courses and the consequent responsibility on the taxpayer to subsidise the gap between the fees charged and the cost of a place?
For me, a very valuable consequence of this debate would be to have some further enlightenment of the cost of this support. The recent interim report of the Joint Working Party of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the UGC estimated the amount spent on university education for overseas students at £50 million, excluding capital and equipment, and the subsidy as a tenth of the universities' total recurrent grant. Does this accord with the Depart-
572
calculations and have the Government made an estimate of total support for overseas students on advanced and non-advanced courses?
I appreciate that this matter is complicated, not only for somebody like myself without a mathematical mind, but also because of the fact that all our institutions of further and higher education are open to overseas entrants. I also realise that the supporting finance will arise from a variety of sources. In saying this, I do not forget the many independently-financed organisations such as UKCOSA, of which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is the Chairman, which do so much to co-ordinate and in some ways finance the opportunity for young people from abroad to study here. But the question of cost seems to me central to this debate and has after all been the reason for Government policy since the Labour Government of the day announced an overseas fee in 1966. I trust, therefore, that the Government will tell the House this evening how much they estimate to save by even a 30 per cent. increase for overseas students.
I would ask whether any calculations have been made of the countervailing earnings. The interim report of the Joint Working Party estimated a loss of £700 per head approximately for the drop in overseas numbers following the 1967/68 increase. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, gave his estimate of what that loss might be today. Obviously, personal and dependants' living expenses, expenditure on books, equipment and so on, and even travel to and from our shores, are potential sources of earnings of foreign currency from overseas students. Before embarking on a course of higher or further education, many attend fee-paying schools in this country. Others attend commercial language schools or are enrolled for correspondence courses and, of course, the steady flow of people from abroad cannot fail to be of commercial advantage to this country.
But the over all problem is the total amount of subsidy needed, which has continued to increase at a time when every sector of education is crying out for more resources. The increase in overseas demand, of course, is a tribute to higher education in this country, and therefore to make cuts in our higher

573
education services which may reduce the quality of that education—the very quality being sought after—must surely be avoided if it is possible to do so. The Government's solution is to impose a still higher overseas student fee. Clearly the effects of inflation have caused sharp increases in the cost of a student place and undeniably many young people from abroad would be willing to nay a great deal more.
These are arguments for higher fees on financial grounds, but to my mind they are not arguments for higher fees in order to regulate the numbers of overseas students. Deliberately to price people out would contradict years of tradition and practice; but if the Ministry for Overseas Development were to take over the Government programme for overseas students, I think this would set the higher fee in a different setting, and at any rate in a much fairer setting.
This proposal is by no means new. It was recommended in 1963 by, I think, the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, although of course the noble Lord and his colleagues did not support a differential fee; it was put forward last November by my honourable friend Mr. van Straubenzee in another place in a debate on overseas aid, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has recommended it today. I always hesitate to recommend any transfer of responsibility from the Department of Education and Science, for, although I disagree profoundly with the politics of the Department's Ministers, I have a very high regard for the administration of them and of their officials. But I think this might work—and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, argued very much better than I could why he thought so—and I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, will be drawing the attention of his noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who has special responsibility in this field at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to what is being said in this debate.
May I make just one or two points on this subject. If support for overseas students went on the overseas aid budget, without of course altering the various bursaries and scholarships already offered, it would clearly show—which is not apparent at the moment—that we are contributing what is, in effect, overseas aid in this respect. ODM is surely the
574
Government Department best placed to do some forecasting of future numbers—I do not know whether this goes on at all at the moment; the best place, also, to ensure that international relations are not impaired by decisions made in this field. ODM could discover best what level of aid other Governments would be prepared to subscribe, and could then award money more accurately to those who are really in need.
I confess that I have been perplexed by the arrangements which the Government currently make for hardship. Perhaps this is due to my ignorance. I understand that when the £70 increase was imposed this year, "hardship arrangements" were introduced which I believe refers to the overseas special fund. I am not quite certain whether this is a fund, which dates back to the hardship fund which was set up in 1967 for students already in this country. I should be interested, if there is time, to hear how this works; whether these hardship arrangements give extra help to married students who were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn; whether in practical terms the hardship fund relates both to local authorities and to universities, and whether these arrangements are to be up rated for next year.
Also when, in a Written Answer on the House of Commons, the Secretary of State announced on 16th December the 30 per cent. increase, Mr. Mulley added:
"I understand that the Ministry of Overseas Development will pay the increased fees for those overseas students who are assisted as part of the aid programme."—[Official Report, Commons; col. 554.]
I assume the Secretary of State meant that the increase in fees is to be met by ODM, and though, doubtless, this was welcome news to the recipients, of course it leaves aside those who are not so benefiting and is, I surmise, on a more generous basis than the hardship arrangements. When one considers that over 62 per cent. of overseas postgraduates and undergraduates at universities, and over 82 per cent. of overseas students on advanced courses at colleges, come from developing countries, the countries which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, so rightly said was picked out in last October's White Paper on aid as needing our training and further education opportunities, then all I can say is that I am driven to

575
the conclusion that Government support would be more fairly administered by the aid programme—and that is not a reflection upon the administration of the Department of Education and Science.
Finally, I hope that the Government will be giving their views at the end of this debate about the total numbers of overseas students and numbers attending particular courses; and here, again, certainly for me, more information would be of help. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, gave the effective number of students on advanced courses in this country as 53,000. I should be interested to know what has been the increase over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, can take any period of time that he likes. Do the Government see the increase in numbers which has taken place over the years as in any way a threat to planning targets for total numbers in higher education, particularly targets which the Government may have for numbers involved in postgraduate work? Is it the case that on certain courses in some institutions the overseas proportion is very high, and does the presence of overseas students upset or help the Government's planning assumptions for the percentage of all students whom they wish to see on Arts or on science-based courses? Those are the questions that certainly I am interested in when thinking of raw numbers of students from overseas.
Your Lordships will, however, be aware that the Inner London Education Authority has recently been concerned with the high overseas proportions in some of its colleges, but appeared to be torn between recognition that the Authority has been extending itself to the limit financially, and the realisation that a cutback in overseas numbers could endanger the viability of some courses, and even of some entire teaching departments. Of course, this problem is seen in particularly sharp relief in Inner London. But wherever this problem exists it is, I suggest, one of resources. It may be a problem of housing, exacerbated, perhaps, by the provisions of last year's Rent Act, and where overseas numbers are very high it is only common sense to recognise that it is a problem of the general policy of the particular
576
institution or local education authority concerned. I hope that today this debate will give us some more facts upon which to base our judgment of the Government's policy. My concern is also to see that the Government seriously consider the possibility of transferring their overseas students support to ODM, for I believe that this move could ensure that wide opportunities continue to exist for entry into our universities and colleges.
7.57 p.m.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for providing this opportunity for the House to discuss a matter which has of recent years, or even of recent months, become of enormous public interest, and which has excited a very great deal of controversy—sometimes rather ill-informed. With much of what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn said, I agree, and I particularly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said a moment ago; that is, that the support for overseas students might with very great advantage be transferred to appear quite firmly as the responsibility of a Ministry other than the Department of Education and Science. In talking to my students, I have sometimes said that the tradition has been that Central Government pay through the block grant system about 95 per cent. of the cost of the education of English students, and about 90 per cent. of the cost of the education of foreign students, because the total cost is vastly in excess of any fees that are charged.
I find it difficult to share the noble Lord's indignation that the English universities and the British Government should be conforming, perhaps very late in the day, to what has been the policy of 80 per cent. or so of all universities in the English-speaking world for more than half a century. I have in my hand figures which have been provided for me by the Association of American state universities and colleges. Your Lordships will remember that in America the individual states each maintain their own university system. There are, of course, many privately endowed universities as well, but it is to these State universities that the great majority of American students go. If, for example, you are a citizen of California you will pay 190

577
dollars a year to send your son to university. If you come from another state in the Union, or from another place in the world, you will pay 1,500 dollars—a disparity of seven to one. I could enumerate half a dozen other cases, but the average for 350 universities—and this was in 1975–76—amounted to this; that on average the residents of the state were required to pay 500 dollars in fees for universities, and non-residents of the state were required to pay about 1,350 dollars—a disparity of two-and-a-half to one, or rather more. This is a much greater disparity than we ever contemplated and it is applied equally to students from outside the state from wherever in the world they might come; from within the United States or elsewhere.
This has been the policy of American universities for half a century, so we are adopting a policy which has been traditional in much of the English-speaking world, although perhaps not on the Continent of Europe, for more than half a century. Nobody could accuse the Americans of having been unreasonably parsimonious in the way in which they have helped university students from other countries. They have accepted a great many, but this is the way in which they have done it.
I am very well aware of the problems facing foreign students. If I may declare my own interest, at this moment my institution has students from 63 countries, including almost all of the underdeveloped countries I could name. It is probable that the proportion of foreign students in my institution and the number of countries from which they come is as great as that to be found in any other institution in the country, with the possible exception of the London School of Economics whose spokesman will be addressing us in a moment. Therefore, I have a long acquaintance with these people whom we have been educating for many years with a very great sense of achievement, pleasure and pride. But I have become aware of two things. First of all, there is a great and growing resentment at the growth of their numbers. This is based not so much on the number of foreign students but on the simultaneous decline in the number of English students in some departments.
I want to discuss both of these problems simultaneously because one cannot
578
assess the opinions of the public without seeing how closely they are interrelated. I will begin by dealing with a point which was raised by both noble Lords, namely, what has been done to pay the increased fees of students who have already arrived. The answer is that the University Grants, Committee put a fund at the disposal of all universities out of which special grants can be made to students whose fees have been increased during the course of their university career. In the whole of my institution no student has been found to be embarrassed by an increase in his fee or has had to go back home because of it.
On the other hand, we have another fund which is provided for the alleviation of hardship among all our students because their grants have been eroded by inflation and are now quite inadequate. This fund has been very much in demand, but it is quite inadequate and its administration has thrown an altogether appalling light on the difficulties which confront both foreign and our own students. The number of applications for extra grants, gifts or loans—we deal with all of them—up to Christmas of last year was nearly three times as great as the total demand for similar grants in the whole of 1974–5. For example, some students from Uganda receive a grant of £50 a month upon which they are supposed to live. They cannot do so. We have made representations to the Government of Uganda who have noted them and said that they will consider the matter. Other students, too, come with totally inadequate grants and cannot live upon them.
This is a much more serious problem than that posed by the fees which nearly always seem to come separately, to be separately accounted. I cannot believe that foreign students have either been or will be deterred by an increase in fees because the increase in the number of applications from overseas students for places in my institution is nearly 50 per cent. over last year. The increase in the fees, alarming although it may appear to be, is not deterring would-be students—at least, not so far as we know.
I must turn now to the point which I raised a moment ago—that our hardship fund is heavily in demand from both our own and foreign students. Unless Members of this House have sons or grandsons in universities, they may not realise just how difficult of late it has become

