Sitting of 26 July 1976

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

  METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

  MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENCES
  Address for Return
  showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, statistics of court proceedings and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended 31st December 1975.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WALES

    Health Care Expenditure
    Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the projected change in total expenditure on health care in Wales in the period 1976 to 1980.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): From £224·9 million in 1976–77 to £237·3 million in 1979–80, the latest year for which projections have been made.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for that reply. Can the Minister confirm that this figure represents an increase of 4·6 per cent. while the comparable figure in the consultative document for England indicates a rise of 5 per cent., despite the fact that the standardised mortality ratio in Wales is higher than in England and Wales and the discharge rates are 100 per 10,000 of the population higher in Wales than in England?
    Mr. Jones: The Welsh figure shows a growth rate of 4·83 per cent. compared with 4·2 per cent. for Great Britain, and the per capita increase will be about 1½ per cent. higher in Wales than in England. Given the nature of our problems and economic circumstances, the Government have done all they could for Wales.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Against the background of last week's public expenditure proposals, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that work on the new general hospital at Bangor will go ahead?
    Mr. Jones: Yes, I can give that assurance. This £15 million project for which my right hon. Friend has struggled for so many years will go ahead and the signs are that it will keep to the timetable.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is the Minister aware that, although the NHS and the hospital services in Wales could do with more money, as they could elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the budgeting method means that there is extravagant and wasteful expenditure at the end of every financial period with money being spent suddenly, and perhaps without a great deal of thought, on things like television when, with greater care, it could be devoted to far better purposes?
    Mr. Jones: I should like to have any details that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind. I should always say "Yes" to more money for hospitals, and the area health authorities are doing their utmost for Wales despite the problems that they inherited and are facing.
    Mr. Abse: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and the Government would have a better sense of priorities if they attempted to show their support for the health service in Wales instead of squandering millions of pounds in acquiring the Temple of Peace, erecting a bureaucracy and creating an apparatus which the people of Wales do not want? Will my hon. Friend suggest to the hon. Member for Merioneth that he needs to discover his priorities and choose between real social needs or an Assembly for which the people of Wales have no desire?
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) knows his priorities, just as I know the priorities of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in no uncertain fashion. I take this opportunity to reiterate my faith in the policies that the Government have put forward on devolution and for the National Health Service.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the formula which governs the rate support grant for local authorities as it affects Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): The basis of this formula is provided by the Local Government Act 1974. In 1976–77 it resulted in a grant to Welsh local authorities of about 7½ per cent. of the total to be distributed in England and Wales. The Welsh proportion of the England and Wales population is 5·6 per cent.
    Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware how much some local authorities in Wales, including Dyfed, suffered last year from the reform of the formula in favour of big conurbations? Has not the time come for the Government to consider settling a Welsh grant separately from that for England, in consultation with Welsh local authorities, which increasingly want to reorganise in a separate body?
    Mr. Morris: I am not sure that Welsh local authorities would all like the hon. Gentleman's proposition. Welsh local government has done rather well in the course of my negotiations. Powys gets 80 per cent. of its expenditure through the rate support grant and Dyfed, Clwyd and Gwyned each get about 70 per cent., which is higher than the national average.
    The per capita rate support grant is £165 in Wales compared with £122·3 in the rest of the country—35 per cent. higher. I am considering all these matters, but before we set up an Assembly it would be premature to change the system from which Wales, without boasting unduly, has not done too badly.
    Mr. Roderick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us who support the idea of a local income tax believe that some form of central Government support will still be needed because there will be poorer areas under any system?
    Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend has raised the issue of local income tax which was canvassed in the Layfield Report. He will have to wait until the Government

    5
    have carried out their consultations with local authorities and then reached a decision.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the formula is working satisfactorily in the case of retirement areas such as mine, where there is a high proportion of retired people for whom additional services have to be provided?
    Mr. Morris: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the formula is very complicated. It is always capable of improvement, but when improvements were suggested last year as regards the sparsity and super-sparsity factor it was discovered by those canvassing it, particularly from the hon. Member's area, that in the end it did not necessarily work to their advantage. Therefore, I would be the first to welcome any ideas that the hon. Gentleman has for improvements if they prove in the end to be of advantage to these areas.

    Hospital Doctors
    Mr. Ifor Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the percentage of junior doctors on the staff of Welsh hospitals coming from overseas.
    Mr. Barry Jones: 53 per cent. of junior doctors on the staff of Welsh hospitals at 30th September 1975 were born elsewhere than in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.
    Mr. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that, were it not for the services of these overseas doctors, services in Welsh hospitals would be at a critical stage? Is he further aware that a large number of students, especially sixth-form students, desire to qualify as doctors but are unable to gain admission to medical schools? Therefore, when the opportunity arises, will he give priority to the establishment of a second medical school in Wales to be located at Swansea, where excellent university and hospital facilities are avaliable?
    Mr. Jones: I do not underestimate the valuable contribution of doctors from overseas to the staffing of the National Health Service in Wales. I also recognise the close interest that my hon. Friend takes as Chairman of the Council of
    6
    University College, Swansea, which may have some bearing on his wanting a new health school at Swansea. Although I recognise his close interest in the possible location of a second school at Swansea, I can make no forecasts, but the present target of 4,100 entrants per year to medical schools by 1980 took into account a possible reduction in the flow of doctors from overseas.
    Mr. Hooson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, with over half the junior doctors in Welsh hospitals being from overseas—from areas many of which are grossly under-doctored—we in Wales and in the United Kingdom as a whole should be recruiting far more medical students, wherever they are to be trained? Is there not a pressing case for this from the world point of view and from our own?
    Mr. Jones: Given the present constraints on public expenditure which the Government face, and given part of the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) about the likely requirements for doctors by 1980, all I can say at this stage is that I can make no forecast. However, the second school, if ever there should be one, may be at Swansea.
    Mr. Kinnock: While endorsing the views of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies), may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that the figure he gave of 53 per cent. is probably the best rebuttal of those who, even in Wales, wish, by a mixture of parochialism and prejudice, to generate racial hatred in our community?
    Mr. Jones: I fully understand my hon. Friend's strong feelings. I do not underestimate the valuable contribution made by doctors from overseas to the staffing of our hospitals. As for figures, the figure for all doctors from overseas employed whole- or part-time in the hospital service is about 33 per cent.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: If the Government cannot now authorise a further medical school, will the Minister undertake to have early discussions with the Welsh National. School of Medicine about ways in which the training—particularly the training of doctors—can be spread geographically? I am thinking, for example,

    7
    of students taking a clinical year or two at Swansea or Bangor.
    Mr. Jones: The Welsh National School of Medicine and the Government are in the closest contact with Ministers in the Welsh Office.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Does the Government's examination of this subject show that we are not training enough home-produced doctors, or does it show that too many of our doctors are leaving this country after training?
    Mr. Jones: That is a difficult question to answer immediately and perhaps I might correspond with the hon. Member. However, the present target of 4,100 entrants per year to medical schools by 1980 took into account the possible reduction in the flow of doctors from overseas.

    Rail Services
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the possibility of rail cuts in Wales.
    Mr. Barry Jones: My right hon. and learned Friend has received more than 2,000 letters, nearly all of them in a duplicated stock form, opposing any reduction in rail services.
    Mr. Anderson: Since we in Wales suffered more from past closures and since, if the consultative document is implemented, we could be more vulnerable in future, can my hon. Friend give us a clear assurance that the Welsh Office favours the retention of the existing rail network in Wales?
    Mr. Jones: The Welsh Office knows where its duty lies in regard to Wales. There are currently no proposals to close any railway line in Wales and the Government have no intention of reducing the size of the network. It remains policy to encourage the transfer to rail of freight traffic, which the railways are best suited to handle, by means of grant. As an example of something close to my hon. Friend's constituency, BP Chemicals was granted 50 per cent. of the cost of providing sidings and so on to transport the highly toxic product propylene to Manchester. The total cost of the project was £220,000.
    Mr. Wigley: Although one welcomes that last statement, will the hon. Gentleman accept that, to keep the rail network, an investment programme is necessary to sustain the standards of track and equipment in Wales? In particular, will he cast his mind to the Cambrian Coast line, which is often considered a doubtful line? Will he negotiate with the Wales Tourist Board and British Rail about the possibility of extending the use of that line to tourism so that it links the two important tourist areas of Pwllheli and Dwyfor and the Aberystwyth area and about the tremendous potential for moving tourists from one area to the other, to the benefit of both?
    Mr. Jones: This is a matter for the Wales Tourist Board and British Rail, but the Welsh Office takes a keen interest in activities on the Cambrian Coast line.

    Port Talbot
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to visit Port Talbot.
    Mr. John Morris: As the hon. Member may be aware, Port Talbot lies within the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House. I accordingly make frequent visits, the most recent having been at the end of last week.
    Sir A. Meyer: During his trips to Port Talbot, by helicopter or otherwise, will the right hon and learned Gentleman find time to read the letter in the Financial Times on 22nd July from Dr. Kay in which he argued that the Secretary of State for Industry was right to limit the extension of Port Talbot steelworks to 4 million tons? If the Secretary of State agrees with that, would he not also agree that the way is now open for investment in modernising the open-hearth furnaces of Shotton, and will he soon press for an announcement?
    Mr. Morris: I saw the letter from Dr. Kay. I am sorry that I cannot agree with him, particularly in view of his past interest in the matter. The hon. Member had best have regard to what he himself asked for in the debate on 20th February 1973, when he said that all he wanted was an assurance—[Interruption]—will the hon. Gentleman allow me?—that there would be no rundown in

    9
    Shotton in 1974 or 1975 or he would not be able to support the Government at the end of the day. All he got from Mr. Boardman, who was replying, was an assurance that there would be no closure until March 1975, at which he trooped into the Lobby with 294 others.
    Mr. Ifor Davies: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the development of the steel industry in Port Talbot has an important bearing on the development and future of the tinplate industry, the bulk of which is located in West Wales, much of it in my constituency? Is he aware that the local action committee and all the local authorities are convinced that, unless the development of steel goes forward in Port Talbot in accordance with BSC strategy, the future of the steel industry in this country, facing foreign competition, will be very poor?
    Mr. Morris: No one has been more anxious than I for the development of Port Talbot. Only last Friday I discussed with the works council development committee the Government's offer of an investment of £350 million. It was conveyed to me that the committee was most anxious for BSC to take up immediately the Government's offer and get on with it, although it is fully aware of the local problems.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is it not the fact that the £350 million does not add to iron- and steel-making capacity? Can the Secretary of State challenge the view that in the two-and-a-half-year period of delay which has just ended not a single extra ton of iron and steel capacity has been achieved and that the absence of decisions about vital issues is gravely damaging to the steel industry in Wales?
    Mr. Morris: If the hon. Gentleman has discussed this matter with his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir. A. Meyer), he will know that it is of the utmost importance to all local communities for a proper study to be made of all these matters. These studies are continuing, and I hope that we shall reach the right decision at the end of the day.
    Sir. A. Meyer: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek
    10
    to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Caernarvon Inner Relief Road
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the starting date for the Caernarvon inner relief road; and if he will make a statement on the progress of preparatory work for this scheme.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The target starting date for this scheme depends on the availability of funds. Acquisition of land and advance demolition work, which have been proceeding as quickly as financial resources have permitted, will continue.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern in Caernarvon at the dilapidated state of the town as a result of the slow progress of this project? Is he aware that, whereas some buildings need to be demolished, other buildings which are scheduled for demolition are perfectly good and can be used until it is absolutely necessary to pull them down for the road scheme? Will he and his Department look again at the scheme, in view of the possibility of delay, to ensure that we shall get the maximum possible benefit from the buildings in Caernarvon in the interim period?
    Mr. Jones: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have co-operated with him previously on this difficult problem. If he will let me know specific details, I shall look again at the project in detail.

    School Leavers
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with careers officers in Wales about the availability of jobs for school leavers.
    Mr. John Morris: I have not myself had direct consultations, since this is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but my office maintains the closest contact with his Department over all aspects of the employment situation, including Government measures to assist unemployed school leavers.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that is in some ways comforting news, although it does not provide additional jobs? Is he aware that Gwent currently has 15,000

    11
    unemployed people, a substantial proportion of whom are young school leavers? Will he use his voice in the Government to promote the idea of immediate reflation of the economy as the only means of overcoming the cause of inflation and our disastrous economic position, which is under-production?
    Mr. Morris: No one is more aware than I am of the serious problem of unemployment. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to take account of the fact that there have been 2,400 applications in Wales for the recruitment subsidy for school leavers. Under the Job Creation Scheme 3,300 young people will benefit, and the Community Industry Scheme will mean new jobs for 400 young people in Wales. As I said, this is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, who will shortly be announcing further measures to help with the serious problem of unemployment among young people.
    Mr. Hooson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that with our background in Wales unemployment is probably one of the most tragic aspects of all? Has he had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his other Cabinet colleagues on not increasing public expenditure but diverting public expenditure from other areas to meet this crucial problem?
    Mr. Morris: This is a very difficult problem. It is as the result of such discussion that the schemes I mentioned have already been set up in Wales and elsewhere. I gave particulars of those schemes to the House a few moments ago. As I said, further discussions are going on, and my right hon. Friend will shortly make an announcement.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Would not such consultations belatedly help the right hon. and learned Gentleman to understand the scale of the social catastrophe that the Government's policies have inflicted on the Welsh people and prompt him perhaps to remind his hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) that a 20 per cent. increase in expenditure matched by a 2 per cent. increase in production must inevitably destroy the hopes of the young people of Wales?
    Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is responsible for his own remarks. I have
    12
    read in the South Wales Echo the remarks of other members of the Shadow Cabinet to the effect that many more cuts are needed. Had we had the public expenditure cuts which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends wanted, there would have been a much higher rate of unemployment in Wales. We have deliberately sheltered the unemployed in Wales.

    Welsh Assembly Site
    Mr. Gristasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the negotiations taking place between his Department and the Welsh Centre for International Affairs for the use of the Temple of Peace and Health by the proposed Welsh Assembly.
    Mr. John Morris: Responsibility for these negotiations rests with the Property Services Agency, although my Department is participating in them. Negotiations are still proceeding and it is hoped to make an early statement. In the meantime, the House will not expect me to say anything which might prejudice them.
    Mr. Grist: Realising that the latest estimate for the alterations to the Temple of Peace in the event of a Welsh Assembly being established is £1,700,000, does not the Secretary of State agree that the 999-year lease held by the Welsh United Nations Association is extremely valuable and should be recognised as such? Will he give an assurance that, in the event of the South Glamorgan Health Authority's having to move, the cost of the move will fall on the devolution budget and not on the National Health Service?
    Mr. Morris: In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, the area health authority has agreed in principle to move, subject to suitable alternative accommodation being provided. Detailed proposals for this and for the financial arrangements to be made are at present being discussed between the area health authority and my Department. In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, negotiations are proceeding and it would be prejudicial for me to comment at present.
    Mr. Abse: By what right and what power is the Secretary of State negotiating for premises for an Assembly that

    13
    has not been approved by Parliament? My right hon. and learned Friend is reported to have said that he believes that the debate on the Assembly issue is over. Will he please come down to earth in his helicopter out of the clouds and recognise that the House has not approved the setting up of the Assembly? Will he make certain that any negotiations that are going on are subject not to contract but to the expressed will of the House? He will find that the House is not a creature of the Secretary of State for Wales or the Leader of the House and will be expressing itself next Session.
    Mr. Morris: The statement I made referred to my party and my hon. Friend's party—
    Mr. Abse: I was there before you were.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Not before me.
    Mr. Morris: I said that the debate in my party was over. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands the sense in which I said that. As to negotiations my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced to the House the Government's intentions. We are proceeding in the normal way, as is customary.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the objective of those on the Conservative Benches who question him on this matter is to delay the setting up of the Assembly for Wales in favour of an increase in the power of bureaucratic government by increasing the size of the Welsh Office and refusing to submit it to Welsh democratic control?
    Mr. Morris: I am responsible for many things but not for the policy of the Conservative Party.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain what could be more bureaucratic—indeed, autocratic—than building a multi-million-pound Assembly without submitting the proposal to the examination or vote of Parliament?
    Mr. Morris: As I said a few minutes ago, my right hon. Friend's announcement was in the usual form—that these matters are proceeding.
    Mr. Marten: At what age will people be able to be elected to the Welsh
    14
    Assembly? If elections can be from the age of 18, and if the same applies to direct elections to the European Parliament, would it not be a good idea—in answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)— and take up a lot of the unemployment of school leavers if they were elected to both assemblies?
    Mr. Morris: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has made a serious comment and that if he puts himself up for election to the Welsh Assembly it will be treated equally seriously.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the proposed public expenditure cuts will be borne by Wales; how it will affect employment in the Principality; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Morris: The reductions in 1977–78 in the public expenditure programmes within my responsibility will be of the order of £12 million at 1976 survey prices. On the other hand, an extra £20 million has been made for housing in Wales and in addition extra resources will be made available to the Welsh Development Agency. There is no reason to believe that employment in Wales will be more adversely affected by these changes than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the absence of a detailed breakdown of the £12 million suggests that these cuts were imposed upon him directly rather than that they were the result of consultation? Secondly, does he not regard the combination of a reduction in regional employment premium, delayed payment of investment grants and increased employers' national insurance contribution as particularly unfair to assisted areas such as Wales? Is he aware that the resultant unemployment may be considerably more than—possibly three times as great as—the 60,000 projected unemployment talked of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Finally, what additional funds are to be made available to the Welsh Development Agency, or are they to be a sort of conciliatory gesture?
    Mr. Morris: I listened to the hon. Gentleman with great curiosity. I begin to wonder which party he represents because he speaks with a forked tongue. On the one hand he questions the public expenditure cuts, and then he wants increased public expenditure. He must make up his own mind about this.
    Nothing was imposed. All this came about as a result of consultations and discussions. I am not prepared at any time to disclose discussions which go on in the Cabinet. The cuts are broken down into particular items pro rata with the English Departments. Given the reputation of the Tory Party for house building in Wales, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might welcome the substantial increase in money for house building in Wales.
    Mr. Anderson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend indicate what is the likely effect on unemployment in the construction industry in Wales which is now in crisis? Secondly, he has fought single-mindedly and very effectively for the M4 as vital to the development of Wales. Will last week's cuts have any effect on the development of the M4?
    Mr. Morris: I continue to give, as I have done throughout my period of office, top priority to the building of the M4. I believe that the completion of this long-awaited road is of the utmost importance to the industrial regeneration of South Wales and its future.
    As regards unemployment, all I would say is that the estimates I have heard in the past have been grossly exaggerated and that the extra money we have obtained for house building in Wales will certainly help greatly in the construction industry.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: I welcome the extra money which is to be made available for housing in Wales, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain what this sum is extra to? There were planned cuts on a fixed programme. Is not this merely a restoration of what ought to have been a reasonable level of spending to change the position where one in every seven houses is unfit? Expenditure on housing has to be seen in relation to the overall problem.
    Mr. Morris: The cuts were imposed in the down-trend in house building in
    16
    Wales as part of the philosophy of Tory Members. We have a tremendous record for new house building in Wales of which I am very proud. The figures for last year rose 140 per cent. on the previous year. This will mean that last year I obtained between £20 million and £30 million extra for house building in Wales, which would bring the figure to £183 million on 1975 prices compared with the Conservative figure of £101 million. Next year there will be an additional £20 million, which will give us, again at 1975 prices, £162 million compared with the Conservative figure of £105 million.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the massive increase in wage costs which is now to be imposed on Welsh industry by the Chancellor's announcement and which will have a particularly severe effect in the regions can lead to the upturn in industrial development and production which we all so much desire?
    Mr. Morris: Our vital need as a country is to ensure that we conquer inflation, and in that I should have thought that we would have the support of the hon. Gentleman. Instead, what he wants on the one hand is a decrease in public expenditure, yet on the other hand he is opposed to cuts.

    Rehabilitation Services
    Mr. Michael Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning rehabilitation services in South Wales.
    Mr. Barry Jones: None recently. I have, however, invited and received comments from interested organisations on the recommendations of the Working Party on Rehabilitation Services in Industrial South Wales.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister agree that if the artificial limbs and appliances centre at Cardiff were resited at Rookwood Hospital it would be able to play a great part in such important future developments as biochemical engineering?
    Mr. Jones: This is a very important subject and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it. I have taken note of the working party's recommendation that a new ALAC should be built

    17
    at Rookwood Hospital. This is under consideration as part of the review of the National Health Service capital programme for Wales as a whole which will be carried out over the coming months. At present I can mention no starting time and no figure.

  INDUSTRY

    Lonrho
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the amount of financial aid to be given to Lonrho; and what are the conditions attached to it.
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): The purpose of the £4·9 million is to save 1,800 jobs in special development areas. The main conditions provide that it is secured and repayable in equal instalments from January 1979. It is interest-free up to the end of 1977: thereafter interest is payable at the rate of 10 per cent per annum until January 1981 and at 12 per cent. per annum for the remaining two years. I understand that the workers involved welcome the outcome.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend understand that we would all accept the need to preserve jobs, especially in a development area? Will he also understand that the terms which he has outlined are not sufficient to satisfy many Labour Members? Does he not appreciate that we are dealing with a firm which is the very epitome of the ugly and greedy face of capitalism? Why do not the Government take a considerable equity share in this company rather than allow themselves to be subjected to the kind of terms that my hon. Friend has announced to the House today?
    Mr. Williams: Obviously I looked at all possibilities when we were considering the proposal. Brentford Nylons was available on the market from February. The only meaningful offer to come forward was that from Lonhro. In those circumstances we felt that, in view of the alternative capital commitment which would be required for the co-operative venture which was suggested but which never came forward—we estimated that it would cost at least £12 million and
    18
    probably nearer £15 million—this was the most appropriate and cheapest way of saving jobs.
    Mr. Adley: We realise that many Socialists prefer unemployment to capitalist jobs, but will the Minister of State support the view of Mr. Joe Wright, the convener at the Brentford Nylons factory at Cramlington, who greatly welcomed the Lonhro intervention and the Government assistance and reject what Mr. Wright called the "ill-informed criticism" of Members of Parliament and others who are concerned only to ventilate their own dogmatic views regardless of the effect on other people's jobs?
    Mr. Williams: In view of the developments of the past few weeks, it is understandable that hon. Members would be concerned about this proposition. It is helpful that as many of the facts as possible should be brought out. That is why I welcome this Question, because it enables me to explain more fully to my colleagues, and indeed to all hon. Members, why I made the recommendation that I did.
    Mr. Heffer: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is perfectly understandable for workers in any factory who are faced with dismissal to accept and, indeed, clutch at a straw which will save their jobs? The statements made by the shop stewards are perfectly understandable in the circumstances. Would my hon. Friend not also agree, however, that Labour Party policy over the years has been that, where public money of this kind is to be used, an attempt should be made to take equity shares so that the Government and the community at large get something back from the public money which is put in? Does my hon. Friend understand that no one is opposing the saving of jobs but that the Government should have done something about taking over the company?
    Mr. Williams: I appreciate my hon. Friend's reference to equity participation, but in this case what was needed was a short-term infusion of capital to enable management expertise to be obtained and to get correct marketing links. We believe that the procedure we followed was the best and the most inexpensive way to do it.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Pay Increments
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will have discussions with the Civil Service regarding its incremental salary increases being voluntarily included within the 4+ per cent. maximum permitted by the new incomes policy.
    The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): No, Sir.
    As we have already made clear, civil servants will continue to be subject to the same incomes restraint as applies to the rest of the community. This allows incremental systems which do not add to the pay bill to continue. In the circumstances, I can see no useful basis for discussions as suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Renton: Is it not correct to say that many in the public sector can and do receive annual increments on top of their pay settlements? Would it not have been much fairer if in the private and public sectors such annual increments were considered to be part of the pay policy rather than payable on top of it?
    Mr. Morris: The point I wish to reiterate is that the Civil Service is treated in precisely the same way as employees in the private sector. The policy has been laid down by the Government and endorsed by the Trades Union Congress.

    Pensions
    Mr. Wrigglesworthasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement about Civil Service pensions.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on Monday 19th July.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that it would have been outrageous to have given way to some 'f the more extreme demands from the Opposition Benches about public service pensions when the pledges given to the public servants were introduced by the previous Government and endorsed by this House?
    20
    Will my hon. Friend accept the gratitude of public servants for the fact that the pledges given by the present and previous Governments have been upheld, and will he also resist the more extreme demands for cuts in Civil Service manpower which are made by some people and which have been bandied around in the Press recently?
    Mr. Morris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Gratitude is not a quality which Ministers in the Civil Service Department encounter too often. I emphasise my hon. Friend's point when he said that the proposals of the Government with regard to index-linking of public service pensions brought no more than justice to that group of pensioners.
    Mr. Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the Government's public expenditure cuts will be achieved in the Civil Service?
    Mr. Morris: The Government indicated in the White Paper this year that they were seeking to economise on administration to the extent of £140 million. It is hoped that a public statement on that figure will be made in the nottoo-distant future.

    Dispersal (Glasgow)
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the progress made in the programme to disperse Civil Service jobs to Glasgow.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: As I told the hon. Member on 10th May, the Departments concerned are continuing to make good progress with detailed planning for the moves that have been announced, and which are due to take place for the Ministry of Overseas Development in 1980 and for the Ministry of Defence in 1982 to 1984.
    Mr. Taylor: In view of the desperate unemployment situation in Scotland, can the Minister give a clear assurance that at his meeting with civil servants tomorrow he will not agree to any delay in the transfer of the Ministry of Defence to Glasgow? In view of the repeated rumours and uncertainty, can he say when a contract will be placed for the construction of the new MOD building and when the jobs will start coming?
    Mr. Morris: It is expected that construction at East Kilbride will begin by the end of 1977 and at the St. Enoch site by the end of 1979. The MOD department at the St. Enoch site in Glasgow will be one of the largest buildings in Scotland. Bearing in mind that these are major projects which require careful planning and large-scale construction work, all of this must inevitably take some time.
    Mr. Stan Crowther: Will my hon. Friend accept that there are many parts in the English regions which are desperately in need of this kind of employment and which were completely ignored in the Hardman Report? Will he assure me that next time dispersal is considered it will be carried out on a more realistic and less prejudiced basis so that the smaller centres as distinct from big cities may have a share?
    Mr. Morris: I cannot accept that the Hardman Committee proceeded on a prejudiced basis. I recognise my hon. Friend's legitimate claim to speak on behalf of South Yorkshire, and that is an area to which we are giving attention at present, but when he asks me to ensure that the regions are borne in mind I can assure him that they are very much borne in mind. Indeed, I am a regional Member myself.
    Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister deny that the reluctance of civil servants to move to Scotland is partly because many employees would lose the London weighting allowance and the cost of living is high in Scotland? Is he aware that some of us believe that the answer is for Scotland to have its own Civil Service, thereby saving the cost of civil servants travelling up and down from Scotland to London?
    Mr. Morris: The fragmentation of the Civil Service would not be helpful either to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to the people of Scotland.

    Civil Service College, Edinburgh
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the future of the Civil Service College in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: In so far as consultations with the National Staff Side have not been completed. I am not
    22
    yet able to announce a decision on the future of the Edinburgh centre.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend accept from one who goes as guest lecturer frequently to this college that there is high morale and there are high-quality staff who feel that they are doing a good job? Can he say how the Prime Minister, when he mets the National Staff Side tomorrow, will explain that the Government can apparently find resources for a huge Edinburgh Assembly and yet have to close down a vital Civil Service college, the only one outside the London area?
    Mr. Morris: I fully endorse my hon. Friend's eulogy of the contribution made by the staff at the Edinburgh college. They make a first-class contribution. In reply to my hon. Friend's request that I should explain how the Prime Minister will react to any points which the National Staff Side may make tomorrow in the discussions which he is to have with it. I can only say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is quite capable of presenting his own case on such occasions.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the college in Edinburgh is to get the "chop"? It so, how can he justify this? It is the only Civil Service college outside London and the South-East, and it is doing a splendid job. Why is it being chopped in favour of larger establishments in London?
    Mr. Morris: As I say, I cannot give an answer at this stage because the consultations with the National Staff Side are proceeding. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not interpret every such proposal in the context of nationalist sentiments. To suggest that the Civil Service College in Scotland is wholly Scottish completely misrepresents the situation. It does not cater exclusively or wholly for Scottish civil servants.
    Mr. Watt: Does not the Minister recognise that his continued complacency is not good enough? It is high time that he ended the uncertainty among the staff at this excellent college.
    Mr. Morris: I find it difficult to accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism that I have been complacent in this matter. At

    23
    this stage, we are not making any announcement or general statement on the matter.
    Mr. Rifkind: Will not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it would be ironic if, at a time when the Government are bringing forward proposals for an Assembly which will require its own civil servants, they were simultaneously to axe the civil servants north of the Watford Gap?
    Mr. Morris: I do not accept that there is a contradiction in policy. There is a Civil Service College in Edinburgh. It is doing a first-class job and it is staffed by first-class people, but it does not cater wholly or exclusively for Scottish civil servants.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Working Conditions
    Mr. Canavanasked the Lord President of the Council what steps were taken to ameliorate working conditions of hon. Members and staff of the House of Commons during the recent heat-wave.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Before the hot spell began, major improvements in the ventilation system had already been carried out, including a new system in the police mess, and air conditioning had been provided in the Members' and Strangers' Cafeterias. New ceiling fans were installed in the kitchens, other fans were reallocated and 200 extra fans were borrowed from the RAF. The police, custodians and staff of the Refreshment Department were permitted to work in shirt-sleeves. I am sure the whole House will be grateful to all the staff for providing their normal service during what were often very difficult conditions.
    Mr. Canavan: Is there any truth in the report that some of the new electric fans are imported from Japan? If that is so, is it not a disgraceful discrimination against British industry? Would it not be a good idea to bring Parliament into the twentieth century by not forcing the Badge Messengers to wear penguin suits or Mr. Speaker and his staff to wear wigs?
    Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall deal with the jackets worn by the Doorkeepers on the next Question. I agree that there should be a more radical treatment of the whole question, but that would involve major changes in the building itself.
    The fan in my office was made in England; I checked on that. I also checked on where the other fans came from and I found that about 14 came from Japan, but that was out of a total of about 200, the overwhelming majority of which came from this country. We took steps to get them as speedily as possible to deal with the situation.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, as is the practice in Commonwealth legislatures, designing a dignified attire which would be suited to sub-tropical conditions when they occur?
    Mr. Foot: That is the subject of the next Question, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend think that it would be more constructive towards helping staff in this noble establishment if a way could be found of telling them when they will have to work many hours of overtime, which they do without previous notice? Is there not some way of making the system more flexible instead of expecting the staff to go on hour after hour in conditions which are intolerable in a building which is not covered by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act?
    Mr. Foot: There are many improvements that could be made in the conditions of those who work so well for the House. There are also improvements that could be made in providing more information when possible. I shall make further inquiries about the matter.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Leader of the House agree that the problem is not primarily one of dress, because it does not arise mainly in the Chamber or in the Members' Lobby? Is he aware that even if hon. Members and staff had conducted proceedings in Committee and their offices and had worked in the nude they would still have found it too hot

    25
    in the recent weather? Does he not agree that the problem would be much reduced if we conducted most of our business in the cooler part of the year and took our holidays in the hotter part?
    Mr. Foot: These are questions that can be considered by the new Procedure Committee. But I am not sure whether the Committee will be able to solve that problem.

    Staff (Summer Attire)
    Mr. Martenasked the Lord President of the Council what steps have been taken to provide more suitable summer attire for the staff of the House, particularly the Badge Messengers and Doorkeepers.
    Mr. Foot: Arrangements are being made for light-weight jackets to be provided in future for the Dorkeepers.
    Mr. Marten: I am sure that the staff will very much appreciate that next year. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the change-over to summer attire is brought in when it becomes warm rather than on a certain date, as is the case with central heating in the Civil Service and on British Rail, which has a fixed date for starting and ending? Will he ensure that the system is flexible?
    Mr. Foot: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point into consideration. I am in favour of as much free choice as possible for the staff.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Has my right hon. Friend entertained the thought that being responsible for the business of the House and either breaking up or preventing the breaking up of the United Kingdom gives him enough to do without his having to bother about where a particular fan was made or what clothing should be worn by members of the staff? Will he indicate that he is prepared to give up the chairmanship of the Services Committee, which has nothing to do with him, and have that post taken over by a Back Bencher?
    Mr. Foot: I am willing to consider that suggestion. My hon. Friend would make a good candidate for that post. At the moment I have the job, and I am sure that the House will be gratified to know that I was not directly responsible
    26
    for the way in which the fans were operating.
    Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why there is all this fuss about summer attire? Is it not the case that if people want to be cool they should keep their normal clothing on rather than take it off?
    Mr. Foot: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is one of the few hon. Members of the House who is exactly the same all the year round.

    DEVOLUTION
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord President of the Council how many letters he has now received from the general public and organisations, respectively, on the Government's devolution proposals.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Since publication of the White Paper my right hon. Friend has received 164 letters from the general public and 41 from organisations, including letters addressed to the Constitution Unit.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister accept that opinion in Scotland is swinging against devolution as people begin to realise how much it will cost and the problems involved? Is it not an outrage that, at a time when a cut is being imposed for home helps and school crossing patrol attendants, an extra £10 million a year is to be spent on this silly bureaucratic Assembly?
    Mr. Smith: I do not accept anything that the hon. Gentleman says. He must not confuse his own sincerely-held opinions with general opinion in Scotland. We made promises in our election manifesto which we are determined to fulfil.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will my hon. Friend accept that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is the last person to whom he should listen about the opinion of the people of Scotland? Does he accept that the people of Scotland want devolution and an Assembly and that they will have that Assembly before this Parliament is finished?
    Mr. Smith: I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said.
    Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would be better placed in a museum of antiquities? When it comes to assessing the needs of the people of Scotland and their problems, does he not agree with the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) who said that Scotland's oil means a lot to Scotland and little to England?
    Mr. Smith: The future of the hon. Member for Cathcart rests with the electorate and not with me. Oil will be of great benefit to the United Kingdom as a whole and to Scotland in particular. I reject any under-assessment of it by the hon. Lady and her colleagues.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is more important to our constituents, the local authority personal services such as home helps or yet another additional tier of government in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend can take many items of expenditure and make false comparisons. We are concerned with having a good level of social services but also that democratic changes should be made. The vast majority of my hon. Friend's colleagues, particularly those representing Scottish constituencies, strongly support devolution.
    Mr. Gow: Is the Minister aware that it is not only in Scotland but in England that the Government's devolution proposals are viewed with increasing distaste? By what lawful authority are the Government engaging in the expenditure of public funds on the Royal High School in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Smith: I am as good a judge as the hon. Gentleman in these matters, especially of opinion north of the border. He may recall—he can look it up in Hansard—that the expenditure on the Contingency Fund was announced to Parliament before Easter without dissent from the Opposition.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figure of £10 million which was mentioned earlier is probably too small? Is he also aware that there will be bitter resistance to devolution from
    28
    some hon. Members on the Labour Benches if it means a diminution of resources in the public sector in the English regions to finance this over-expensive and unnecessary legislation for Scotland and Wales?
    Mr. Smith: I can assure my hon. Friend that our devolution proposals in no way mean a diminution of public services to other parts of the United Kingdom. We shall take care to make sure that that is so. I am sure that that is understood by my hon. Friend, who is rightly anxious about the area he represents. Once it becomes clear that this is not an attempt to reallocate resources, he will perhaps, like many of his hon. Friends, take a different view of devolution.

    DEVOLUTION

      DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
      (Allocation of Time)
      Report [22nd July] of the business Committee to be now considered.—[Mr. Foot.]
      Report considered accordingly.
      Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee).
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. JAMES HAMILTON and Mr. TED GRAHAM were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      The following is the Report of the Business Committee:
      That the allotted day which under the Order [20th July] is given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading be allotted as shown in the Table below; and subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at at the time specified in the second column of that Table.

      TABLE

      Proceedings

      Time for conclusion of proceedings

      Consideration

      10 p.m.

      Third Reading

      11 p.m.

      OFFICIAL REPORT
      Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were good enough previously to take a personal interest in this matter. Are you aware that the Official Report of the proceedings of the House at its last sitting has not yet been printed? May I express the hope that we shall not have a repetition of the delay which occurred in respect of the last major business affecting Northern Ireland which was considered in the House?
      Mr. Speaker: I have taken note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that the authorities responsible will do their best to help.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
  [ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
    New Clause 1

      APPEALS AGAINST CLASSIFICATION
      '(1) If any person being an employer of persons carrying out work to which sections 7, 8 or 9 apply or any trade union recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining by any such employer shall dispute whether any work is dock work which falls within Part I of Schedule 3 and not within Part 11 of that Schedule, he may give notice to the Secretary of State.
      (2) Any notice under this section shall state—

      (a) the name and address of the person giving the same and the facts entitling him to give such notice;

      (b) the nature of the dispute identifying the work in question and the facts relating thereto in sufficient detail to enable a reference to be made hereunder including the address or description of the premises at which such work is carried on;

      and a copy of such notice shall be sent by the person giving the same to the Board and to all other persons being employers and trade unions as aforesaid and in any way concerned or interested in the subject matter of the dispute.
      (3) Unless the dispute shall be withdrawn or otherwise settled the Secretary of State shall refer the dispute for decision to the Central Arbitration Committee of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service. No report or recommendaton shall be made by the Board and no Order under section 1I of this Act may he made by the Secretary of State until a dispute relevant to such report or Order and referred to the Central Administration Committee hereunder has been finally decided'. —[Mr. Hicks.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.34 p.m.
      Mr. Robert Hicks: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take new Clause 5—Reference to Tribunal for settlement of certain disputes.
      Mr. Hicks: The purpose behind New Clause 1 is very clear. It seeks to introduce an appeal procedure in relation to any report or recommendation which may be made by the National Dock Labour

      31
      Board under Clauses 7, 8 or 9. Accordingly, it will cover any work which it is proposed to classify as dock work. The appeal procedure would relate only to whether the work fell within Part I of Schedule 3 and not within Part II of that schedule.
      The Bill is one of the most controversial measures the Government have sought to introduce this Session. It has caused both anger and annoyance. It has been suggested that it originated as a pay-off to the dockers' section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and to Mr. Jack Jones in particular, for its support for the £6-a-week pay limit in 1975.
      We all know the history. The introduction of the Bill was delayed, and the reasons were plain to all. Its provisions not only aroused the hostility of virtually all industrial and commercial interests but also met fierce opposition from certain other trade unions and other sections of the TGWU. We on this side of the House had thought that the Government would introduce the Bill before Christmas 1975. It eventually obtained its Second Reading on 10th February this year. That was followed by a Committee stage of 36 sittings.
      During the Second Reading debate both the former Secretary of State for Employment and the present Secretary of State made a number of references to what would and would not constitute dock work as defined in Part I of Schdule 3. Ministers gave examples of circumstances in which they did not envisage an extension of dock work, I presume in an attempt to reassure those employed in associated activities such as warehousing and cold stores, or in the transport sector, that their jobs were not in jeopardy. Likewise, both the present Secretary of State and his predecessor made reassuring gestures about the position of smaller ports.
      Those of us who served on the Committee waited for the Minister to table his own amendments to give tangible expression to the reassuring remarks made on Second Reading. I acknowledge that it is not easy to express in a satisfactory form of words those thoughts, which cover many differing and sensitive circumstances. But, regrettably, the Government's response was very limited. We
      32
      had an amendment involving a reference back by the Secretary of State to the National Dock Labour Board. That limited amendment now forms Clause 6(3), under which arangements for classifying dock work can be reinvestigated, but the terms of reference are confined to ports and the docks which fall within the ambit of the 1967 dock labour scheme.
      The additional provision which I seek to introduce by means of this new clause would cover Clauses 7, 8 and 9—in other words, the new situation affected by the Bill. That, of course, involves a twofold extension—namely, a major extension in terms of job description, that is to say, what in future could constitute dock work and, secondly, the five-mile cargo handling zone extending from all coasts and within tidal limits in which these job descriptions will apply.
      I think that it would be wrong to minimise the social and economic implications of those two extensions. Indeed, if one takes the constituency that I represent—almost 700 square miles in the non-industrial county of Cornwall—such is the configuration of the county, with its large number of deeply penetrating inlets, that virtually the whole county except for the sheep and hill cattle on Bodmin Moor and the area to the east will be located within the dockers' cargo handling zone.
      I am sure that that was not the original intention of the authors of the Bill, and I find it a totally ludicrous situation. It is not as though the small West Country ports such as Padstow, Teignmouth and Exmouth are in competition with or are taking trade from the larger United Kingdom ports. They are in business because they are efficient, and they serve essentially local hinterlands that are largely rural in character.
      As was repeatedly said in Committee, the provisions of the Bill—and I think that this was freely admitted by Government Bank Benchers—are not designed largely to meet the non-urban industrialised parts of the United Kingdom. But even in that latter situation surely it is only right and proper that, in a democratic society, there should exist a statutory appeal procedure. The clause in my name represents an attempt to build a simple appeal procedure into the process relating to any report or recommendation

      33
      that may be made by the National Dock Labour Board under Clauses 7, 8 or 9, and accordingly will cover any work that it is proposed to classify as dock work.
      In practice that means—and I should have thought it a most reasonable suggestion in the context both of industrial relations and of the efficiency and economic performance of our ports and docks, should as well as being a fundamental right in a free society—that should any employer or employers of persons, or any trade union recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining, dispute whether any work is dock work that falls within Part I of Schedule 3 and not within Part II of that schedule, he or they may give notice to the Secretary of State. In such circumstances the Secretary of State would have to act. He would have to do something.
      To begin with, the notice under this provision shall state the name and address of the person and
      "the nature of the dispute identifying the work in question and the facts relating thereto in sufficient detail to enable a reference to be made hereunder."
      If there is still a disagreement with the employer or the union about whether the work should be classified, the appeal goes first to ACAS and, if it cannot be decided, eventually to the Central Arbitration Committee.
      3.45 p.m.
      What one is attempting to do is to find a procedure designed to avoid industrial conflict, and what I am stating is that if work is to be classified, or is likely to be classified, the parties that will be affected, namely, the employers and the recognised trade unions, shall have the right of appeal, by registering first an objection to the Secretary of State and then appeal to ACAS.
      I think that that is a desirable move. Indeed, the point that was repeatedly made in Committee was that the range and opportunity for dispute and controversy—indeed, for conflict—as a result of the Bill becoming an Act will be made much greater. Dockers will be given a statutory right that no group of employees, to the best of my knowledge, has ever had before in the history of this country, and that is the right to claim the work of another group. Therefore, I am arguing that it is essential that some independent body should be involved,
      34
      particularly if employers on the one hand and employees on the other, or, indeed, the users of our ports, are to have the necessary confidence if some of the more far-reaching and contentious proposals in the Bill see the light of legislative day.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would give dockers a statutory right to take over other people's work. Will he develop that argument? Can he say which clause deals with giving a statutory right to registered dock workers to take over the work of other people? I shall be interested to know which part of the Bill says that.
      Mr. Hicks: The answer to that is surely that under the terms of the Bill there is no appeal when that situation occurs. In other words, what I am trying to correct is the one-sided nature of the Bill as it appears not only to my hon. Friend but to people outside who do not necessarily belong to a limited section of one major trade union. What I am attempting to get across is that there will be difficulties, particularly in respect of recognition. This is already causing anxiety. There will be conflicts of interest. That is inevitable. There is also the problem that the provisions of the Bill may be extended to small ports.
      Finally, let me state my reason for suggesting to the House that ACAS might be the appropriate body to deal with these disputes, and thus the right of appeal. ACAS appears to be very much involved in this kind of area. Much of its work already concerns recognition. Indeed, in recognition disputes—and we discussed this in Committee—it is written into the Employment Protection Act that ACAS can intervene.
      Furthermore, when we first had the consultative document in March 1975 it said in paragraph 31 that in the event of any question arising whether any operation fell within the new definition of port transport work it is proposed that that question would be determined by the Central Arbitration Committee of ACAS and that Section 51 of the Docks and Harbour Act 1966 would be repealed.
      I appreciate that in Committee we had a short debate, which the Minister of

      35
      State answered, whether ACAS should be involved, but on that occasion I did not find the Minister's line of reasoning particularlly convincing. Since then, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have also put down their own amendments with regard to the introduction of an appeals procedure. Indeed, New Clause 5 seeks to introduce the reference in certain circumstances to a tribunal process. I have no dispute with my colleagues in this respect. The actual appeal process established is, I believe, of secondary importance to the argument on the principle whether it is desirable to introduce an appeal system.
      I should have thought it was not at all unreasonable in a democracy to allow an interested party, whose activities may be recommended for classification as dock work, the statutory right of appeal to an independent body. That is all I ask.
      Mr. James Prior: It might be for the convenience of my hon. Friends if I intervene at this stage, not in any way to try to curtail the debate on these important new clauses, but in order to give the Opposition's views on them. They are rather on the lines of those outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) in moving his new clause. He ended his speech by saying that it was the principle of the desirability of the appeal system that he wished to support, rather than any particular method of carrying it out. We fully share his views about that.
      There are 48 pages of amendments and new clauses to the Bill. Although a number have been grouped and are concerned with the same point—particularly with small ports, which we can debate under the next series—the guillotine allows totally insufficient time for proper debate. Many matters that we should have liked to discuss will remain undiscussed.
      The House of Lords will have a duty to carry out its function as a revising Chamber, so that many of the issues that will not receive proper discussion in this House will be examined carefully and properly discussed in another place. I hope that, if necessary, amendments will be made to the Bill so that we have a
      36
      further chance of discussing them in this House later.
      Mr. John Prescott: As with the Industrial Relations Bill.
      Mr. Prior: It is of great importance not only to the Opposition, but to hon. Members opposite.
      I turn straight away to New Clause 1 and New Clause 5, and to New Clause 3 and New Clause 4, which are contained in the next series of amendments, for they go straight to the heart of the Bill. We thought it right to try to concentrate discussion on these new clauses, because so much of the heart of the Bill can be considered within that discussion.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) talked about the Industrial Relations Act and the attitude of the House of Lords to it. After the Government's announcement of cuts in public expenditure and the announcement of record post-war unemployment and with the knowledge that the measures taken by the Government have not had the desired effect on the pound, we are at liberty to ask and should ask why Bills such as this, which are so damaging to confidence abroad, are being introduced and pushed through by the Government.
      This is a rotten Bill from start to finish, and our efforts to improve it in Committee and on Report have met with a very lukewarm response from the Government side, although in their hearts Labour Members know as well as we do that the Bill will not accomplish any improvement in relationships in the docks. Indeed, it is years out of date in its application to our transport system. It will create no new jobs. It will actually destroy jobs. It will merely create uncertainty and put the clock back.
      Government Members should look at what is happening in Australia. They should note that the Australians are now moving right away from the concept of a national dock labour board. They are moving instead towards proper relationships between employ, r and employee, which is the right way for these matters to be conducted.

      37
      The new clauses seek to provide at least some rights of inquiry and appeal for those who will be affected by the Bill. One reason why this is so important is that the Government have deliberately kept the membership of the National Dock Labour Board very narrow. That also applies to the local boards. We hope that, following what was said in Committee, the Government will tell us what they have in mind for the local boards. As we understand it at the moment, local boards will reflect in their composition the same catchment power as is proposed for the national board.
      What is important, as we have stressed all through, is that the National Dock Labour Board should take into account the interests of consumers, the interests of users of the port, the interests of workers other than dock workers, and the interests particularly of employers other than dock employers. At the moment the interests are confined one-third as to dock employers and one-third as to dock employees, with another one-third still to be specified, but no detailed specification is given as to its source. Thus the composition of the board is narrow, and that gives rise to a great many fears by both employer; and employees who at the moment are not part of the dock force.
      Mr. Loyden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the argument he presents in relation to the National Dock Labour Board would have been applicable prior to the introduction of the Bill? The situation in the National Dock Labour Board at the moment—at a time before the Bill has become law—is that it is controlled by the employers and the unions representing the docks industry. I cannot for the life of me understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the Bill narrows the representation. It extends it for the first time, bringing into the composition of the NDLB interests which hitherto have not been represented on it. If so, is it not a fact that the NDLB will have a more even-handed balance?
      Mr. Prior: That may be the hon. Gentleman's idea of even-handedness, but the employers and employees still have a majority, and we are trying to move away from a position in which the dock employers and the dock employees
      38
      are in control. We want, instead, to have a position in which other port users and the country as a whole can bring influence to bear upon decisions.
      As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the Bill extends not only the definition of dock work but, by the five-mile corridor and the areas beyond, it extends the cargo-handling zone, and thereby has a much greater impact on the country as a whole. Yet the representation on the board does not match the additional power that the National Dock Labour Board will have. That is one of the reasons why we believe that there should be a resort to a public inquiry, as we propose in New Clause 2, which is not selected, or at least reference to a tribunal for the settlement of certain disputes, as we propose in New Clause 5.
      4.0 p.m.
      We have very strong reservations about the proposed composition of the National Dock Labour Board, and we made that very clear during the Committee stage. We should like to hear more from the Minister about the composition of the local boards. Not only does the Bill still give enormous power to the National Dock Labour Board and the way that it is constituted, but it goes against existing legislation by which there was a right to a public inquiry before changes were made in the scope of the scheme, and that right to a public inquiry is now done away with. We believe that that must be wrong at a time when there is this vast extension of the scheme.
      When he was Secretary of State, the Leader of the House argued that none of this was necessary because the draft scheme would be laid before the House of Commons and, after he had heard the voices here, he would go away, prepare a final scheme and lay that before the House of Commons. But that is not a proper alternative to a public inquiry procedure.
      We know what this Government, with a small majority in this place, can do on many matters. We know that the possibility in this House of altering even a draft scheme, let alone a proper scheme, is very small. We do not believe that that gives the rights of protection or rights of objection to any scheme put before any port employers or port users which they have the right to expect.

      39
      We know that there will be an increase in demarcation disputes. That is certain to follow from the introduction of the Bill. The cargo-handling zone and the definition of dock work will lead to one dispute after another. It is the main reason why so many unions and union people have been to see hon. Members to complain about the Bill. They know that there will be constant dispute about what is dock work—what in any individual cold store will be termed dock work and what will come outside. All these are matters where the right to go to a tribunal for the settlement of certain disputes will be required. This is to be denied, and it is a reprehensible step for the Government to take.
      I come to the effect of the extension of the main register and what that will do. When the Bill was first introduced, the main drift of the arguments from the Government Benches was that it was likely to provide additional jobs for dock workers. To start with, the dockers construed it as an opportunity for them to take other people's jobs. As the Bill has been going through Committee, as other unions have got themselves organised and as hon. Members have been able to put their spoke in, the opportunities for dockers to take other people's jobs have been greatly reduced. Now they will be able to take other people's jobs only as people leave the industry through retirement or natural wastage.
      In a cold store where part of the store is designated as dock work, the people working there will become dockers. They will go, first, on the extension register and then, after two years, on the main register. As members of the existing work force leave, their places will be taken by registered dockers, which means that this legislation will introduce into that cold store a completely foreign element in the work force. We see again the problems that this will create. But any idea that this will give large numbers of dockers other people's jobs has been shown during the Committee stage not to be the case.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) began to realise this as the Committee stage went on. From being a very fervent supporter of the Bill, he became lukewarm about it as he saw the opportunities for dockers
      40
      to pinch other people's jobs not being there. It means that, as a result of the Bill, dockers will wish to bring to tribunals instances of jobs which they think they should have but which they are being denied. That is another reason why some form of tribunal of inquiry will be necessary if the Bill is to function as it is meant to.
      The main problem for the dockers has always been the existence of too many dockers, especially in the Port of London, for too few jobs. The Chairman of the Port of London Authority said about the Bill in his report for the year ending 31st December 1975:
      "I hope very much that the Bill does not lead to differences between the various unions involved in the kind of activity which is covered by the Bill, or even to differences between the members of unions affected by it. It is my belief that even if the Bill works as originally it was intended to work, it will not add in any significant way to job opportunities for registered dock workers."
      That was the Chairman of the Port of London Authority speaking with all his experience of this problem. He was saying, in effect, that there will not be additional jobs for dockers and that there was a surplus of dockers in the Port of London Authority. The average daily surplus in the first quarter of 1976 in the PLA area has been about 1,250 dockers. That is a situation with which we cannot go on for long.
      Mr. James Johnson: In view of what the Shadow Minister of Labour has just said, does he not think that it was dishonourable and disreputable, week after week and month after month in Committee, to whip up what he now accepts to be a totally false impression? By their speeches in Committee. Opposition Members scared people outside the House. Now he says that there has been no basis for this scaremongering about jobs being taken by those whom I describe as "old-fashioned" dockers, let alone by those men whom he now alleges could have been and, according to him some weeks ago, would have been—made into dock labour.
      Mr. Prior: I believe that unless we had pointed out these matters, a great many of these jobs would have been taken by dockers. There is no doubt that in Committee the Government had to

      41
      shift their around considerably. Amendment No. 266 made the point abundantly clear in Committee.
      In any event, it is no good the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) saying that. He should read what his hon. Friend the Member for Garston said in Committee. He should go and talk to dockers in the Port of London—I do not know about Hull—and he would soon find that they were after other people's jobs. An article in the port newspaper said as much. That is what it was all about.
      Mr. James Johnson: This is quite disreputable. I am now asked to look at speeches made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). My hon. Friend said—it is on the record—that the dockers were not out to get these jobs. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were saying quite the opposite week after week. Now he is disowning all of that.
      Mr. Prior: In that case, I wonder why the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, to which the hon. Member belongs, was so worried about the Bill, so worried that the hon. Gentleman had to ask to be on the Committee so as to protect the interests of his members. If those interests were never in doubt, what was he doing on the Committee? He is not generally the sort of person who would like to go on a Committee if he did not have something to say. His hon. Friend the Member for Garston was also on the Committee. They both wanted to be on so that they could keep an eye on those who represented the dockers. They were worried. We read in the newspapers almost daily of deputations going to see the Secretary of State. The Transport and Salaried Staffs Association is in the process of taking a deputation to see the Secretary of State about something or other. We read last week of a deputation from Nottingham.
      I hear daily of Labour Members who are still dissatisfied with the way in which the Bill is being pushed through the House. Some Labour Members believe that it is not looking after the interests of small groups in cold stores and warehouses. They are saying that changes will have to be made in the Lords. They
      42
      say "Of course you cannot expect us to say so here, but we will get their Lordships to do this for us." We hear that every day. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is true. The whole purpose of the Committee stage has been to try to protect groups, including unions such as the GMWU, against the intrusions of the dockers. That is why we want this tribunal to deal with the situation which could arise when the Bill begins to operate.
      Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), although he sought to get on the Committee, achieved practically nothing once he was there? Would it not be a pity if he did not now tell us what he would like to do to improve the Bill?
      Mr. Prior: Far be it from me to wish to stop the hon. Member from making his views known and telling us what improvements he thinks are still necessary. When he was on the Committee it seemed that he was prepared to accept everything that the Government said so long as he could influence and change the Government's mind behind the scenes. I suppose that that is a perfectly legitimate tactic. For the hon. Gentleman to say at this stage that he has always been satisfied with the Bill seems to be stretching the imagination rather further than ought to be expected.
      The Bill is a better Bill now. The dockers will not now be able to take over the jobs that they once thought would be theirs. There is a surplus of dockers in London which has to be dealt with.
      It may be that the dockers will wish to have the right to appear before a tribunal in the same way as we seek to give others that right. The Government have put forward a mad way of trying to deal with the problem.
      This is what is at the root of our objections to the Bill. There is the problem of the narrowness of the membership of the National Dock Labour Board, the difficulty over the scheme being laid before the House without proper opportunity for amendment, the problem of there being no right to a public inquiry and no right to take to a tribunal a dispute between the board and any other person, be it employer

      43
      or trade union. All of this must be wrong in what is a complex, highly emotional and difficult situation.
      4.15 p.m.
      We are trying to put into the Bill this right of appeal. I cannot see why the Government are unable to accept this clause. What is the objection to allowing this right of appeal? Why cannot the Government accept that the individual has a right to object? This seems a perfectly sensible way to proceed. It would relieve a great deal of anxiety. The Secretary of State probably knows that at the moment many firms are moving out of the five-mile corridor. They are no longer prepared to stay there. They are certainly not prepared to invest there. A headline in one of the property papers reads:
      "Dock Bill dampens building enthusiasm of ports".
      The Bill is affecting investment and the jobs of dockers and non-dockers.
      Our new clauses will do something to allay anxieties in the industry, but they cannot go the whole way. The only way to relieve anxieties entirely is to drop the Bill altogether. I hope that it is not too late for three or four Labour Members to recognise that this Bill is destroying employment and investment and is damaging the country. It will put up costs and prices. I hope that some Labour Members will recognise this and vote against this wicked Bill tonight. They could start by voting for this clause, which will at least give some chance for the employer, the trade union or individual to take a case against the National Dock Labour Board when it is introducing a scheme he considers to be detrimental to his interests.
      Mr. Loyden: The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has again shown the inconsistency which has been part of his behaviour throughout Committee. He has been responsible for stirring up the minds of dockers and other workers about the nature of this Bill. The one thing about which he has been consistent is the contradictory nature of his statements. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) argued that the Bill was intended to take over work for the benefit of dockers. Yet the right hon.
      44
      Gentleman says that the Bill will do no such thing.
      The references of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft to dock workers have been consistent throughout. He used two phrases which indicated his feelings about dock workers. It is unfortunate that sometimes he cannot even bear them. He referred to the people in cold stores as an alien element. That is a commendable way to refer to workers! How alien are registered dock workers in cold storage work? The whole of the cold storage work in London is carried out by registered dock workers. That is how alien they are in that industry. In many ports throughout the country such work has always been done by registered dock workers. There is no question of their being alien workers in the cold storage industry.
      In other ports, such as Liverpool, cold storage work is not registered work, nor will it be when the Bill is enacted. The charge that the Bill is intended to take away work traditionally carried out by others and to give it to registered dock workers is absolutely untrue. Certainly nowhere in the Bill is there any evidence that that is so.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: On the specific question of cold stores and dockers, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the traditional trades with which dockers have been associated, such as the refrigerated meat trade coming into ports, have declined rapidly and that what the cold storage industry represents, certainly since 1967, is the dramatic growth of convenience foods and other foodstuffs not associated with transit through ports?
      Mr. Loyden: I accept that there has been a decline in that trade, but there has not been a decline in cold storage as such. There may be a change in the industry generally but there is certainly still a great deal of that dock work in and around the ports.
      The charge laid against the Government about the Bill is that it will allow various dangerous developments. Right hon. and hon. Members went to a most extravagant extent in Committee to point out the dangers of the Bill. We even had to listen to the argument that it was similar to an invasion of the Vikings and the Danes. That is the sort of extravagant language that

      45
      was used. We were even told that it may be a question of dockers taking over the jobs of air hostesses at various airports and of fixing aeroplanes with sledgehammers. That is the exaggerated extravagant language that has been used about the Bill.
      The right hon. Member for Lowestoft also said that the Bill would not end disputes. The only argument that I have heard Opposition Members put forward in this regard about the docks industry is that it is never in anything other than a state of dispute, that it is always on strike. When one listens to them, one wonders how ships ever became loaded. Their argument has been that the present position has been responsible for all of the long disputes in the docks industry. However, when a Bill is presented that brings about a definition of dock work, which is involved in many disputes, many hon. Members say that the industrial relations situation will worsen. However, they have already argued that it could not possibly be any worse than it has been in the past.
      It has been argued that at the drop of a hat dock workers will hit the gate and go into dispute. But Opposition Members are now saying that the Bill will increase the number of disputes. I should have thought that even Opposition Members would accept that that peaked off some years ago.
      The Bill deals with one of the main causes of disputes in dockland. Certainly in the last decade, and particularly in the last five years, the difficulty has been the lack of definition of dock work. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft has argued that what we ought to have are tribunals. Surprise, surprise—the method by which this problem is dealt with today is tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing, therefore, that we ought to continue with the problems that exist in dockland on the basis of continuing with the present method of tribunals. That is also a contradiction.
      The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the narrowness of the National Dock Labour Board. For the first time since its establishment as a board, there are outside interests on it. The right hon. Gentlaman said that this does not go far enough and that this will not meet the need for a better balance in the composition of the board.
      46
      However, one cannot have it both ways. If the present Government have seen, for the first time, the need to extend the influence and responsibilities of the board by including representation that will be recommended by the CBI and the TUC, one cannot argue that the board is being narrowed. I do not know whether there will be a better balance, but there will certainly be an alteration in the composition of the board. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments are absolutely irrelevant in that sense to what the Bill is about.
      There is no indication that any of the measures to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred in the Bill or in either of the new clauses would benefit the situation in the docks industry. If nothing else, the Government intend to deal with what has been a problem over the whole post-war history of the docks. That is that there has not been a proper definition of dock work, a fact which has resulted in confrontations between dockers and between dockers and other people.
      When one considers the tests that will be applied under the Bill as to classification of work, one begins to wonder where the right hon. Gentleman gets the idea that it would be a very simple matter to put into operation an extended scheme purely by the very simple issue of classification of work. The tests that the Government have applied will mean in effect that any traditional work that has been carried out by non-registered dock workers will continue to be performed in that way, and there are the tests of location and the 1967 situation. All sorts of tests will have to be applied for a registered scheme to operate. They provide for the industry all the safeguards that are necessary.
      I believe, therefore, that the new clauses are unnecessary and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will resist them.
      Mr. David Price: In speaking to the new clauses, I shall be speaking on the basis that the Second Reading principle of the Bill has been accepted. If I am fortunate enough to be called to speak on Third Reading, I shall argue against the whole Bill. Within the rules of order, I think it it appropriate

      47
      that I accept the Second Reading principle. Therefore, I hope that what I am proposing now will be regarded by the Government, and by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), as an attempt to try to improve the Government's arrangements as agreed on Second Reading.
      The first point that is very important, and a great absence from the Bill, is the failure by the Government to spell out in the Bill the powers and composition of the local boards. In Committee the Secretary of State, when he was Minister of State, went a long way towards agreeing with me that the real operating arm of the reconstituted National Dock Labour Board would be the local board. If more power is given to local boards, a great deal less need be decided at the centre and more can be allowed to follow local practices.
      I believe that all hon Members who served on the Committee will agree that there has been deployed before us a wide variety of practices as to the classification of dock work and local custom between one port and another. There is the famous question of riggers. We have had different treatment of riggers in different ports. In some ports they have been classified as registered dockers and in others they have not. Therefore, if the Government are to ask the House to accept the scheme—it is only in embryo now, because it will depend upon the Orders made under the Bill for each port—it is essential that the Government should tell us their intentions towards local dock labour boards.
      I have tabled a later new clause, which we shall probably not have an opportunity to discuss, which spells out the suggested powers of the local boards. If the composition and the extent of the powers of the local dock labour boards are not spelled out, so it becomes more necessary to write into the Bill something along the lines of either of these new clauses. My enthusiasm for New Clause 1, in particular, would be less if the Government were prepared to say at a later stage that they were prepared to move an amendment or a new clause that spelled out the power and composition of the local boards.
      Mr. Loyden: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the rôle of the local boards will be very much determined by the rôle of the new national board, which in that sense will have a major responsibility? While I agree that there ought to be some indication of the rôle of local, boards, by and large it, will be dependent on the changed nature of the national board, which in turn is bound to influence the whole rôle of the local boards.
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Price: The hon. Member will observe the proposals in my new clause later on the Order Paper. We should write into the Bill exactly the same composition for local Boards as is proposed for national boards. The hon. Member for Garston praised the Government for introducing a third element at National Dock Labour Board level. In my new clause I suggest that exactly the same composition should be reflected in local boards.
      If the definition of dock work and of cargo handling zones is to be acceptable—and it must be, if we have not been wasting our time entirely on this Bill—it is surely right that both representatives of the employers and trade unions so affected should be brought in. We are agreed on that point. We had the famous case of the Banana Seven at Barry in Glamorgan, raised more than once in Standing Committee. The employers concerned were no part of the dock employers. That is a crucial lesson for us. We must ensure that at national level, and equally at local level, for the benefit of both employers and trade unions, the definition is sufficiently broad to include all those who might be brought in.
      I do not have all that much enthusiasm for New Clause 1, but in the absence of the Government's spelling out something about the constitution and composition of local boards, I believe that the new clause becomes that bit more important. It is needed as an independent element against the traditional dock employers and the traditional dock unions.
      There is the wider argument about a further interest—the ultimate consumers of the docks industry. These are the people who will determine how well our