579
to finance them. This is a point of which the Government must become aware.
If I can summarise the remainder of my argument it is that having built and equipped a splendid university system it is now denying its advantages to the very people for whom it was intended; namely, our own children who are now reaching the age of 18 and contemplating a university career. All parents receive a grant of £50. This sum was fixed in 1945 and was then intended to pay the fees of the universities which were at about that level at that time. When my own children went to college 10 years ago it covered most, if not the whole, of the fee. Thereafter parents have to pay a contribution which is based on a sliding scale, dependent upon their income. I have looked into the position of those citizens of Manchester who are crossing sweepers and dustbin emptiers, and I find that any such man who is on the basic rate of pay is not required to make a contribution towards the education of his children. I am sure that this House will be glad to know it, but if they work three or four hours of overtime and earn a bonus they may be required to pay as much as £50 or £60 towards the cost of the education of their children.
When this system was contrived the original intention was that middle-class and wealthier people should pay for the education of their children, whereas ordinary, working-class people could not do so. It is not reasonable to assume that the kind of person to whom I have referred should be obliged to make a significant contribution towards the education of his son, if his son is able to go to university. As a man's income increases, the contribution mounts rapidly. Suffice it to say that a man and his wife, who between them are earning more than £8,000 a year, have to find the whole of the cost of their children's education, including the fees. That can be costed up as the equivalent of £2,000 gross, and many parents cannot and will not afford it. Last year the Government very generously announced an increase in grants to students. In practice, they gave nothing extra to most students but they found they had a claim on their parents for another £100 or £150 a year. Many parents found that the Government in their wisdom had decided that they ought
580
to give their children another £150 but had not provided them with the means with which to do this.
It is this which has produced the bitter reaction against foreign students. The universities are unable to attract Englishmen but thousands of people from every country in the world come to take courses which are no longer accessible to those people for whom the universities were built. I was talking only yesterday to my former secretary, a girl who graduated in French at Manchester about six or seven years ago. I discussed with her the cost to her parents today of sending her to college. She said, "I would not go today. It would not be worth it and I could not ask them for it". Yet, as your Lordships know, students are coming from 63 countries and people cannot understand how or why it is that they should be coming here in larger numbers all the time while ordinary, middle-class parents should be so baffled by the problems of financing their own children in the universities of their choice.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, if I may be allowed to interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, may I say that his objection is not very logical. Surely the reason that British students cannot go to university is that they have not got the means to go there. That is not to say that the presence of overseas students is preventing British students from going to university. It is an illogical objection.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, I am not saving that there is a causal connection but that the bitter resentment against the presence of foreign students which is to be found everywhere is due to this.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, it is illogical.
Lord BOWDEN: Illogical maybe, my Lords, but ordinary people who see our universities full of foreign students and who are unable themselves to send their own children there most bitterly resent it. Perhaps I may follow this up because I find that this is peculiarly embarrassing in my own institution. As I have said, we have been educating students for 150 years. We have among us students from 63 different countries, and so far, fine. But what I find alarming is that in some departments foreign students seem to be taking over. I could quote half a dozen

581
cases, of which perhaps I may give a couple. In my institute we have a department of textiles which is probably as fine as any such department anywhere in the whole of the civilised world. In one of the classes we have 24 students, every one of whom is foreign, and what am I to say to Lancashire business men who come in and say: "You are educating our competitors. It is wrong. Why have we no Englishmen?" That is the question I pose to the Minister who is to reply to this debate.
To take another case out of scores of such cases. We have a class on the theory of hydrocarbon chemistry—namely, the chemistry of oil and its products—which is about as important a subject as is known in the country today in view of our reliance, growing and great, on North Sea oil. The course was mounted with the support of the Science Research Council and also with the support of the great oil companies. Last year it had 46 students, of whom two were British: the rest came from half the world. No one is happy in the circumstances. Englishmen either will not or cannot afford to come.
To give another example of a course we have been running for 50 years. The first British electric grid was built in 1926. Much of the design work was done in my institute and we are still studying the problems of transmitting power from the dynamo to the switch. For many years we have accepted foreign students and we have been enormously proud of them—I want to make that point—and in fact in the whole of that great are of the world from Algiers to Bangkok there are 15 institutions within which groups of men are designing grid systems for underdeveloped countries. This marks the first stage of their development, their industrialisation and their march into the 20th century. Of the 15, we staffed 13 from my institute. So when I say we are proud of them, your Lordships will understand why. But your Lordships will also agree with me in thinking that when this year we have a class of 26, of whom one is British, we have grounds to fear. How can we survive as a nation if we have not got engineers capable of designing and constructing our own grid?
So I am afraid that the problem of foreign students is much more complicated than the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has appreciated. People are
582
not merely worried at their presence but they are worried at their presence in the absence of British students. The reason why Englishmen do not come is partly because the grants are inadequate, partly because of the cost to middle class parents, and also—and I must make the point very strongly—because of the inadequacy of the salaries which may be commanded by engineers when they have graduated. A man who chooses to become an accountant or a solicitor will earn three times as much as an engineer of the same age—so why be an enginer?
I will illustrate by quoting from two advertisements which appeared on the same day, one in the Evening Standard and one in The Times. The Evening Standard was advertising for a laboratory assistant to work in the Central Office of Information. His qualifications were that he was to be 16 years of age and to have two "O" levels. There could hardly be a lower qualification than that. He was to start at the age of 16 at £1,800 a year, rising to £2,100 at the age of 21. At the same time, the Science Research Council was advertising research scholarships to be given to men with first-class degrees. They were to get £1,050, which is less than half as much as the laboratory assistant was to get at the same age. Why should we expect people to come and study engineering? How can we expect to survive as a nation if the whole purpose for which our universities were first developed is totally frustrated, first by the inadequacy of salaries of engineers, but most particularly by the inadequacy of the grants enabling engineers to come to college? In my opinion it is quite intolerable, particularly when one thinks of the history.
Your Lordships will remember that the first impetus for the expansion of universities came with the Barlow Committee's Report of 1946. It urgently recommended that British industry would not survive if it did not have more engineers, and it must therefore have more university places in which these men could be educated. This began the move for the expansion which culminated in the enormous expansion which the Report of the Robbins Committee stimulated. But it was always the case that the expansion was justified on the grounds that the industry and the community needed educated men to go into it in

583
order that it should prosper. We have built what I believe to be a very good system of universities, although they are rather small by international standards, and it is intolerable to the public at large that they should be taken over, as they are in some cases, by foreign students who can come here from the ends of the earth when our own students cannot come at all.
So the question of the overseas students' fees cannot be seen in isolation; it must be seen in the light of the general view of the public that their own people are being kept out for the benefit of people to whom, after all, we owe nothing at all.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, it is not the foreign students who are keeping the British students out; it is the inherent inability of the British students to go. It is nothing to do with the foreign students, except as a kind of sentimental reaction to it.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, this is the point I am trying to make—that the universities are emptying and providing places for foreign students because our own people cannot afford to go there. That is the gravamen of my charge. This is what I believe to be the fundamentally important thing. This is why, in essence, the ordinary man in the street, the ordinary newspaper editor, finds it so extraordinarily offensive to his idea of fairness and sense that we should go on at great expense educating our principal competitors and not educating our own people. I do not believe that the question of student fees by comparison is really significant. I believe that the change which has been suggested; namely, that this part of the cost should be borne by the Overseas Development Board, is perfectly satisfactory. I do not believe that we should have any sense of shame that we conform to American practice rather than to French practice. I would remark that most of the foreign students in German universities are in fact Germans who have gone abroad because it is easier to get in as a foreigner. Half of all German foreign students are in fact German nationals who have translated themselves to Switzerland to come back again under those circumstances.
584
But these I think are trivial matters. What I am trying to stress—and I stress it with a tremendous sense of urgency—is that our own universities are being destroyed and denied the opportunity to educate the people for whom they were created. This is thrown into awful relief by the foreign students, and this argument about foreign students' fees has been exacerbated and has acquired the bitterness which is so evident today for this reason and for no other.
8.18 p.m.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I think I should begin by declaring an interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, indicated, although perhaps in a way which may not have been intelligible to all present, I have been associated for a very long time indeed—with the exception of the Second World War since 1924—in one capacity or another with an institution which I fancy recruits its students from at least as wide an arena as the Manchester College of Technology. I must say en passant—for this morning I delivered a lecture to an audience of many nationalities—that I am not aware of any seething bitterness at present in the foreign students at the London School of Economics. Indeed, I am quite sure that on the part of students and staff alike, it is a matter of pride. The reason I put down my name to take part in the discussion this evening was that I think that what has been decreed by the Ministry is likely to be inimical to the international atmosphere, which I regard as good, of institutions such as ourselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, raised a series of questions concerning the reluctance of British students to go into the universities. I do not intend to go into that in this connection. From my point of view the centre of gravity of this debate is the issue of discrimination, of charging one fee to foreigners and another fee to our own native students. I am not unaware of the circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, made allusion, of the extraordinary muddle as between the different States in the great confederation across the Atlantic. But what is much more germane to the subject under discussion this evening is the fact to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has already drawn attention; that is, that in the EEC. in the different countries of Western Europe—apartfrom

585
Eire—we are the only country which practises discrimination as regards fees. Incidentally, I think it is germane to the matters which worried the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, that it is not a question, so to speak, of living in a world in which overseas students have only one place to go in order to acquire industrial skills which, perhaps, they may use in con-petition with us. It is a fact that in continental Europe the various university institutions—particularly the technological universities—offer a splendid alternative and one which, in my opinion, we have to keep in mind.
Therefore, I have no doubt at all that the practice of discrimination and its intensification as regards absolute amount's by the Ministry recently, while it may lead a certain number of people from poor countries to go home in despair because they do not know the languages of continental Europe and do not know how to acquire them, will probably lead to a certain amount of switching. The Germans, the French, the Dutch and the Belgians will be training our competitors, if that is the real ground of offence, and in our universities there will be a comparatively small proportion of foreigners. It is not true that they are taking over the universities yet awhile.
My Lords, what are the results of this? I find it extremely difficult to answer the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. So far as the more or less direct financial effects of driving people away are concerned, I am quite sure that it is to get an entirely false perspective simply to look at the marginal cost as represented by the Working Party of the University Grants Committee and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors, and not to look also at the amount brought into this country, in one way or another, by the people who pay us the compliment of regarding our education as being worth while to secure.
But whether, in the end, the result of what has happened will be plus or minus in this larger context is not a matter on which I should feel professionally sure, without making a good many more investigations, which, at the present moment, I do not know how to make. I do not know how to judge the elasticity of demand by foreign students at the present prices which have been fixed. I defy anyone to be cocksure about it.
586
What seems to me to be much more certain is that if we drive away a substantial number of foreign students, particularly students from the developing countries, we shall lose indirectly quite considerably from a commercial point of view as the years go by. If these people go to France, Belgium, Holland and so on, they will acquire the jargon, the technique, the ease of moving about in the technological communities in which many of them aspire to move. To that extent—it is not the only influence, of course—we shall suffer. How much we shall suffer seems to me again to be a matter which is indeterminate; it is a matter for conjecture. For these and other reasons, I fancy that, in the long run, we shall suffer quite considerably.
My Lords, when I turn to the academic side of the question, I really have no doubt at all that spiritually we shall suffer a great deal. Most of my academic career has been at least 50 per cent. concerned with the training of graduate students from various parts of the world —not only from the underdeveloped countries but also from America, Canada, from continental Europe. I have no shadow of doubt that if these people cease to come, or are deterred from coming, in such numbers as they come at present, then the spiritual atmosphere of those institutions which cater for them will suffer. I am also fairly sure that our general status in the world will receive one more blow by the gradual realisation that this kind of thing is what we are doing; that is, that in Europe—which, on the whole, has regarded education at any rate as one of the things in which it is not going to practise the art of discrimination—we, whose glory it has always been to attract a considerable number of foreign students and to treat them on exactly the same footing as we have treated native students, have shut up shop and are now discriminating according to country of origin.
My Lords, I have not much more to say. This is the bicentenary of the publication of Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and consequently all economists must be doing quite a lot of homework in that connection. I was reading Book IV of the Wealth of Nations only the other night when I had already put down my name for this debate. I noticed this mordant sentence, which I submit is not