      49
      docks work. This interest is written to some extent at national level, and I want to see it written in at local level. I believe that this is an entirely reasonable proposal.
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): Since the hon. Member has referred to the Barry Seven in this context I would ask him why the right of public inquiry was not used and did not provide any solution whatsoever? Why would that situation be better than the situation which exists in the Bill, which would have safeguarded the jobs of the people involved?
      Mr. Price: The Secretary of State must not press me too much about my preferred solution as I shall stray out of order. Getting the local boards right would ensure that the employers of the Banana Seven would have been represented when, as I understand it, in fact they were not. My enthusiasm for New Clause 1 would be less if something along these lines was incorporated into the Bill. The new clause is a fall-back position in default of setting out in the Bill the composition and powers of the local boards.
      I do not regard this as a matter of party ideology. It is an important piece of machinery which would improve the Bill. There are other matters about which outside interests feel that the right of public inquiry would be appropriate. I share the view of the hon. Member for Garston in that I am not a great chap for going to law. I share his reluctance for using the talents of our hon. and learned Friends. For a start, they are rather expensive to use. However, I acknowledge that the fact that one can litigate and go to arbitration as a last resort has a value. That value is not so much in the frequent use of these powers as in the fact that it represents a fallback position.
      It is clear that many people feel that we should write powers such as this into the Bill. The Government would not be giving much away if they conceded that. They would just be providing a bit of lubricant on sorely abrased feelings. If one takes the problem of spelling out in practice and detail the new cargo handling zones and the new definitions in terms of geography and functions, there is surely
      50
      a need to have some machinery to oil the wheels.
      The Secretary of State made much in Committee of the fact that the Bill as drafted will ensure that no scheme for any part of the country can come forward until he has brought it forward to this House and it has been debated and prayed against. But the trouble with that procedure is that Orders in this House have to be rejected or accepted in toto. They are not amenable to arguments and cannot be amended. The only thing the Opposition can do is to try to persuade the Government to withdraw them. That does not happen often, and Ministers who withdraw Orders are not very popular with those who manage Government business.
      In other words, it is not a satisfactory machinery and the Government will find that if they do not write into the Bill powers along the lines of my new clause when the time comes to work out revised and new schemes with the National Dock Labour Board, they will have problems and they will regret not having that sort of provision.
      Equally, there will be a problem from the trade unions' and employees' point of view if the Government decide to bring in a cut-off for existing labour at 1967. We deeply regret this in some of the newer industries in new locations, such as cold storage and warehousing. This is one situation in which appeal to some independent body could help, and is necessary from the employees' point of view.
      If the hon. Member for Garston thinks that my hon. Friends and I have been spending the last six months going around at weekends stirring up workers in various industries, then he has a peculiar idea of how we spend our weekends. In my neck of the woods, the area surrounding Southampton, I have had very strong representations from freight drivers—intercontinental drivers who go through the port of Southampton. Even since the introduction of the 1967 amendment, I have had strong representations from railwaymen in Southampton, quite apart from those I have had from cold storage workers and warehousemen. I have not spent my time standing outside dock gates running election-type meetings. I have had representations from people who have come to me because

      51
      they had very real fears about the situation. I did not seek them out.
      This sort of appeal machinery could be very helpful. In the absence of more being written into the Bill, we need some more clarification of the problem of recruitment and how people can move from one register to the next. This is a matter of considerable importance. Many of us believe that recruitment to the main register should now take place only through the extension register and that one should serve one's time on the extension register before moving on. If that is not done I do not see how either the National Dock Labour Board or the local boards will be able to fulfil their statutory obligations under the Bill to balance the supply and demand in dock labour taking one month or one season with another. We did not get a satisfactory reply to this absolutely crucial point in Committee. We still want to know how the boards will fulfil this obligation placed upon them.
      There is also the problem of those who are brought in under the Bill. Their work becomes classified as dock work. The Government have said that such people will go on to the extension register and that they will not therefore lose their jobs. Their successors may have to be registered dock labour. But then there is the problem of medical fitness. If they are not medically fit to do all dock work they can still go on to the main dock register. Part of the problem particularly in London, is the number of registered dock workers who are not medically fit to do all forms of dock work. To bring new recruits on to the main register who at that point are not medically fit to do all dock work cannot serve the purposes of the scheme.
      This year's Port of London Authority report says on page 16:
      "During the year some 2,670 registered dock workers, including 500 medically restricted men, and 320 of the non-registered staff formerly employed by the Scruttons Group were absorbed into the PLA."
      That meant that they were taking on as registered dock workers more than 500 men who were not medically fit to do all dock work. This raises a number of very great problems. I have tabled a new clause which suggests how this problem can be dealt with. Because of the nature
      52
      of the guillotine it seems unlikely that it will be reached. Because of the sort of problems which will arise in this situation something along the lines of New Clause 5 is neeeded.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will give an undertaking that he will do something along the lines that I have proposed so as to spell out in the Bill the powers and composition of the local dock labour boards. If he does not, the success of the scheme will be greatly prejudiced and there will be far more disputes leading to the need for something like New Clause 1 and New Clause 5.
      Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I agree very much with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), who directed his remarks towards the responsibility and autonomy of local boards. When this point was raised in Committee I sympathised very much with his argument. I agree broadly with what he said about recruitment. That leads me to a point which I raised in Committee and upon which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will now have the opportunity to comment.
      In the Port of London we are faced with a surplus of labour. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) mentioned a figure. That figure varies, and at the moment it is at its highest for many years. As economic circumstances generally are still uncertain, it appears that the port will carry a fairly large surplus of labour for some foreseeable time. Therefore, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what are the Government's intentions for finance—the Chairman of the Port of London Authority, Lord Aldington, mentioned the point in his annual report, if not this year, certainly last year—or for some kind of Goverment subvention to help the authority. I know that this point is slightly outside the scope of the clause. The matter goes back some little time, but it is relevant in two ways. It is not altogether clear how many jobs will be available as a result of the extension of the scheme in London. I have had some "guesstimates" about that, but I have seen no figures which I can regard as reliable.
      4.45 p.m.
      Representations have been made to me, not by some of the organisations which have spoken to the right hon. Member for

      53
      Lowestoft but by other bodies such as the London wharfingers who take an altogether much more responsible attitude to the Bill. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking to some of the wrong people. I have received representations from a number of trade unionists in the TGWU inland waterways section who are very worried about this aspect of the financing of surplus labour. When my right hon. Friend replies on this clause I hope he will say something about this matter, because that would be of great guidance to a number of people who are genuinely anxious about it.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker (St. Marylebone): The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of jobs which may become available in London as a result of the Bill. That statistic has been the most elusive to extract from the Government. The purpose of the Bill is to create new job opportunities for dockers. The Government have been reluctant to say how many job opportunities will be created. The hon. Gentleman said that he had had some "guesstimates" of the number. Will he say what these are, because we should like to know them?
      Mr. Williams: I am not prepared to give them because the numbers mentioned to me seem either wildly optimistic or depressingly low. I would much prefer to await some official estimates from my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Booth: I am not attempting to close the debate in any way, but hon. Members may find it useful if at this stage I reply to certain direct points which have been put to me, particularly those directed at New Clause 1 and New Clause 5. Both these clauses deal with a very narrow issue. It is how to resolve any dispute which should arise about whether work would or would not be covered by Part I of Schedule 3. This is purely a matter of statutory interpretation which I believe in many cases would not give rise to any disputes. It is not a basic issue about the registration of dock work. There will be many cases in which it should be readily agreed that work is covered by Part I of Schedule 3 and in which there will be no dispute as to whether that work is regarded as dock work.
      If work was borderline and if it was unclear whether it came within Part I of the schedule, I think that it would
      54
      be highly unlikely that the board would embark upon an examination of that work with a view to determining whether it should recommend to the Secretary of State that he should make it dock work. In any case, if someone took the view that work he was doing was not covered by Part I of the schedule or if trade union members who were engaged in that area felt that the board had no legal right there, that would be a matter on which they could go to the courts. They would contend that the board was acting ultra vires and was claiming to have a power to survey with which the Act did not provide it.
      This is a very narrow issue and not the sort of issue which is likely to give rise to a great deal of difficulty. Whether it is a matter which is better determined by the Central Arbitration Committee or by the courts is an interesting issue which the new clause raises. I would have thought that, since it is a matter of whether a power is provided by legal definition, it would normally be a matter for the courts.
      For the purpose of examining fully the proposition of New Clause I, suppose we said that this was a matter for the CAC. I ask the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) in what way that would differ from having the matter resolved in court. Would it be his contention that decisions of the CAC on whether work was within the definition of Part I of Schedule 3 should constitute legal precedent and therefore be held to be the future yardstick on whether that sort of work was classifiable? That is the issue to be settled. Whether it was done by the CAC or by a court, I do not think that this would change the basic issue or remove the subsequent argument which might follow the decision that the work was classifiable. It is highly likely that in cases where people would challenge whether the work was classifiable they would also challenge whether it was correct for the National Dock Labour Board to register work as being work. I have already said that this is more likely to be a contentious issue.
      The same is true of New Clause 5. One of the essential differences between New Clause 5 and New Clause 1 is that New Clause 5 puts forward the proposition that tests should he made by an industrial tribunal. We are getting a little closer

      55
      to the legal practice and moving from the CAC to the industrial tribunal. Much the same argument applies if one has an industrial tribunal determining what is the meaning of "work" in Part I of Schedule 3.
      New Clause 5 raises another interesting but even narrower issue: the question of how one settles an argument as to whether a place is within the cargo-handling zone or outside it. This is a question of fact. If one could not agree with the value of expert advice, presumably from Ordnance Survey sources, whether the premises fell within the cargo-handling zone as defined by the Bill, it could be argued that that matter could as easily be settled by a court of law as by an industrial tribunal. I do not think that an industrial tribunal is any better than a court with a tape measure or large-scale Ordnance Survey map. If it is not required to rely on expert witnesses, it tends to turn to the same area.
      Therefore, New Clause 1 and New Clause 5 are directed at a matter of legal definition and do not address the issue, which I accent is of very real concern, of whether the procedure laid down in the Bill for determining the way in which we settle what is or is not to be registered dock work should be properly tested.
      I put it to the House, as I put to the Committee, that, given the procedure that we have in the Bill, the method of examination of the final right of determination by the House is a better method than having the issue settled by a court or a tribunal. If there has been a specific difficulty arising from the present scheme, it is that this House has not had control on matters like this. It has been possible for the court, by decision on what is dock work, to settle the matter in a way which might be unsatisfactory from an industrial relations point of view.
      I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is absolutely right when he says that the question of whether work is covered by Part I of Schedule 3 and is not covered by Part II of Schedule 3 is one of a whole series of tests which the Bill imposes, and it is by no means the most important or the most contentious one. Many of the other tests are important
      56
      and contentious. It is much better to debate the issue of whether the Bill provides satisfactory modern means of determining what should be registered dock work and what should not be registered dock work.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): As one who did not serve on the Committee, I seek information from the Minister. Is his answer in the case of New Clause 1 and New Clause 5 that neither the CAC nor an industrial tribunal is adequate and that he will rely wholly on the courts?
      Mr. Booth: I am saying that the primary issue raised by New Clause 1 and New Clause 5 is a matter of legal definition of whether work is covered by Part I of Schedule 3. It is a more appropriate matter for the courts than for an industrial tribunal or the CAC. However, I am not saying that that in itself is crucial to the working of the Bill, but the effect would have to be much the same unless it is the intention—I admit that it is open to doubt—that, by exercising the appeal which is spelt out in New Clause 1, one would not cut out the right subsequently to go to a court. If one is not cutting out that right to argue that an Order laid by the Secretary of State under Clause 11 was ultra vires, that is a different matter and a different argument would apply. I took it from the way the hon. Member for Bodmin introduced the matter that he would accept that that would be the final decision.
      Mr. Hicks: The point I am trying to to make is that, as a layman, I have always looked upon the courts as the area of last appeal. If one can avoid it by having structures appropriate to the industry in question and to the circumstances that one is discussing, one should opt for the latter rather than talk about the fall-back situation of the legal processes.
      Mr. Booth: In some ways it underlines what I am saying about the difficulty of the procedure arising from the other point which has been put to me. The hon. Member has conceded by his remarks that there may still possibly be a last line of appeal to the courts going beyond that. If that is the argument, we are in greater difficulty with New Clause 1 than I originally suggested.
      If that is the line, what would be the position if a dispute which arose as to

      57
      whether work was covered by Part I of Schedule 3 went to the CAC as provided in New Clause 1, the CAC came to the conclusion that the work was covered on that basis and the board went ahead and made a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who accepted it and made an Order under Clause 11, which was then laid before the House, and someone challenged the vires of the Order? In that event, neither I nor a successor could rely on the CAC decision, because a person would have the right to say "The court must be the final determining area whether this work is covered by Part I of Schedule 3". That would be an additional difficulty if we took that view. I add that to my reasons for suggesting that this is not the best way of settling the issue.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin that it is better not to use procedures that involve the courts but to use the rights of representation to the board, of submission to the Secretary of State and, if necessary, if Members are still not satisfied, of determining the matter on the Floor of the House.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Prior: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) the Minister seemed to suggest that there was always a right of appeal to the court for an aggrieved person. Is there a right of appeal to the court for an aggrieved person only if the Secretary of State acts ultra vires? Is it right that there is no automatic right of appeal for anyone who feels aggrieved by the National Dock Labour Board unless the matter is ultra vires?
      The Secretary of State has complete power. This House is the only place which can take that power away from him. We do not consider that this House is constituted in such a way as to he able to exercise that power. Therefore, it means that there is no proper right of appeal for anyone who feels aggrieved under a decision. The only appeal that is perhaps available is an ultra vires appeal to the court, or an appeal to this House. That is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
      Mr. Booth: The right hon. Gentleman draws me deep into lawyers' territory. I do not accept that the only way in which somebody could act on the contention
      58
      that an action was ultra vires because it related to work not covered by Part of Schedule 1 would be by bringing an action against the Secretary of State. In my view—this may be subject to legal check—such an action might be brought against the National Dock Labour Board as well if it proceeded to carry out a survey of work which was not covered. I do not think that it is limited to an action against the Secretary of State.
      Another question was whether a decision of this House would settle the issue. I suggest that it would not. If a Secretary of State made an Order that was ultra vires, the fact that the House took a decision on it would not necessarily make the Order legal. It could be capable of challenge. That is my yew on the matter, but I may have to bow to greater legal authority, since I have not had a chance to take legal advice. However, when I was chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments my understanding was that an Order, even if approved, was still capable of challenge in a court.
      Two other matters which have been raised relate to New Clause 7 and the formation of local dock labour boards. I have an open mind about local dock labour boards. As I indicated in Committee, the composition, rôle and function of the National Dock Labour Board are of great importance. I have two objections to New Clause 7. The first is that it lays down a specific type, size and set membership of board for every area throughout the country. However, I suggest that it is desirable to have some flexibility. The second objection is that this matter would be determined within the Bill rather than be left for the scheme.
      It will be for the Secretary of State to lay before the House a scheme, and that scheme will contain provisions for local dock labour boards. Such provision is made under Schedule 2. The only area within the control of the board will be that covered by the board. The areas are not necessarily coterminous with the National Dock Labour Board scheme areas.
      The Bill as drafted, by virtue of Clause 5(7)(b), allows for schemes making different provisions for different areas. As that clause enables amending Orders to be made altering the boundaries of dock

      59
      labour scheme areas, or amending the schemes relating to different areas, as provided in Clause 5(8), there is much greater flexibility.
      I agree with the approach by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) to this matter of local boards, but I cannot recommend the House to accept the new clause, because it would take from us the flexibility that both he and I believe desirable.
      Mr. David Price: There is some force in the Minister's point regarding the composition of the board, but he will appreciate that I took the same composition as for the national board as I thought it broadly more acceptable. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider spelling out more than appears in the schedule the composition of the local board? That would go a long way to meeting my point and would assist me. As at present drafted, it suggests that the National Dock Labour Board has complete autonomy. I think that he said that he would like to reserve his position.
      Mr. Booth: I think that I can go some way to giving the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks. I undertake between now and laying any scheme before the House to give serious thought to the proposition that we should include in this scheme greater details of the nature of local boards than have been included in the present scheme. There is a strong argument for that proposal, but I defend the proposition, to which I have alluded, which would make provision for greater flexibility and the right to bring Orders before the House to amend local schemes in the light of experience or of particular developments. That kind of flexibility is highly desirable and indicates that we appreciate that we are concerned with an industry in which a number of developments are taking place. A scheme which might look ideal on paper this year may in two or three years in the light of further developments in the area to which it applies need revision.
      Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the local board on Humberside or Merseyside, for instance, will define which firms will come into the workings of the scheme—I have in mind
      60
      Birds Eye, which is obviously using much of its own stuff, whether it be beans in Lincolnshire or fish on the Humber—as opposed to firms which, in the old-fashioned sense, are importing cargoes from the Antipodes or other places 5,000 or 8,000 miles away and which are being handled by old-fashioned dockers—I use that expression advisedly—on the dock side?
      Mr. Booth: The straight answer to my hon. Friend is "No". I am not saying that we shall in the scheme spell out that one of the functions of the local dock labour board will be to recommend to the National Dock Labour Board and, through that body, to the Secretary of State which firms in its area might be covered by the scheme. That is a matter to which the House will no doubt want to give further consideration and which I shall want to consider before laying a scheme before the House. I hope that we shall reach the part of the Bill dealing with the way in which recommendations are made to the Secretary of State. That will be the appropriate point at which to deal with this question.
      Mr. Anthony Fell: Is there not going to be a dreadful muddle? If the boards are to have regard to Schedule 3(3) and to Schedule 3(10), how will they be led or misled by putting those two parts of the Bill together?
      Mr. Booth: This matter relates more to New Clauses 1 and 5 than to the rôle of local boards.
      One can make a connection in that when a local board has been set up and premises in its area are considered by the NDLB as suitable for survey, there may be some discussion with the local board making a recommendation to the national board. Whether the national board uses the local board as its agent or sends some of its own members to conduct the survey is open for consideration under the Bill. This is a matter that we can debate when schemes are laid before Parliament.
      It is better to retain this flexibility in the form and composition of the board. We may wish to alter the areas to be covered by a board or even its composition at some date, possibly after the passing of the scheme.
      I have been asked how many jobs will be made available in the London area

      61
      under the scheme. It is impossible for me to answer that question. We are determining in the Bill a mechanism or apparatus to involve people in the determination of what work should be classified as dock work. The answer to the question that I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Williams) and others depends on those decisions.
      Any order that classifies work must be laid before the House and, even if I could, I should not want to pre-empt that discussion. We shall have a sensible means of making that determination, but it is right that the ultimate decision should lie with the House. If the House thinks it wise to pass classification Orders, it will increase the numbers covered by the scheme. If it turns down some Orders, it will limit the numbers, but there is no way of extending the scheme without making classification Orders.
      Sir David Renton: Although one new scheme would have to be approved by a resolution of each House and, no doubt, be subject to a full-scale, whole-day debate, Orders made under the scheme, which are the really effective instruments, could be taken piecemeal, probably late at night when hon. Members whose constituencies are affected might find it difficult to muster sufficient opposition to get the Orders turned down against the strength of the Government Whips. This matter is causing great anxiety.
      Mr. Booth: In order to answer that question I should have to go into the adequacy or otherwise of our delegated legislation procedure, which would not be appropriate. Even after a scheme had been passed following a major debate in both Houses, a number of Orders would be required to make it effective or to classify areas. These would be of great importance to hon. Members. I do not rest upon the constituency interest; there is a broader interest, too.
      For this purpose the House has devised a procedure that enables Orders to be placed before a Merits Committee at which every hon. Member may attend and state his view. The matter under discussion is then brought back to the Floor of the House for a final determination by vote. If contentious Orders are laid
      62
      on the classification of areas or work, hon. Members may consider whether they wish to take them in the Merits Committee or pray against them in the House.
      Sir David Renton: They are subject to affirmative resolutions, not prayers.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Booth: Not all the Orders are subject to affirmative resolutions. With those that are, 20 hon. Members rising in their places can ensure a debate on the Floor of the House. I am not paying an undue compliment to opponents of the Bill if I suggest that they will not find any great difficulty in getting 20 hon Members to pursue this course.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is not here. I tried to intervene in his speech when in my view he put a very good argument against the five-mile corridor. I was hoping that he would suggest that we should drop it.
      The hon. Member was highlighting local customs and I know that in Liverpool there is a custom that dockers do not get involved with the work of cold stores. In. Southampton there are also local arrangements, particularly in regard to traffic to the Isle of Wight, which has not become dockers' work. Why must we have this corridor if local customs are to prevail?
      We should give full credit to the Secretary of State, who is always painstaking and long-suffering, but following his reply I am more confused than ever. The merit of the new clauses is that they give room for someone to arbitrate or at least negotiate in disputes and, whatever hon. Members opposite say, there undobtedly will be disputes.
      Most people do not want to go to law and an arbitrator could listen to the evidence from both sides and reach a decision. If he were asked to rule on a point of law, the matter could then go to the courts. That seems perfectly sensible.
      I do not take much comfort from the fact that we may have debates on Orders on the Floor of the House, especially if there is a repetition of what has occurred in the proceedings on this Bill. There were many amendments which should have

      63
      been taken up by the Government. Regulations may be brought before us late at night and, although there will be a decision of the House, we all know that there is a built-in majority on most occasions and things which should not get through will almost certainly be passed.
      A document which the British Importers' Confederation has sent to most hon. Members highlights many of its concerns. The Secretary of State gave an assurance in Committee that the Government do not intend to introduce a scheme which involved the Board operating in negotiations or being a negotiating forum. Therefore, some arbitrary decisions will be made which no one will be able to question except by some procedure when the board's recommendations are laid before the House.
      I support the new clauses. I am not happy with the way they are drawn and some of us would rather be debating other amendments—although, of course, we accept Mr. Speaker's ruling. The Government should think again about what will happen in some of the areas quoted in the document referred to. Although the Minister gave some assurances, we do not see on the Notice Paper all the amendments that we might have had from the Government.
      The Secretary of State said that there was no question of the driving of vehicles within dock estates being generally classified as dock work. We need clarification of that. The Under-Secretary of State gave an assurance that the Government had no intention that the scheme should fix in absolute terms remuneration, hours of work and holidays with pay, or disturb existing collective agreements. I suggest that we may still have problems to resolve there. There are many other items which will obviously be matters of great dispute, on which the Government have not tabled amendments—and it is getting late.
      The position of the local boards is a matter of dispute and I am pleased that the Secretary of State said that he was still open to representations on that score. Many of those who have been sending us suggested amendments and who know the business were disappointed when they had high-level discussions with the Secretary of State over the position of the local boards. They wanted to get wider
      64
      representation on them, bringing in not just employers and unions. I would hope that the consumers could have been represented, but at least the field should have been widened. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept those amendments in Committee and I am sorry that we shall not be able to press them tonight.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I think that Mr. Speaker said that he had been fairly indulgent earlier about hon. Members addressing themselves to the new clauses, but the hon. Member is now going rather wide.
      Mr. Ross: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am replying to the Secretary of State who went into this and presumably gave us the opportunity to deal with it. I shall not go further, but this is an area of dispute.
      I should be horrified if vital decisions were not left to local boards and if the national board were permitted to step in. Obviously, most matters should be left to local boards in places like Hull and Southampton. Southampton operates pretty well with its existing board, although it is not constituted as I have suggested.
      I hope that the Government will think again about the appeals procedure. Someone has to negotiate on the ground if we are not to have a whole series of further legal actions. Surely we all wish to avoid that.
      Mr. A. P. Costain: When the Secretary of State rose to speak, I had every reason to expect that he would accept the new clauses. In a guillotined debate, I shall restrict my remarks closely to matters affecting my constituency. I agree with most of what has been said by my hon. Friends. We shall be able later to discuss whether our constituency ports are excluded from the Bill. I doubt whether all those who have put down later amendments will be able to move them, so I rely on the two new clause to protect my port.
      The port of Folkestone is not a dock in any sense. I rely very much on the new clauses to establish early on whether it comes within the scheme at all. For instance, we have no warehouses in the normal sense. We are a port, not a dock. The only facilities we have are Customs

      65
      sheds and Customs loading. Most of the cargo is hand baggage carried by passengers on the ferries. There are no large cargo-handling facilities. We have facilities for loading lorries, but none is loaded within the five-mile corridor.
      I would therefore prefer if we could establish a simple form of appeal so that it was accepted once and for all that factories in areas like mine were exempt. Taking the matter to court would be enormously complicated and expensive. Why should a town which has no other purpose as a port than to accommodate ferries be affected by a Bill designed to deal with cargo-loading ports?
      I do not agree with the five-mile disance, and cargo-loading facilities would be included in a much smaller distance. Therefore, why should we not have a simple procedure? Why should not both new clauses be adopted.
      I am impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks). In a case like this, we need simple procedures. We shall try later to exempt our ports, with good reason, but I am not optimistic that my powerful arguments on that occasion will convince the House. I therefore rely on these clauses and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts and appreciate that this is one way of simplifying the procedure as it should be simplified.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: The need for the new clauses has been admirably demonstrated by the Secretary of State's speech. This is a technical and complicated piece of legislation requiring careful interpretation at practically every level. When the Secretary of State was trying to distinguish between those decisions of his which might be regarded as ultra vires, suggesting that appeal to the courts was an adequate remedy, those of us who spent long hours in Committee began to wonder whether it had all been worth it.
      At the end of the day, someone somewhere has to take an industrial decision which might employ people, produce and export goods and help towards our economic survival. One of the questions which is relevant not only to these new clauses but to any others that we debate is whether it will improve matters. We might also ask the same about the Bill
      66
      —whether on a certain day in an uncertain year it will achieve an improvement in economic performance. The straight answer is that it is extremely doubtful. When the Bill is applied to certain sectors of industry, industrial costs will rise.
      However, of one thing we may be absolutely sure—within the operation of the National Docks Labour Board and the local boards there will be, in the classification of work and the definition of the corridor, many areas of grey opinion where further objective assessment will be required. The new clauses suggest an appeal procedure to be written into the Bill here and now. I would emphasise that point. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say, "We shall deal with that when we lay before the House the general schedules as to how the national board or the local boards will operate, and when we lay Orders in detail." But that means deferring for a long time the solution of certain anxieties which have been expressed by some basic industries.
      We have had no shortage of considered and carefully calculated industrial comment on these proposals. Equally, we have had considered and carefully calculated trade union objections to the proposals, and certain affirmative voices have been raised in support of them.
      5.30 p.m.
      I draw to the House's attention the cold storage industry because it provides evidence in support of the two new clauses, which seek interpretation and appeals procedure. The industry is a hybrid. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said, its traditional trade in refrigerated cargoes has rapidly declined. Since 1967 the cold storage industry has expanded ninefold. It is housing more than a million tons of the nation's food supply and it is now a long-term public cold storage industry.
      It is no longer associated in the main, or even in a modest degree, with the traditional handling of refrigerated cargoes. Some parts of the cold storage industry still handle refrigerated cargoes, but the question of definition, with which the clause is acutely concerned, must be applied to the industry as a whole. Is it or is it not to be part of the Dock Labour Scheme?

      67
      It has been consistently argued in Committee and by the industry that the cold storage industry, which is part of the frozen food industry and which has developed rapidly since 1967 as an arm of the nation's larder, is quite separate from the traditional dock handling of refrigerated cargo. By passing the new clauses the House could come to an interpretative judgment whether that is a true and valid case, but the Minister has declined to accept them. We must turn back to his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman who is presently Leader of the House. In the Second Reading debate he said:
      "long-established warehousing, storage, packaging and cold store operations, which are not related directly to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations, would most certainly not be classified as dock work and, therefore, subject to the new scheme."—[Official Report, 10th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 267.]
      We seek, and have sought so far in vain, a categorical assurance that where a large industry is at stake the Bill should contain a simple definition which would enable an exception to be made, and that a statement should be laid before the House that the Bill does not apply to that industry.
      With the possible exception of the refrigerated meat trade, there is no historical connection between the cold storage industry and traditional dock work. It could be argued that there are portions of the cold store industry which are directly related to dock work. One could almost argue that a cod is a piece of cargo in transit, whether it comes in at Hull docks unloaded by dockers and sent to be repackaged in bread-crumbs and made rectangular in the Birds Eye factory. We cannot start talking about repackaging cargoes to enable us to define a cargo which has been reprocessed. Yet it might be possible for that to be argued.
      What cannot be gainsaid is that this industry has grown up outside the traditions of the transport industry. It has increased in volume and is now offering well over 1 million cubic feet capacity. The industry has grown ninefold since 1967. I recall that 1967 is the vesting year applied to the Bill. In vain have we sought to have the industry excluded. Yet the Government have decided that that
      68
      portion of the industry owned by the National Freight Corporation—which accounts for 10 per cent. of cold storage facilities—shall be exempted from the provisions of the Bill.
      I come back to the new clauses. Is it not obvious that the matter of definition and appeal should be considered and that persons operating within the industry should be given the opportunity of stating their case and saying whether the work that goes in in their warehouse or cold store should be classified as dock work? Surely there is an added need for such a provision in the Bill, as the Government have steadfastly refused to recognise the case of the cold storage industry on the one hand but, on the other hand, have allowed themselves the luxury of exempting the 10 per cent. they own on behalf of the taxpayer. That is duplicity of the highest order and it undermines confidence in the economic effectiveness of an industry which serves the housewife well.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: May I ask my hon. Friend's help? I have a cold store in my constituency. If the cold store remains as it is, it falls within the ambit of the scheme, but supposing it were to be purchased in future by the National Freight Corporation, is it my hon. Friend's understanding that it would go outside the scheme?
      Mr. Shaw: That is a classic case which illustrates the need for a disputes procedure. All the cold store ramifications of the National Freight Corporation are outwith the scheme. Therefore, it follows that should the corporation acquire an additional portion of the cold storage industry, that additional portion would also be outwith the scheme.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What happens if the National Freight Corporation sells a cold store?
      Mr. Shaw: By my reading of the Bill, its operations would become liable to be classified as dock work under the Bill. Therefore, presumably, employees who were once outside the scheme would be likely to find their jobs put at risk by those on the extension register or the main register of dockers to take their place. The Minister of State must surely agree that that illustration of what might

      69
      happen in the National Freight Corporation emphasises the desperate need for a sensitive procedure to enable these matters to be properly examined.
      One of the main objectives of the Bill is to ensure that the special class of the national work force known as dockers finds additional employment outside the traditional dock areas. None of my hon. Friends would object to that as a laudable right, but why should someone whose traditional industry has declined and changed out of all recognition seek to move into another industry taking with him all the appurtenances of his previous industry? No one objects to the recruitment of labour into the food industry, the cold storage industry or the distribution industry, if the labour coming into the industry observes the normal rules and practices of the industry. But we are asked under the Bill to provide that the docker may take with him, wheresoe'er he goeth, the traditional rôle of the docker, the title of "docker" and many of the privileges he has previously enjoyed.
      He also takes with him many of the costs he has previously enjoyed. Those costs become part and parcel of the employer's problem in the industry to which he goes. That brings me back to the vital question of definition, classification and right of appeal. Why should the 2 million tons of the nation's food in cold store be subjected to an additional cost of £6 a ton? Why should the nation foot that bill simply because all cold storage workers are required to become part of the registered dock labour force?
      The Minister of State will recognise that that is not what the scheme intends to do—or is it? We do not know. All we can say is that there is provision for labour to he taken into the cold storage industry, because it is not exempt, and that will bring complications with it, as sure as night follows day. Those complications we must resolve by a simple and effective procedure and that is what the clauses before the House seek to do.
      Certainly the cold storage industry has a record second to none in industrial relations. It has lost very few days in strikes, while the dock industry has not had a particularly happy period of industrial relations. Why then must we import the difficulties of one industry into another? This is where we find the need for a new clause such as this
      70
      to provide a sensitive definition of an appeals procedure.
      I am surprised that the Government in the past have made a virtue out of appeals procedures. They did so in the long and harrowing debates on the Industry Act last year when they set great store by the use of ACAS and industrial tribunals, but on this Bill they fight shy of doing so because they do not wish at this stage to say that the Bill is imperfect. They do not wish to pre-empt what the National Dock Labour Board when reconstituted would want to do. Above all, they do not wish to indicate to their supporters that they are taking seriously some of the major objections from the employers of labour.
      It is the employers who are really objecting to having to face a situation in which the jobs of the people who work for them will be altered by the infusion of perhaps a handful or perhaps substantially more members who are at present on the dock register. Nowhere will this be the case more than in the cold storage and distribution industries. They are special because they are part of the food industry. They are special because they have very few traditional links with dockland. They are special because they are largely part of an inland agricultural distribution network and they are extremely sensitive in relation to price and competition. They are special because to the housewife they represent one of the surest ways in which food can be stored, processed and distributed at minimal cost.
      It is in the national interest that the Bill should proceed in this way and threaten to undermine such an industry, or is it in the national interest that we should seek to call a halt to it? Is it in the national interest that there should be clear exemptions which the Leader of the House envisaged in February this year? Should the Bill contain provisions for the satisfactory solution of disputes and the satisfactory examination of who is right or wrong when it comes to classifying work and defining where it should be done?
      There is an overwhelming case not only for exempting the cold storage industry but certainly for including a procedure designed to ensure that all industry is not trampled underfoot, in the name of 30,000 dockers.
      Mrs. Lynda Chalker: In these two new clauses we have embodied what people normally consider to be an essential aspect of British justice—the right of appeal against a decision. Nowhere in our 36 sittings of debate in Committee did we get from the Government a feeling, despite some of the entreaties from their own Back Benchers, that a right of appeal would be forthcoming in this legislation.
      At the end of the Committee stage I felt that we had not talked to enough people. Therefore, the intervening period between our Committee stage and this amputated Report stage has been useful if only to discover from a greater number of people their views on this Bill as it came out of Committee. Some hon. Members may not be surprised to hear, that, if anything, the views of certain groups of workers had hardened because they found that the Government had been totally unresponsive to their entreaties about the way in which work might or might not be classified as dock work in the future. Their entreaties as to how an extension register might be defined had not been listened to as they had been given to understand in the consultation documents two years ago they would be.
      Therefore, I spent some of the intervening time visiting warehouses particularly, but also talking to dock workers about what would happen to this Bill when it got on to the statute book. That is surely what the House must be concerned about—whether the Bill will advance the work at our ports and of dock handling or whether it will throw further impediments in the way of British industry, impediments which we can surely do without.
      5.45 p.m.
      I am amazed at the unanimity of feeling among drivers, warehousemen, cold storage men and dockers. They do not believe that the Bill can provide greater employment. They believe that it will only cause greater strife. One of the questions they ask is "How can this matter be resolved? Is there an appeals procedure?" That question without exception was asked during every single set of discussions that I had.
      Mr. James Johnson: In no way do I doubt the sincerity of the hon. Lady, but as she tells me that she spent valuable
      72
      hours speaking to workers on the dock side, can she specify the unions to which those employees belong and who gave her the impression that there was unanimity—I believe that is the word she used—among workers against the Bill?
      Mrs. Chalker: I shall be glad to tell the hon. Gentleman. I spoke to members of USDAW, the General and Municipal Workers Union and the Transport and General Workers Union. Of couse, one had to be selective. I could not possibly visit every quayside and dockside, but when I sought an invitation and I was able to go, I did not find those workers at all in opposition to what my hon. Friends and I said in Committee or on Second Reading.
      I think it behoves us to consider the experience of one particular industry because it is an industry which has experienced considerable changes since 1967. Hon. Members may be a little surprised that I chose an industry which was based not so much on Liverpool as on London. One industry in which the workers are severely worried about the outcome of the existing state of work and worried that they will have no appeal is the tea industry. In 1966 between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the tea drunk in this country was imported through the Port of London. Last year it ranged between 10 per cent. and 14 per cent. The rest of that trade now travels to this country through the ports of Avon and Liverpool. The point is that the tea that was imported through the Port of London was handled by registered dock workers. The tea that today is handled on the Kirkby Estate on Merseyside is not handled by registered dock workers and never has been since that trade went to Merseyside.
      Therefore, the men handling that trade on Merseyside ask "What is to happen? Are the dock workers of Liverpool to have a natural right to come to this area, which is outside the five-mile limit? What right of appeal have we as workers against the decision? Should the decision be taken by the local dock labour board?" I have no satisfactory answer to give them at the moment, because all the words of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State in Committee and today will not allay the fears of those men.

      73
      I could continue at some length about the tea trade, but I shall refrain from doing so. Nevertheless it is an interesting example of how the magic date of 1967 does not cure the ills which befall this industry. The real fear is that the Government have perhaps not been as ready to listen as everybody was given the impression they would be.
      Amendments and suggestions have been submitted to the Government. Let us examine a few of them. I know that dock workers and warehousemen from different parts of the country have regaled the Department of Employment with suggestions about the local boards. They, like members of the Committee, had hoped that by Report they would hear proposals about how the Bill would affect them. They still have considerable fears about how the decision will be made about who will be allowed to do what work, and about their security in the long term. They feel that the Government were deaf throughout the Committee stage and are still deaf now.
      I expected that the Minister, as he is hon. Member for Doncaster, would understand the situation since many of his constituents will be affected by the Bill because of the way in which it extends inland. I hope that he will listen carefully to what his constituents say when their jobs are in question and they have no appeal and no way in which they can be sure that their entreaties are heard. They are fearful because their entreaties have so far fallen on deaf ears.
      Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Because of the time factor it is important that we should be precise. The hon. Lady said that people were in fear of their jobs. I have not read in the Bill that people will be displaced from their jobs. The hon. Lady should define what she means.
      Mrs. Chalker: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to intervene in that way and I shall turn to the notes I made at the Dagenham Cold Storage Company when two shop stewards asked me "Are you aware that names are already going down among London dockers for work at the Dagenham Cold Storage Company?" In Committee I quoted the substance of a meeting of the Barry dockers where workers said that they intended to take over many jobs. It is a wider question
      74
      than the Banana Seven issue. That is why men are afraid and that is why I say that the fear is more widespread than hon. Members credit.
      Mr. Leadbitter: I understand the hon. Lady's argument because she made it clear in Committee, but it is one thing to express fear which is caused by propaganda and another to express fear about what is in the Bill. There are no provisions in the Bill relating to the displacement of workers. We are talking about the classification of workers.
      Mrs. Chalker: I am aware that there is no clause which displaces workers from their jobs. But written into the Bill is the right of dockers to take on work which was formerly classified as dock work but which has not been so classified since 1967. In that sense it is little wonder that many people working in warehouses and cold storage depots are worried that by giving a right over all other workers to 32,000 men, someone will suffer unless there is a vast expansion of the industry. The House and the Committee will be aware that the industry has been continually diminishing rather than expanding.
      I shall give some examples to show why the new clauses are needed. In Committee I was chided for my groundless fears. But what appeal will there be if a local dock labour board decides to classify the movement of cargo to an inland storage place if it has come through a port and is defined as dock work? Workers 12 miles distant from rivers fear that the handling of goods which have passed through a port and which have been assembled on ships or abroad will be classified as dock work. They can see no way in which the Bill will safeguard them from that possibility.
      I am not the first person to question the Minister about that. He was asked about it by the shop stewards in the Transport and General Workers Union but he never answered their questions.
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Will the hon. Lady explain that last point again? She said that the Transport and General Workers Union shop stewards had put a point to me which I had not answered. I have no recollection of that.
      Mrs. Chalker: I have a list of suggested amendments to the Bill signed by the

      75
      chairman of the shop stewards of the TGWU which I am reliably informed was not acknowledeged by the Department. If the Minister wishes to look at the list, I shall give it him outside the Chamber.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Lady first said that the shop stewards spoke to me about this matter and that I had not replied. Is she now saying that a letter has been sent to my Department—because that is a different matter?
      Mrs. Chalker: I was informed by the shop stewards that not only had they spoken to the Minister but that they had sent their views in writing and therefore were surprised that there was no result. [An HON. MEMBER: "Liar."] I regret that an hon. Member should call me something which is unparliamentary. If he cares to say it in so many words, perhaps we can discuss the matter.
      Shop stewards have asked me "What appeal is there against attempts, when the Bill comes into force, to interfere with manning scales which have always been a matter between management and men?" They fear that the power of the local dock labour board to talk in terms of insisting that they will be registered dock workers could interfere with that system. They believe that there is no way of getting out of that situation.
      The issues which I have described have been raised again and again. The fact that there is no appeal in the Bill concerns everybody in the House. I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity in the way that he has dealt with the Bill, but he and his colleagues have been exceedingly short-sighted in not introducing an appeals procedure to cut out the worry and concern of workers. The Minister can put that right by accepting one of the new clauses.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I intervene briefly as one who did not serve on the Committee and who is therefore bound to approach these highly technical discussions with diffidence. I should declare an interest in that I was for some years in the Ministry of Transport with some responsibility for ports. In those years I discussed the dock labour scheme and its possible extension with many Labour hon. Members and trade unions. I was once associated with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, although I no
      76
      longer have such a connection. Thirdly, I have in my constituency a cold store whose workers are very alarmed. Labour Members may have views on whether they have reason to be alarmed. I merely state it as a fact that they are.
      6.0 p.m.
      Fourthly, over the past year or so I have been trying to sell to a number of countries in the Middle East and Africa the idea of coming to Britain for consultancy services in the management of ports. I was hoping to persuade them that we had something to offer from the Port of London Authority, the National Freight Corporation, such private ports as Felixstowe, and the British banking system. I believe that there are good prospects in the whole subject of ports consultancy services provided by the public and private sector, but I fear that the prospects have been damaged by the Bill.
      I intervene in the debate for three reasons. The first is that I was fascinated by the Minister's sensitivity—and I hope that he will not take this personally—when my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) dared to suggest that he might not have the Transport and General Workers Union with him on every particular. He immediately rose, because whatever the merits of the argument the one thing he would not let go unchallenged was the suggestion that he might not have listened to an official of the TGWU, conceivably a rather obscure official. He was very quick off the mark about that. He should not imagine that we on the Opposition Benches do not notice that he can thrust aside the merits of an argument but that the merest suggestion that he has not taken notice of the TGWU brings him to his feet immediately.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman obviously did not understand the reason for my intervention. It was merely that it had been suggested that I had said or done something of which I had no recollection. I have a pretty good memory, and I find ground for offence when people attribute to me things that I have not said or done.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry to catch the hon. Gentleman on a point where he

      77
      obviously feels rather sensitive. I repeat that I noticed with interest that the substantial arguments advanced by my hon. Friends on the merits drew no response from him, but that he was on his feet not twice but three times on that other matter.
      My second reason for intervening arises from the speech of the Secretary of State, a most agreeable man. When I was Minister responsible for sport he and I used to swim together, and I came to have a great deal of regard for him. But in his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that we were dealing with appeals on questions of disputes that might turn on the use of a tape measure or an Ordnance Survey map. He took refuge in the belief that if the question of the five-mile limit arose, the course of law could best determine how to use the map and the tape measure. As one who comes to the Bill anxious to consider the arguments on either side objectively, I am appalled to think that the great ports industry and the cold storage industry are now to turn on such matters as the interpretation of an Ordnance Survey sheet and the use of a tape measure. It is preposterous.
      My third reason for intervening is the matter of the National Freight Corporation. I have a good deal of admiration for the corporation. I was in part responsible for the appointment of the chairman, Sir Daniel Pettit, a first-class manager. I am delighted that he is there. But I drew from the Minister's reply to one of my hon. Friends the following strange conclusions, on which I hope his hon. Friend the most agreeable hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) will comment.
      First, a cold store worker who falls within the ambit of the Bill will become a de facto docker when it is passed. For all practical purposes he will be reclassified as a docker if he works in a cold store. But if the cold store is subsequently sold to Sir Daniel Pettit and the National Freight Corporation, the same man doing the same job ceases to be a docker and presumably becomes a cold storage worker again.
      Let us suppose that the corporation sells the store once again. Over a period that could be as short as a year or so, the way these things happen com-
      78
      mercially, the Bill will have made him a a docker, when he was not a docker; then he will have ceased to be a docker; and later he will have become a docker again. That is crazy. It cannot be right to bring into effect this strange redefinition of work in respect of the National Freight Corporation and schemes falling under the Bill. I beg the Minister, who is a sensible and practical man, to see that there is a much more sensible definition.
      Having divested myself of the minutiae, I come to one or two more substantial matters. The clauses deal essentially with the matter of an appeal, the settlement of disputes if they arise. I do not believe that there is much doubt in the House or the country that there will be disputes. One of the besetting sins of British industry over the past 20 years under all Governments has been that of demarcation disputes—who bores the holes, who puts on the tar? We all want to avoid them. But there is no doubt that where men believe, rightly or wrongly, that their jobs are threatened, they will seek to protect them by reasonable and, occasionally, unreasonable methods. That is the nature of work. Therefore, the Minister must provide for disputes. He would not be prudent if he did not.
      The question is simply when—not "if"—disputes arise, how they are to be arbitrated. The Minister took refuge in the fact that there were always the courts and this House. I do not believe that either is remotely satisfactory. The courts fall for two reasons. First, the matter can become justiciable only on a narrow point of law. It will arise only if the question of vires is at issue. But in such matters the great arguments will instead be about whether the store, the court or the job in question falls on one side or the other of the line. Many people—drivers, cold store workers, dockers and the newspapers—will have strong views. The worst thing to do is to go all the way to the courts, unless that cannot be avoided.
      When my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were putting the Industrial Relations Act on the statute book the Minister of State and many of his hon. Friends fairly made the point that the matters with which it dealt should be handled with common sense, that there should be consultation in dealing with men at work. "For heaven's sake, avoid

      79
      the courts!" they told us. As I look back, I think that they had a point. Let us not go to the courts now if we can avoid it. Surely that must be the common sense of the matter, and therefore when the Secretary of State, agreeable though he is, suggested that we should rely on the courts, he was merely going back on his and his party's philosophy in this matter. He must know that the courts are the last place to get to. They should be avoided if it is at all possible.
      Secondly, if the courts are brought In to deal with Ordnance Survey maps and tape measures, they have to make firm decisions—flat, hard, clear decisions. If we get to the end of the line, with the ultimate powers of the courts having been used and the dockers or the road hauliers still do not like the decision, they will be up against contempt, they will be up against imprisonment, and we shall be back where we started to the whole question of the dock workers who had to go to gaol and the Official Solicitor who had to be brought in to get them out again.
      It must not be the intention of the Government to shove these matters on to the courts—the decision, the contempt and the imprisonment and the fact that any dispute becomes a dispute with the law of the land. Surely it must be right, if at all possible, to avoid that, and that is precisely what these clauses seek to do. They provide what I can only describe as an earthwork before one gets to the courts. That is wise, and I ask the Minister to consider it.
      Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has been embarking upon a kind of confessional. Is he saying that his Government were wrong in forcing through legislation that inevitably involved the courts? If he is, his speech is rather interesting, but it is not a matter of relating that unhappy episode to the situation where we are not involved with that conclusion.
      Mr. Griffiths: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to describe my speech as interesting. I thought it was fairly interesting.
      I do not think that there is much point in my going back into the past. I was
      80
      begging the Minister not to fall into the trap into which his right hon. Friend suggested we might have been falling in the past. The situation then was that we had a responsible Government. That is not the situation now. The hon. Gentleman is being asked to support an irresponsible Government. I do not believe that we need to get involved in these small details.
      My second point—and it arises from some modest experience in Government in these matters—is that this House, for which all of us, save only the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), have the deepest affection, is the worst possible place to make decisions about the details of demarcation between one kind of work and another. This House, by any measure, is a broad-brush place. It is a place that considers arguments and comes to conclusions on principles. That is why all Governments make Orders. It is Orders that carry out the intention or the spirit of an Act in detail.
      The Minister suggests that these clauses are unacceptable because there is always either the courts or the House to deal with appeals and details. The House is no last resort at all on details, and I think that the Minister, for whom I have great affection, was being a little disingenuous when he suggested that we should always have an affirmative Order. We can have a debate on such an Order if we can raise 30 Members late at night. The Minister knows that that is not the way in which one organises things. Whatever else Parliament is for, it is not to decide disputes between one lot of workers and another.
      That being so, we come to the crux of this little debate. If, as I believe to be the case, the courts are not the place to settle these disputes—and I am sure that the Minister does not want to get into the courts if he can avoid it—and if Parliament is not the place either, there has to be something else. That is logical and clear, and these clauses suggest alternative appeals.
      6.15 p.m.
      One clause suggests that there should be appeals to an industrial tribunal, and I am attracted to that idea. The other clause speaks of ACAS, and I am equally attracted to that suggestion. What the Secretary of State did not deal with, and

      81
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with it later on, is why, if he accepts that we should avoid the courts and not rely on the House, neither of these well-established and well-regarded bodies is acceptable. What is wrong with ACAS? We rely upon it at present. I think that we have relied upon it to perform miracles in all kinds of places. What is wrong with its acting in this context? As we require others to go to industrial tribunals on so many other things, what is wrong with industrial tribunals in this connection?
      The Minister did not deal with those two points, and therefore he did not deal with the crux of the debate, which is that if there are to be disputes, how are they to be settled? No adequate answer has been provided to that question, and I hope that the Minister will give one.
      Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made his usual kind of speech arising out of a state of limited knowledge. He concluded by saying that New Clause 5 refers to the notion of having a tribunal, and he is attracted to that, and New Clause 1 refers to the use of the ACAS, and he is equally attracted to that. I presume that that is the measure of his attraction.
      The hon. Gentleman made an interesting speech—he said so himself. He is very fond of his speeches. Not many Members respond, but he nevertheless finds his speeches interesting. I presume that his judgment of this matter is that an industrial tribunal can use a tape measure better than can a court, and that ACAS can use a tape measure better than can the House of Commons. That is the measure of his judgment.
      The hon. Gentleman said nothing else. What he forgot to say to the House is that ACAS was set up principally to deal with industrial disputes. It is not a matter of vires, of extra legal implications, and the tribunal notion does little more than add to a great deal of confusion that has already been referred to in this debate.
      The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) said that people were in fear of their jobs. I agree, and the reason is that they have been fed the wrong kind of information by the wrong kind of people. Before the Bill went into Com-
      82
      mittee the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) was almost never off the television talking about people's fears and tribulations and about the unholy mess that would result in the docks from the passing of the Bill, but week after week in Committee the right hon. Gentleman was muted. His loud noises were silenced. During the long Committee stage we had a completely different performance from that which Conservative Members produced for public consumption, and their statements in Committee were one reason for the fears referred to by the hon. Lady.
      Let us consider the official stance of the unions. I shall be corrected by my hon. Friend if I am wrong. On 21st January of this year, at the transportation committee of the TUC, approximately 19 signatories agreed unanimously to the Bill. I will read it for the benefit of Conservative Members, because they have plenty to say on these matters. The report states:
      "At their meeting today, the TUC Transport Industries Committee gave unanimous support to the Dock Work Regulation Bill, the Second Reading of which is to take place shortly. It was agreed that in order to ensure that the language of the Bill adequately covers the points which have for some time been understood and agreed by all the unions, the Minister will be asked to consider some drafting amendments for the Committee stage."
      I am not unaware of the fact that those drafting amendments appeared and were fully considered, in my view to the satisfaction of all the participants. The report then sets out the names of the unions represented at the meeting, numbering about 10. I will not mention them.
      We have looked very carefully at the case put forward by the cold storage people. None of us has minimised the seriousness of their position. They have expressed their concern. None of us has been persuaded that the principle of negotiation cannot overcome some of their major worries.
      The dock workers have a right to receive support in this House for their future security of employment. They want the sort of security of employment that is enjoyed by nearly every professional body in this country.
      Conservative Members have repeatedly indicated their concern and alarm that

      83
      on the Government side we are anxious once and for all to give the dock workers proper conditions of employment. These workers have suffered over some 30 years a dramatic cut in their manning levels. At one time they numbered some 270,000. In a short period, due to technological changes and changes in port operations, their number has gone down to 32,000.
      Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend has touched on a very important point. The Opposition's argument concerning the National Dock Labour Board and the protection it affords to dock workers—a protection not necessarily enjoyed by other workers—is that it is unfair on other workers. If we believe that the protection afforded to dock workers is right and proper from our point of view, will not my hon. Friend agree that we ought to be thinking of extending protection to other workers, rather than depriving those workers who enjoy it at the moment?
      Mr. Leadbitter: Certainly. I fail to understand why Conservative Members ridicule the sense of urgency that we have in our desire to give to the workers in this country proper standards of employment, security of employment, and confidence in their own industries.
      The trade union movement has the capacity, the experience and the will to negotiate improvements in conditions in a manner which need not in any way involve the courts. It was the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds who referred to the courts and the Official Solicitor. But he, as a member of the previous Government, was associated with legislation which pushed the workers of this country against the wall, and put dock workers in prison. The hon. Member admits today in this House that the Official Solicitor had to be brought in when his Government found themselves in an embarrassing situation. Bearing that in mind, it is rather shocking that he should now be criticising the Government as he has.
      The Bill seeks to widen and broaden the areas of negotiation. The procedures laid down in the Bill make it abundantly clear that dock workers may have to wait many months before they see an improvement, because the scheme will take at least 18 months to two years to produce.
      Mr. Iain MacCormick: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, but when is a docker not a docker? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fall in the number of dock workers. I remind him that there has been a great fall in the number of coal miners. Does the principle behind the Bill mean that coal miners could be employed on oil rigs?
      Mr. Leadbitter: That is just as irrelevant and illogical as asking when is a solicitor not a solicitor, or when is an architect not an architect. It has nothing at all to do with the argument. The Bill is not dealing with individuals in that personal sense. It is classifying work.
      There is an important lesson to be learned from the professional bodies in this country. No professional body defines the nature of its work better or more militantly than the British Medical Association acting on behalf of doctors. There is no body which defines its work better, and more probably, than the lawyers.
      The great wealth of this country is produced by those who work in our industries. Over the centuries they have not had a fair share or the right to security of employment. Instead of the claptrap of New Clause 1 and New Clause 5, the Bill introduces measures which are calculated to improve conditions of employment.
      Quite sensibly, the Government have decided not to write every dot and dash into the Bill. Instead, they have decided upon a board. Incidentally, I notice that there is no amendment to deal with that. The board will produce the scheme as a result of a process of negotiation involving the TUC, the CBI, and local interests. This having been done, there will be proper public notice given before any recommendation is made. The recommendation will come to the Secretary of State, and an order will be brought before the House.
      I see no reason at all to inject into that machinery any further delaying mechanism. Already some of us are expressing anxiety about the time scale involved. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Lowestoft has had far more to say outside the House of Commons on this matter than any of us. He must learn to sit back and be patient. He lost the

      85
      leadership of his party because he was too anxious. Let him be patient.
      I put it to the House that it would be completely fatuous to introduce into the Bill machinery such as that provided by ACAS, which is for the purpose of dealing with industrial disputes. The Bill is intended to deal with something completely outside that area.
      As to the suggestion that there should be a tribunal, this is against the spirit of the negotiating principles already embodied in the Bill. Schedule 4 outlines the procedures to the satisfaction of Government Members. Opposition Members would do well to stop their delaying tactics and give themselves more time to get on with their further amendments.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I sense that the House is anxious to conclude this debate and reach a decision on the new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) will forgive me if I do not respond to their points about the cargo-handling zones in their constituencies. If I attempted to do so, I should trespass upon the subject matter of the debate which is to follow and which deals specifically with the cargo-handling zones.
      Right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall that we debated these matters fully during the Committee stage. Having listened carefully to the debate today, I have heard little new and certainly nothing which convinces me that my replies in Committee were not correct.
      Right hon. and hon. Members have overlooked the fact that we have been discussing provisions in Part I of Schedule 3 which arrange for work which may be classified as dock work. The whole debate has tended to run on the assumption that those provisions are mandatory in respect of the classification as dock work of the various activities listed there. However, I urge the House to understand that Part I of Schedule 3 provides merely for the range of work which may be subject to classification.
      The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) said several times that what was really needed was a sensitive procedure to enable classification Orders to be
      86
      examined and decided. But that is precisely what the Bill sets out to do. One of its fundamental purposes is to provide just that sensitive procedure which will enable us to reach decisions on these matters.
      The procedures are embodied in provisions of Clauses 7, 8 and 9 and Schedule 4. I shall not take the House through all those hoops, though I would point out to the hon. Member for Pudsey and those of his hon. Friends who made specific reference to the possible extension of the scheme to cold storage and warehousing that set out in Clause 8 and Schedule 4 is a series of tests which have to be satisfied before we reach the point with which New Clauses 1 and 5 attempt to deal. It is part of our reply to those who seek to insert another democratic check that a series of democratic checks is already built into the legislation. We have the provisions for consultation and the provisions for representations to be made before the Secretary of State finally makes an Order.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: Would the Minister of State care to comment on the assurance given by the then Secretary of State on Second Reading when he said that matters which were not directly related to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations, which included the cold storage industry, would not be classified as dock work? Is the Minister prepared to repeat that assurance?
      Mr. Harold Walker: We made a number of amendments in Committee specifically directed to providing safeguards for those who expressed that kind of anxiety. We inserted, for example, the provision about the union which had been in situ before 18th September 1967 having a veto over classification. Then there was the provision relating to the mixed situation where some work in a cold store, a warehouse or other situation could be classified and other work there would not be eligible for classification. Clearly this is a matter which has to be taken into account.
      I stress again, however, that by and large the provisions of the Bill are essentially enabling powers. They enable the new National Dock Labour Board to submit its proposals for a scheme. The scheme will be prepared on the strength

      87
      of those submissions and after further consideration by the Secretary of State. Eventually it will be subject to the affirmative procedure of this House. Under the umbrella of that scheme, my right hon. Friend will proceed to the making of classification Orders according to the locality and the needs and circumstances of the locality. Again, the Orders will be subject to the veto of this House.
      We have built in this series of safeguards to take account of the assurances which have been given. If the Secretary of State says that it is his view that such work will not be eligible for classification because it will not satisfy the tests or because it may cause harmful and unwelcome industrial relations problems, it will be ultimately a matter for his judgment and not an automatic procedure taken out of his hands.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked of people wishing to challenge the vires of classification and having the right of recourse to the courts. He went on to point out the power of this House to veto an Order. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) described this as taking a sledgehammer to a very small nut. However, I must point out to him that these two provisions are inescapable anyhow, even if we adopted the procedures recommended in New Clauses 1 and 5. If, for example, the industrial tribunal or ACAS and the Central Arbitration Committee were brought into the procedure, subsequently there would still have to be the making of an Order and the submission of it by the Secretary of State with the power to make modifications as he deemed appropriate. The order-making power is still there, as is the order-making responsibility, and hence the right of this House is still there. We do not remove that by accepting New Clause 1 or New Clause 5.
      What is more, we cannot take away the right to challenge the vires of an Order. Obviously that must remain. But a difficulty could arise if we had an industrial tribunal—and even more so if we adopted New Clause 1, bearing in mind that neither ACAS nor the CAC is set up or equipped to deal with legal decisions—making decisions which subsequently might be reversed in a court on a vires challenge. It would be an unfortunate development if that occurred.
      88
      As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is clear that the House is anxious to reach a decision on this matter. I am not persuaded by the arguments which have been advanced today any more than I was by those put forward in Standing Committee. I know, too, that that is the view of my right hon. Friend. We must urge the House to resist both these new clauses.
      Mr. Baker: It is usual when replying to a debate of this kind to say that it has been a good debate. I regret that I cannot say that today, though not for any lack of excellent speeches from my right hon. and hon. Friends. The essence of a debate is that there should be a conflict of ideas and a clash of argument. That has been singularly lacking in the past three hours.
      What is more, the argument for having a guillotine is that it provides equal time to Back Benchers on both sides of the House and ensures that they have an opportunity to put forward their arguments. In this debate we have had eight speeches from the Opposition Benches but only two from Government supporters. In one of them, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) took a trip down memory lane but did not defend the principle of the Bill. The only Government supporter to do that was the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who speaks for dockers and dockland. This Bill is about dockers and dockland.
      I thank the Minister of Stale for the courtesy of his reply. He is the work-horse of the Department of Employment. He has to take through Committee the Bills which his masters introduce. He took the Employment Protection Bill through Committee, and now he has taken this Bill through Committee. There are four other Ministers in the Department. I do not suppose that many right hon. and hon. Members know that. I dare say hardly anyone could name them. However, the hon. Gentleman had his just reward, because during the Committee stage of the Bill he was promoted from Under-Secretary to Minister of State.
      I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not believe that he addressed himself to the argument put forward by the Opposition. The argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member

      89
      for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) was simply that this Bill, unique in our industrial legislation, will give to one group of workers, for the first time in our economic and industrial history, a legal right to claim the jobs of other men. That is the essence of the Bill. That is what it is all about.
      If the Bill is not about that, it is not needed. The justification for the Bill was that there was a declining work force in dockland. There were 80,000 dockers in 1945 and at the last count, in December 1975, there were 31,000. The National Dock Labour Board admits that there are jobs for about 26,000. Clause 1 of the original social contract way back in 1974 was that this was a way to give the declining work force an opportunity of job security. The points raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends have been related to this issue.
      If we give to one group of workers the legal right to claim other people's jobs, the consequences will be considerable. This is bound to lead to a series of industrial disputes. The Bill will be a seed-bed of discontent. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) asked what would happen when the Minister made an Order to put into a scheme a warehouse which was later bought by the National Freight Corporation, which is excluded from the scheme. Some members of the NFC would be registered dockers and some would not.
      The obscurity concerning the definition of dock work is profound. It is natural, because in Clause 5(7) of the Bill it is said that the scheme which we are being asked to approve in this truncated debate may.
      "contain different provisions for different circumstances and combinations of circumstances."
      It is as broad as it is long and as wide as it is deep. Such vague definitions are bound to lead to industrial unrest. This fact has been recognised. The representations made to us by those who work in the dockers' corridor have revealed their anxieties that their jobs will be taken from them by the dockers.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I deliberately avoided taking up this point in an attempt to save the time of the House, because I thought that the position of the Opposition had been made clear beyond doubt by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft
      90
      (Mr. Prior), who put forward a different argument—indeed, he argued the contrary case. Since the hon. Gentleman is pursuing the matter, may I make it clear that we still stand by the words of my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House, who on Second Reading said:
      "I repeat that the suggestions that workers will be pushed out of their jobs—in the kind of extravagant language used by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior)—are grossly misleading."—[Official Report, 10th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 268–9.]
      Mr. Baker: That is the sum total of the assurances we have received. We had that statement on Second Reading, but nothing was done in Committee. There is still considerable anxiety, as we have seen from the Amendment Paper today. Look at the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends whose constituencies are suddenly discovered to be in the dockers' corridor. The Minister's own constituency of Doncaster is included. That well-known port of Taunton is affected. There is the other well-known port of Newark. The Amendment Paper is littered with the anxieties of my hon. Friends who have received representations from their constituents. My hon. Friends who represent large parts of Lincolnshire and Cornwall are affected. Most of Cornwall has suddenly become part of the dockers' corridor. There is anxiety, and it is the refusal of Ministers to recognise this that had led to a great deal of confusion.
      In these new clauses we seek to recognise that anxiety and the fact that this is no longer a family affair, a cosy deal between dock workers and dock employers behind dock walls in dockland. We are now taking in tens of thousands of companies. Hundreds of thousands of employees will find themselves subject to the provisions of the Bill because the factories, warehouses and cold stores lie within the dockers' corridor. When things have broadened so much, safeguards must be built in.
      6.45 p.m.
      That is why in New Clause 1 we recommend that there should be a right of appeal. That is why we put forward a right to a public inquiry in New Clause 2 and a right of appeal to ACAS in New Clause 5. We consider that this is entirely justified. The arguments of the Minister and his colleagues are totally unconvincing to us and to the country at

      91
      large. There is no economic case for the Bill. It will not create one extra job. It will create a series of disputes about jobs. We have been at pains to point this out. The Bill is economically unjustified, industrially damaging and politically foolish. We should show our
      opposition by voting against it later tonight and by voting for these clauses now.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 298.