587
entirely relevant to the practice of discrimination:
" The sneaking acts of underling tradesmen are erected into political maxims for the conduct of a great empire."
Needless to say, there are no personal references here, and it may be thought that the 18th century terminology is a little harsh.
Reflecting on this matter, I think of the shame that I should have felt, in my capacity of advising the academic board at the London School of Economics, if there had existed at that time these discriminatory practices; the shame I should have felt on asking Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Pat Moynihan, Dr. Emminger, for instance—to name a few of the distinguished people who have done us the honour of coming along to Houghton Street. When I think of that, I am ashamed of the growing insularity, the inward-looking nature of the attitude which has inexplicably come over this country in my lifetime. In my young days the Progressive Party proclaimed the brotherhood of man. We now resort to these mean and pettifogging expedients.
8.31 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I came intending to make one speech. I shall now make a totally different one. After listening to what has been said in this House tonight, I feel that we really are putting to ourselves the questions: What do we mean by higher education? What do we mean by further education? What do we mean by universities? What do we mean by polytechnics?—and everything else. I should have thought that we are faced, both from their inception and from their development, with the fact that first of all higher education is concerned with the advancement of knowledge, that it is concerned with a community of learning which transcends all national boundaries. But we also have another obligation in higher and advanced education. It is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, has referred, and it is of serving the needs of the community in producing trained people in order to do all the jobs which are required in the community. I think that we are slightly confusing these two.
588
My Lords, I would be utterly opposed to any form of discrimination between countries, between peoples inside countries, in so far as access to higher education is concerned. But it is rather a different matter when you consider whether you are going to set up and equip institutions, laboratories and so on, in order to give specific training, because you believe that there is a national need for that training, and then you find, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, has pointed out, that you have not got the people apparently in the country to fill those places.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised the question of cost and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I was glad to find, was not prepared to answer, because it seemed to me, on the face of it, it was an almost impossible question. It is not simply dealt with by taking the total cost of running the institution and dividing it by the number of students, and saying that it therefore costs £1,500 per student. This is utter nonsense. If you are running a laboratory, then it will not cost you £1,500 per student; it will cost you £3,000 or £4,000 per student. If you are giving lectures and your class goes up from 100 to 110 it adds virtually nothing to the cost of running the class. Therefore, it is quite absurd to compare the cost of providing a laboratory, equipped for supplying technical information, knowledge and training, with a lecture-room in which lectures are given to a class of any size; so long as the lecture-room can still hold the students, you are all right. Of course in the Sorbonne they do not worry, they let them go out in the street. That is why the French system of education is much cheaper than ours. It is only in the Ecoles they give highly specialised training.
We come to another point. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, seemed to me to indicate that if students did not come to this country they would go perhaps to Holland, Germany, or somewhere else to get their training. Our technical training is the shortest and most condensed in the world. If you go to Holland and take technical training you do not get it in three years, you get it in six to eight years. The technical training in almost every country on the continent of Europe is a longer one than our training, and

589
very frequently students come here because they can get their training more easily, in a shorter period of time, than they can abroad. I do not blame them for doing it.
We are now faced with a real problem, which I think is not fully appreciated; that is, that on the one hand you want to encourage the best students from everywhere to come. I think the London School of Economics, with which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has been associated for so long, has built up a reputation which is worldwide. It would be a disaster, in my opinion, if students did not come from all over the world to the London School of Economics, because the very fact that it acts as a centre for the very best in their fields of study makes the London School of Economics what it is. One therefore wants the students to come. Is the same thing true of a technical college run by the Inner London Education Authority when they may be forced to put on a course in a technical subject because ten foreign students and not a single British student have turned up? If you are to run a course in a local education authority, you must have, I think, a minimum of either six or eight students. This means that if four students from this country turn up the course will not be run, but if eight students from abroad turn up the course will be run. The course may be an extremely expensive one to run, and it is run purely as a technical course.
I think this is a different issue altogether from charging fees for universities, places where you are trying to attract the best people in order to develop the subject and get the whole intellectual life improved. I would submit that you give a technical training because this country needs the technical training. If people will not come forward in this country for the technical training, I can see little justification—except, as has been suggested, as a method of helping developing countries—but in that case it ought, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to be put on a separate Vote. It should not come under the Education Vote, because you are taking away from what ought to be supplied for developing the educational system and using it for aid to developing countries; it is per
590
fectly legitimate, but it ought to be put on a different Vote.
There is one other point one wants to bear in mind, and that is that when we talk about the developing countries we are talking about a vast range and spectrum. We include India as a developing country. India has 84 universities of its own; 3½ million university students. I would suggest that it is not sensible for Indian undergraduates to be coming over to this country to study unless there is a special field in which they must come. In the main I would say that it does not do them any good, because very often they do not understand the language well enough to profit by the training which is given here. I know this because I have taught many of these Indian students, and much as I have enjoyed having them it has often taken a lot of time to get ideas over to them. At the same time it holds back the development of the universities in their own country if we try to attract them here.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, might I say that it is certainly my observation, which I think would be borne out by statistics, that so far as the ambiance I was talking about was concerned comparatively few Indians come here until they have reached a first degree in their own country.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says, and it is always difficult to get up-to-date data in the field of education since all the information service of the Government became computerised. It now takes about three or four years to do it instead of getting it out in a year or so. So far as I can find out, in the year 1971–72 the number of foreign students coming to this country from Asia was 7,322; the number coming from the American continent was 4,551; the number coming from Africa was 3,666. In other words, the numbers are coming from India still, although I admit in nothing like the numbers they used to come. They used to flood into this country, but they no longer come in those numbers, thank heavens! I say "thank heavens! "not because I do not want the Indians here, but because I think it was bad for them to come. They were often coming merely because the reputation of an Indian

591
university was not good enough. If they got a degree in an Indian university they found it more difficult to get a job in India than if they got a degree in this country, and that was an unfortunate thing. Therefore, I am glad that the Indians are going in much more now for helping their own universities. This is a healthy sign.
When we consider the whole field of higher and further education, we must distinguish between the purely technical side to which I have referred and the side which I would call wider, higher education. In my opinion there should be absolutely no balance in the main field of higher education. But I do not believe that it is an obligation on this country to put on courses—I can speak for the university with which I was associated for 25 years—for instance in the field of naval architecture, which even 20 years ago were attended almost entirely by Norwegians and Greeks with about three or four British students. The result was that the Norwegians were able to build up quite a good repair industry on the shipping side largely as a result of the training given to them in the University of Newcastle. I do not think that it is our business to be doing that type of technical training for other countries unless they are developing countries and we do it in an entirely different way.
I would beg my noble friend, when he replies, to consider how proper relief can be given in this whole field of higher education for those who come to this country for perfectly good, sensible, genuine reasons, and whether it is not possible to find some system, whether it be scholarships or whatever it may be, in order to prevent students from being excluded because of this increased fee which is being put on. I personally would like to see all fees for higher education abolished; I think that the thing is an absolute nonsense. In fact, the fees for higher education have been largely maintained because the universities themselves wanted to have what they called an independent income, and by getting their fees fund increased they pretended that this was a private source of money, whereas of course most of it was coming from public sources in any case. But they were able to put it in a separate column in their accounts, and they pretended that this was their own money and not money given
592
to them by the Government. I wish we could abolish fees altogether. May I put to my noble friend that the great step forward that he can make, that the Secretary of State can make, is to go on now from this point of differentials to abolish fees altogether, and then differentials do not matter.
8.46 p.m.
Lord GARNER: My Lords, with such a galaxy of noble Lords with far more experience than I in this field wishing to take part in this evening's debate I propose to be brief, especially as so many points on my mind have already been touched upon. I do not wish to become involved in any question of detail, and the discussion so far has clearly shown how complex so many of the factors are. Nevertheless, I must confess that I have an instinctive reaction that any discrimination against those from overseas, and particularly any substantial discrimination, is unfortunate and could have bad consequences, and that reaction—call it a gut reaction, if you like—is fortified by certain basic reasons. I mention only two.
First, I am no pessimist about the future of this country, but I imagine that we should be facing the fact that the heavy manufacturing industry resulting from the fortunate accident of the Industrial Revolution, on which our prosperity was built up in the last century, has had its day and we have to look for other forms in which to create our prosperity. One of these clearly is increased technology, specialised equipment of one sort or another; but another field was, particularly, services of all kinds (banking. accountancy, architecture, and so on), and perhaps exploiting the heritage of this country both in stone and in natural beauty, the arts, the theatre, literature and so on. One of the most important factors in this area was precisely education.
The quality of our universities is universally recognised, and incidentally the English language is an accrued advantage. This is something that all the world looks to us to provide, and it would be tragic if at this time—and I am not saying that this has happened—we were to risk the chance of throwing this away by earning internationally a reputation for being either niggardly or inhospitable.
The second general Point that I would make is that it seems to me—and various

593
other noble Lords have made the same point—quite impossible to strike a balance in mathematical columns, but we should not overlook some of the factors that it is very difficult to quantify: the enrichment of our university life with those coming in from abroad, the great contribution that has been, and no doubt will continue to be, made to research, and moreover the actual material benefit that comes from costs of travel or purchases and various other things that should fairly be taken into account. But perhaps still more significant are the un-quantifiable benefits that come from people who have enjoyed and benefited from their stay in this country returning to their own countries, spreading goodwill, enhancing our reputation, returning for visits and no doubt, incidentally, in the process, giving publicity to British wares and equipment and acquiring these for use.
My only other point is to reinforce the plea that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that the Government should look at these matters as a whole, and he developed this point and spoke about its history. I have not seen very great evidence almost at any time in the discussion of this matter since 1967—certainly there was no great evidence in 1967, as I know because I was in Government service then—that some of the problems are looked at as a whole and that the important policy considerations which should apply in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the Ministry of Overseas Development and in the British Council are fully brought to bear.
In this connection, I found very attractive the ideas that were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and others that the Ministry of Overseas Development should be looked to in future not only for guidance over the whole problem of education from overseas but also some responsibility for the financial provision. I hope that the noble Lord who replies—of course, he will be replying on behalf of the whole Government—will be able to assure us that that is no mere formality and that wider considerations are being, and will be, taken into account on this complicated issue, as has not always been the case in the past.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I feel rather diffident at taking part in this debate because I am probably the least academically trained Member in the House at the moment. I offer sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, not only for an interesting and informative speech, but for raising a matter that has not been raised since 1967. I venture to enter the debate because I helped in 1946 to set up the Social Welfare Department in Malaysia —Malaya, as it was at that time—and I had the opportunity to select students, to send them to this country, later on to receive them back and, still later, on going back to Malaysia, to see the excellent work that they had achieved as a result of their training in this country. I am President of the International Friendship League and the Women's Corona Society—working president, I am glad to say—chairman of the Anglo-Indonesian Society and on the Executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Thus, I have been able to keep in touch with a great many overseas students. When I was Member of Parliament for Devonport I regularly had them to my house—we always have supper parties for them—and I got to understand their problems, and of course I also refer to those who came to the docks for naval training.
I consider, having read the document, More Help for the Poorest, that on page 23 of Cmnd. 6270 the Government are really committed to more training in further education. I hope, as the paragraph goes on later to mention, that it will not be the policy for particular centres of excellence in their own countries to be used because I consider that it is very beneficial for students to come to this country, particularly for advanced studies. What we have to decide tonight are the priorities—what we are going to spend our money on. While we know that only a limited sum is available, I suggest that education is one of the best ways in which this money can be spent. I have always been an advocate of practical help and I have seen far too much money wasted on various projects. When I have been overseas I have received, for example, woollen garments in tropical countries. In Indonesia, following the