      Division No. 278.]

      AYES

      [6.45 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Fell, Anthony

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Alison, Michael

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Arnold, Tom

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Forman, Nigel

      Knox, David

      Awdry, Daniel

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Lamont, Norman

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Fox, Marcus

      Lane, David

      Baker, Kenneth

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Langford-Hott, Sir John

      Banks, Robert

      Freud, Clement

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Beith, A. J.

      Fry, Peter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Bell, Ronald

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Lawson, Nigel

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Benyon,W.

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Loveridge, John

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Luce, Richard

      Bitten, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      MacCormick, Iain

      Blaker, Peter

      Goodhart, Philip

      McCrindle, Robert

      Body, Richard

      Goodhew, Victor

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Goodlad, Alastair

      MacGregor, John

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gorst, John

      Macmillan, Rt Hon W (Farnham)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Madel, David

      Brittan, Leon

      Gray, Hamish

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Marten, Neil

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mates, Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Grist, Ian

      Maude, Angus

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Grylls, Michael

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Buck, Antony

      Hall, Sir John

      Mawby, Ray

      Budgen, Nick

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Burden, F. A.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hamam,John

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mills, Peter

      Carson, John

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Channon, Paul

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hawkins, Paul

      Monro, Hector

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Henderson, Douglas

      More, Jasper (Lud'ow)

      Clegg, Walter

      Heseltlne, Michael

      Morgan, Geraint

      Cockcroft, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Cope,John

      Holland, Philip

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Cordle, John H.

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hordern, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Corrie, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Neave, Airey

      Costain, A. P.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Crawford, Douglas

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Neubcrt, Michael

      Critchley, Julian

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Newton, Tony

      Crouch, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Normanton, Tom

      Crowder, F. P.

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Nott, John

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Onslow, Cranley

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Osborn, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      James, David

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Drayson, Burnaby

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

      Page, Rt Hon R. Grarnm (Crosby)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Jessel, Toby

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Durant, Tony

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Pardoe, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Eden, Rl Hon Sir John

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Penhaligon, David

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Jopling, Michael

      Percival, Ian

      Elliott, Sir William

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Emery, Peter

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Pink, P Bonner

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Keliett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Powell. Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Eyre, Reginald

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Kilfedder, James

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Fairgrleve, Russell

      Kimball, Marcus

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Farr, John

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Raison, Timothy

      Rathbone, Tim

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Trotter, Neville

      Reos, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Reid, George

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Speed, Keith

      Viggers, Peter

      Renlon, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Spence, John

      Wakeham, John

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Sproat, Iain

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon sir Derek

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Stainton, Keith

      Wall, Patrick

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walters, Dennis

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Stanley, John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Watt, Hamish

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Wells, John

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Stokes, John

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Stradling. Thomas J.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Tapsell, Peter

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Scott, Nicholas

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Younger, Hon George

      Shepherd, Colin

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Shersby, Michael

      Thompson, George

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Silvester, Fred

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Mr. Carol Mather and

      Sims, Roger

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Mr. Jim Lester.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Cronin, John

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Allaun, Frank

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Anderson, Donald

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Archer, Peter

      Cryer, Bob

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Ashley, Jack

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Hardy, Peter

      Ashton, Joe

      Dalyeil, Tam

      Harper, Joseph

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hatton, frank

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Bates, Alt

      Deakins, Eric

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Bean, R. E.

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hooley, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Dempsey, James

      Horam, John

      Bldwell, Sydney

      Doig, Peter

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

      Bishop, E. S.

      Dormnnd, J. D.

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Huckfleld, Les

      Boardman, H.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Dunn, James A.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Eadie, Alex

      Hunter, Adam

      Bradley, Tom

      Edge, Geoff

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      English, Michael

      Janner, Greville

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Ennals, David

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Buchan, Norman

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Buchanan, Richard

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      John, Brynmor

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Campbell, Ian

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Flannery, Martin

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Cant, R. B.

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Judd, Frank

      Carter, Ray

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Cartwright, John

      Ford, Ben

      Kelley, Richard

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Forrester, John

      Kerr, Russell

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Kilroy-Sllk, Robert

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

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

      Kinnock, Neil

      Cohen, Stanley

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lamble, David

      Coleman, Donald

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Lamond, James

      Concannon, J. D.

      George, Bruce

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Ginsburg, David

      Lee, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Golding, John

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooling)

      Gould, Bryan

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lipton, Marcus

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Graham, Ted

      Litterick, Tom

      94

      95

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Palmer, Arthur

      Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Park, George

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Parker, John

      Swain, Thomas

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Parry, Robert

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Pendry, Tom

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Perry, Ernest

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Tierney, Sydney

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Tomlinson, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Prescott, John

      Tomney, Frank

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Torney, Tom

      Madden, Max

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Magee, Bryan

      Radice, Giles

      Urwin, T. W.

      Mahon, Simon

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

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

      Marquand, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Ward, Michael

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Watkins, David

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Rooker, J. W.

      Watkinson, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Roper, John

      Weetch, Ken

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Weitzman, David

      Mendelson, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wellbeloved, James

      Mikardo, Ian

      Sandelson, Neville

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Millan, Bruce

      Sedgemore, Brian

      White, James (Pollok)

      Miller. Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Selby, Harry

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Whitlock, William

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Moonman, Eric

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Moyle, Roland

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)'

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Sillars, James

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Silverman, Julius

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Newens. Stanley

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Noble, Mike

      Small, William

      Woodall, Alec

      Oakes, Gordon

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Woof, Robert

      Ogden, Eric

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Stallard, A. W.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Ovenden, John

      Stoddart, David

      Mr. James Tinn and

      Owen, Dr David

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. Peter Snape.

      Padley, Walter

      Strang, Gavin

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 3

      EXCLUDED AREAS
      'This Act shall not apply to any place which is not within five miles (in a direct line) of a harbour.'—[Mr. Brittan.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Leon Brittan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take New Clause 4 (Small harbours) and the following amendments:
      No. 21, in Clause 4, page 4, line 14, leave out 'five miles' and insert 'half a mile'.
      No. 22, in page 4, line 15, leave out from 'of' to end of line 32 and insert
      'any dock estate or harbour but excluding any establishment not capable of handling cargo
      96
      direct from waterborne craft unless such establishment is to a material extent engaged in work transferred from a dock estate or harbour, being work which immediately before the date of this enactment was work exclusively undertaken by registered dockworkers'.
      No. 23, in page 4, line 15, leave out
      'the nearest point on the sea'
      and insert
      'any harbour—

      (i) which is capable at mean highwater of handling ships having a draught in excess of twenty feet; or

      (ii) at which the hours worked in the twelve months ended on 3rd December 1975 by a person engaged in loading cargo into, or unloading cargo from, ships exceeded (on being averaged with the hours so worked by other persons so engaged during that period) 1,350'.

      No. 24, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any airport or market'.
      No. 25, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Whitstable, Kent'.
      No. 26, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Whitby'.

      97
      No. 27, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Harwich (Navyard)'.
      No. 28, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Wivenhoe.
      No. 29, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Mistley
      No. 30, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Mostyn or the Borough of Delyn'.
      No. 31, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the district of Bournemouth'.
      No. 32, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the district of West Norfolk'.
      No. 33, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Wells'.
      No. 34, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part Newhaven, Sussex'.
      No. 35, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the District Harborough'
      No. 36, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Watchet'
      No. 37, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Lymington'
      No. 38, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the District of Rochford'
      No. 39, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the District of Maldon'
      No. 40, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Maldon'
      No. 41, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Burnham on Crouch'.
      No. 42, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the District of Castle Point'.
      No. 43, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Folkestone.
      No. 44, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the district of Tewkesbury'.
      No. 45, in page 4, line 18, at end add
      'but shall not include any part of the Borough of Beverley'.
      98
      No. 46, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the docking or wharfage facilities at Selby'
      No. 47, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Bromborough Dock.'
      No. 48, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the ports of Fawley and Eling'
      No. 49, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the harbour at Annan'.
      No. 50, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the harbour at Dumfries'.
      No. 51, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Gloucester'.
      No. 52, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Richborough'.
      No. 53, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Dover'.
      No. 54, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of a port or shipping place on the coasts of North Yorkshire and Humberside between Filey and Spurn Point'.
      No. 55, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Teignmouth'
      No. 56, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Scarborough'.
      No. 57, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
      'but shall not include any port of the ports of Newburgh (Fife), St. Andrews, Crail, Anstruther, Pittenweem, Cellardyke, St. Monans, Elie, and Largo'.
      No. 58, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of Braehead, Renfrew, in the District of Renfiew'
      No. 59, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the town of Winsford, Cheshire'.
      No. 60, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include part of the District of Chester'
      No. 61, in page 4, line 18, at end add:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Margate'.
      No. 62, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the docking or wharfage facilities at Largs'

      99
      No. 63, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the harbour at Lamlash, Arran'.
      No. 64, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Bridport'
      No. 65, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Lyme Regis'.
      No. 66, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the airport of Manston'
      No. 67, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the hoverport of Pegwell Bay'.
      No. 68, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Ramsgate'
      No. 69, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the harbour of Broadstairs'.
      No. 70, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the area within the jurisdiction of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board as defined in the Milford Haven Conservancy Acts 1958–1975 or of The Milford Dock Company'.
      No. 71, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any of the part of the ports of Lancaster or Glasson Dock'.
      No. 72, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the ports of Cley, Cromer or Sheringham'
      No. 73, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Littlehampton'
      No. 74, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the commercial port of Portsmouth'.
      No. 75, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Gainsborough'
      No. 76, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      but shall not include any part of the port of Keadby'.
      100
      No. 77, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Montrose'.
      No. 78, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Lancaster'.
      No. 79, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Exeter'.
      No. 80, in page 4, line 18:
      'but shall include any part of the Port of Topsham'.
      No. 81, in page 4, line 18, at end add:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Southport'.
      No. 248, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the harbour of Hastings'.
      No. 250, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the ports of Lulworth Cove or Portland, Swanage'.
      No. 252, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Colchester'.
      No. 254, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Southwold'.
      No. 260, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any port on the islands of Coll, Tiree, Mull, Iona, Lismore, Colonsay, Jura, Islay, Giglia and Luing, or any part on the mainland of Argyll'.
      No. 261, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Cullercoats'.
      No. 263, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any port in the islands of Lewis, Harris, North Uist, South Uist, Benbecula or Barra'.
      No. 281, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the district of Huntingdon'.
      No. 282, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the district and City of Peterborough'.

      101
      No. 283, in page 4, line 18, insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the ports of Torquay or Brixham'
      No. 286, in page 4, line 18, at end insert.
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Chepstow'.
      No. 288, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Looe'
      In page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      'but shall not include any part of the port of Polperro'
      No. 292, in page 4, line 18, at end add:
      'but shall not include any part of the Districts of Woodspring or Sedgemoor'
      No. 82, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      '(c) this zone shall not include any port where the annual average tonnage of cargo landed is less than 1 million tons;
      (d) this zone shall not include any part of the following island groups; the Outer Hebrides, the Inner Hebrides, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands and the Isle of Wight.'
      No. 83, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
      '(3A) The port of Shoreham and the relevant cargo-handling zone is defined in subsection (3) above shall be excluded from the operations of the draft Scheme'.
      No. 268, in page 4, line 23, after 'river', insert:
      'until such waters reach a point inland at which they cease to be one hundred metres wide at mean high water'.
      No. 269, in page 4, line 26, at end insert:
      'or anywhere incapable of being navigated by ships of gross registered tonnage of 6,000 tons or more'.
      No. 84, in page 4, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
      No. 270, in page 4, line 33, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
      No. 85, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
      'other than any part of the port of Whitstable, Kent'.
      No. 86, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
      'other than any part of the port of Whitby'.
      No. 87, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
      'other than any part of the port of Harwich (Navyard)'.
      102
      No. 88, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
      'other than any part of the port of Wivenhoe'.
      No. 89, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Mistley'.
      No. 90, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
      'other than any part of the port of Mostyn or the Borough of Delyn'.
      No. 91, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
      'other than any part of the district of Bournemouth'.
      No. 92, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
      'other than any part of the district of West Norfolk'.
      No. 93, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the Port of Wells'.
      No. 94, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Newhaven, Sussex'.
      No. 95, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the district of Harborough'
      No. 96, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Watcher'
      No. 97, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Lymington'
      No. 98, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the District of Rochford'
      No. 99, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the District of Maldon'
      No. 100, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Maldon'
      No. 101, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the putt of Burnham on Crouch'.
      No. 102, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the District of Castle Point'.

      103
      No. 103, in page 4, line 37, at end add
      'other than any part of the port of Folkestone'.
      No. 104, in page 4, line 37, at end add
      'other than any part of the district of Tewkesbury'.
      No. 105, in page 4, line 37, at end add
      'other than any part of the Borough of Beverley'.
      No. 106, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the docking or wharfage facilities at Selby'
      No. 107, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Bromborough Dock'.
      No. 108, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the ports of Fawley and Eling'
      No. 109, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the harbour at Annan'.
      No. 110, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the harbour at Dumfries'.
      No. 111, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Gloucester'
      No. 112, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Richborough'.
      No. 113, in page 4, line 37, at end, insert
      'other than any part of the port of Dover'.
      No. 114, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of a port or shipping place on the coasts of North Yorkshire and Humberside between Filey and Spurn Point'.
      No. 115, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Teignmouth'
      No. 116, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the ports at Newburgh (Fife), St. Andrews, Crail, Anstruther, Pittenweem, Cellardyke, St. Monans, Elie, and Largo'.
      No. 117, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the District of Braehead, Renfrew'.
      104
      No. 118, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the town of Winsford, Cheshire'.
      No. 119, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the District of Chester'.
      No. 120, in page 4, line 37, at end add
      'other than any part of the port of Margate'.
      No. 121, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the docking or wharfage facilities at Largs'
      No. 122, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the harbour Lamlash, Arran'.
      No. 123, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Bridport'.
      No. 124, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Lyme Regis'.
      No. 125, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the airport of Manston'
      No. 126, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the hover-port of Pegwell Bay'.
      No. 127, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Ramsgate'.
      No. 128, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the harbour of Broadstairs'
      No. 129, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'but shall not include any part of the area within the jurisdiction of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board as defined in the Milford Haven Conservancy Acts 1958–1975 or of The Milford Dock Company'.
      No. 130, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any of the ports of Lancaster and Glasson Dock'.
      No. 131, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the ports of Cley, Cromer or Sheringham'

      105
      No. 132, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Littlehampton'
      No. 133, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the commercial port of Portsmouth'.
      No. 134, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Gains-borough'.
      No. 135, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Keadby'.
      No. 136, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Montrose'.
      No. 137, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'Other than any part of the port of Lancaster'.
      No. 138, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Exeter'.
      No. 139, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Topsham'.
      No. 140, in page 4, line 37, at end add
      'other than any part of the port of Southport'.
      No. 249, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the harbour of Hastings'.
      No. 251, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the ports of Lulworth Cove, Portland or Swanage'.
      No. 253, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Colchester'.
      No. 255, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Southwold'
      No. 262, in page 4, line 37, at end add
      'other than any part of the port of Culler-coats'.
      No. 284, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the ports at Torquay or Brixham'.
      106
      No. 287, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Chepstow'.
      No. 290, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Looe'.
      No. 291, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
      'other than any part of the port of Polperro'.
      No. 293, in page 4, line 37, at end add
      'other than any part of the Districts of Wood-spring or Sedgemoor'.
      No. 141, in page 4, line 39, leave out subsection (7).
      No. 264, in Clause 18, page 18, line 35, at end insert or to Scotland'.
      Mr. Brittan: The purpose of this new clause and the amendments which are being taken with it is to exclude small ports from the operation of the Bill and to reduce the Government's powers in relation to the dockers' corridor, euphemistically described as the cargo-handling zone.
      The Bill is genuinely reactionary because the whole progress of our history has been to progress from status to contract. The Bill seeks to operate in the opposite direction—it is a regression from contract, freely entered into between employers and employees, to status, where one's position in life depends not on what group one is in but on whether one is a docker.
      The Bill originates from the problems of the Port of London and one or two other large ports. It is wholly inappropriate to deal with the problems of the small ports. One thing is clear. If there is the slightest merit in the Bill for large ports, the fact is that if it is imposed on small ports as well it will do immeasurable damage to them without in any way improving the position of the large ports. To extend the scheme to small ports is a misguided attempt to cure the disease by spreading the infection. It will add to costs, reduce flexibility of operation, and increase inefficiency.
      Some small ports will be destroyed, others will be maimed. The overall result will be to increase unemployment in the ports concerned and to bring about severe hardship in many ports of the country, particularly in rural or outlying areas.

      107
      How will that come about? At the moment in the small ports there is usually a permanent labour force in the docks, supplemented when necessary by casual labour. In the smallest of the small ports, there is a system of labour employed as and when necessary to deal with traffic as and when it comes into the port.
      What happens if the scheme is extended to these small ports? The answer is that there will be no more labour of a seasonal kind employed as and when necessary, and, therefore, one of two things could happen. Either all those employed on a permanent basis will be registered as dock workers, or casual workers who are employed from time to time will also be registered as dock workers. In the latter case, if the irregular casual labour force is given permanent employment and added to those who are already employed on a permanent basis, it is obvious that this will lead to huge increases in the operating costs of these ports, because there will be people employed on a permanent basis for whom there is only seasonal work. This will mean that the port will become less attractive to use and trade will go elsewhere. All the economic obscurantism of this misguided measure will not prevent decease and decline of the ports concerned.
      What will happen if only the people who at the moment are employed on a permanent basis are registered as dock workers? I shall give an illustration. Whitby, in my constituency, is absolutely typical of what would happen in this situation. First of all, those who enjoy seasonal employment from time to time when they are required will lose their jobs altogether. They will be deprived of work in towns where unemployment is often a serious problem. The regular dock workers will gain nothing from the extension of the scheme to them in ports of this kind. They will not earn a penny more, because they already receive the same rates of pay, the same holiday pay, the same pensions and the same bonuses as those in the Dock Labour Scheme. In almost every case there is already a proper agreement with a union, usually the Transport and General Workers' Union. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a lack of adequate labour relations.
      108
      We are not talking about some maverick private enterprise concern or some kind of shark outfit in which speculators are concerned. These ports are all owned by the local authorities or comparable public bodies.
      What will happen when the harbour is full and only the present permanent labour force is engaged? The normal irregular seasonal work force cannot be employed, so registered dock workers will have to be brought in from outside—from Teesside or the Humber. This will involve extra transport costs, delays and congestion on rural roads, and other problems which inevitably will be involved in so farcical a procedure as is envisaged in the Bill.
      At present, the port of Whitby provides a service in which the turn-around time for a 700-ton ship is less than four hours. That service will no longer be available because the port's competitors will inevitably take its business away.
      Mr. James Johnson: We have just heard a somewhat stilted and exaggerated sketch of the future scenario at Whitby. We have been told about the highways and byways being clogged with dockers going to Whitby to work from Humberside and Teesside. Does the hon. Gentleman have any figures to back this up?
      Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member is not doing justice to his argument by invoking a case which I have not put. What I have said is clear. What is more, it is a fact. It is the hon. Member's embarrassment about this which has led to his introducing a diversion of that kind.
      If the situation is that only the present permanent people in any port of which Whitby is an example can be registered and employed at times when casual employment would normally be provided, people will have to be brought in from other registered ports. It is as simple as that, and the extent and scale of the problem will vary from place to place. But the service at present provided by a port which is able to turn round a 700-ton ship in four hours will no longer be available and the competitors will take the business away.
      If the port declines as a result of the increased costs and as a result of the reduced flexibility which will obtain in

      109
      ports of this kind, what will be the situation? The registered dockers will certainly have their pay, because that is assured under the scheme. For their part, however, they will not find the consequences very congenial. As trade declines in the port in question, they may be compelled from time to time to work far afield. Ultimately, dockers who have made their homes nearby may have to move.
      In short, therefore, the Bill will be a disaster for the small ports concerned. It will add further to unemployment, destroying small but efficient ports which are providing a uniquely valuable service for the areas surrounding them. Whitby is the example which comes naturally to me, but there will be many places which will be far worse off as a result of the decline or the eventual closure of their ports. There will be some cases in the remote areas where the port provides a lifeline to the surrounding hinterland or to the islands concerned. If the costs go up and the port cannot carry on on that basis, that lifeline will be destroyed. The commodities and goods upon which everyone in the area depends will have to be brought in from more distant ports. That will mean not only that supplies will be less assured in times of bad weather but that the costs will go up and rural and outlying areas will find that they are subject even more than usual to the high prices and difficulties from which rural areas suffer.
      Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will not this be particularly serious in ports serving the farming areas? Specialist treatment is required for the transhipment of livestock, but not on a regular basis.
      Mr. Brittan: That is a particularly vivid example of the ill that I am seeking to describe and which will be very widespread. Not only will the ports suffer. The towns to which the ports are attached will lose income and rates and will waste investment which has been sunk in the harbours concerned.
      This is a recipe for disaster for the small ports which will have the scheme extended to them. What conceivable justification is there for damage of this kind being inflicted on a nation-wide basis? It cannot be to further industrial
      110
      relations, because the present situation is that those who are permanently employed in such ports are no worse off than those employed in the scheme ports. Those employed on a casual basis will be out of work altogether. It is difficult to see, therefore, what industrial relations argument there is in favour of the extension of the scheme to the small ports.
      It is noteworthy that, according to the survey by the National Ports Council, the number of casual workers in the entire docks industry is 357, which is just over 1 per cent. of the total number of registered dock workers. Even in the non-scheme ports that represents only 14 per cent. of those employed. Therefore, it is farcical to present that—
      Mr. Prescott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Britton: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman's Government have chosen to guillotine the Bill, and he and his hon. Friends must take the consequences of that in this debate, one of which is to have the pleasure of not hearing the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
      7.15 p.m.
      It has been argued as an alternative justification for this measly measure that the non-scheme ports have been expanding at the expense of the scheme ports and that there has been unfair competition by them which the big brothers in Liverpool and Hull cannot face. If that is so, one might ask whether it is coincidental that the ports which do not have the affliction of the scheme upon them seem to be doing so well. Is it right that the way to deal with that problem is to hang the albatross around everyone's neck?
      The argument that the scheme ports have been losing to the non-scheme ports has been dropped by the Government. In an interesting exchange in Standing Committee, after a series of questions and answers, I said of the Secretary of State
      "I am trying to get the right hon. Gentleman to agree—in fact, I believe that he does agree—that, if the figures that he gave are correct, whatever other merits there may be to the Bill, there is one argument which cannot be made, namely, that the Bill is necessary to protect dock workers in Scheme ports against the threat or potential threat of those in non-Scheme ports. We should be greatly assisted if the Minister would say that the Bill may have other merits, but that the

      111
      proposition…is not its intention…and the Bill will not achieve such an aim.
      Mr. Booth: I certainly agree that the hon. Gentleman's point does not form the sole merit of the Bill. It has never been part of my argument that that factor was a main justification for bringing forward the Bill.
      Mr. Brittan: Or any justification.
      Mr. Booth: I have not been reluctant to give way to hon. Gentlemen when we debate these matters. If that results in some degree of agreement between the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby and myself, that is a good thing. We are now agreed that non-Scheme ports will not flourish indefinitely and provide a threat to Scheme ports merely because they do not come within the conditions of the present Scheme."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 4th March 1976; c. 263.]
      Therefore, that argument is exploded out of the water.
      The other argument put forward which always struck me as being particularly doubtful was that it was necessary to introduce the scheme to the small ports because of the ILO Dock Work Convention of 1973. But the convention and the accompanying recommendation contain a degree of flexibility which renders it quite unnecessary to pass this legislation merely to comply with the convention. Under Article 1(1), the convention applies to persons who are regularly available for work as dock workers and depend on their work as such for their main annual income. The term "dock workers" means persons defined as such by national law or practice. In addition, paragraph 36 of the recommendation provides that appropriate provisions should, as far as practicable, also be applied to occasional and to seasonal dock workers in accordance with national law and practice.
      The truth is that there is absolutely nothing in that convention or the recommendation to require us to pass the legislation affecting small ports. Any suggestion to the contrary is a red herring drawn across the trail to disguise the inadequacy and unnecessary nature of this legislation for the small ports.
      It is then said in defence of the extension of the scheme that we do not have to worry very much because the Bill will not be extended to all the small ports. It does not have to be, it is said. Representations, we are told, can be made, and if the small ports can persuade the Secre-
      112
      tary of State they will not have the scheme extended to them. One asks why they must have this uncertainty hanging over them in the first place. Why should they have to wait and see whether they can persuade an unseen Secretary of State by representation that the scheme should not be extended to them?
      On Second Reading, the Government sought to give assurances that were no doubt designed to allay fears. We were told by the then Secretary of State that it did not mean that the scheme would automatically be extended to all small docks irrespective of the amount of trade or the regularity of traffic. We were told that very small docks, where satisfactory arrangements could not be devised to sustain the permanent labour force, however small, would not be brought within the scheme. Those were the honeyed words of the Secretary of State. Similar words were spoken by the present Secretary of State in winding up the debate.
      One is bound to be suspicious because of the extremely narrow terms in which that assurance was given—that only the very smallest ports where there could be no permanent labour force would be brought within the scheme. It is significant that, when the Government seek to give assurances to the House, there is something which, unless we read the small print—and my God, we know that we have to do that—sounds as if it means something.
      When the Secretary of State wrote to Captain Joyner, the Chairman of the Small Ports Consultative Committee, he was rather more candid. He said:
      "It would be misleading if I did not make it clear that the Government remains firmly of the opinion expressed in para. 23 of the Consultative Document 'Dockworks', that the scheme should apply wherever significant third-party loading and unloading operations are carried out. I recognise that the introduction of the scheme could cause problems, for some non-scheme ports. On an overall view, however, we believe it could give rise to major difficulties both now and in the future, if the scheme were not extended to substantially all third-party loading and unloading."
      Can the right hon. Gentleman be surprised if, with that letter, we are not satisfied with the assurances given to the House? When we take into account the further fact that no Government amendments dealing with this point have been

      113
      put forward, our anxieties are redoubled. This is the reason why we are putting forward the new clause.
      New Clause 4 would prevent the extension of the scheme to small ports, and New Clause 3 would limit it to places within five miles of existing large harbours. The definition of a small port has been drafted by reference to the size of vessel which the port is able to handle at mean high water—namely, 1,000 tons.
      As some of the small ports in Scotland are deep-water ports, we have also produced an alternative criterion dependent on the average number of hours worked, so that there would be an exclusion where the average was less than 1,350, which amounts to 65 per cent. of the total hours of employment of individual workers. The purpose is to exclude the small ports which are least able to sustain a permanent system of employment.
      If the Secretary of State finds defects in the clause, we shall listen with interest to any alternative he chooses to put forward. This combination of criteria would have the effect of removing small ports such as Stornaway, Montrose, Colchester, Exmouth and Whitby from the operation of the scheme. There are also amendments and new clauses which would have the effect of removing altogether from the Bill one of its most iniquitous powers. It is bad enough to have an utterly indefensible five-mile zone around our coast which extends, because of the way it is defined, into the heart of Yorkshire and all sorts of places which do not remotely consider themselves to be anywhere near dockland.
      To add insult to injury, under Clause 4(6) the Secretary of State may by Order extend the cargo-handling zone either by substituting for the five-mile distances a greater distance or by directing that some specified additional area of Great Britain should be treated as part of the zone. The Secretary of State can pluck out of the air any place as far from the sea as he chooses and say "That is part of the cargo-handling zone." Warwick or Nottingham or anywhere else can be introduced in this way.
      One of the amendments which we are supporting would remove that iniquitous power from an already iniquitous Bill. The five-mile zone is wholly arbitrary and wholly indefensible. A vivid illus-
      114
      tration of its extraordinary character is provided by the fact that the cold storage depots about which we are especially concerned are affected in this ridiculous way. Some 69 per cent. of cold storage depots are within the zone and 31 per cent. are outside it. What possible basis can there be for introducing a kind of unfair competition between one cold storage plant and another in that way?
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point will be remind the House that the Order to which he has been referring comes under the negative resolution procedure? Therefore, it will not be debated in the normal course of events unless the Government give time, and the House cannot amend one word of it.
      Mr. Brittan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I am rather concerned about New Clauses 3 and 4. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether we shall be voting on New Clause 4 first? I should prefer that we were voting on an amendment to provide for a half-mile zone. I think that five miles is too much. If that were applied to small ports, it would cover the whole of the Isle of Wight.
      Mr. Brittan: The key clause is New Clause 4, which we shall seek to vote upon if the Chair is agreeable.
      Leaving aside the question of the small ports and the iniquitous provisions of Clause 4(6), the extension of the scheme will do not good anywhere in the country. That is why we opposed the Bill from the beginning. It will do a great deal of harm in many places, and it will do most harm to the small ports. Many of those are in areas which are already suffering from rural unemployment and associated problems. To threaten their very existence by the extension of the scheme in this way has nothing to do with Socialism as I understand that term. I do not see how rural unemployment has anything to do with Socialism. It has nothing to do with trade unionism and certainly it has nothing to do with modernisation. It is sheer, unadulterated, misguided folly.
      Sir David Renton: I agree with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and

      115
      Whitby (Mr. Brittan) with such force and conviction.
      The biggest cold store in Europe is in my large and mainly rural constituency. It is just outside the cargo-handling zone as defined in such an extraordinary way in the Bill. The district organiser and the shop stewards of the union principally concerned in that cold store asked to see me because they had read the Bill and realised that the cargo-handling zone could be extended in the way that my hon. Friend has mentioned, merely by ministerial Order subject to the negative resolution procedure.
      Mr. Harold Walker: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friends the Members for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will not correct him, may I point out that the Order is subject to the affirmative procedure as provided in Clause 4(7).
      7.30 p.m.
      Sir D. Renton: I am obliged for the correction. However, that does not to any extent diminish my argument.
      In an exchange with the Secretary of State this afternoon on the question of the parliamentary procedures for handling Orders subject to affirmative resolution, it became abundantly clear that these Orders would not be discussed in the daytime in major debate on the Floor of the House. The best that we could hope for—I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me of the procedure—was that a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments would discuss the merits and that the matter would be brought to the House at some time for voting.
      Mr. Booth: I hope that I have misunderstood what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying. I should make it absolutely clear to the House that I did not say that the affirmative procedure on Orders would not be discussed in the normal way. I said that it could be proposed that they should go to a Merits Committee, but my attention was drawn to the fact that on the affirmative resolution procedure that was not necessarily so. Therefore, I readily agreed that, where the Government proposed such a procedure, it was within the control of 20
      116
      Members to ensure that any affirmative Orders were debated in the Chamber.
      Sir D. Renton: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should apply his mind not to the details of our procedure, which we hope will be improved with regard to these matters, but to the genuine fears of workers who consider that their jobs should not be taken over by dockers or dockers' sons by the making of an extension Order extending indefinitely, if necessary, the cargo-handling zone.
      The cold store to which I referred, which is most efficient as well as being the largest in Europe, has a happy,wellpaid work force, and the management is on excellent terms with that work force. The workers concerned contacted not only me but the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward). I think that, although the hon. Member is a political opponent, he and I respect each other when handling constituency interests. However, I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman, when the Bill was still in Committee, should claim that the firm in question was outside the cargo-handling zone and that it was "a mischevious distortion" to suggest that dockers could somehow walk into local jobs.
      Therefore, I thought that I should get the matter cleared up by correspondence with the Ministers concerned, Accordingly, I wrote and asked what would be the position of this cold store in the context of the cargo-handling zone. The letter that I received from the Minister of State confirmed my worst fears. If the House will bear with me, I should like to read a brief extract from it. The letter is dated 1st July. The Minister thanks me for my letter about the position of the cold store.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That was good of him.
      Sir D. Renton: Yes. He then said:
      "There is a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to extend the five-mile cargo handling zone by Order. Any such Order would, however, be subject to approval in draft by both Houses of Parliament. This is conceived as being very much a reserve power. There is certainly no present intention to make early use of it."
      Therefore, I do not consider that the hon. Member for Peterborough should accuse us of scaremongering when we say that there is a potential threat to the jobs of the people employed at that cold store.