595
Japanese destroying the sugar mills, we were anticipating new machinery, but when it turned up it was for beet sugar and not for cane sugar, and of course there is no beet sugar in Indonesia.
I regret very much the attitude taken by the Daily Express and the Daily Telegraph, which in my view has been detrimental to the general taxpayer, who may think he has been milched. That is not the case at all. I was, therefore, particularly grateful to Professor Dahrendorf for his article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph, which put the matter straight, and I hope that that will be equally well read. It is interesting to note that in 1974–75, 12 per cent. of students in universities came to Britain as against 9 per cent. in 1969–70,but the interesting fact for those who are worried about the numbers is that that has not kept pace with British students, in other words, there were more British students on the dates I have mentioned. It has been pointed out that in Germany, Luxembourgand Denmark the educational facilities are free. It is also interesting to note that Switzerland has the highest number of students and that they charge only the same as their own students pay.
I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, is not still in his place because he was stated in an article to be "the tough principal "of the University of Manchester. I was going to tell him that only an hour ago I met some people from the Seychelles who told me about how much they appreciated the period they spent in Manchester, particularly those training to be civil servants in their own Parliaments. I suggest that if students in this country are not coming forward for engineering and if the people running the textile industries are worried, it is up to them—that is, if the people cannot afford it—to start scholarships. There is no reason why these industries should not start scholarships of their own to help the people in this country.
I believe that there has been no hardship for our students other than from the monetary point of view; none of them has been turned away from the colleges concerned. It should also be remembered that many students from the developing countries may have to return this September to their homes because of this great increase. It seems unfortunate
596
—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—that an announcement about such increases should have been made in 1966 and 1967 and yet again on 16th December of last year, yet slipped by practically everybody. It did not slip by the noble Lord's vigilant eye and we are therefore particularly grateful to him. Despite the propaganda about oil millionaires, one should realise that this is an exceptional case; I feel rather sorry for the poor girl who is implicated in these articles. Most of the students are sponsored by their own Governments and come from the poorer developing countries. These are surely the ones who need the most help. It seems particularly regrettable that it will be ability to pay, not the potential of the individual, which will be the main criterion for future students. I therefore suggest that we look at this matter very deeply.
On 21st May 1968 the Department of Education and Science sent out to local authority colleges Circular 71/56/ 02, with the full economic costs of boarding in hostels attached. These are going up, too, and this of course is very detrimental for overseas students, because in many cases they will have to pay double the amount compared with our students. On 1st March 1957 the DES Circular 320, commending the virtues of hostels to local authorities, stated:
"The opportunity of mixing with other students outside the hours of formal study has long been recognised as a valuable contribution to education in technical colleges, as in schools and universities."
I do not think that paying different rates will encourage students to live together. When this was challenged by the National Union of Students in 1968 it was stated that it was not a new policy on the part of the Administration. But Memorandum No. 490, which was issued to local authorities in 1955, had not been implemented. However, in April 1975 there is discrimination in regard to accommodation in hostels and full board can cost as much as £23.50 for overseas students, compared with £10 per week for United Kingdom students. The overseas student welfare expansion programme was introduced by the Government in 1961. I gather that it has provided 6,000 places, but it appears no longer to be available.
I should like to touch on the question of married students. I think it essential

597
that the wife should come with her husband even if only for a short time, because I have noticed when I have been overseas that it is very often frustrating for a student to find after he has spent several years in this country that he cannot adjust to his wife who has lived all the time in the country of origin. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, UKCOSA and the National Union of Students agreed by implication that the present discrimination was indefensible. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office position was stated in a letter to UKCOSA of July 1974, which said,
" Although we are opposed to the discriminatory charges and, indeed, opposed them when they were initiated, there is little likelihood of them being abolished."
That is what I am worried about. In a letter to the then President of the National Union of Students dated 21st June 1968, the Leader of the House in another place said:
"It is certainly not my intention to discourage students from outside England and Wales from taking courses of further education."
Whatever his intention, this action of putting up the fees will discourage students coming from the less developed countries.
The Ministry of Overseas Development has said that only a quarter of overseas students are financed from British sources. Others are financed by the United Nations or their own Governments. Three-quarters are privately financed. I feel that that is a remarkable record. I should like to suggest that a special overseas students' local authority fund should be established to subsidise overseas students wishing to use or in need of local authority hostel accommodation. The allocation of funds should be administered either by the British Council on behalf of the ODM, by the ODM itself or by delegation to local authorities. I suggest that such a fund will be a small token out of a formal budget of thousands of millions to ensure the Government's commitment in aid terms to the education of the overseas students in the United Kingdom. I believe it could be seen to be of real benefit. I hope that the few words which I have said in this debate may make your Lordships realise that I am very much against any form of discrimination and should
598
very much like, though I know it is not possible at the present time, to follow the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that these fees should eventually be abolished. In the meanwhile, however, surely we can make them more equitable.
9.4 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for having initiated this debate and for doing so in a speech which seemed to me to express the historic liberties for which Liberalism has stood. I am speaking with some diffidence in the same way as did the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. I am encouraged by the fact that she said that she had not many academic qualifications because the speech which she delivered was one of the most valuable we have heard during this debate.
I have never had the privilege of being a student at a university. I have had no part in any administration of higher education. I therefore speak, particularly after the contributions which we have had from those who have given distinguished service in those spheres, with a great deal of reservation. All I can say is that I have had very close association with students at universities throughout the country and that for 30 years I have been particularly associated with students who have come from overseas and especially from the developing countries.
I have noticed one great change in the attitude of overseas students during the past 30 years. Immediately after the last world war I became aware of a rather ironical situation: students from the developing countries who came to British universities became anti-British, while students who went to universities in the Soviet Union became anti-Communist. In my contact with students today, I find that the situation is very different and that, broadly speaking, overseas students who are at our universities no longer have the anti-British attitude which they had 30 years ago. This is partly because of the recognition of the right of their territories to self-government and the new political climate, and partly because they are finding at their universities a tolerance and, indeed, a fellowship with British students which they did not have 30 years ago. Because

599
of his authority, I listened with a disturbed mind to the speech of my noble friend Lord Bowden. He suggested that among both students and staff there was now bitterness towards students from overseas. I have not found such bitterness. I do not claim to have his authority, but I go among students, including those at Manchester University, and I have not found that temper among the English students.
Today there has been issued the annual report of the British Council. It pays tribute to the great value to this country —economically, and in many other ways —of overseas students at our universities. Overseas students contribute importantly to research, and there are language teachers at our universities and schools. The total of 90,000 overseas students includes 20,000 nurses, and all of us who have been in hospitals know the value of their service. In money terms they contribute £90 million annually in foreign currency to this country. Therefore, even from the point of view of the advantage of this country, the presence of overseas students is of value.
But from the point of view of the estimation of Britain in the world, what they do when they return to their countries is of even greater importance. There are the skills and the techniques which they take there. I hope that other Members of your Lordships' House saw that remarkable television programme—I think it was last night, or perhaps the night before—about the health service in Tanzania and the contribution which nurses who had been trained in our British hospitals had made to that country. Overseas students who have been to our universities are the best missionaries of good will from this country that there are in the world today.
In passing, I wish to pay my tribute to three Members of your Lordships' House who are associated with the British Council which has prepared this report. The first is the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, who is the chairman of the British Council. Secondly, there is the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who is a vice-chairman, and thirdly the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who is one of the most useful members. I believe that the thanks of the whole House is due to them for their services.
600
My Lords, my main criticism of the increase of fees to overseas students at our universities is the discrimination which it expresses. It took place first in 1967 differentials. The increases which are expected to be imposed in September mean that the fees of home students will increase from £115 to £150 a year, while the fees paid by overseas students will increase from £320 to £416 a year. I am wondering how this discrimination can be made consistent with our Race Relations Act, which makes illegal any discrimination in this country on the ground of national origin.
It is true, as my noble friend Lord Bowden said, that there are hardship funds at the universities, but I have found that a number of overseas students are reluctant to apply for grants under the hardship fund because they fear that if they indicate that they are in financial stress they will have provided reasons for the immigration authorities refusing permits for them to stay in this country.
The hardest hit of overseas students are not those at the universities but those at the polytechnics and at the colleges of further education. Most of these students are privately supported by their families, by their communities, it may be by industrial firms and by their own savings. There is no hardship fund for them: there is only local authority discretion on the recommendation of university principals. I should like to know whether the following statement is true. The National Union of Students state that they do not know of a single case of a polytechnic or college of further education student who has had any contribution from a hardship fund on the recommendation of the principal of one of those institutions.
My Lords, before the publication of the British Council Report today, with its figure of 95,000 overseas students in this country, the National Union of Students had information of 52,587. Of these 52,500 students, 42,772 came from the developing countries, and only 13,000 received awards from either their home or the British Government, or from communities or industrial concerns. I say this quite conciliatorily, and I say it with particular emphasis to the Front Bench of a Labour Government. If these increases of fees to overseas students continue, we shall find that it will be only

601
rich students from abroad who will be able to come to our universities.
My Lords, I want finally to admit a difficulty. I do not want our Government to be subsidising, at our universities, the sons of rich oil sheikhs or other rich élite from overseas, from the developing countries, but we should recognise this. Of the 52,587 students from overseas, only 7,349 come from the OPEC countries, and not all of these are the sons of sheikhs. I hate the means test—I went through the 'thirties—but there may be a case for laying down an income level, asking overseas students on their entry forms if they reach it, and making them liable for misrepresentation. But we must avoid any elaborate system of the old means test methods of interrogation of all students. That must be avoided. We should welcome foreign students, particularly those from the developing countries. They could become the greatest diplomats of international co-operation which we can contribute to the world.
9.19 p.m.
Lord MILFORD: My Lords, it is very difficult for me to make a speech after the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because I agree with every word he has said; and, like him, I work very closely with the National Union of Students. At this moment I should like to praise enormously the work that the National Union of Students is doing concerning education and foreign students. They are fighting right from the ground floor to get the poorest students a good education.
This question of education is tremendously important for the whole world. Tonight we are talking about the developing countries. I want to spread it farther down still to the undeveloped countries, to the poorest people in the world. I want to help lift them up by giving them better education.
One must remember that there are a billion people in the world today who have got an annual income of under £90. We must have a sense of guilt towards these people, I think, because when I was a young boy at school the map of the world was covered with little red blobs, all over the place, where British colonies existed or British protectorates. It is largely today those red blobs that are the underdeveloped countries. We
602
took the wealth from those countries and we did not bring them into the modern world. So that I think we have now a tremendous moral sense of bringing those people up, saving them from starvation. The way to do this is through education. Only education can rescue them from starvation by giving them the skills and knowledge necessary for their economic development. This chance, the best possible education, is one of the most valuable gifts that Britain can offer to the poorer nations. If we cannot do it freely—I have heard tonight that certain countries do it freely, and I do not see why we should not—then we must do it as cheaply as possible.
If we have differential fees—I think that these are absolutely wrong—they should be devised so as to help the poorest students first, as was strongly advocated in the recent White Paper on racial discrimination. Yet in 1967 differential fees were introduced and the overseas students have to pay more than our home students. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, the overseas students will now have to pay £416 while the home students pay£150. Imagine the effect on a poor-country student wanting to come and get our wonderful education! We must bear in mind that the majority of the nearly 100,000 overseas students, about 75 per cent. of them, are from the poor, underdeveloped countries and they have managed to get here only through their families saving, their friends giving them presents and scraping together themselves.
To those poor students from the poorest countries in the world what a dismay this 30 per cent. increase must have been! Does it not raise the level of discrimination, of unlawful discrimination, on the grounds of national origin? By contrast, most home students will get their fees paid by the local authorities or they will be transferred to the local authorities from the universities. Of course, I am afraid that some will suffer; those whose fees are not paid by the local authorities and those on minimum grants without help from their parents.
The home students should not be thrown into difficulties. But the greatest concern is for the overseas students who are going to be far harder hit. If we go on raising fees in this way, we will still only be getting students backed by