      117
      more especially as the letter goes on to say:
      'I obviously cannot guarantee that it would never be used in such a way as would bring the Christian Salvesen store at Peterborough within the zone, but I think you can take it that this is very unlikely."
      I am concerned not with what Ministers write in their letters, or even with the assurances they give on the Floor of the House, but with the laws that they are asking Parliament to make.
      For many years now—today is the thrity-first anniversary of my return to Parliament—I have considered that the natural and logical outcome of there being a Socialist State would be the direction of labour in one form or another. As far as I know, this is the first Bill that has been put before Parliament which in peace time potentially involves the compulsion of labour. It is being done, against the law of supply and demand, to create favourable conditions for a particular privileged class of workers and their sons. I do not think that is right in any event, especially when there is the potential threat to people who are already doing satisfactory work.
      I should make it clear that the trade union representatives who came to see me asked me to fight the Bill tooth and nail. I did not speak on Second Reading, I was not a member of the Committee, and I did not see those people until after the Committee stage had started. However, they made it clear that they objected to the Bill most strongly. Indeed, they used language about the threat to their jobs which it would be wrong for me to repeat in your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      My constituents are generous people. In the last 20 yeatrs they have welcomed about 30,000 people from London under town development schemes. Very few constituencies can make such as claim as that. They have welcomed these strangers, some of whom had been dockers, although not doing dock work. They had gone away from London and taken jobs on the industrial estates at Huntingdon and elsewhere in my constituency. But when it comes to people being forced upon them to take up work not provided for them because they are coming voluntarily under town development schemes, my constituents naturally have a very different attitude towards the matter.
      118
      The definition of the cargo-handling zone in the Bill is not only much too wide and can be extended by Order, but in its application to my constituency it is quite ludicrous. For example, the small market town of St. Ives is 40 miles from the coast, 40 miles from the port of King's Lynn and 30 miles from the inland port of Wisbech, but it is within the cargo-handling zone because the New Bedford river is tidal as far as Earith Sluice, which is on the boundary between my constituency and the Isle of Ely, and St. Ives is less than five miles from Earith Sluice. St. Ives has an industrial estate on which food processing is going on satisfactorily.
      This seemed such an oppressive and ridiculous situation that I asked the Secretary of State to give me the reason and justification for it. The only reply that he was able to give was that the only definition that they could come up with unfortunately led to a somewhat anomalous situation in my constituency. That is not good enough.
      There is one St. Ives on sea in Cornwall, but the idea of "St. Ives on sea" in Huntingdonshire is ridiculous. Technically, that is what it will become because of the definition of "the sea" in Clause 4(4).
      We have done our best to help the Government by tabling various amendments which would drive some sense into the Bill, limit these excessively wide definitions and stop the law from becoming an ass. I should have thought that, in particular, the Government ought to accept Amendment No. 21 which seeks to limit the corridor from within five miles to within half a mile of scheme ports and harbours.
      Because of the absurd anomaly which has been created, I draw attention to Amendments Nos. 281 and 282, which would leave out the whole of the Huntingdon district, which is really a vast rural area with some small towns, and the district and city of Peterborough. part of which is represented here by the hon. Member for Peterborough and part by myself.
      The Bill is so far-reaching that the Government should heed what we are saying. This unprecedented measure involves compulsion and is unpopular among trade unions. It will add to the

      119
      costs of handling food grown in my constituency. If the Government persist with the Bill, they will get themselves into terrible trouble.
      The last witch to be burned in England was burned at Warboys in my constituency. That conflagration will be nothing compared with the conflagration of all the paper which will have to be circulated if the Bill is implemented, let alone extended. I implore the Secretary of State, in his own and the country's interests, to think again.
      Mr. Loyden: I do not want to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) too far, but I must comment on some of the points made by Opposition Members. The clause deals with the cargo-handling zone, and the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Britton) referred to that exclusively in his speech. To listen to hon. Members opposite, one would imagine that the five-mile zone is the only criterion in the definition of dock work. That is entirely untrue.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire said that the cold store to which he referred came within the five-mile zone and would be subject to takeover by registered dock workers. There is no uniformity in registered dock work behaviour towards cold stores, warehousing and other work, but let me give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an example to contradict his argument.
      In the port of Liverpool, there is a cold store in the middle of the docks where work has not been carried out by registered dock workers. I have discussed with members of my union their attitude to that cold store in future and it is clear that, where work has traditionally been done by another group of workers, it is not desired that it should become registered dock work. That is the attitude of my union's members to a cold store which is not just in the centre of dockland but in the centre of the docks themselves.
      Location will not be the only factor which determines whether premises should be subject to classification. Other tests will have to be applied.
      120
      7.45 p.m.
      Some employers have established themselves in the docks industry in London and have employed generations of registered dock workers. One firm in the cold storage industry decided to end this association and, in negotiations with the Transport and General Workers' Union, said that there was no question of its re-establishing a business in a different area.
      Later, a new cold store appeared outside dockland and Questions were asked in the House about whether it was being operated by the firm which had been established in dockland and had employed registered dock workers. The then Prime Minister said that it was a small firm which had nothing to do with the large combines operating in the cold storage industry. It was then disclosed that this small firm was in fact Vestey's. In a deliberate act of policy the firm moved it work out of the docks, despite having agreed with the unions and workers to retain that work there and not to re-establish any work outside the docks.
      This is why dock workers are rather cynical about employers who say that they have no intention of moving work from the docks. The establishment of the NDLB brought the first state of order into the industry and removed the criminal activity of casualisation. The Opposition have at least come clean on that point by admitting that there is the possibility of far more exploitation and greater use of casual labour in small ports. The Opposition then argue that these ports should be protected so that they can continue to employ casual labour with all its consequences.
      A new element was revealed in the speech of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby. Dockers have been blamed for virtually every sin ever committed, but the hon. Member apparently now holds them responsible for rough weather. He suggested that delays which occurred because of rough weather had something to do with dockers from Tyneside and Teesside flooding Whitby to load oysters into container ships in the harbour. This is the sort of exaggerated nonsense we have had throughout the proceedings on the Bill. The Government's proposal for a five-mile zone is common sense. If

      121
      there is to be an examination of an area, that area has to be laid out. There is no magic in the figure of five miles any more than there is in two miles or half a mile.
      The point is that the question whether premises will be included will not rest solely on their location. We could draw the zone as wide as the United Kingdom, and it would not make any difference because that will not be the basis on which Orders to extend the scheme are made. There will be other tests, including how the work has been done previously, what has been the traditional method and whether an agreement was established before 1967 to ensure that there is no question of a takeover by dock workers.
      We are bringing up to date the regulations and a system of working which has been operating satisfactorily in this country. It is now time to review it, and that is exactly what the Bill does.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would remind hon. Members that the guillotine on consideration of the Bill falls at 10 o'clock. I have never seen such a list of hon. Members anxious to take part in the debate. I have made a rough calculation—I hope that hon. Members will not use the language that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said that he would not repeat—and I suggest that five-minute speeches might allow all hon. Members to take part.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The port of Teignmouth in my constituency—as is the case with ports which other hon. Members will want to describe—is a tidal port and is vital to the employment of a large number of people in the clay industry. The industry is meeting new competition from Brazil such as has never been experienced before. Were this port to founder by being made uneconomic, it is not just the livelihood of fewer than two dozen people in the dock that would be affected but the livelihood of several thousand people in the ball clay industry, which ships through it.
      One factor that keeps down the cost in that port is that third party merchandise is handled there—particularly timber, and fertiliser, grain and other substances. That helps to make it more viable for the clay industry. That is no
      122
      reason why it should fall within the scope of the Bill and be extinguished.
      The road system in that part of Britain is very poor, the ground is hilly and the roads are serpentine and narrow. I see nothing about that in the Bill. We need that port not just for the clay industry but to save large loads of timber and similar merchandise having to be transported along roads quite inadequate for them.
      I have received a letter from the organisation representing trade unions, not just in Torbay in the formal sense but including Teignmouth and Dawlish in my constituency. They are worried about unemployment, particularly unemployment of young people in that area. I am arranging to see them urgently, but the problem that we shall all have on our plate if this tidal port is made uneconomic is one with which neither they nor any Government are likely to be able to cope.
      The Secretary of State visited that port recently. He did not have the courtesy to inform its Member of Parliament that he was doing so. When I wrote to his private office, it said that it thought that it was in Torquay or Newton Abbot or Totnes, so incompetent is it. I hope that at least the right hon. Gentleman will admit that this is the sort of thing that should be dealt with by statutory exclusion, as Amendment No. 55 proposes.
      If the Minister makes an Order to bring in a port, that Order cannot be amended by the House. It may not even be debated. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said, it may be considered in the Statutory Instruments Committee by only 20 hon. Members, to the exclusion of over 600. Let us never put up with a Minister who says in effect "The Bill may be a legislative nonsense but after all you can depend on the delegated legislation procedure to make it work." We all know that we cannot depend on that. We must get the Bill right in the first place, so far as a non-sense like this can ever be got right.
      There is much more that I should like to say, but I shall not because of your appeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for speches of not more than five minutes.
      Mr. J. Grimond: Had this Bill not been printed,

      123
      no one would have thought that it was conceivable that it should ever appear. I hope that the Government will take some notice of what has been said about Clause 4 (6), which, apart from its practical disadvantages, is surely constitutionally quite unacceptable. Whether it is done by one procedure or another, it is almost unbelievable that it should be suggested that this House should take it upon itself to designate any part of the country as a cargo-handling zone. I have been told in correspondence that Ministers will not do these silly things. But could there be a sillier thing than introducing the Bill in the first place? What confidence can one have in Ministers who have done that?
      I want to draw attenton to the effect of the Bill on the islands of Scotland. The greatest handicap of all the islands around Britain, and particularly around Scotland, are freight and transport charges. We have tried for years to decrease them. The Government are paying millions of pounds in subsidies to MacBrayne's to try to make transport reasonably cheap on the West Coast of Scotland. If the Bill does anything, it can only increase the cost of freight and transport around the coast of Scotland.
      At present, the Bill could apply to every pier and jetty. The Government have said that they will not do that, but what guarantee have we? If they are not going to do it, why not exclude the islands? Boats have to be loaded and unloaded on islands. How could it be otherwise? They are unloaded by trade union labour, although not necessarily dock labour, and by crofters, fishermen and part-timers.
      This Bill is a direct blow at crofters and fishermen. This is not a Bill about Socialism. It is designed to penalise not the rich and idle but the poor and hard-working. It will make every cost larger if it does anything at all. If it does nothing, it is simply a piece of bureaucratic nonsense, and dangerous too. It will hang over our heads and there is no telling when it might be introduced—with disastrous results.
      We have dockers in Lerwick and Kirkwall. They work hard and they are well paid. If anyone thinks that Lerwick dockers need the protection of this Bill,
      124
      let him speak to Jack Jones. He will tell him that Lerwick dockers are perfectly able to look after themselves, and do so, and that the Bill is wholly unnecessary.
      I must therefore make a powerful plea that, whatever happens to the Bill, we must be clear that any attempt to apply it to the islands of Scotland would be detrimental, reactionary and a serious blow at the effective part of our economy.
      Mr. Prescott: I will bear in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what you have said about five-minute speeches, but there have been very few from this side and after I was refused the opportunity to intervene at the beginning, I should like to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) from the Opposition Front Bench, who addressed most of his argument to the case for exempting the small wharves and reducing the size of the corridor.
      Many hon. Members have talked as though the Bill were not a radical Bill. In the sense that it seeks to extend proper working wages and conditions to the workers in these areas, it is an advance in labour legislation. It is certainly wanted in my area and even in some of the non-scheme ports. Whatever the controversy about the ownership of the port of Felixstowe, the dockers there have made it clear that they want to enter into this scheme.
      8 p.m.
      The debate has shown a considerable lack of understanding about the industry and its problems. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby referred to Whitby, and that port illustrates the point I want to make, because in one way it is within the Humberside complex. The report of the National Ports Council and other reports on traffic in the area show that there has been competition between the ports from Whitby down to Felixstowe with alternative ports in the Humberside estuary. Most traffic comes to our estuarial areas, and Humberside has an important part to play in the argument about Whitby. Most of the arguments I shall put are reproduced in the National Ports Council report. I am not quoting dogma. I am quoting from the tremendous amount of factual data in the report.

      125
      I want to address my remarks particularly to small non-scheme wharves, not to the main five ports mentioned in the report. The report shows that the major concentration of small non-scheme ports is in the Humberside area. I am speaking about non-scheme, third-party ports and not about single users—for instance, the man who for 50 years has been importing his own grain or flour. Even the proposal to nationalise the docks did not include single users. I am talking about the developing third-party, commercial, non-scheme ports on the estuary.
      To put the problem into perspective, 85 per cent. of port traffic goes via the scheme ports. Of 32,000 registered dock workers, only 1,000 work in non-scheme ports. That represents only a small proportion of the labour force. We are trying to establish for those 1,000 workers decent wages and conditions. If there is any doubt about wages and conditions of work, hon. Members should read the National Ports Council report, which clearly shows that many workers were receiving about £45 for a 60-hour week.
      Hon. Members should not take my word for it: it is in the report. As a token of justice, the Government have agreed to give to workers in this fast growing sector of the port industry a guarantee of good wages and working conditions, and I should have thought that we would all be at one in agreeing that.
      I want to address my attention to the consequences of the growth of the small wharves in the context of port development. The decision we have to make is about the allocation of resources, the future of our ports and whether the philosophy is that all ports should compete as if they were equal. That is the philosophy of the Conservatives, which was embodied in their financial policy report for the ports in 1971. It is now recognised that that was a disastrous policy which had considerable consequences on the development of small wharves.
      The development of small wharves has increased for two reasons. The first is that the customs licensing was taken from London in 1965 and given to local areas. The second is the development of
      126
      the system of trans-shipment from large ships to small ships, which had certain economic consequences. Traffic which is diverted into small ships find it more convenient to come to the smaller wharves. There has been a growth in grain, timber and oil cargoes, so much so that two million tons of traffic has bypassed the port of Hull, with a consequent loss of income to Hull of £1,250,000 in 1972.
      Why has that traffic gone? It could be said that it is because of industrial disputes, but sometimes we have to have industrial disputes to achieve certain objectives. An industrial dispute is the only kind of strength that is recognised. I want to answer the question in economic terms.
      I have spent a considerable time examining the economic costs. The two parts of this industry are not equal. Hull is a major port and, like all other major ports, invested in roll-on/roll-off container developments. It is not a specialist port such as Southampton, which specialises in passengers and oil and can thus achieve economies of operations. Massive investment is needed in the major ports. Hull has had investments of £36 million since 1946 and £16 million since 1964.
      Nationalised industries are required to make a profit and to give a return on investment. In 1971 the Conservative Government said that they expected ports to be self-supporting and competitive. They went on to lay down that there must be a return on investment. If a port is losing traffic, it will not get a return on investment, and its only alternative is to increase charges.
      In the early 1970s, in a period of six months Hull increased its charges by 50 per cent. What happened? It lost more traffic to the wharves. It might be said that that is more efficient, but when millions are invested that investment has to be reflected in charges if there is to be a return. The Hull charges for grain and timber were twice as high as were those in the wharves. Traffic was coming for Hull, going down to the wharves 60 miles away and being brought back by lorry to Hull. That is crazy. People living in the rural areas complained about the lorries and local authorities complained about the damage done to the roads.

      127
      I give an example of one small wharf on the Ouse. The wharf cost £70,000 to build. The Selby local authority gave £4,000 because it could see the rates potential. The river authority saw the chance of having its river banks built up and gave £20,000. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave a grant for building the wharf. Nearly £30,000 was raised towards that capital investment. It is not possible for the wharf to make charges that reflect that capital investment. It is not economic sense to attempt to compete on those grounds.
      By the Bill the Government are seeking to ensure that workers in the small ports get the same pay as other port works—a fair rate for the job, which is a trade union principle. But that does not solve the economic problem. We shall still have the problem of traffic being diverted and we have to decide how to establish a rational ports policy. Our nationalisation proposals go some way towards that. The Bill is part of the rational approach to economic and social problems.
      BACAT reflects the same sort of problem. That only seeks by another technological development to divert more traffic down the river away from the port of Hull, with consequences for shipbuilding yards and transport firms. The argument is not so simple as has been suggested. It is not just a question of efficiency and competitiveness. I welcome the Bill as one move towards getting a rational ports policy, quite apart from Socialism.
      It should be put on the record when discussing whether to reduce the area of dock work coverage to five miles, as suggested, that the dockers in my area point to what has happened since the introduction of the Labour Government's scheme in 1947. It has been argued that workers in this country are not subject to direction of labour. However, since 1946 seamen have been directed to jobs and a number of other classes of worker have been subject to this direction. For many years dockers have been sent from one port or area to another. Those who argue to the contrary reveal a lack of knowledge.
      There have been several reports on the Dock Labour Scheme. There have been joint industrial reports, there was the
      128
      Rochdale Report and then there was the Devlin Report, all recommending an end of the system and an extension of the area. The last report—in 1969—was the Bristow Report, which advocated 10 miles for London. The principle was that where dock work had gone from the dock side, the area should be extended to 10 miles.
      The Government chose not to follow that recommendation, even for London. If the Government had implemented the Bristow Report, they might have avoided many of the problems that they encountered in 1972. All those who have inquired into this matter have recommended that we should take this action.
      I welcome the action that the Government propose and I am very glad that, a guillotine has been introduced on the Bill. I see this as only the first step to the proper nationalisation of the industry.
      Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I rise to support the large number of amendments designed to exclude the smaller ports. There should be two more amendments seeking to exclude the commercial port of Portsmouth. Those amendments were tabled last week but do not appear on the Notice Paper. However, my remarks apply in general to many of the harbours specified in the amendments. They consist of small harbours which have limited facilities—facilities which limit their activities virtually to small coasters, and in consequence their activities are limited geographically and limited to narrow types of trading.
      For example, Portsmouth's trade is confined very largely to imports of fresh fruit and vegetables from the Channel Islands with return traffic of general goods but particularly building materials. Other imports consist of timber and other materials for the local building trade.
      But although shipping is very limited, such ports are becoming increasingly important as industrial areas. Some firms, such as IBM at Portsmouth, have worldwide interests but considerable business in the United Kingdom. Firms such as this want to be free to employ whom they wish and not to be forced to employ registered dock workers just because their factory happens to be within five miles of a port in which they have no interest and which they never use.

      129
      We have a concrete example in Portsmouth where developers have refused to express any interest in a vacant warehouse in the city. The reasons are very plainly set out in a letter from the South-East Hampshire Chamber of Commerce. It quotes the cost of moving grain in Avonmouth at £2·75 a ton compared with 75p at Portsmouth. It quotes the example of Fyffes at Barry. When the firm was forced to employ dockers, its staff increased from seven warehousemen to 14 dockers, costing an additional £1,500 per week. Incidentally, the seven warehousemen lost their jobs.
      These are just examples of the bad effects of the Bill. Undoubtedly, if it is brought into force many small ports will be hard hit or even forced to close. It will be increasingly difficult to attract industry into coastal areas affected by it. Moreover, many people will lose jobs that they have done well and conscientiously for many years, and the overall cost to the country may be anywhere between £80 million and £150 million a year. If the Government persist in forcing through the Bill, I hope that at least they will accept these amendments.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. MacCormick: I support the new clause, particularly because of the amendments that my colleagues and I have tabled and that are grouped with the clause. The time factor means that I shall not be ale to deal with nearly as many aspects as I should have liked. I shall deal with only one.
      Earlier the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) characterised the Bill as being unnecessary. From the point of view of the people of Scotland, I regard it as not only unnecessary but deeply anachronistic. We are in a period of great constitutional change affecting Scotland, yet here we are faced with the type of Bill that could have come straight from the 1940s—the sort of blanket nationalisation, the unthinking unitary type of nationalisation that used to characterise Socialist Government and that we on the Opposition side thought had disappeared.
      Nothing that happened on Second Reading and in Committee, nor indeed anything that happened today, has changed my mind one whit about the
      130
      evils of the Bill. I wonder whether the people of Scotland, or, indeed, many hon. Members, are aware of what the Secretary of State said in Committee, namely—
      "I see the relationship between the Scottish Assembly and the Docks Scheme as being very remote."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G; 19th February 1976, c. 21.]
      The Secretary of State may have many qualities: he may be hard-working and he may be a worthy man. However, if he thinks that the people of Scotland will accept such nonsense in these days, he has another think coming.
      After all, Scotland above all as a maritime nation is a trading country. It is very difficult to live far from the sea, as the cold storage industry and many other industries there are about to find out if the Bill is enacted. The Secretary of State was totally unconvincing in Committee as to the ways in which any form of democratic control could be exercised over the National Dock Labour Board by the people of Scotland and by Scottish politicians. In Committee the Secretary of State spoke of the Secretary of State for Scotland passing on the views of the Scottish Assembly to the Secretary of State for Employment, but he spoke in the same kind of way as other hon. Members have—namely, by giving airy-fairy assurances rather than by using concrete terms, which are all that would impress my colleagues and me.
      Finally, the whole idea that we should accept that all small ports and island ports should be included in the Bill, even though it is not to apply, reminds me of the famous conjurer's trick that we used to see at children's parties when a man started with a large sign saying "Fresh fish sold here daily" and then one by one took each word off saying "You do not need this word" until he ended up with nothing. The same twisted logic applies to the Government's approach to the Bill.
      I recommend my hon. Friends in the Scottish National Party to support the new clause in the hope not only that it will be a narrow vote, but that this time it will be a victory for common sense and justice.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It is extremely important that we do not impose on the small ports and those which may blossom forth from very small beginnings the dead

      131
      hand of the past. It is very important that tiny places such as Lancaster and Glasson Dock should have the potentiality and the chance that places like Felixstowe have seized upon so successfully.
      Mine is an area of very high unemployment. We have few opportunities. We are right at the top of the north of England. We have a tidal river and the port would be included within the scheme. I believe that as time passes and we establish a greater industrial base, we could develop a thriving port. It would be wrong for the Bill in any way to impede the progress that we might make.
      We have very few male industrial vacancies at present. We want to hang on to the employment that we have. We do not want the dockers of Merseyside marching up to Lancaster. They take far too much from us as it is. We want to keep our independence and keep open the opportunity of establishing better facilities and a thriving community. We do not want these dock labour people marching in and taking jobs from us and preventing us from establishing ourselves should the opportunity occur. We want to hang on to what we have and to develop a better life for our own workers.
      For these reasons, I ask the House to support Amendment No. 71 to exclude Lancaster and Glasson Dock from the scheme.
      Mr. Richard Luce: The more I hear of the nervous laughter from the Government side of the House, the more it confirms my belief that their principle is that muscle is what pays and that the big fry should swallow the small fry.
      I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 83, which appears in my name and the names of others of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). Part of the port of Shoreham is in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is one of the largest none-scheme ports in the country. It is extremely accessible to the South-East and to the European Community. It has an extremely high reputation, thanks in large measure to the dockers at the port. It is efficient, reliable and flexible in its service, and it has had good industrial rela-
      132
      tions. It has a good rate of productivity and its charges are competitive.
      Taking the record of the port over the last decade or so, we find that its trade has expanded substantially and it has imported far more goods than in the 1960s, largely wine and timber. Overall, the non-scheme ports in this country in 1960 handled 4·9 per cent. of all timber and by 1974 they were handling 17·7 per cent. The port of Shoreham, which, as I have said, is a non-scheme port, was handling 1·3 per cent. of all the timber trade in 1960 and by 1974 it was handling 5·6 per cent.
      We are entitled to ask why the port of Shoreham has been so successful over the past 15 years. There are many reasons, one of which is that the dockers have contributed enormously to the efficiency of the port. The second reason, and one that I believe is the most significant, is the fact that it is a non-scheme port, and this has led to its outstanding success in the last decade or so.
      The sword of Damocles is hanging over the port of Shoreham, because the scheme is bound to hamper the efficiency of the port and damage the trade of this country. The product of the Bill, which one might almost describe as a mad hatter's tea party, will be catastrophic in its consequences in the long term and will do a disservice to the dockers not only in Shoreham but in other ports. Not one docker has told me that he wants the Bill introduced. I have been round the port of Shoreham talking to the dockers and giving them a chance to express their views. Labour Members, who think that they have a monopoly of interest in and knowledge of dockers and their problems, display an absolute arrogance. They have no right whatsoever to speak for the dockers of Shoreham.
      Mr. Loyden: Ask the dockers of Shoreham.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I deprecate sedentary interventions.
      Mr. Luce: The Bill will give to a group of people privileges unsurpassed in any walk of life—guaranteed jobs for life and guaranteed minimum earnings, whether or not one has a job. In the past, people have acquired privileges by power, but here we are actually granting

      133
      by law privileges in excess of privileges which any other group in the community ever had.
      Anyone who is concerned about people will wish to ensure that the employees in this industry who are affected by containerisation and so on are looked after. We must make sure that we do as much as possible to find them alternative jobs. As in other industries which are being run down, such as the motor vehicle and steel industries, railways and farming, the dockers are entitled to sympathetic treatment. They should be retrained and the industry should be run down in an orderly fashion.
      Mr. Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Luce: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has spoken more than enough.
      It will be catastrophic to apply the Bill to the port of Shoreham. It will strain industrial relations between dockers, lorry drivers, warehousemen, tally clerks and administrators. It will give an extra monopoly position to those people at a time when we ought to be dispersing power. The Bill will introduce strain into a port such as that at Shoreham which has a fine record of industrial relations. It will interpose a third party in the National Dock Labour Board, which will make relationships between the four main employers and dockers far more impersonal and more difficult to handle. It will exacerbate and increase operating costs. It will ossify the manning system and will increase restrictive practices and the inflexible use of labour. It will impose extra burdens through the levy system and administrative costs. It will stifle competition.
      At Shoreham we have a port whose reputation for reliability and flexibility will be stifled, and it will suffer very badly as a result of the Bill. The Government are insulting not only this House but the country. They are insulting the dockers of the country, including those at Shoreham, by saying that they can survive only through privileged manning treatment. That is not what the dockers of Shoreham want. They want to be treated on an equal basis
      134
      with everyone else. For that reason I strongly support the amendment.
      Mr. Marcus Kimball: This Bill is making a deep incision into the rural hinterland and into my constituency, as far as Newark, including the wharves at Keadby. It was only when the timetable motion was tabled last week that I appreciated that the Government really meant to go ahead with the Bill. I believe that it is a Bill which should have been quietly allowed to run out of time. Once the Government's intention was clear, however, I immediately tabled an amendment to exclude the wharves at Keadby from the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate whether he can accept Amendment No. 135 and exclude Keadby from the Bill.
      Keadby is famous for the part that it played in beating the 1972 dock strike. Hon. Members will be familiar with the scenes there on 15th August 1972 when flying pickets from Hull injured three policemen and eventually had to be driven off by a counter-demonstration of housewives. It is no wonder that Keadby gets under the skins of Mr. Jack Jones and hon. Members opposite.
      It has taken four years to settle the score at the 1972 dock strike by means of the Bill. The Minister will appreciate that Keadby is the port furthest up the Trent before the first bridge. The moorings at Keadby are uniquely placed for the development of the motorway system in that area. In an area of high unemployment such as exists in North Lincolnshire, further development at Keadby and its expansion is vitally important to the people in my constituency. I wonder whether that in vestment will be forthcoming if the dockers get a stranglehold on this enterprising and courageous port.
      There is a major development of the port of Gainsborough which survives on a delicate relationship between the lightermen and the dock labour men in Hull. There are 85 lightermen who work the barges, and although they have asked me not to press Amendment No. 134 it is right to mention the threat that the Bill represents to other employees in the port of Gainborough. The people who at present use the river may not be too

      135
      worried about the Bill, but what about the maltings and feed mills in Gains-borough? In Gainsborough we are fortunate to have two major schemes for the expansion of two of the feed mills.
      Gainsborough is a good distribution point. It is easily accessible to the barges from Hull and it has a great tradition of malting and milling. There are good relationships between workers and management. The danger is that the Bill could put a stranglehold on the nation's food supplies, particularly at Gains-borough. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he is prepared to accept Amendment No. 135.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I did not intend to speak in the debate until I listened to some of the tripe from Opposition Members. I listened, for example, to the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), who spoke about the dockers of Shoreham. He gave the impression that those dockers are not in favour of being included in and others working in non-scheme ports the scheme. In fact, the dockers in all the non-scheme ports throughout the country have clearly stated that they are in favour of the Bill and in favour of being included. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can shout as much as they like, but when the hon. Member for Shoreham really represents the dockers in this House I shall listen to him.
      Mr. Luce rose—
      Mr. Heffer: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman did not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr Loyden), who knows far more about the docks—because he has worked in them—than the hon. Member will ever know.
      Mr. Luce rose—
      Mr. John Mendelson: Hypocrite.
      Mr. Heffer: The issue that we are discussing tonight—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Did I hear an hon. Member use the word "hypocrite"?
      Mr. John Mendelson: Yes, I did. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce)
      136
      refused to give way to an hon. Member who has spent a lifetime in the industry that we are discussing, and now he asks my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to give way.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) to reconsider his position.
      Hon. Members: Withdraw.
      Mr. John Mendelson: I respect your chairmanship at all times, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It you ask me to withdraw I shall do so immediately, but my contempt for the hon. Member for Shoreham is not diminished.
      Mr. Heffer: There has been a great deal of hypocrisy from the Opposition side of the House, and the more I listen to it the more hypocritical the speeches seem to become. While I am not prepared to name any particular individual as a hypocrite, Opposition Members have been hypocritical because they know full well that wages and conditions in the non-scheme ports are worse than those in the scheme ports. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what the issue is about and that is what dockers are interested in. There are genuine Conservatives who believe in keeping the wages of workers as low as possible, and the "National Ports Council Survey on Non-Scheme Ports and Wharves" clearly explains that position.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
      Mr. Heffer: I shall not give way.
      That is the issue. The hon. Gentleman referred to the levy. It is to ensure that dockers receive a proper pension. Conservative Members shed crocodile tears about workers having proper pensions, but when it comes down to it they do not want them to have proper pensions.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is not here. I do not think that the dockers of Merseyside are likely to be marching to Lancaster. Apart from anything else, if they met the hon. Lady on the road it would be enough to frighten them. One look at the hon. Lady, and they would turn round and march back to Merseyside. [Interruption.] That was a joke.