603
big business, the oil sheiks or foreign Governments, and they can get education without any difficulty whatever. We are not concerned about this élite, we want to help the poor, underdeveloped countries. This is what I want to go on emphasising. The main effect of the fee increases falls on the overseas students. We can only infer that it is meant to do so. The Government mean it to fall on the overseas students to provide cash to offset the Government's cutback in education expenditure in this country. It is incredibly mean to make overseas students pay for our difficulties.
In the universities there are arrangements for a hardship fund for overseas students. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, it is accompanied with the heaviest means test. Imagine what a means test looks like to a poor overseas student from a poor country! He fears, if the Home Office finds out that he is in difficulties, perhaps they will refuse to renew his visa. In what position are the first year students who went to the university a year ago, and did not expect fee increases? Already the poor overseas student is harassed by the Home Office through the 1971 Immigration Act. He cannot work during the vacations to earn money to increase his income. The result is that about a third of all overseas students do not qualify for the hardship fund in universities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, the polytechnic students are the hardest hit of all. They are mostly privately funded from their families, friends and personal savings. No hardship fund exists, only a local authority's discretion. The students' union, which fights these cases and tries to help students, says that no local authority has exercised discretion; they cannot and dare not because of the pressure from the Government to cut back so far as possible on local government expenditure. And there are even worse examples. For instance, the City and East London College denied to the National Union of Students that it had powers to exercise discretion. Are colleges unaware of their powers, or are the local authorities not carrying out their statutory duties? This whole question of the overseas student is heavily threatened by the growing racialism in this country and by chauvinism. An enormous cam
604
paign against overseas students is mounting and is being heroically fought by the National Union of Students, based on their theory that the poorest must be helped first against increasing discrimination.
.Another great problem is the question of hostel fees. Student surveys show an increased differential in hostel fees—and it is increasing more and more. For instance, in Bradford overseas students pay £21 and home students £12. In the North-East London Polytechnic, overseas students pay £62 and home students pay £12. The result is that in the North-East London Polytechnic hostel there is only one overseas student.
The drive against discrimination comes up against those clinging to neo-colonialism and the attitude of ex-colonial Powers to the developing countries. The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, put this attitude clearly not very long ago when he said (and it was reported in the Press):
"It worries me greatly to find that some of our most effective graduate schools are educating men who, in the natural course of events, will go home and compete with hard-pressed British industries."
Surely the economic truth is that the more wealthy the backward nations become the greater markets they will offer for our own industries.
Another form of attack on the existence of overseas students comes from those who are raising the fear among the British public that by financing the students we are constantly raising the local rates. But very few people talk about the benefits that overseas students bring to this country—for instance, there are language assistants, nurses and £90 million worth of foreign currency, together with multicultural and multi-lingual education systems and research. There are over 15,000 postgraduate students in this country and most of them are in research, which is tremendously valuable for us. But, as the National Union of Students say, We must not produce this list of benefits that we get from overseas students in the struggle to support them."
Our aim is to offer a gift to the huge, poor, undeveloped world, to whom we owe so much—for how we have neglected their interests in the past! And for that gift to be acceptable, it has to be as cheap and easy to obtain as possible. When those countries are educated, we,

605
and the whole world, will gain. To take the line that we cannot afford to do this because of our own financial problems or because our rates will go up is madly short-sighted. The more overseas students are as highly educated as possible the better solution they will offer for us and for our trade, and for the trade of the whole world.
9.34 p.m.
Lord SHER FIELD: My Lords, two general considerations strike me about the subject under discussion. The first is that most of the points on one side are quantifiable while most of them on the other side are unquantifiable. To simplify, it is largely a case of hard cash against imponderables, and this complicates the debate. The second point is that the subject arouses, especially as it is treated in some parts of the media, those xenophobic and nationalistic feelings which are never far below the surface of our national life, though I doubt whether these are very prevalent among the younger generation. These manifestations, in so far as they surface, obfuscate the argument.
Not even all the facts and figures seem to agree; for example, as regards the increase in the numbers of overseas students in proportion to the increase in the total number of students. Certainly, in the case of one institution of which I have some special knowledge, the proportion of overseas to indigenous students at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels has scarcely changed over the last decade, and this supports one of the points made about the London School of Economics in yesterday's Daily Telegraph article by that former overseas student, Professor Ralf Dahrendorf, to which reference has been made in this debate. Clearly, up to the present, different samples give different results, though it is too soon to detect whether the last increase in fees and the one in prospect will alter these percentages
A good deal has already been said in this debate about the imponderable and unquantifiable arguments, but I should like to develop just two of these a little further. Anyone who, like myself, has been involved over a period of years with scholarship schemes for overseas students or exchange arrangements, can testify to the important and enduring effect in their attitude to Britain on people who usually
606
attain some positions of influence in their own countries. Most of them—not all, of course—go back with a favourable impression, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said. Many of us taking part in this debate have had to deal with former graduates of British universities operating in important positions. The consequences in terms of benefit to Britain, political or economic, are certainly difficulty to assess, but I have no doubt in my mind that it all adds up to a large plus. At a time when we receive too many overt reminders of our relative impotence in international affairs it would, in my opinion, be foolish to jeopardise this covert contribution to the maintenance of British influence in the world. Your Lordships may say that this is a typical Foreign Office argument, but I advance it none the less without apology.
On a more material level, there is the foreign exchange aspect. We are told that it is indefensible to subsidise the education of the sons and daughters of relatively wealthy foreigners, and that is a very plausible sentiment. This position can be, and has been, attacked from several directions. All I want to emphasise is that the personal expenditure of such a student during his stay here may well offset any public money laid out on him or her, while one visit from the parents can far more than make up the difference during a single week-end in terms of the export of goods and services. Moreover, since most overseas students acquire an attachment to their universities and therefore develop an animus revertendi, they will by coming back frequently to this country continue to contribute favourably to our balance of payments for the rest of their lives.
Then there is the contribution which the overseas students, especially the post-graduates, make to the research and development effort in our universities which, in the institutions of which I have knowledge, is greatly valued. I would hazard a guess that they give as much as they get. One institution in particular with an international reputation in a large discipline of which I have knowledge attaches the very greatest importance to its overseas relationships.
I have seen suggestions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, has alluded, that overseas students take away with

607
them valuable technological information. I find this quite difficult to believe. Anybody who has spent as much time as I have in trying to organise the exploitation of the research and development information in British universities can tell you that there is very little of commercial value to make away with, and in so far as overseas students contribute to the transfer of basic technology to the less developed areas of the world the process is surely to be welcomed.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I was referring in particular to Turkish students. It so happens that at the moment the Turkish textile trade is almost destroying part of the Lancashire business. A large number of Turks who are taking courses in technology in my institution will go home and improve the performance of their own industry to the detriment of ours. We have been doing this—goodness knows why!—for 100 years. We felt that it was fine just so long as we were still able to educate as well a few Englishmen.
Lord SHERFIELD: My Lords, while accepting that there may be special cases, whose fault is it that the British people are not studying textile machinery technology? In general, I venture to assert that the balance is in favour of taking no action which would discourage overseas students from coming to this country. In conclusion, I would emphasise one point. When faced with a welter of conflicting arguments in relation to an item of expenditure it is very tempting to a Department of State to cut the cackle, to settle on a figure, however hard it may be to substantiate its fairness or validity, and to say that this is how it is to be. I hope that this is not what has been done so far in this connection. Quite apart from what the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the University Grants Committee may ultimately propose, there are many diverse and probably conflicting departmental viewpoints and interests. It may be that a body exists within the Administration which has tried to reconcile these differences and make an assessment in depth of the imponderable factors and which can listen to outside opinions before a figure is pulled out of the air or broader policy is finally deter
608
mined. If there is not, then I support the suggestion that has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Garner, that the noble Lord should endeavour to persuade the Secretary of State to set up such a body.
9.44 p.m.
Lord CARADON: My Lords, at this late hour we must resist the temptation to follow the arguments that have been put to us by certain speakers. Sometimes outside this House and sometimes even within it, the discussion is too narrow, too parochial and too prejudiced. Tonight we are dealing with a much wider issue. I should like to deal with the question solely from the point of view of our contribution to international development. I believe that in the education provided for overseas students in this country we have a method of contributing to international development which is the most advantageous, effective and valuable.
As to advantage, I do not propose to get involved in any attempt to deal with this matter on a calculation of costs, but I believe it is unanswerable that the foreign students who come to this country contribute in the money they bring with them far more than anything that is paid by this country on their education. I do not think that can be challenged. It is a fact of great consequence because it destroys the attempt to deal with this matter merely on a refusal to meet the necessary charges. I do not think it can be disputed that the foreign students bring practical, positive financial advantage to this country.
The system of education provided by this country for foreign students is also the most effective form of overseas development aid that could possibly be devised. I have had some experience of the provision, through international agencies, of the experts who are sent with the support of our Ministry of Overseas Development to different parts of the world. Naturally some difficulties arise: it is not always easy to get the best experts to go overseas for a year or two. They have to be highly paid; the costs of travel are considerable; they are sometimes unsuitable; they have no knowledge of the language. Nevertheless, in my own experience some hundreds of them from this and other countries often do a remarkable job.