      137
      [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not want to accept it as a joke, it is not a joke and I shall say it bluntly. The dockers would not want to meet the hon. Lady on the road, and neither would I.
      Mr. Peter Rees: As the hon. Gentleman has now said that that was not a joke, he is casting most unchivalrous aspersions at my hon. Friend. He should be asked to withdraw them, Mr. Deputy Speaker
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for whatever he says.
      Mr. Heffer: I accept responsibility for what I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House can decide what I meant. The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) is one of the most pompous little men in the House, both mentally and physically.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have now had some moments devoted to personal observations. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now get on with the debate.
      Mr. Heffer: I should love to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but for the stupid interruptions of hon. Members such as the hon. and learned Member.
      Mr. John Mendelson: The Opposition do not like being caught out in their humbug.
      Mr. Heffer: The issue in New Clause 4 is clear. It has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has told us that the growth of some of the small ports and wharves is due to the fact that the conditions of work, wages and so on are that much worse than they are in the scheme ports. All that the Government are doing is to say that there must be proper wages and conditions, with uniformity throughout the country.
      Mr. Loyden: Does my hon. Friend realise that in some ports men have got up at 4 o'clock in the morning to milk the cows, have gone to work in the docks at 7 o'clock and at night have worked the projector in the local cinema? That sort of practice is encouraged by Conservative Members.
      Mr. Heffer: Once such men obtain proper wages and conditions, they should settle for one job instead of three. I think that genuine dockers in such ports want proper wages and conditions. Whatever the Opposition say, the Bill is well supported by those who work in the industry at the dock work level.
      Mr. Tim Sainsbury: If we ignore the personal abuse indulged in by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) in his characteristically blinkered address, what he said did, I suppose, show genuine concern for the wages, conditions and pensions of dock workers, but what he and his hon. Friends totally fail to realise is that there will not be any work for dock workers unless British industry can be efficient. It cannot be helped to be efficient by having a monstrously inefficient method of dock labour regulation imposed upon all our harbours.
      Does the hon. Member for Walton want to see every port like the Port of London, with 1,500 people being paid to do nothing? Is that the way in which to improve the productivity of British industry and enable us to pay better pensions not only to dock workers but to everybody else?
      If the hon. Member were to think a little wider than the purely selfish interests of those who are now registered dockers, he would realise that there is a wider issue in New Clause 4, and anybody who has listened to the contributions from this side of the House, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), must realise the threat that the Bill poses not only to the efficiency of British industry but to the consumer, because the extension of this measure to all the small harbours, and potentially to cold stores, will be damaging to the consumer.
      I have in my constituency a cold store dealing directly in goods intended for the consumer—largely frozen poultry and meat. It is virtually the only public cold store between Southampton and Dover. That store, like to many others, is staffed by workers not one of whom wishes to see the Bill introduce a potential threat to his job. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that there is no early intention to give a direction. By this Bill he is being given the power to make a direction, and that is not a power which those who work

      139
      in the cold store and other industries threatened by the Bill wish to see given to any Secretary of State.
      In Shoreham harbour, not a small one —a smaller harbour perhaps, but a rather prosperous and efficient one and an expanding port providing a good service to industry, particularly in Sussex—one finds no support for this proposed legislation. It is for that reason that I particularly draw the attention of the Secretary of State to Amendment No. 83.
      No rational argument has been advanced in favour of this legislation. It is doctrinaire interference in the working of ports. It will be damaging to the efficiency of British industry and damaging to the consumer. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that and withdraw his Bill.
      Mr. Leadbitter: I shall be brief because I have noticed that a number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. For that reason I shall respect the time about which they are worried as the clock moves on.
      The point that my hon. Friends are trying to get over is that the National Ports Council, which was set up by the Conservative Administration, produced certain recommendations in 1973. It stated specifically, clearly and without any doubt that it was time for the Department of Employment to bring non-scheme ports into line with the scheme ports.
      So that there may be no doubt about the point that I am making, I quote from the council's report:
      "The Council recommend that the Secretary of State for Employment be invited to consider what steps are open to him to take to eliminate casual engagement in those cases where it is used as a normal source of such cargo handling labour as is required on a relatively constant basis",
      and, the council went on to say,
      "to ensure that for regular employees at non-scheme undertakings handling third-party traffic, the terms and conditions of employment on cargo handling including the basic rate of pay, hours of normal work, overtime rates, holiday entitlement, sick pay and pension arrangements and daily and weekly guarantees of payment should be not less favourable than the standards laid down for the industry",
      and as adopted by the scheme ports.
      The recommendation went on to state that there should be an upgrading of the
      140
      amenities in those ports equivalent to the standards in the scheme ports. It also said that there should be an improvement in safety. In other words, in regard to conditions of work, recreation, training and the provision of amenities for workers, the National Ports Council, set up by a Conservative Government, made a recommendation to the Minister of Transport in 1973. Yet three years later, in 1976, we have all this quibbling about the Bill.
      8.45 p.m.
      No Bill should come through the House of Commons without a proper scrutniy by both sides. That is perfectly obvious. The objective of the House of Commons is to question the Government at every stage throughout a Bill. I have criticised some aspects of the Bill myself. But criticism must be objective and for the purposes of improving the Bill. This aspect should have the wholehearted support of both sides of the House.
      Surely there cannot be anything wrong with good employers admitting that if conditions and standards are constitutionally right in this country for one section of workers, it is totally wrong for another section, doing the same kind of work in different areas of the country, not to have those standards. Opposition Members have shown perhaps an understandable exuberance in attacking the Bill. As I have said, the Bill is by no means perfect. As was made clear earlier, Labour Members had a policy which, to our regret, has not been followed. We wanted the ports to be nationalised in the beginning. Then we could have talked about conditions for the workers right across the board.
      Management, too, could then have understood the totality of a United Kingdom port strategy within the larger totality of a transportation strategy—particularly in view of the closer links that we have with Europe and the rest of the world and the speed-up of transport of all kinds. There is an interface required between air, road, rail and sea. That was the great vision.
      This Bill has been brought forward, I understand, because of the aching concern among the workers themselves in an industry which has lost many thousands of workers over the past decades and is now down to 32,000. We are

      141
      concerned with the 1,000 workers in the non-scheme ports. The 32,000 port workers are enjoying good standards. We hope to negotiate for even better standards, for that must be our ultimate aim. We must always try to care for our workers. But is there any reason why the other 1,000 workers—one thirty-second part of the total force—should not have the same treatment? That should tie our objective.
      In their exuberance in attacking the Bill Opposition Members have forgotten about the good and worthy elements in it. There were arguments earlier about the five-mile corridor. There are arguments about the British Transport Docks Board. There are great arguments on both sides about dock workers and those who are not dock workers. But here we are talking about the conditions of men who have been treated in many ways as casual labour.
      The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) talked earlier about seasonal work. That is another way of describing casual labour. There are some non-scheme ports with reasonably good conditions, but it is interesting that where conditions improved in the successful non-scheme ports, such as Felixstowe, they came round in the end to the view that they would have a better future by joining the scheme ports. Indeed, the Felixstowe management was not averse to accepting 150p per share to be nationalised under the British Transport Docks Board. We have, therefore, the natural evolvement of port reorganisation and working conditions within the ports. In the case of the one outstanding success in the private sector of the ports industry, namely, Felixstowe, both management and men came round to the idea of nationalisation and entering the scheme ports.
      Mr. Tim Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would I be correct in interpreting this speech more as a Third Reading speech than as a Report stage speech?
      Mr. Leadbitter: I shall accept the ruling of the Chair if I am told that I am attempting in any way to deviate from the main theme of this debate. Until that happens, I shall continue to discuss the non-scheme ports, which are the subject under discussion.
      142
      I appeal to the Opposition not to continue the feeling that they have tried to engender during the past few hours but rather to take this opportunity to show to the workers in those ports, which they may even represent, how well they appreciate the great error of judgment that they will be making if they go back to their constituencies and their small ports believing that they will be thanked by any docker who is not in the scheme for having attempted to keep them out. That would be a grave error of judgment on their part.
      I am satisfied that there is no occupation in the country that would accept the Opposition's proposals. Would the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), who is a landlord, a fisherman and a member of Lloyds, accept conditions of the kind that the Opposition ask dock workers to accept? Would the lawyer from Cleveland, for example, accept different lawyer's fees simply because he happened to live in another part of the United Kingdom? Would he like that differential?
      The House had better accept that we are talking about dockers doing dock work, that we have the National Ports Council saying that it represents the whole industry and seeking to provide an investment programme in the whole industry and to follow the objectives of the Conservative Party in the early 1970s. Simply because the Conservatives are now in opposition, they make a grave error of judgment if they attempt to make a mountain out of this one when only 1,000 workers ask for the conditions that 32,000 already enjoy.
      Mr. Hector Monro: I shall not take up any part of the irrelevant nonsense to which we have just been subjected. I wish to add my strong support to the effort of my right hon. and hon. Friends to remove from the Bill the small ports and harbours and to avoid their being brought under the control of the Dock Labour Scheme and much more besides. Hence my Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 to remove Dumfries, Glencaple and Annan from the Bill and keep them clear of the tentacles of the scheme. In any event, if dockers were required to unload ships in this area, presumably they would have to come from as far afield as Glasgow or Newcastle.

      143
      But there are many Scottish ports which will be covered by the Bill. I mention Montrose, for example. Despite what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, there has been a petition to the House from the dock labour force there against being involved in this Bill in any way, and there is unanimous support from the fish merchants, the timber merchants and the local authorities to keep the port clear of any form of interference. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has played a leading part in the campaign to save Montrose and many other Scottish ports.
      Then we have the port of Perth. We hear that a firm such as Fife Growers will have to spend £250,000 more to ship produce in and out of Perth if the Bill is passed in its present form. It is surprising that there is no amendment tabled by the Scottish National Party to exclude the port of Perth. There is one in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), but not from the SNP.
      Mr. MacCormick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish National Party wishes to exclude all the ports in Scotland?
      Mr. Monro: I have made a statement of fact that there is no amendment from the SNP excluding Perth specifically. The ports that I have mentioned in the amendment carry out comparatively little trade. However, as has been pointed out, these and other ports may well develop. At present they take in cargoes of fertiliser and timber and export roofing tiles. Dumfries comes within the five-mile zone, with all the complications that follow.
      I appreciate that the Government are taking power only to make a direction. I am against the Government having blanket control of my small ports. I am particularly concerned in view of the unemployment situation. In Scotland as a whole 165,000 people are unemployed. In my constituency the unemployment figure has risen from 1,300 to 2,300 in two years of Socialism. I do not want to see any jobs going to incoming dockers when they could perfectly well be given to my constituents. This is a senseless Bill which will do nothing to
      144
      help our tottering economy. I hope that we shall carry the amendment.
      Mr. Antony Buck: The position in East Anglia is much as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has described the situation in Scotland as it affects the small ports. What I resent is the feeling of some Labour Members that they have a monopoly of compassion for the "working man". What I am concerned about is the preservation of the jobs of dockers in my constituency and their welfare. It is the considered opinion of everyone to whom I have spoken about Colchester's small dock that the Bill is liable to bring about the loss of the jobs of the 30 permanent workers and deprive the five to 10 casuals employed there of any prospect of work. In addition, there would be the effects on warehousing and warehousemen.
      I want to see these men keep their jobs. Those concerned confirm that the probable effect of the implementation of the Bill, if it were to apply to Colchester, would be to put the dock out of business. That has been reiterated by the district council in Colchester, which I regret to say does not have a Conservative monopoly. I do not say that everyone on the council supports the view that the scheme should be rejected, but that is the view of the council and the substantial majority of those to whom I have spoken. As far as I can see, in its application to the small ports the Bill has no support save for the support given by doctrinaire Socialists.
      In Colchester we have a small dock that handles vessels up to 1,000 tons. The annual throughput is about 200,000 tons. The users attribute the success to its overall efficiency, high quality and flexibility. It is the view of the users and of the Colchester Dock Transit Company Limited that the operation of the scheme outlined in the Bill would cost it a great deal of money, thought to be around £60,000 per annum. That would have the likely effect of putting the company out of business. There would also be an effect on the seasonal trade. From time to time a small number of casual dock workers are employed. This would appear to be impossible under the Bill.
      I summarise the position with the aid of documents drawn not from one political source but from all sources concerned

      145
      for the future of Colchester as a port. It is thought that by putting the docks out of commision the scheme would probably cost about £60,000 a year, that the district council would lose harbour due revenue of about £40,000 a year, and that the loss of rates to Colchester District Council would amount to about £40,000 a year. There would be a loss of export potential for the grain trade and other exports that go through Colchester dock.
      9.0 p.m.
      I have not met anyone concerned with the Colchester dock who does not believe that the effect of the Bill being applied to Colchester would do anything but be likely to close down the dock. Therefore, when Labour Members talk about the future of the dockers, let me tell them that that is indeed one of the main things I am concerned about. I am concerned about the relatively small but significant number of dockers in my constituency who, in the opinion of almost everyone to whom I have talked about the Bill, will lose their jobs if the specific amendment tabled in my name to exclude Colchester is not agreed.
      I end on a general observation. This is yet a further example of the present Government pursuing policies supported by only a minority of a minority. Even within the Labour Party in my constituency, as far as I am able to judge, it is only a minuscule number who would support the application of this scheme to the port of Colchester.
      Therefore, here again the present Government, who are themselves a minority, are forcing forward policies which are supported by only a minority in their own ranks. I hope that the House will see sense and that some Labour Members will have the sense to support the amendments, particularly those in my name to exclude Colchester from the provisions of this iniquitous Bill.
      Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I think that I am the first of those from East Kent to be called, and there are a number of us present. I think we all stand with very much the same views. I should like merely to deal with the Thanet provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) will probably join in with a further word in due course.
      146
      New Clause 4 entirely covers our needs. We say that the Bill should not apply to any small harbour or to any place within five miles of a small harbour where the men working for the last period of 12 months engaged in loading cargo into or unloading cargo from ships have been engaged for a working period of less than 1,350 hours.
      I want to speak straight to the point of the new clause. Concerning ports, we have Margate, Ramsgate, Broadstairs and Pegwell Bay, and the airport of my hon. Friend, Manston. What I want to say spreads over other ports. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) is present. He has a rather separate case. The Bill is an economic disaster for us for the simple reason that there are so few men employed in the ports who will be covered by the scheme.
      With the exception of Ramsgate there is purely casual labour, and very few in number. Ramsgate employs 20 men, with an earnings average of just over £2,000 a year—about £50,000—and those men work an average of 12 hours a week. The average throughout the year comes to less than 750 hours per annum for each man. This is so small as to be negligible and it is not worth bringing it into a scheme. If it was brought into a scheme, in the case of Ramsgate, for example, the port would require an operating minimum of 15 men, which would give a wages bill of £90,000. That would be a 60 Der cent. increase, and 25 per cent. of the labour force would lose their employment.
      It would raise the cost by 60 per cent. It would mean that the handling charges would not be worth while, and the business would therefore case. Ramsgate would have to work around the clock, and it is reckoned that the men who did this work, with the overtime which would be necessary with the basis of the 40-hour week, because of the hours that the ships come in, would earn an extra £40 a week—namely, £6,000 per annum.
      Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for putting the case so well for our joint constituencies. Does he accept that these costs which he rightly stresses will result not just in the

      147
      20 non-scheme dockers being put out of work but in another 200 ancillary jobs around Ramsgate Harbour being put in jeopardy?
      Mr. Rees-Davies: My hon. Friend puts it very well. I hope that he will have the opportunity to elaborate on the other aspects which affect Ramsgate.
      How did the Bill come about? It is opposed by USDAW, and I am surprised that I have not heard representatives of USDAW in this House speaking out in opposition yet. It is also opposed by a large number of container men. Therefore, one may well ask how it came to see the light of day. I am advised that this is a real East End dockers' Mafia scheme.
      The East End has suffered greatly, and I am sorry for that. As a result, however, dockers have taken over sections of the T&GWU and foisted this measure on the Labour Party. It is not part of Socialist philosophy as such, and it has rent the party opposite in twain. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that in some sort of shambles Labour hon. Members will get together to vote for it tonight.
      But for the troubles in the East End of the metropolis we would not have had the Bill. There will be plenty of opportunity in future to do something about Surrey Docks. and it is most unfortunate that we should have to suffer this Bill, which is totally unnecessary and which does not even accord with the philosophy of the Labour Party.
      It is wholly wrong to include small ports within the ambit of the Bill. They are just not worth including. As a result of their inclusion, 20 to 30 workers in each, who are well looked after and who are able to earn a decent living, will lose their jobs altogether and then the Bill may lead to the closure of the activities of these ports.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: I cannot for one moment accept the comments that the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) has made about that nonsense of an East End Mafia. I represent a constituency in which we have the ports of Bristol and Avonmouth, and there is no East End Mafia operating there. The dockers in my constituency, while they
      148
      would like to see certain amendments and changes in the Bill, certainly support it in principle.
      We should not be surprised at all to hear Conservative Members making claims that the Bill will be an economic disaster and will impose a considerable financial burden on companies. That is the kind of response we have had from Tories ever since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. It has happened every time we have tried to improve the working conditions of working people in this country. It is like the time when they claimed that it was essential to send youngsters down the mines, otherwise the mining industry would collapse, or the time when they claimed that the twelfth hour brought in the profits, which would be lost if we introduced a shorter working week. They claimed then that companies up and down the country would collapse and that there would be economic disaster.
      I am surprised at the kind of crocodile tears that the Conservatives shed about the imaginary threat of unemployment when they will rush into the Lobby to vote for massive cuts in public expenditure which will put perhaps hundreds of thousands more people into the dole queues. They want a continuation of the fragmented docks system. That suits the stevedoring and other private companies which are then able to set one group of dockers off against another, undermining the wages, conditions and procedures that have been built up in the docks by threatening one group of dockers that if they do not cut their manning scales or conform in some other way the cargo will be shifted to another dock. That is all part of the philosophy that the Tories support.
      There has been reference to casual workers. One wonders how many of these casual workers are then presumably, for a good deal of their time, supported from the public purse. We are asked to accept the situation where private enterprise can exploit these working people when it suits them and then when the casual workers become unemployed they become a liability on public expenditure which the Conservatives want cut. I am amazed that the Conservatives should be taking this line, against their constituents. I am amazed that they do not demand for their constituents the rights, wages and conditions of employment which are enjoyed by registered dock workers.

      149
      The Dock Labour Scheme is an important beginning in industrial democracy. It involves the working people in decision-making. I would have thought that the Opposition, who often pay lip service to the involvement of working people in the decisions which affect their working lives, would have been demanding that the dockers in their constituencies should be treated equally with the dockers in Avonmouth, Bristol, London, Liverpool and elsewhere.
      I have never known a piece of legislation to be so distorted by the media, by the Opposition and by their friends. They have created the image that thousands of dockers will be rushing into the cold storage units, grabbing jobs and making other people unemployed. That is nonsense. They have created the image of a trade union which is so powerful that it can hold the country to ransom. Yet the number of dockers has been cut by almost half in a decade. If that is the sign of strength, heaven help the dockers if they had a weak trade union. There would have been no dockers left.
      We know that the multinational companies and the international companies have in many cases set up business outside the docks because they were not prepared to bear the kind of responsibilities for their working people that any decent employer should be prepared to accept.
      Mr. David Price: Rubbish!
      Mr. Thomas: I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Government have the full support of the dockers of this country in this legislation, and the sooner we get the Bill on to the statute book the better.
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Fairbairn: There stands in my name an amendment to except, first, the port of Perth, and, second, the whole of Scoland, and hon. Members for the Scottish National Party have similar amendments.
      Having listened to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) I find it almost amazing that he is interested in any human being at all. Let us be absolutely clear of the situation as it will happen. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) unfortunately upset his speech by being offensive about little
      150
      people. I am concerned in Perthshire with the little people and I am concerned with all little people. Let us be clear about the effect of the scheme on the port of Perth. It will increase prices and make that port uneconomic as it has part-time workers.
      It will put up the price of the goods that come to the farmer, which means it will put up the price for the housewife. It will put up the price of exports, which means it will put up the price for the housewife. I have never understood the especial concern of Labour Members for dockers. In the Port of London we have between 1,500 and 2,000 dockers who draw their wages and do nothing. That is added to the price that the family has to pay to keep those people who do nothing. This scheme is intended to extend that addition to the wage earners' burden.
      I do not understand the logic of Labour Members. It is all very well to speak of enormous ports, but do they not care for the little ports? Do they not care for the people who depend on the little ports? Do they not care for the people who have to pay the prices? In my constituency and in all rural constituencies in Scotland people pay higher prices while earning far lower wages. Do Labour Members not care that they are going to add to it? Do they not care that people working part time on low wages will be put out of their jobs in favour of people who will draw higher wages for doing nothing? When it comes down to the human being, they do not mind.
      I trust that the Minister will listen to pleas for the exclusion of Scotland from this wretched, dictatorial, expensive scheme which will do nothing for the individual in our rural areas, our unemployed, or for our low-wage earners. It will greatly add to the prices that they have to pay. That is the penalty that the working man has to pay for Socialism.
      Mr. Peter Rees: The amendments to which we are speaking read like a Gazetteer of the United Kingdom and demonstrate the range of interests likely to be affected by the Bill. It is nothing short of a public scandal that we should be having to debate these amendments under the guillotine so that a large number of my hon. Friends, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and

      151
      Hythe (Mr. Costain), will be unable to defend their constituency interests. It is particularly scandalous that we should have inflicted on us against this timetable the irrelevant nonsense spoken from the Government Benches.
      I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. ber for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), who is posing as the bare-throated defender of dockers' interests, whether he has ever heard of Lord Shaftesbury. I suggest that he should concern himself with housing problems of which he has special knowledge and in which, apparently, he has a special interest.
      I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) to appraise the physical characteristics of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I tell him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that his speech was as usual a compound of arrogance, prejudice and ignorance, and the thinness of his case was barely concealed by the vulgar personal abuse to which he descended. I hope that when he comes to make a contribution on the Devolution Bill, because curiously he may find himself in sympathy with some of the comments made from the Opposition Benches, he will moderate his language as he may like us to fold him to our bosom, but not tonight.
      Mr. Leadbitter rose—
      Mr. Rees: The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) asked us to be objective in our contributions. The hon. Gentleman's standards of objectivity are certainly not mine.
      I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. Amendment No. 52 relates to the port of Richborough, whose capacity in peace and contribution in war has passed signally unrecognised.
      As the time at my disposal is limited, I should prefer to pass on to the port of Dover. Some of my hon. Friends were disposed to describe this as a debate on the small ports. I hope that they will forgive me if I correct them. Dover is not only the premier Cinque Port—I speak with some diffidence in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Folk-stone and Hythe, but I, too, represent another Cinque Port—Sandwich—but
      152
      the premier passenger port of the kingdom. With its roll-on/roll-off business, it ranks third or four in fright traffic.
      What will the Bill do for the harmony and efficiency of the port of Dover? [Interruption.] There is someone, who probably affects to represent the Patronage Secretary, who may wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I should be willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Does he wish to intervene? Apparently the hon. Gentleman is prepared to intervene from a sedentary position, but has nothing to contribute on his feet.
      Every contribution from the Government Benches has stressed—it is perfectly proper to do so—the interests of the dockers. But what do hon. Gentlemen have to say about the other interested parties who work in or near the docks? They might broaden their horizons a bit.
      I should like to pose three important questions relating to Dover, and I hope that the Minister will condescend to answer them. First, operating from the port of Dover, as the right hon. Gentleman alone on the Government Benches will know, because all the other speeches from his hon. Friends have been suffused with incredible arrogance and ignorance, are British Rail and Sea Speed, which is a subsidiary of British Rail, and a range of private interests—the Dover Harbour Board and private stevedoring companies. How will Dover operate in the context of the Bill? Is it to be fragmented into two or three parts? I should like the Minister to deal with the practical implications for a port such as Dover.
      Dover's problems are not the same as those of Harwich, which is controlled entirely by British Rail, or as those of Folkestone, which is also controlled by British Rail. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe will deal with the problems at Folkestone if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
      Three unions operate at Dover. Tonight listening to Labour Members, one would imagine that only the Transport and General Workers' Union was represented in this House. But three unions operate at Dover: the National Union of Railway-ment, the National Union of Seamen and the Transport and General Workers' Union, some of whose members have dockers' cards and others of whom do

      153
      not. How will their interests be reconciled under the Bill? I should be interested to hear the Minister's reply on that matter.
      Finally, there is the question of roll-on/roll-off freight. I have studied Part II of Schedule 3. I should like a positive assurance from the Minister that roll-on/roll-off freight will not be affected and that those who drive the trailers on or off the boats will not be regarded as carrying on dock work.
      Study the Bill as I can, I cannot see that it will be good for Dover, for port users, or for all but a small fraction of those who work there. The Bill has been introduced by a Government blinded by prejudice and dogma. At the end of the day the country will recognise—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman who affects to represent the council house owners of Bristol, North-West might ponder this. The country will recognise that this Bill is nothing more than a crude bribe offered to Mr. Jack Jones on whom for the next four months the future of this Government depends.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) made great play of the Bill doing something for the well-being of the poor dockers in the non-scheme ports. I have news for him. The dockers in the non-scheme port of Mostyn in my constituency have wages and conditions that are every bit as good as those in the scheme port of Liverpool. They are members of the same union—the T &GWU—which has given full approval to the terms that the men have negotiated. The reason why the Bill will deprive workers in Mostyn of their jobs is that it will add so much to the costs of the port and similar ports that they will be put out of business.
      The case against the Bill and against the inclusion of small ports is so overwhelming that we have had to take special care not to spoil our case by exaggeration, and we have not done so. We know that the board will be composed of sensible chaps who will do their utmost to safeguard the jobs of all dockers, but they will come under powerful pressure from dockers in the scheme ports to squeeze out the small ports that they see as a threat to their continued existence. This is a fact that
      154
      the Government try to push into the background, but the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) constantly drags it into the light and makes clear that the object of the Bill is to enable the scheme ports to absorb the non-scheme ports, drive them out of business and get the jobs.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) touched on this point in his most unfortunate speech. The tragedy of the dockers in the non-scheme ports is that they will not face up to what the Bill involves for them. Many dockers in Mostyn believe that, even if the Bill drives their port out of existence, they will get good jobs at the expense of others in the dockers' corridor and that they will get the warehousing, transport and distribution jobs in place of their own. But this is not a game of general post. It is a game of musical chairs in which a chair is removed every time, making one less place for the people to sit. As the number of ports is reduced, the number of jobs is also reduced.
      I am concerned about the effect of including small ports on the unemployment situation in my part of Wales, which is greatly dependent on the activity of Mostyn and the firms working there. I am even more concerned about the effect of the Bill on what has been a healthy climate of industrial relations in North Wales and also that it might cause dockers to look enviously at the jobs of warehousemen, cause the warehousemen to look enviously at the transport jobs, and so on down the line.
      I fear that the Bill will poison the happy atmosphere in industrial relations. For these reasons and because of the unemployment rate in my constituency, which is one of the highest in the United Kingdom, I hope that the Government will amend the Bill to exclude small ports from its operation.
      Mr. Donald Stewart: I cannot imagine how the Bill was conceived, unless, as an hon. Member suggested, it was a form of Danegeld promised to Mr. Jack Jones.
      Sir David Renton: It is Jonesgeld.
      Mr. Stewart: I wish to deal with Amendment No. 263, which relates to the port of Stornoway in my constituency. I can tell the hon. Member for Bristol,

      155
      North-West (Mr. Thomas) that there will be nothing imaginary about the unemployment there—whatever may happen in the port of Bristol. In Stornoway, 20 or 23 dockers will inevitably lose their jobs if this legislation goes through, because the two stevedoring companies cannot afford to employ them full-time. The men are all members of the Transport and General Workers' Union.
      The object of the Bill may be to give better wages and conditions, but what will the Government say to the men in my constituency? Will they say that they have arranged better wages and conditions and that it is a pity that the men are not in work to enjoy them?
      9.30 p.m.
      My area has the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom—month after month, year after year, decade after decade. It is 15·5 per cent. this month and male unemployment is 23 per cent., and it will grow. We have a cost of living which is near that of London. It is so high that the local authority has to give a weighting allowance of £3·50 a week. It is so serious that the Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland concerned about the effects of the Bill on the ports of Lerwick and Stornoway. He said:
      "The Board considers that an increase of this magnitude, which will apply in varying degree to other small ports, can only exacerbate the already serious problems of Island prices in relation to agriculture, construction and industry of all kinds. In drawing your attention to these adverse aspects of the proposed legislation the Board has asked me to express a hope that the Government may be prepared to consider appropriate amendments to the Bill."
      I echo that wish on behalf of my constituency and all the small ports.
      The Government have introduced a lot of unnecessary and mischievous legislation, but this Bill is the most lunatic of the lot.
      Mr. David Crouch: It will not be immediately apparent to many hon. Members, perhaps, but as the Member for Canterbury I am also known as the Member for Whitstable, a very old Roman port in my constituency. It is a small port and this is a small matter, but it is nevertheless very important.
      156
      Many of us have been accused of having no knowledge of the great ports, of the Transport and General Workers' Union or of the dockers and their rights. The question is not whether we understand all these points of magnitude. Other hon. Members may have worked all their lives in this industry and be able to speak with more passion and understanding of what it means to be a docker, but every hon. Member has a duty to speak about his part of the country, no matter from what party he comes, and to see that it is well served by Parliament.
      Every hon. Member, even on the Government side, has recognised the duty of Members of Parliament to serve the interests of their own areas and to ensure that this legislation does good to their part of the country and those who work there. Some parts of the Bill do not seem to do good to our parts of our country and to those who work there, whatever union they belong to.
      The port of Whitstable has had for many years a flourishing coastal trade under the Dock Labour Scheme. Since 1963 that trade has been diminishing because it has been inhibited by the working of the scheme. It is not just that the scheme makes the operations more expensive, although that has been proved. I am not arguing for any diminution of wages. I am a great believer in the highest possible wages being paid where they can be paid and earned. What I am concerned about is the diminution of trade and the decline of business in the small port of Whitstable.
      The Minister—I pay him this compliment—has been here throughout the debate. He is obviously concerned to hear those of us who wish to speak about 150 amendments and is concerned that all is not right with the Bill.
      But we are not talking about the whole Bill. We are talking mainly about the extension of the scheme to small harbours and ports. This extension will inhibit the growth of trade in those ports. Since 1963, under the National Dock Labour Board, Whitstable has lost the timber trade that it used to have, with 500-tonners plying the coast and across the North Sea. We have lost the brick trade —the import of bricks from Denmark of a special type for our furnaces, particularly in electricity generating plants. We have lost it because of the inefficiency

      157
      of the Dock Labour Scheme, which caused the coasters to remain idle not for a few hours but for days on end, so that it was no longer economic to use this small port.
      I may not be able to speak with the greatest authority about the intricacies of the working, but I can say that trade has gone from Whitstable, and it is believed by those who operate the port that it has gone because of the inflexibility of the scheme.
      I ask the Minister to accept the pleas made on behalf of famous ports and small ports. This inflexible scheme to be applied by the Bill will not work to the advantage of the country. It will not necessarily work to the advantage of the new strategy which the Cabinet has embraced—that of extending industry and increasing the trade and wealth of the country. There are parts of the Bill which will positively act as a deterrent. This part of the Bill will do much more than that. It will promote an extension of inefficiency. I hope that the Government will listen with care to what we have said tonight.
      Mr. Michael Marshall: I know that several of my hon. Friends wish to speak before the guillotine comes down, and I shall, therefore, be brief. I want to touch on the problems of the port of Littlehampton. Labour supporters who have tried to steer us into emotional arguments must recognise that Opposition Members are fully entitled to speak from practical experience of the problems of their areas.
      Littlehampton is typical of several small ports about which there is the greatest suspicion and doubt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said, the power which the Secretary of State reserves unto himself, if applied, could result in the livelihood of those who work in small ports being directly threatened. As I shall show, the whole infrastructure upon which the area depends is also likely to be affected.
      I am concerned that this is the thin end of the wedge and that the scheme may in future be extended to include road haulage. I shall be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State gives us an assurance on that.
      158
      I want to take the industries which are related to small ports. In my area they include horticulture, boat building and construction, all three of which are dependent on the small port's activities in employing part-time workers, who are employed part-time in turn by those industries. If part-time employment is taken away from the docks, those three industries will be seriously undermined.
      We know about the boat builders' problems with VAT. Horticulture has difficulties with the subsidisation of oil, and so on. The difficulties experienced by the whole infrastructure will be compounded if the scheme goes through and applies to small ports such as Littlehampton.
      It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are reasonable people who will apply the law reasonably. They must make clear beyond peradventure that they are willing to recognise the detailed arguments put forward tonight. The Government have in many ways tended to drive in blinkers and they feel that once they set out along a road, the acceptance of amendments suggests a loss of virility.
      One can at least say that in putting forward misguided and doctrinaire measures the Government are making the way easier for those who believe that they will sow the seeds of their own destruction. I urge the Government to accept the amendments, because at least if they do that the country as a whole will be better in the short term as well as in the long term.
      Mr. Aitken: The idiocy of the Bill, whose main effect is to pay Danegeld to Mr. Jack Jones's dockers at the expense of jobs and the economic survival of small ports, is nowhere better highlighted than by the tragic fate that lies in store for the port of Ramsgate in my constituency.
      Ramsgate is a successful non-scheme port which handled more than £45 million of cargo last year. There are 20 unregistered dockers who work uncongenial hours because it is a tidal port. This causes them to operate at tidal times, even in the small hours of the morning. These dockers earn an average wage of £56 a week. They deserve that