609
But what a comparison it is between a few hundred experts with certain natural disadvantages going to help the poorest countries in the world and tens of thousands of their own citizens going every year in order to carry the skills and the benefits of their knowledge and their education not only for a year or two, as in the case of the United Nations experts, but for the whole of their lives. The comparison means that this form of assistance is much the most effective that can he devised and it is also the most valuable. None of the standard criticisms made against overseas aid apply. In the first place, no expense is involved; on the contrary, there is financial benefit to this country. Secondly, no balance of payments is involved; on the contrary, it is to our benefit in the balance of payments that they should come, and it does not leave behind, as so often in the past has been the casein our overseas aid, the burden of loan repayment which has to come from the poorest countries in the world. No burden of repayment of loan arises. So in all three respects this is the best form of contribution that this country can make to overseas aid.
As is the case with some others in this House, most of my working life has been spent in the Colonial Service overseas and I claim for my service that we have made some contribution—we would hope an economic and political contribution—to the advance of a quarter of the population of the world in British territories. But our contribution is as nothing in comparison with the contribution of British universities.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships are aware of a remarkable article written by Ambassador Moynihan of the United States of America, who has achieved something of a notorious reputation of late. He wrote an article which he called "The British Revolution ". He said that the most important development of the last generation, or the last fifty years or so, was the contribution which had been made by British education (and he mentioned in particular the London School of Economics) to the developing countries of the world. He called it "The British Revolution "because he believes that we have made the largest contribution of all. He spoke about it as an immensely good thing. Ambassador Moynihan is not very apt to give lavish compliments,
610
but he said that this was an immensely good thing that had been done.
I believe it is so. I believe it is a British lead given in the world which, in our suburban parochialism, we tend to underrate. It is a lead we have given. Certainly we have been ahead in the world, and have made a greater contribution in this respect than any other country in the world. We continue to do so. I am glad when I hear that we do so on a steadily increasing scale. So it should be; and it should be our pride. Edmund Burke said that our leadership in equality and in training for freedom was the peculiar and appropriated glory of England. In these days, of course, one should make reference also to Scotland and Wales. But it is so; it is the peculiar and appropriated glory of England that, through the education provided by this country, we have sent out maybe hundreds of thousands of people to all parts of the world, carrying with them what we can give them, which is much more than any material thing—the benefits of an English education. I do not think we should underrate this. I do not think we should be ashamed of what we are doing.
My Lords, I do not know whether it is relevant, but I remember when the Soviet Ambassador in the United Nations accused me of pretending that all had been well in the advance of British colonies to self-determination. He said that all the leaders of the British colonies had been in British prisons, from Nehru to Nyerere. I was able to reply that I felt sure the distinguished representative of the Soviet Union would agree that it was better to make Prime Ministers out of prisoners than prisoners out of Prime Ministers. Indeed, that has been the progress on which we have been engaged in recent decades. I believe we should be proud of it, and that we should welcome it.
My Lords, we should recognise that nothing else we do is comparable with what has been done in this sphere, and which now can continue to be done in the post-Imperial era. If we fail, and if we allow miserable arguments of petty cost to interfere with such a magnificent achievement, then I think all of us will be very severely to blame. I think it was a disgrace that in 1967 we introduced discrimination; it is a disgrace that we

611
now increase it. We should consider it, and we should look at it again, on the basis that has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. It is not a matter for the Department of Education and Science alone. It is not a matter for people like the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, who speaks about the bitterness of opposition, which I would contest. I do not believe it is so.
One of the things which gives me greatest comfort in this matter is that the National Union of Students and the organization which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, represents have come forward and taken a lead in this campaign to beat down the miserable considerations put before us. I am glad to see that some of the universities—we should pay tribute in particular to the University of Bradford—have refused to put into effect the requirements of discrimination. So I would say that if all other aid, if all other contributions from this country to the development of the world, particularly in the fight against poverty and squalor, were all to stop—and God forbid that it should!—then this at least should continue. This contribution, of which we can be genuinely proud, surely should be one thing we should jealously preserve, instead of talking about whether it is a matter of financial balance that the student has to justify before he can be given the opportunities of our education.
Before we can start talking about division and bitterness, we should be prepared to justify what we have done, and to demand that we go back to a basis of reasonable equality. Otherwise, what are we doing? What we are doing is to tell the world that we do not like it; that we are going to make them pay as far as we possibly can. The harm that that can do is beyond computation. What is more, we are doing exactly as has been suggested; we are suggesting that we want only the rich ones, and those who come from the poorest countries and the poorest families we are glad to eliminate. That is not an attitude which I think can stand well in the reputation of this country. Therefore, I think this remarkable debate, as it seems to me, with its able introduction, although we have gone on much longer than we imagined, has been well worth while.
9.56 p.m.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, I would not disagree with one word of what the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has said about the influence which in the past graduates of our universities have had overseas. You have only to go to India and there you will find that all the elites were either at Cambridge University or at the London School of Economics at the time when I was an undergraduate and Lord Robbins was teaching.
Having said that, may I now turn and become as parochial as I possibly can, for I have the melancholy distinction of having been the one member of the Vice-Chancellors' Committee who in 1967 defended in your Lordships' House the decision by Mr. Crosland, who was then the Secretary of State, to introduce this differential. I did so because I knew what Mr. Crosland was up against as Secretary of State. He was faced with a decision on priorities. The priority was whether he would get money for the educational priority areas, the slum schools, the disgusting primary schools which had not been changed by one brick since they were built in the middle of the 19th century, or whether he would go on with the fee system as it was. I said to your Lordships that I realised that this struck a very sensitive nerve in the universities. I did not hesitate as to which I would have chosen, and I think he was right to make that decision.
I think that your Lordships in this debate have displayed a marvellous and Olympian disdain for the way the finances of the country are run and for the way in which Government works in this country. For we know that people can get money on a Vote only if they are prepared to make concessions on something else. This really should be borne in mind. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in a speech which was as charming as it was moving, recommended, if I heard her aright, that local authorities should set up a fund to help hardship cases among overseas students. How can this be done at a time when local authorities are being urged, indeed compelled, by Government to cut their costs all over the place, to cut the number of teachers in the schools, because there simply is not the public money available? Again, not one single noble Lord has mentioned devaluation. The reason, of

613
course, why there is to be an increase in fees is to take account of devaluation.
These are parochial matters if you like, but this is the stuff of politics. We cannot, at a time when we have a rising number of unemployed in this country, 1½ million rising perhaps to 2 million, totally ignore the fact that cuts are having to be made all through the economy. The public sector in some ways has escaped more than others, but it, too, will have the axe wielded even more severely. I am not at all sure, if the Lord Chancellor would listen to this, that there should not be a Standing Order of the House that any noble Lord who advocates an' increase in expenditure should, in the same sentence, indicate from what quarter he would make cuts in order to finance that increased expenditure.
Lord CARADON: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept the argument repeatedly put to him that the bringing of overseas students to this country does not lead to a deficit but leads to a financial advantage?
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, I shall certainly come to that point in one moment, if the noble Lord will allow me. The facts arc that here is a sum of money which is raised in this particular manner. What is it in the educational field which ought to be cut in order to provide this sum of money? This is in fact the argument that has to be argued in Cabinet, with the Treasury, in the Department, and inter-departmentally. It is too easy simply to advocate that on some global way of looking at the economy you can justify this particular cut in income of the Government.
There are a great many points to be made, and I shall make a disjointed speech tonight because there are some points I want to make very much on the other side. Before I begin on those, and before I pass to other points of detail to which I should like the noble Lord the Minister to reply, I wonder whether I might say that one of the reasons why we have so many overseas students in this country is—and this has been pointed out tonight—precisely that English universities, polytechnics, the whole of our institutions of higher education, give a very remarkable education, with pass student ratios unknown anywhere else.
614
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, who pointed out the degree course and the qualification one can obtain in three years compared with six or seven years in another country. What is more, when students come to this country they learn the lingua franca of this world. As Latin was "the "mediaeval language, so English is now "the" language, and that is why so many wish to come to this country: they will be learning not merely the subject they came to study technically but also the free language of the world, the one which is most used in gatherings and institutions.
I myself believe that today it is not a question so much as to whether there shall be a differential. The differential is there; it is going to be exceptionally difficult to persuade any Cabinet or Minister to get rid of it. My memory does not go back to the line which the Conservative Front Bench in Opposition took in 1967, but I certainly saw no inclination when the Conservative Government were on this side of the House between 1970 and 1974 to remit this particular charge.
In taking this unpopular stand tonight, I hope your Lordships will recognise that all I am trying to do is to say that there are certain facts in politics, certain facts in governmental finance, which I do not believe have been adequately faced. Let me immediately agree with the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, that there is a substantial gain by foreign students coming to this country. The figure that I have from the Department of Trade and Industry was not £90 million, but it was certainly £50 million as an estimate which was put on the foreign currency which they will bring into the country. This undoubtedly affects the case. No one wants to kill the goose which lays such golden eggs, particularly as the geese so often become swans of great value to this country when they return to their own. I have heard it suggested, for example, that one reasonable and sensible amendment would be to have a differential but to modify it if the overseas student is a part-time student. There are many such part-time students and I think it is for consideration whether they should not pay a part-time fee such as, for example, the home based students in this country pay.
There are some who argue that while it is legitimate to charge a differential

615
against those who take up graduate-taught courses or post-graduate-taught courses, we should be more indulgent and remit the fee, the differential, for those who are studying for higher degrees such as a PhD. This can be argued on the general grounds of scholarship with no discrimination, and in this field of higher scholarship we should indeed have no discrimination at all between those overseas and those at home. They argue that it is only here, in this post-graduate stage, that one gets that cross-fertilisation of ideas, culture and understanding and that that is fostered by the movement of scholars across national borders. Attractive as this argument is, I am not persuaded that it would be administratively easy to cope with such a scheme.
Let us not forget that every time a modification is introduced in regulations this increases the number of civil servants to administer such a scheme and increases the number of administrative officers in universities. The pride of our universities is with what small administrations they manage to cope with the manifold problems with which they have to deal today. The administrative staffs are very small and the reason for this is that the teachers—and exactly the same applies with the polytechnics—prefer to do the administration themselves. This is unlike the situation in many other spheres; for example, in the Arts much of the increased expenditure has gone on Arts officers rather than on actors, singers and performers. I hope the Minister will say that he will look into the question of whether we might have some modification of the differential for part-time students. For example, often a foreigner in this country who is in a job will have a wife who herself would like to take a part-time course at a university. Often somebody who is finishing off a thesis or other work has to go part-time for a year.
I come to the wider topic of whether there should he any restriction imposed in universities on the acceptance of overseas students. I am glad that I have not heard any suggestion from the Government about introducing any quota system. Those who say that there should be no differential at all will find very soon that, if there were no differential, a quota system would then be imposed. That is the choice. Which does one prefer, a
616
differential or a quota system? I do not think there will be any doubt as to where opinion in the universities will lie. If they have to choose, they will choose a differential rather than a quota. I think a quota would work unfairly and there are many reasons—I will not go into them at this late hour—why it would be thoroughly undesirable.
As part of the national economy campaign, I think that far fewer postgraduate awards are available for our own students, and this is what has led to the situation which the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, described at Manchester University. We must face the fact that this is a fact and we must take account of it when we come to decide which of certain alternatives we shall be faced with. But I believe there is a danger that, in these days of broad-brush planning in the Department of Education and Science, someone among the officials will have the bright idea that if the number of overseas students were reduced by, say, 20 per cent., the space and resources in the universities and polytechnics could then be allocated to a flood of suitable British undergraduate students who were at present queueing for places.
I hope no such argument is adduced in the corridors of the DES because that is the kind of dream which certain civil servants in the Department may have when afflicted by insomnia and when they are trying to get to sleep. It is the bureaucratic equivalent of counting sheep. It simply does not follow that because one reduces the number of overseas students one will be able to fill their places with equivalent British students either at the post-graduate or, much more likely, the undergraduate level. There is at the moment no queue of students, particularly, I am afraid, for those departments of science and technology where most of the overseas students are to be found. There is no flood of postgraduates because, as has already been said today, there are no grants except for a trickle of British post-graduates.
This is the situation as I see it. I should be worried if the understandable feeling which we all share as to the need for overseas students to come to our universities so affected our judgment that we believed that there were no arguments at all in favour of the differential. The differential was imposed in 1967. The direst

617
prophecies were made that no overseas students would be found in a British university or polytechnic, but here they are today in their thousands. I wonder whether this will substantially affect the numbers who can come. I am all in favour of those who have said how important it is that the poorer student should come. I believe that the answer has been given during the course of the debate and that the way out is to ask the ODM to see if it can take on the responsibility for bringing that kind of student to this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, knows well, this is a very familiar and popular argument in universities today. I do not believe that it is purely dodging the question; I believe that it is a logical administrative change, not just a bit of inter-governmental accounting.
I should like to put one last question to the Minister. Will he consider redefining what is an overseas student? There are some grotesque anomalies about. For instance, a boy or girl who is as British as they come but whose parents have been resident overseas, not because they are tax-evading expatriates
618
but because they are earning hard currency for this country, may find that he or she suddenly has to pay overseas students' fees. This seems to me to be an anomaly. It is perhaps an equal anomaly that a wily and skilfully advised alien who has sent his child to an English public school for three years can then relish the fact that the child qualifies as a home based student. I wonder whether these matters can be looked into.
As your Lordships will have realised, a very great deal of deeply felt sentiment surrounds this subject. I feel that this rhetoric is honourable but that some of it reflects the realities of governmental finance. The truth, as I see it, is that there is no single criterion which enables us to follow a line of policy. It is a bit of a hotchpotch and the level of fee charged will ultimately be a mixture of what is politically possible and what is economically realistic. I believe that we have a right to charge for our unique facilities, but I should be entirely in sympathy with all those who think that any such charge should be realistic and. in the case of anomalies, that mercy should always be shown.
10.15 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I make no apology for rising even at this late hour. I put down my name to speak but it was omitted from the list, and this is a subject on which I cannot possibly restrain myself. I never thought that I would ever have to make this speech. I have been a member of the Labour Party all my life and I never thought I would find myself in a situation where I would be dealing with a subject which should be so deep and so completely a part of our blood corpuscles. Why should we be thinking at this stage of discrimination—and it is discrimination of the worst kind—on the question of fees, differential fees and rising fees for the world at large? This is an irony beyond all measure. I follow my noble friend Lord Caradon very closely on this. In the past 27 years I have travelled 2¾ million miles for the United Nations and the biggest investment in foreign aid, and the biggest and best investment we have ever made, has been in the people we have educated, either by sending others out to help in their education or by bringing them here to be educated. I agree with my noble friend Lord Caradon that the people who go back to multiply the products are the best investment in the world.
I remember on one occasion being with Paul Hoffmann who was the managing director of the United Nations' Development programme. We had been over all the ground and discussed all the things, which had to be done in the world, and we always came to this cul-de-sac which was education. Until one can get the thing started and generated, and push it on and transfer it, there is very little one can do. One came back eventually, in the last resort, to something which must be of the nature of classroom education. We came out of the United Nations' building into the Plaza, and on First Avenue I saw on a passing coach an advertisement which read: "Teachers bottled for export in Scotland" I thought to myself: That's the spirit!
We are considering the whole business of how we are to magnify and multiply
620
the capacity for the most important and only thing which really matters ultimately in foreign aid. I hate to call it that; I prefer to call it "mutual aid," at best because we learn and gain so much from others. But the most important thing here is the sharing of knowledge and skills, and we should be backing it up with material resources. However, the first thing is to establish the method of communication. I just cannot believe that we are now gradually closing these doors which have never been closed. I think of the wandering scholar; after all, the world is full of wandering scholars. How did Scotland acquire its education and its educational system?—by wandering, and by people wandering to Scotland.
We now have a fantastic situation. While we are talking about renouncing pay beds we are apparently creating educational pay beds for the sheikhs because eventually the only people who will be able to pay for education will be the wealthy. This is a very great British tradition, because all the great public schools started as foundation and charity schools but finished up by providing merely for those who could afford to pay. How can anyone try to work out a system which would exclude from all the so-called sums and computations we are making the completely immeasurable values that we are talking about? Do not forget that in the pockets of these poor students there are also blank cheques, because the people who come here to be educated are those who go back to their own countries to become Ministers of Finance or take up similar posts.
If you want to look at it in terms of pure Mammon that is one thing. The other thing I can see is that, if you start establishing this principle, how can you ever hold your head up again and say that we in Britain are now not only turning our system into a commercial educational system but in fact providing for the well-to-do and the rich? By this system of increasing fees, the people we have been talking about—the people my noble friend Lord Brockway has

621
been talking about and the people that the noble Lord, Lord Milford, has been talking about—will not be able to come here to be educated. The only people we shall get will be the paid people, the people who will be allowed to leave the country. I do not want to cause any diplomatic crisis, but think of the Shah of Iran. The poor wandering Persian coming out of Ishbahan with his parents' money in his pocket is not going to be allowed to come any more, so all we shall be able to get will be the people they will hire and send. The same thing will happen commercially. The only people we shall get will be those whom the oil people, or whoever it may be, will want to train.
I am sorry to say this, but I did not expect to hear the kind of argument we heard from my noble friend Lord Bowden—that there are too many overseas students in our classes—because, like Lord Gladwyn, I did not quite follow the logic of it.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, may I briefly explain? I was complaining about the shortage of British students.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: I know, my Lords, and that is exactly the point I want to make. What are we blaming anybody for? We are short of British students. If we took the foreign students out of the classes the teachers would be fired. What are we talking about? This is the same sort of argument as I had in the 1930s, in Lancashire, about Lancashire weaving research. There were complaints that we were producing machines which we were selling to the Japanese. Why? It was because the cotton industry would not buy them. They were putting themselves out of the market—it was not the Japanese who were putting them out of the market. It was because they were not using the latest machinery and were leaving the initiative to the Japanese. This is the kind of completely illogical argument that I cannot understand. When I find it also divorced from the morality with which I really am concerned in this matter, then that is it. All right, talk about economics, but the point is that
622
here is an issue on which I feel that we are going to abdicate one of the most important things, one of the invisible flags which will still be flying on the flagstaff when the British Empire has been forgotten.
10.22 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for giving us the opportunity of this debate and for so ably reminding us of the importance of continuing to welcome students from all over the world into Our universities, polytechnics and other establishments of higher and further education. As has been emphasised this evening, learning transcends national boundaries, and we in this country have a proud record of opening the doors of our educational institutions to students from all parts of the world. It is also beyond dispute, my Lords, that our institutions have benefited greatly from those students from other countries whom we have welcomed here. It is equally beyond dispute that many British students have benefited from the facilities afforded in other countries. There is, I am sure, no disagreement between us on this score, and our common concern must be to preserve these opportunities on a mutually satisfactory basis.
Before I seek to reply to some of the precise and detailed points which have been made, let me first of all try to set out the facts of the situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, specifically asked. We start from the fact that the numbers of overseas students in higher and further education in the last ten years have roughly doubled, from about 30,000 in 1964–65 to over 60,000 in 1974–75. In percentage terms, this is an increase from 8.6 per cent. to 9.7 per cent. of all students in higher and further education. This is not exactly the record of an inward-looking, insular people, as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, suggested our record was during this time; nor does it represent any gradual closing of the doors, as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has suggested. Quite the con

623
trary! This is a very large expansion which has taken place during those ten years in the number of overseas students in this country; and it has not only developed in absolute terms but has increased percentagewise as well. This is a very great record of which we can be proud.
The numbers of overseas students on degree and other advanced courses, including post-graduate courses, in higher and further education over the same 10-year period have increased from about 22,000 to nearly 40,000, an increase from 10.3 per cent. to 11 per cent. of all students on degree and other advanced courses. The numbers of overseas students on postgraduate courses over the same 10-year period have increased from about 8,500 to over 16,000. In percentage terms this is an increase from 29 per cent. to 32 per cent. of all students on postgraduate courses. In our post-graduate courses now 32 per cent. of the places are occupied by students from overseas. The numbers of students on non-advanced courses over the same 10-year period have increased from about 9,000 to about 22,000. But this is not the end of the story. In addition to these students in universities, polytechnics and other institutions of further education, there are large numbers of overseas students who come to this country to train as nurses in our hospitals, as barristers in the Inns of Court, to train in private establishments and in commerce and industry for a variety of vocations. The total numbers of all overseas students coming to this country has increased from about 68,000 in 1964–65 to over 95,000 in 1974–75.
Increases of this magnitude would inevitably raise questions, even if there were no financial constraints. But as noble Lords are well aware, there are severe financial constraints and we are concerned tonight with those which affect overseas students in higher and further education. As we are frequently reminded, the tuition fees paid by overseas students represent only a fraction of the average cost of tuition. The average cost of tuition for degree and other advanced courses is currently of the order of £2,000 a year and the recommended level
624
of tuition fees for overseas students this year is £320 as against the average level of cost of £2,000. Next year it will be £416. The recommended levels for home students are £140, on average, for 1975–76 and £182 for 1976–77. The corresponding figures for non-advanced courses in further education are an average cost of tuition of about £1,000 a year and fees of £200 in 1975–76 and £260 in 1976–77 for overseas students. At the same time the recommended levels for home students are £80, on average, for 1975–76 and £104 for 1976–77. Although the actual cost of any particular student or group of students cannot precisely be assessed, these figures will indicate the order of magnitude of the subsidy we are providing.
Let me go further to answer precisely some of the points made by the noble Lord. Lord Belstead, in this connection. We have naturally made some attempts to estimate the amount of subsidy provided by the British taxpayer and ratepayer and we have concluded that the cost of courses for overseas students in higher and further education, less the income from fees, could be put at more than £100 million a year—that is, if one wanted to put it in this context—more than £100 million in subsidy terms. I might add that I do not know the basis of Lord Gladwyn's assumption or, indeed Lord Caradon's about the balance-of-payments benefit, which both noble Lords asserted with a great deal of authority was naturally flowing in our direction from overseas students. What I do know is the Government's view that the expenditure by foreign students in this country is much more than offset by the resource costs of providing for their education and other needs, to the tune of over £100 million in a year. In other words, one might say that, whereas the expenditure of foreign students is put at about some £60 million a year, the resource costs of providing the education they have is put at something like £170 million a year.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying if we had no overseas students in this country we should benefit to the extent of £60 million to £100 million? Is that really his argument?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I am not saying that at all. There are imponderables in this connection; I should like to come on to them later. What I am saying is that, so far as we can see, expenditure by overseas students here is something of the order of £60 million, whereas the resource costs of the education and facilities which we provide are something of the order of £170 million. If the noble Lord can subsequently produce figures to challenge that, I shall be glad to consider them. So in referring to a subsidy of over £100 million, which I mentioned earlier, I am saying that this is not a miserable argument about petty costs, as the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, put it. One hundred million pounds is not a petty cost by any stretch of the imagination.
The differential fee for overseas students was first introduced in 1967–68 when it was recognised that there was a need to contain the increasing level of subsidy. By 1974, however, it was clear that, with rising costs and our worsening economic situation, some further steps were necessary and, indeed, that the whole question of tuition fees, for home as well as overseas students, would have to be looked at again if the opportunities for higher education and its quality for our own students as well as for those from overseas were to be preserved. It was for that reason that my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Science announced on 18t1; March 1975 that he was recommending universities and local authorities to increase fees for the academic year 1975–76. This recommendation was intended to restore the proportion which university fee income bore to grant in 1967–68 and to save some £4 million in further education. In the case of universities the proportion of fee income to grant had already fallen from about 8 per cent, to about 5 per cent.
Towards the end of 1974 the University Grants Committee and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors put in hand a review of the structure of tuition fees which it was hoped would be completed in time for their recommendations to be considered before fees were fixed for the 1976–77 academic year. In fact, they have completed and published an interim report, but propose to consult widely before writing their final report. It is hoped
626
that their final recommendations will be available later this year in time to consider what changes in fee levels might have to be made for the 1977–78 academic year.
I should also make it clear that the Government too have been examining the whole overseas student question along the lines the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn suggested including the levels of tuition fees. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said, "Let us make an assessment in depth ". The noble Lord, Lord Garner, called for an interdepartmental study, as indeed did all speakers in the debate. This is what the Government set in train some considerable time ago. This review has been timely both in relation to the extent of the problem and also because of the growing polarisation of views on the subject. We are hoping that the fruits of this and the Government's decision upon it will be available in the not too distant future, because we have to recognise in this House that there is a growing polarisation of views on this question. While there is support, which has been admirably expressed tonight, for the liberal tradition we have always followed in this country over education, nevertheless the fact has to be faced that there is a large and growing pressure from those in the country who are concerned about the large number of overseas students, as they put it. I get more letters of complaint on that side than on the other. There are two schools of thought here.
On the one hand, there are those who argue that there should be no differential in the fees charged to overseas students and that discrimination of this kind is objectionable in principle and conflicts with the European liberal traditions of higher education. Perhaps I might make another point to reinforce this argument. Those who take this line suggest that those who have such first-class higher and further education facilities to offer, as we have, have a duty to make them freely available, particularly to students from the newly developing countries in the world. This sentiment has been expressed in your Lordships' House tonight.
This argument is again reinforced by the view that this is not only the right thing to do morally but is also right from the point of view of enlightened self-interest. It is pointed out that the

627
presence of overseas students in our academic communities enriches the quality of the work and life of those communities; their presence may provide significant benefits to our international standing and our commerce in the future, particularly if the people who train here subsequently go home and want to buy British in the scientific and technical fields in which they have trained. Therefore, in this way there will be a long-term contribution to our earnings of foreign currencies. This is one of the imponderables which have been talked about.
The contrary view is that, whatever the countervailing advantages, we cannot afford to provide for unlimited numbers of overseas students, and that, of the various ways by which the level of subsidy might be controlled, the charging of higher fees accompanied by the provision of help under Government aid programmes for those coming from developing countries is the least objectionable. In this context, some go so far as to say that our excellent educational facilities should be regarded as an international marketable commodity and that we should get the best price for them in the international commodity markets of the world.
These, in summary form, are the two opposing views on this difficult question and full weight is being given to them in the Government's review. The longer-term policies which will result must take account of our position in the EEC. There were under 2,000 students from EEC countries studying in this country in 1973–74, compared with 50,000 other students from overseas. Her Majesty's Government have always up to now considered it equitable to treat all overseas students alike, and have not sought to distinguish between those from particular countries or regions, whether the EEC, the Commonwealth or the developing world. We subscribe, of course, to the desirability of encouraging mobility within the EEC, on the lines agreed between EEC Education Ministers in Brussels in December. However, this is a question with more to it than the issue of differential student fees and it is one which we and the Community will be studying in all its aspects.
However, to return to the noble Lord's Question, which is related to the 1976–77
628
increases, in the view of the Government it became necessary to raise tuition fees on an interim basis simply to reflect the increases in costs since fees were fixed for the previous year. A decision had to be taken, moreover, before the end of 1975 if the budgeting procedures of the local education authorities and establishments concerned were not to be again disrupted and if adequate notice was to be given to those who might be affected. It was for the those reasons that, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out, my right honourable friend announced on 16th December that he was recommending a 30 per cent. increase in tuition fees for 1976–77.
I was asked earlier who had been consulted, and I would say that this decision was taken by Ministers collectively; this was no unilateral decision within a single Department. This decision was, in fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was ready to agree, consistent with one of the recommendations of the interim report of the UGC Committee of Vice-Chancellors Working Party, which recommended an increase in fee income in line with rising costs, and the local authority associations, who were consulted, fully agreed.
In considering the size of the latest increase, the paramount factor which had to be taken into account was the substantial increase in costs of tuition in the establishments concerned. This increase naturally varied between the different kinds of institutions involved but, in general, was between 29 per cent. and 34 per cent. It would have been impracticable to suggest raising fees sufficiently to cover the actual amount of increased costs. The least that could be done, in equity to the community at large, was to increase fees by a percentage of the same order as the overall increase in costs hence the recommendation of a 30 per cent. increase.
At this point I should like to put the situation of overseas students in its general perspective. The 30 per cent. increase which has been recommended will affect all categories of students in this country, from home and overseas. It is 30 per cent. for everybody. The number of students, home and overseas, who will be required to pay from their own resources an increase of this order

629
—and I stress those words—is likely to be about 1¾ million, of whom some 100,000 will be full-time students in universities, polytechnics and other further education institutions, while the remainder are the very large number of self-supporting part-time and evening students in further education. The number of overseas students included in these figures who will be paying higher fees may well be about 60,000 in all, of whom some 8,000 will have the increase met by British Government aid programmes, through ODM, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the British Council. I accept, of course, that it can be argued that overseas students on university courses will pay an increase of £96 (30 per cent. on £320), whereas home students will pay perhaps £42 (30 per cent. on £140). But the converse to this argument is the fact that the overseas student will still be paying less than one-quarter of the true cost of his course, whereas the home student's parents or sponsors, in addition to paying a fee of £180 or so, will of course be making a direct additional contribution through taxation. And it is fair to add that a 30 per cent. increase based on cost-of-living changes does no more than preserve the existing level of Government subsidy of overseas students in real terms. If we did not increase fees pro rata with inflation the effect would be to increase the proportion of subsidy for such students carried by this country; and the actual sterling amount of the subsidy will increase in cash terms even with the recommended increase.
In our present financial position, if any one category of students were to be specially treated, and there are several categories which might be thought worthy of consideration—and not all overseas—it could only mean increasing the burden on the remainder. For example, if overseas students were to be sheltered from the increase by a lower percentage being applied to them, home students would have to pay more.
It is true that overseas students are already paying a higher fee than home students because of the differential which was introduced in 1967–68, but to have lessened the increase for overseas students in 1976–77 would have meant increasing home students' fees at a rate far higher than the increase in costs. In these cir-
630
cumstances, the Government have concluded that the only equitable course of action is to recommend that all fees should be increased by the same percentage—a percentage reflecting, as I have said, the increased costs in the institutions concerned. Any other course of action would have altered the existing fee structure, and decisions of this fundamental kind must await completion of the longer-term review to which I have already referred.
The kind of overall proposals which have been made relating to what we should do about this question have surprised me. I start with the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, who put his finger on the point that the question of overseas students is highly complex and that the problems are not open to a simple solution. He emphasised, that the basic reason for much of the criticism, as he saw it, was that many home-based students cannot afford to go to university. He stressed the inadequacy of the system of student grants in this country and said that a much more generous support system would be advantageous. I should point out that the system of student support which we have in this country is more generous than that which is to be found in any other country I know of in Western Europe. At the moment it costs us about £244 million a year.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, is saying, "Increase it ". We shall, of course, review the matter again for the next academic year. However, the noble Lord is saying, "Increase it now. It should be more now in relation to the cost of living than it already is, so let us add more millions to it. Then let us add more millions to postgraduate studentship awards, which for 1975–76 amount to something like £20 million ".
Then the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, helping to solve our problems, suggested that the right course would be to abolish altogether fee income in the universities and polytechnics. The cost of doing that would be another £30 million to £40 million. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said, "Let us establish a local government fund." Well, that would also cost more money.
This is why I was particularly grateful for the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. He introduced

631
a breath of realism into the very difficult problems which we face. This is essentially a question of priorities. I liked the noble Lord's suggestion that we ought to have a rule in this House that any noble Lord who advocates an increase of expenditure should show what should be cut by way of compensation—and, I would add, or what rates or taxes ought to be increased if there is to be no compensatory cut. This seems to be a very sensible suggestion. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, we are faced with—I was going to say three alternatives but you cannot have three alternatives. There are, however, three possible courses.
The first is that there should be no restriction whatsoever on overseas students; we should provide places for them free of charge and impose no restrictions. Do we want to go down that road? The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that if there were no restrictions and no fees this would soon produce the demand for a quota system, because without a good deal of extra cost we could not provide the extra educational places and the teaching posts which would be required if we abolished all charges. If, therefore, we cannot abolish all charges, we move in a quota direction, and clearly noble Lords would not want that. So the noble Lord, Lord Annan, came back to a differential fee suggestion. These are matters on which the Government will be taking a decision in the light of their consideration of the review that is being made, but it is important to stress that we are faced here with real choices. They are very difficult choices and we have to decide where the balance of advantage lies to this country and to the newly developing countries and all those we want to help, in the light of our present economic and financial resources.
To turn to a further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, he asked if we would look at the question of redefining an overseas student and he quoted the situation in which someone counts as an overseas student whose parents may have been working abroad for three or four years and for this purpose they and their children are counted as overseas; and he is putting that alongside what he would say are bona fide overseas students who have established a
632
three-year residential qualification in higher education in this country and under those circumstances qualify not only for a mandatory grant but also for paying home student fees. These are problems that I am happy to take on board and we shall certainly look at them.
I should like now to come to one of the very important suggestions that were made by a number of noble Lords: that the ODM should, as it were, take over the whole problem of overseas students' fees and overseas students generally and co-ordinate their aid within an EEC common aid programme. This point was put not only by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, but also by the noble Lords, Lord Annan, Lord Belstead, and Lord Wynne-Jones. This line of thought closely relates to the major policy issues which the Government are now considering in the review that is under way and I can assure noble Lords that it will be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, raised the question of race discrimination in the discriminatory charges so far as overseas students are concerned, and he implied that the higher level of overseas student fee is discriminatory. As I have said, there are sound reasons for this. Overseas students are already heavily sub-sidised by the United Kingdom taxpayer and we could not expect the taxpayer to increase his subsidy at the present time by reducing the fees charged to overseas students to a single, home rate. But we shall consider carefully, in the context of our general review of student fees, the consequences of the Government's new anti-discrimination proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Milford, asked whether local authorities have actually assisted students from a hardship fund. It is entirely at the discretion of local authorities whether they apply, waive or modify the fees recommended. In Circular 3/75 the Secretary of State requested them to continue to exercise discretion in hardship cases, and he again referred to this consideration in Circular 14/75. How local education authorities exercise their power of discretion in hardship cases and how these are identified are entirely matters for local authorities. In fact, we do not have central information on this but in this area there has

633
not been any substantial body of complaint
I really do not want to keep your Lordships all night. Those specific points to which I have not replied I will deal with by correspondence, and I hope it will be an assurance to noble Lords to say that this is a matter that the Government have had under review for a number of months and that all the points that have been raised in the debate will be within the purview of that review and will be taken into account. For that reason, my Lords, this is a particularly timely debate in your Lordships' House: it has come at a time when the points that have been made here can have a major impact on the decision-making of the Government as they face up to these crucial issues.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord reply to the three concrete proposals I made for mitigating the effects of the proposals of the Government? Will he let me know whether he agrees with my proposals?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, specifically on that point.

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
COITY WALLIA COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
FOYLE AND LONDONDERRY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
HOVE BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
METHODIST CHURCH BILL [H.L.]
NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE AND BIRMINGHAM MUNICIPAL BANK BILL [H.L.]
RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM
SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL [H.L.]
SAMUEL MONTAGU & CO. LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
WIMBLEDON AND PUTNEY COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY (RIVER DERWENT) BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read la.

CIVIL AVIATION (GATWICK) (CONTROL OF LAND BY DIRECTION) ORDER 1975
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment.
STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
  CROFTING: RENTS AND LAND COURT EXPENDITURE
  CROFTING: RENTS AND LAND COURT EXPENDITURE
  ENGINEERS' REMUNERATION
  ENGINEERS' REMUNERATION
  CIVIL SERVICE PAY INCREASE
  CIVIL SERVICE PAY INCREASE