      159
      wage even though it is paid for only 12 to 15 hours per week on average.
      The future for them and for many others who work in ancillary trades around the harbour of Ramsgate is bleak and depressing if the Bill goes through and the scheme is extended to Ramsgate, because rising costs are such that there is no way that the employers could afford to go on keeping dockers at the scheme rate of pay for hours which they cannot in any case work. As a result, the plain truth is that Ramsgate harbour will have to close down from the point of view of handling trade.
      If we were to stop there, that would be bad enough. In addition, there are the Pegwell Bay hoverport which will be affected and also Manston Airport, which are both within the five-mile zone. All these jobs creating centres which contribute so much to East Kent will be ruined if under the scheme high costs are imposed artificially and against the interests of the local community and the dockers themselves. I greatly hope that the Minister will note Amendments Nos. 67 to 69 in my name and will listen to the voices of others who have spoken for east Kent and other parts of the country.
      Mr. Rathbone: In the two minutes and fifty seconds remaining before the winding-up speeches I wish to draw the Government's attention to the peculiarities of Newhaven, which is not confined to British Rail but which also has extensive back-up terminals. Contrary to what Labour Members have said, I wish to point out that the people who will be losing their jobs because of a loss of business are earning, for example, £55 or £51 per week minimum, or £82 a week on average last year. These are the people who will be put out of work by this idiotic piece of legislation.
      Mr. Booth: I am replying to a debate in which the Government have been accused of being Socialist, doctrinaire and failing to act in accordance with their own philosophy. That is not an easy proposition to which to reply.
      The attacks have been based upon two features of the Bill. One is the inclusion therein of the concept of a cargo-handling zone and the other is the Bill's failure, as its opponents see it, specific-
      160
      ally to exclude small ports from its provisions. I shall try succinctly to deal with both criticisms.
      On the first criticism—that of including the concept of a cargo-handling zone—I want to say that in modern terms it is very difficult—more difficult than it has ever been previously—to define what is dock work without some recognition of a geographical limit. Work which has been historically performed at the quayside and on the docks has, with modern cargo-handling developments, in many cases moved inland. For instance, stuffing and stripping operations have moved to inland depots.
      Had we brought before the House a Bill which ignored this factor and not said that there must be a geographical limit beyond which any other definition of dock work could go, we should have been criticised for doing that and should have been told quite properly that it was wrong to describe anything as dock work which could take place such a distance from the high water mark of our rivers or ports.
      Sir David Renton: Then why is the right hon. Gentleman taking power in Clause 4(6) to do this by Order?
      Mr. Booth: I shall come to that. The general proposition of Clause 4, and the point that it attacked by the new clause, is that there should be a geographical limit as such. I contend that it is genuinely required, particularly in view of modern developments that have taken place in cargo handling. What may be—indeed, what is—regarded as modern dock work when done within a few hundred yards of the quayside—for instance, the stuffing and stripping of containers—should not be regarded as modern dock work if it is done 30 or 40 miles from the high water mark.
      I accept that we have in the Bill a provision by which we can extend the limit. There are some circumstances which one can envisage in which, with modem techniques, an extension might be necessary, but that would only be done with the approval of both Houses of Parliament and under the affirmative procedure.
      9.45 p.m.
      The difficulty of debating briefly the cargo-handling zone concept is that

      161
      one tends to concentrate upon the matter as if it were a sole or major test. In that way it cannot be seen in perspective and debated constructively, because alongside the test whether the work is done in a cargo-handling zone must be set the test of Schedule 3. Then one must look at the provisions of the Bill which will apply the more sophisticated tests.
      One test is whether the work is being done under the present scheme. That test is applied by Clause 6. I hope that the House will not object to that test. More important for the purpose of the debate are the tests in Clause 8—for example, whether the work to be done is done by way of substitution for other work previously done by other registered dock workers; whether they require training, aptitudes and experience the same as, or similar to, those of registered dock workers; whether the work is done wholly or mainly by workers employed as casual labour.
      If any of those tests is satisfied, that is not sufficient for the board to make a recommendation. One also has to inquire whether the work requires for its efficient performance the engagement of a permanent labour force, whether classification of the work would assist the making or improvement in the arrangements for creating and maintaining an adequate labour force, for rationalising the deployment of labour on any such work, and for removing anomalous distinctions between different categories of workers.
      These are some of the many detailed and specific tests which the board has to take into consideration before it can make a recommendation to the Secretary of State that the work should be classified. To view the cargo-handling zone, as so many hon. Members have done in Committee and on the Floor of the House, as if that were the only test, as if every bit of work was to be classified, is to make a nonsense of the debate. I cannot believe that hon. Members who have studied the Bill can really believe that the cargo-handling zone has the significance that some have sought to attach to it.
      I turn to the question of the small ports, which understandably has created so much concern. This has been a useful part of the debate since it has con-
      162
      centrated attention on the extent of casual labour that still goes on at our small ports. I recall particularly the words of one hon. Member who referred to casual labour in his constituency averaging 12 hours a week in the local port. In modern terms one cannot accept that there can be a case for people being employed on a 12 hours-a-week basis, unless there are special considerations and unless we are prepared to test by modern labour standards whether such an arrangement is necessary and whether we are prepared to test a better way of employing people and safeguarding their working conditions.
      Mr. Aitken: May I intervene, as it was my constituency to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Those dockers, who are members of the Transport and General Workers Union, are averaging £56 a week for working those 12 hours. They are well satisfied. They do not want to be in a dock labour scheme that will put them out of work completely.
      Mr. Booth: But what people earn for doing casual work is not the only test whether these are acceptable labour conditions. One might consider the position at Montrose where there are only two registered dock workers and the rest of the work is done by men who have been out all night in fishing boats.
      I now turn to the amendments and the places that they seek to remove from the Bill. Some of the places that the amendments seek to exclude do not even handle cargo. Some of the places deal only with account operations and they are, therefore, not affected by the Bill. Other places that the amendments seek to exclude fall to the test of Clause 7(7).
      I remind the House that one of the tests applied by that clause is whether the work of a small port requires for its efficient performance the engagement of a permanent labour force. But if the work of a small port is such that it does not require that, it could not fall to be classified. We have explained the situation in Committee and in writing to hon. Members to make that crystal clear.
      I draw the attention of the House to a Government amendment making it clear to all those concerned with the small ports that reports by the board resulting in classification have been taken

      163
      into account. Amendment No. 170 will require the board, when considering a recommendation for the classification of a small port, to provide copies of the report to all those employees and workers to which the report relates, to any trade union recognised by such an employer and to any other person concerned with the subject matter of the report. The amendment also requires that notice be given to employers and unions that one month is allowed for recommendations to be made to the Secretary of State. No one who is an employer or employee in a small port will be unaware of the intention of the board to make a report or that he may make representations to the board.
      The subject of small ports arose not as a piece of Socialist doctrine, or as a result of a debate by the Fabian Society, but out of a report called for by a Conservative Minister of Transport, who asked the National Ports Council to make a survey of non-scheme ports and wharves. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) received a recommendation from the National Ports Council that the Secretary of State for Employment should consider what steps were open to him:
      "to eliminate casual engagement in those cases where it is used as a normal source of such cargo handling labour as is required on a relatively constant basis".
      He was also recommended:
      "to ensure that for regular employees at non-scheme undertakings handling third-party traffic, the terms and conditions of employment on cargo handling including the basic rate of pay, hours of normal work, overtime rates, holiday entitlement, sick pay and pension arrangements and daily and weekly guarantees of payment should be not less favourable than the standards laid down for the industry as a norm."
      The recommendation included a whole host of things which will not be brought about unless there is an extension of the scheme to a number of ports.
      I recognise that there are a number of small ports which, by their geographical location, irregular nature of cargoes and a number of other factors, will not be suited to the scheme. But that can be tested by the Bill and the House. I therefore hope that the Government amendments will be accepted and that the other amendments will be rejected.
      Mr. David Madel: The 25 Opposition Members who
      164
      have spoken have shown why we so strongly oppose the Bill in trying to bring small ports within its provisions. My hon. Friends have done a thorough job of consultation with employees in the small ports.
      I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said about the petition organised by the employees at the port of Montrose. There is no question of someone else having organised it for them. Their petition is yet another example of the opposition to incorporating small ports in the Bill.
      We agree with Amendment No. 84 of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and his Liberal colleagues to delete subsection (6) of Clause 4.
      If there had been more time, we should have wished to discuss our Amendment No. 21 dealing with the half-mile zone. Our case is simply that once a five-mile zone is created it leads to trouble. The creation of zones results in arguments about classification of work. That is where the heart of the difficulties occurs. If the Government want to do a proper job of consultation with employees in small ports, they should design their promised industrial democracy Bill carefully and allow those people to say whether they want to come under the scheme.
      There have been careless speeches from Labour Members, who have been confused about casual and seasonal work. Seasonal work is sometimes unavoidable. If Labour Members are worried, as they say they are, about working conditions and safety in non-scheme small ports, they should use the existing legislation, such as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the Employment Protection Act, to improve conditions if they believe that conditions need improvement. There is no need to make general attacks on our attitude to docks or whether we do or do not want adequate pensions for dockers. We want adequate pensions for every employee in the country. If hon. Members study the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, they will see what we have said about that.
      Are the Government certain that they have evidence to show that the Bill is necessary and will lead to an improvement? Clause 4 is an attempt to deal

      165
      with the manpower problem in the London Docks area. In a discussion paper from the National Economic Development Office, Mr. John Hughes, who, one would imagine, is not normally a Conservative supporter, said at page 53:
      "It is likely, too, that the new government proposals"—
      those in the Bill—
      "may reduce but not remove the continuing problems of development and planning that result from continuing technological changes, and locational changes in trading patterns."
      The Secretary of State said in Committee:
      "Of course, in practice, what has happened up and down the country is that many of the places, the premises, and the work have been established by voluntary agreement—much more than by legal definition."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 23rd March 1976; c. 537–38.]
      He referred to the case of the Aintree container depot. We constantly argued in
      Committee, with regard to the definition of dock work and its classification, "Of course, proceed by voluntary agreement but do not ram the Bill and Clause 4 down the throats of the small ports and people involved in industries within the five-mile zone."
      The Government would like to feel that they have the support of the trade union movement for the Bill, but they do not have that support. We have all the evidence from members of unions who do not like the Bill and think that the Government should think again about putting it on the statute book. The least the Government can do at this late hour is to think again about Clause 4 and to incorporate our amendments to it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 302.

      Division No. 279.]

      AYES

      [10.00 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Crawford, Douglas

      Grylls, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Critchley, Julian

      Hall, Sir John

      Alison, Michael

      Crouch, David

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Arnold, Tom

      Crowder, F. P.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Awdry, Daniel

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hannam, John

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Banks, Robert

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Hastings, Stephen

      Berth, A. J.

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Bell, Ronald

      Durant, Tony

      Hawkins, Paul

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Benyon, W.

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Bitten, John

      Elliott, Sir William

      Heseltine, Michael

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Emery, Peter

      Hicks, Robert

      Blaker, Peter

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Body, Richard

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Holland, Philip

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Bottomley, Peter

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Hordern, Peter

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Farr, John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Fell, Anthony

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Brittan, Leon

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Forman, Nigel

      Hurd, Douglas

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Buck, Antony

      Fox, Marcus

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Budgen, Nick

      Freud, Clement

      James, David

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fry, Peter

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

      Burden, F. A.

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Jessel, Toby

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Carson, John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Jopling, Michael

      Channon, Paul

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Churchill, W. S.

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Kilfedder, James

      Clegg, Walter

      Gorst, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Cockcroft, John

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Cope, John

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Cordle, John H.

      Gray, Hamish

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Cormack, Patrick

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Corrie, John

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Knox, David

      Costain, A. P.

      Grist, Ian

      Lamont, Norman

      Lane, David

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Osborn, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Stainton, Keith

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lawson, Nigel

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Stanley, John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Pardoe, John

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Penhaligon, David

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Loveridge, John

      Percival, Ian

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Luce, Richard

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Stokes, John

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Stradling, Thomas J.

      MacCormick, Iain

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Tapsell, Peter

      McCrindle, Robert

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      MacGregor, John

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Tebbit, Norman

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Raison, Timothy

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Madel, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Reid, George

      Thompson, George

      Marten, Neil

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Mates, Michael

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Townsend, Cyril D,

      Mather, Carol

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Trotter, Neville

      Maude, Angus

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Maudllng, Rt Hon Reginald

      Ridsdale, Julian

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Mawby, Ray

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Viggers, Peter

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Wakeham, John

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Mills, Peter

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Wall, Patrick

      Moate, Roger

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Walters, Dennis

      Molyneaux, James

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Warren, Kenneth

      Monro, Hector

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Watt, Hamish

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Scott, Nicholas

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Wells, John

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Morgan, Geraint

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Wigtey, Dafydd

      Morrison, Charles (Devices)

      Shersby, Michael

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Silvester, Fred

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mudd, David

      Sims, Roger

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Neave, Airey

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Younger, Hon George

      Neubert, Michael

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Newton, Tony

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Normanton, Tom

      Speed, Keith

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Nott, John

      Spence, John

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Buchan, Norman

      Davidson, Arthur

      Allaun, Frank

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Anderson, Donald

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Archer, Peter

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Campbell, Ian

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Ashley, Jack

      Canavan, Dennis

      Deakins, Eric

      Ashton, Joe

      Cant, R. B.

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Carmichael, Nell

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Atkinson, Norman

      Carter, Ray

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cartwright, John

      Dempsey, James

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Doig, Peter

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Dormand, J. D.

      Bates, Alt

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Bean, R. E.

      Cohen, Stanley

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Coleman, Donald

      Dunn, James A.

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Dunnett, Jack

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Concannon, J. D.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bishop, E. S.

      Conlan, Bernard

      Eadle, Alex

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Edge, Geoff

      Boardman, H.

      Corbett, Robin

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Crawshaw, Richard

      English, Michael

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Cronin, John

      Ennals, David

      Bradley, Tom

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Evans,loan (Aberdare)

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Cryer, Bob

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      168

      169

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rowlands, Ted

      Fitt, Gerard(BelfastW)

      Luard, Evan

      Sandelson, Neville

      Flannery, Martin

      Lyons, Edward(BradfordW)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Fletcher, L. R.(Ilkeston)

      Mabon, Dr J.Dickson

      Selby, Harry

      Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Shaw, Arnold (IlfordSouth)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Ford, Ben

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Forrester, John

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Short, Rt. Hon E.(Newcastle C)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Short, MrsRenée (Wolv NE)

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

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Silkin, Rt Hon John(Deptford)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Maclennan, Robert

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.(Dulwich)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McMillan, Tom (Gasgow C)

      Sillars, James

      Garrett, W.E. (Wallsend)

      Madden, Max

      Silverman, Julius

      George, Bruce

      Magee, Bryan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Gilbert, DrJohn

      Mahon, Simon

      Small, William

      Ginsburg, David

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Golding, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Snape, Peter

      Gould, Bryan

      Marquand, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Graham, Ted

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stallard, A.W.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Stoddart, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Meacher, Michael

      Stott, Roger

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Hardy, Peter

      Mendelson, John

      Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Millan, Bruce

      Swain, Thomas

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Hatton, Frank

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Thomas, Mike(Newcastle E)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Moonman, Eric

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Alfred(Wythenshawe)

      Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Horam, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Tinn, James

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Moyle, Roland

      Tomlinson, John

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Tomney, Frank

      Huckfield, Les

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Torney, Tom

      Hughes, Rt Hon C.(Anglesey)

      Newens, Stanley

      Tuck, Raphael

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Noble, Mike

      Urwin, T. W.

      Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ogden, Eric

      Wainwright, Edwin(Dearne V)

      Hunter, Adam

      O'Halloran, Michael

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

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (EdgeHill)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Ovenden, John

      Ward, Michael

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Owen, Dr David

      Watkins, David

      Janner, Greville

      Padley, Walter

      Watkinson, John

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Palmer, Arthur

      Weetch, Ken

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Park, George

      Weitzman, David

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Parker, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      John, Brynmor

      Parry, Robert

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Johnson, James (HullWest)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      White, James (Pollok)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Pendry, Tom

      Whitlock, William

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Perry, Ernest

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Judd, Frank

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Kelley, Richard

      Prescott, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Kerr, Russell

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Radice, Giles

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Lambie, David

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wise, MrsAudrey

      Lamond, James

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Woodall, Alec

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Woof, Robert

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Lee, John

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rooker, J. W.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Lipton, Marcus

      Roper, John

      Mr.James Hamilton and

      Litterick, Tom

      Rose, Paul B.

      Mr.Joseph Harper.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [20th July] to put forthwith the Questions on the amendments to the Bill, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given.

    Clause 2

      GENERAL DUTY OF THE BOARD
      Amendments made: No. 11, in page 2, line 34, leave out second 'and'.
      No. 12, in line 39, at end insert
      '; and
      (c) the probable cost to employers of implementing the proposal.'.—[Mr. Booth.]

    Clause 4

      SECRETARY OF STATE TO PREPARE NEW SCHEME
      Amendments made: No. 18, in page 4, line 1, leave out 'forty' and insert 'sixty'.
      No. 142, page 5, line 1, leave out 'forty' and insert 'sixty'.
      No. 144, in page 5, line 4, leave out 'summary' and insert 'record'.—[Mr. Booth.]

    Clause 5

      OBJECTS OF THE NEW SCHEME
      Amendments made: No. 147, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
      '(5A) In respect of any of the matters specified in paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 2 to this Act, the Scheme may require dock employers and dock workers to accept obligations arising under a specified collective agreement (as for the time being in force) although not themselves parties to the agreement; but this is subject to subsection (6) below.'.
      No. 150, in page 6, line 33, leave out 'forty' and insert 'sixty'.—[Mr. Booth.]

    Clause 6

      REVIEW OF WHAT IS NOW DOCK WORK
      Amendments made: No. 152, in page 6, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'the' and insert
      'Within the period of six months beginning with the appointed day'.
      No. 155, in page 7, line 3, leave out '29th February 1976' and insert 'with the appointed day'.
      No. 158, in page 7, line 10, at end insert—
      '(2A) Copies of the Board's report shall be given—

      (a) to all those who are, or have been at any time in the period of twelve months ending with the appointed day, employers of workers on work of any such category as is specified in subsection (2) above;

      (b) to any trade union which is, or at any time in that period was, recognised by an employer in respect of any such workers; and

      (c) to any other person appearing to the Board to be concerned with the subject matter of the report.'.

      No. 160, in page 7, line 14, after 'and', insert '(a)'.
      No. 161, in page 7, line 16, at end insert'; and
      (b) subsection (2A) above also applies to this further report.'.
      No. 162, in page 7, line 18, after 'port', insert
      '(but not until the employers and trade unions referred to in subsection (2A) (a) and (b) above have had at least a month in which to make representations)'.—[Mr. Booth.]

    Clause 7

      LOADING AND UNLOADING OPERATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 166, in page 8, line 18, leave out from 'of' to end of line and insert
      'any of the substances mentioned in paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to this Act'.
      No. 169, in page 9, line 37, leave out 'summarise' and insert 'record'.
      No. 170, in page 9, line 43, at end insert—
      '(10) Copies of the Board's report shall be given—

      (a) to all those who are employers of workers on work to which the report relates;

      (b) to any trade union which is recognised by such an employer in respect of any such workers; and

      (c) to any other person appearing to the Board to be concerned with the subject matter of the report,

      together with an intimation by the Board that the employers and unions referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above have one month in which to make representations to the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Booth.]

    Clause 8
      CARGO-HANDLING OPERATIONS IN GENERAL
      Amendment made: No. 175, in page 11, line 34, leave out 'summarise' and insert 'record'.—[Mr. Booth.]
    Clause 9

      REFERENCE BY SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE BOARD
      Amendments made: No. 177, in page 12, line 8, leave out 'forty' and insert 'sixty'.
      No. 179, in page 12, line 20, leave out 'summary" and insert 'record'.—[Mr. Booth.]

    Clause 14

      CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 182, in page 15, line 23, at beginning insert
      'Subject to subsection (1A) below,'.
      No. 185, in page 15, line 27, at end insert:—
      '(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply where—

      (a) the person became a registered dock worker in consequence of having been employed on work which became classified;

      (b) at the date of the termination of his employment he has been continuously employed since a time before that work was classified; and

      (c) as a result of the termination he ceases to be a registered dock worker.

      (1B) Subject to any provision of the new Scheme as to circumstances in which a dock worker is to be treated as continuing in the employment of an employer, the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Contracts of Employment Act 1972 (computation of period of employment) and, so far as they modify that Schedule, the provisions of any order under section 10 of that Act and any regulations under paragraph 30(3) of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 have effect for the purposes of subsection (1A) in determining for what period an employee has been continuously employed; and, for the purposes of that subsection, a person's employment during any period is, unless the contrary is shown, presumed to have been continuous.
      (1C) Section 31 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 (refund of contributions) applies to employees excluded by subsection (1) from entitlement to payments under that Act.'.
      No. 186, in page 16, line 6, at end insert:—
      '(3A) The Secretary of State may by order vary or revoke any of the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3) above; such an order may contain such transitional and other supplemental and incidental provisions as appear to him to be expedient.
      No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.—[Mr. Booth.]

    Clause 16

      ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 187, in page 18, line 3, leave out 'Any order under' and insert
      'An order under section 14(3A) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under that subsection; orders under any other provision of'—[Mr. Booth.]

    Clause 17

      COMMENCEMENT AND REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 189, in page 18, line 9, after '1', insert ', section 6'.
      No. 191, in page 18, line 21, leave out 'enactments which appear' and insert
      'enactment contained in the 1966 Act which appears'.—[Mr. Booth.]

    Clause 18
      CITATION AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 192, in page 18, line 35, after 'Act', insert 'except section 1(6)'.—[Mr. Booth.]
    Schedule 2

      MATTERS FOR NEW DOCK LABOUR SCHEME
      Amendments made: No. 195, in page 22, line 37, leave out from 'of' to 'the' in line 38 and insert
      'registered dock workers and other dock workers who, though not registered, do work which is classified'.
      No. 197, in page 22, line 39, leave out from 'and' to 'dock' in line 40.
      No. 201, in page 23, line 17, after 'information', insert
      'on such matters as are specified by the Scheme, being information'.—[Mr. Booth.]

    Schedule 3

      DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY, AND THOSE WHICH MAY NOT, BE CLASSIFIED AS DOCK WORK
      Amendments made: No. 205, in page 23, line 30, leave out 'bulk'.
      No. 206, in page 23, line 33, at end insert—
      ';recording the time spent in handling loading or unloading cargo'.
      No. 207, in page 23, line 34, leave out
      'anything in which cargo is packed'
      and insert
      'containers, crates, boxes, pallets or other articles used for packing or loading and unloading cargo'.
      No. 208, in page 24, line 5, leave out 'bulk'.
      No. 209, in page 24, line 6, leave Out 'includes anything' and insert—

      '(a) does not include a passenger's personal baggage carried on board by him;

      (b) includes anything which has been'.

      No. 210, in page 24, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert—
      '(b) goods which are to be, or have been, loaded as cargo in a ship are "cargo" at all times when they are within the cargo-handling zone; and'.
      No. 213, in page 24, line 15, leave out 'ocean' and insert 'sea'.
      No. 218, in page 24, line 31, leave out 'on' and insert 'at'.
      No. 229, in page 24, line 43, after 'length', insert
      '(as calculated for the purposes of registration under the Merchant Shipping Acts)'.
      No. 231, in page 25, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert—
      '14. The ordinary work of those manning a vessel (not a sea-going ship) which either—

      (a) is mainly or exclusively used to carry goods to or from premises outside the cargo-handling zone; or

      (b) is mainly or exclusively used to carry goods to or from premises occupied for the purposes of a business and—

      (i) is owned or operated by the occupier of the premises and manned only by his employees, and

      (ii) is used mainly or exclusively to carry goods owned or produced by him.

      In sub-paragraph (b) above references to the occupier of premises include any company which in relation to him is an associated company.
      15. Any work at a site for the bulk storage (in fixed installations) of crude liquid
      176
      petroleum, natural gas, liquid products derived either from crude liquid petroleum or natural gas or both, liquid chemicals or liquefied gases.
      Any work at a site for piping any of those substances to and from ships or other vessels'.
      No. 234, in page 25, line 5, at end insert—
      '15. Any work done at an aerodrome licensed under Part II of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 which is connected with the loading or unloading of aircraft.'.—[Mr. Booth.]

    Schedule 4

      PROCEDURE FOR RECOMMENDATION UNDER SECTION 8
      Amendment made: No. 243, in page 27, line 35, leave out 'summarise' and insert 'record'.—[Mr. Booth.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Booth.]
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. Prior: I begin by making a protest once more about the imposition of the guillotine, which is restricting the amount of time available for debate. Only three-quarters of an hour is left to discuss this important Bill and decide whether we should send it to another place.
      On Third Reading we have to ask ourselves a number of questions. How will the Bill help the country? How will it improve our economic performance? Will it improve our costs, our trade, our delivery dates and, hence, our exports? How will others overseas look at the effect of the Bill? Does anyone think that people overseas will look at the Bill and what it is doing and shiver in their shoes because Britain is about to become that much more competitive?
      There are few of us in the House—and the Bill has only a bare majority—or outside who believe that the Bill will help in any way in solving our problems There must be many Labour Members who voted for the Government's amendments and who will vote for Third Reading with a very heavy heart. We are bringing forward the Bill at a time when in Australia and elsewhere, the trend is to get rid of dock labour schemes and replace them with an employer-employee situation within a framework of good employment legislation— [Interruption]—yet we are busy extending our Dock Labour Scheme.

      177
      The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) may be interested to know that the Australians have agreed to scrap the equivalent of our National Dock Labour Board. All parties in the political spectrum there are agreed upon this. They are doing so because it is realised that the number of dockers has to be reduced. The system that we are furthering does not allow the necessary flexibility. The Australians know this, and they know too that they cannot afford the inbuilt costs which the National Dock Labour Board scheme system imposes. Any extension of such a scheme in this country must be a retrograde step.
      We know that extra jobs will not be provided. Any idea that that would be the case has been shot out of the window. It was suggested that, in addition to extra jobs being provided, the dock workers' jobs would be protected. There will not be any extra jobs. It is a question of how quickly the number of jobs in the dock industry will be run down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who has taken such an active part in all stages of the Bill, said earlier today, this is a game of musical chairs with one chair missing at each turn of the game.
      What will the Bill do for employment? Labour Members ought to be interested in this. They keep on about the unemployment figures, almost as if they did not bear responsibility for them. They have a heavy responsibility for them. I am fed up with hearing people like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) telling us that we do not understand the working man and are not interested in him at a time when there are 1½ million unemployed. I want to see less unemployment from this Labour Government.
      The Bill puts at risk employment in all the small ports. We have had numerous examples of this. That is one thing that the Bill does. The next thing is that it puts at risk employment in warehouses, cold stores and container depots throughout the country. The reason for that is simply this. If a number of dockers eventually find their way into those places, with their restrictive practices and working record the costs will rise and a number of those places will close down. In warehousing, developments are already taking place in North-West
      178
      Europe that will take the place of developments over here. The Bill will therefore affect the employment of people in building warehouses in Britain.
      One of the factors in this is that British Rail ports, roll-on/roll-off ports, have been excluded from the effects of the Bill. They are one of the few places where there will be an advantage, because goods which would have been brought here in bulk will merely be brought to North-West Europe, broken down and shipped across in roll-on/roll-off transport. That is another way in which employment in this country will suffer.
      Then there is all the risk in the fact that new building will not take place. Already one can pick up almost any property advertisement paper and see that the development of warehousing and the sale or renting of warehouses in the five-mile corridor has practically come to an end.
      Mr. MacCormick: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that possibly what we ought to he trying to do is to abolish the whole concept of dock workers and move on to something else which perhaps dock workers could do?
      Mr. Prior: There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. I shall come to that point a little later.
      We are told by a number of Labour Members "But it is the conditions of work that we must get right. The conditions of work in the non-scheme ports and some of the small wharves are not comparable with those in the scheme ports." The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) shot that one down. He merely said that his constituents would prefer to have a job than to have the best conditions in the world but no job to carry out in those conditions.
      What does the Bill do to hold down prices? What does it do to help the Government's policy of price restraint? All the evidence that has been displayed by hon. Members in all parts of the House shows quite clearly that the only effect of the Bill can be to move prices upwards. Whether it be in regard to the movement of goods in and out of a cold store or in the container depots or

      179
      the warehouses, we all know that the long-term effect of the Bill will be to raise prices. Yet the Government, who all the time are preaching the need to keep down prices, are at the same time voting for a Bill of this nature. When we talk about hypocrisy in this House, we have only to look at the Government Front Bench to see it in action.
      We all know that the possible introduction of the Bill has caused a great deal of industrial unrest. Some of my hon. Friends have been to the Dagenham cold store and have talked, as most of us have done, to shop stewards of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and other unions. We all know that the effect of the Bill has been to disturb industrial relations. It is the cynicism of a Government who can specifically exclude the National Freight Corporation and British Rail from the operation of the Bill that makes everyone know that this is simply a Bill which has been put through for party-political purposes and is not in the interests of the nation.
      There is no case for extension. No estimate of the additional jobs has been given to us at any stage of the Bill. The Secretary of State has refused from start to finish to say how many extra jobs for dockers he expects to be provided as a result of the Bill. He has said that he does not know. If he looks at the report of the Chairman of the Port of London Authority, he will see that that report alone will give him a very good guide as to how many extra jobs are likely to be provided. The answer, of course, is that there are no extra jobs available.
      This is a thoroughly bad Bill, and when I see the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) sitting in her place I venture to say that it is not even very popular in her constituency, which has a lot of dockers. In fact, they showed just what they thought of the Bill at the recent by-election.
      The right way to tackle this problem would have been to follow the advice of the Opposition and freeze the register with the names of those already on the National Dock Labour Board's register. Then the scheme could have been gradually run down and replaced by contracts
      180
      of employment entered into freely between employers and dockers. This would have been a way of dealing successfully with this old emotional problem. Had the Government thought about it seriously they would have realised this, and Labour Members would be doing a great service to the nation if they rejected the Bill tonight.
      However, if the Bill goes on the statute book it will give wide enabling powers to the Secretary of State. These are not powers which I would ever recommend any Conservative Secretary of State using. For this reason, I ask my hon. Friends to reject the Bill.
      10.27 p.m.
      Dr. Oonagh McDonald: It will be a difficult task for me to follow my predecessor, Mr. Hugh Delargy, who was one of the most respected Members of this House. He carried out his heavy duties as Chairman of the Selection Committee conscientiously and without fear or favour, and we all regret his tragic death. He served his constituency well for 26 years and was known for his kindness, thoughtfulness and sympathetic ear. He was always willing to help those who came to him with problems; and he never sought publicity for the actions he took on their behalf. He will be warmly remembered by his many friends in the constituency of Thurrock, which I now have the honour to represent.
      My constituency makes a vital contribution to the nation's wealth through many and varied industries such as paper mills, cement works, power stations, oil refineries, margarine factories and others, including the great port of Tilbury. Thurrock now faces rising unemployment, and there are great fears and anxieties about this problem. For that reason I welcome the Bill, which aims to ensure the stability and permanence of employment for dockers.
      The dockers, like many other working-class groups, are much maligned by the Opposition and the Press. They are hardworking and honest, yet they are subjected to continual attack and abuse. The Port of London Authority loses virtually nothing through pilfering year after year. Nor are dockers out to grab other people's jobs, although this is the picture which is often painted of them. Instead, they are legitimately concerned about the

      181
      stability and permanence of their own employment.
      Over the last few years dockers have coped well with the technological changes in the industry and the changes in the development of world trade patterns. Their work force has been reduced from 60,000 in 1966 to 32,000 in 1975, and in many cases that reduction has been accepted without industrial unrest or dispute.
      The purpose of the Bill is not to allow dockers to grab jobs at the expense of other workers—that was never its intention. In fact, it is to confirm dock work and to confirm the jobs of those engaged in work which is classified as dock work.
      During the few months in which the Bill has been discussed in the House of Commons—and it has been discussed thoroughly and extensively—it has been under continual attack from the Opposition, from the media and from organisations which are interested in preserving the existence of docks outside the scheme where casual labour and substandard conditions of employment may prevail. That is the reason for their attack on the Bill.
      The Bill is designed firmly to establish the National Dock Labour Board and thus to guard against casual working. It is to ensure that dock workers have satisfactory conditions of work. The board, far from being rigid as envisaged by the Opposition, will allow for the mobility of labour between ports and for the necessary flexibility to meet unforeseen changes in the patterns of trade. The board is envied by other workers who would very much like to end casual employment in their own work. The ship repairers, for example, at Tilbury would very much like to be in the position of the dockers, and it is hoped that soon they will be.
      The Bill will not solve all the dockers' problems, because they are many and difficult, but it will allow for the problems to be tackled in the right way. It will allow the workers a say in their own conditions of work and it will continue the practice of joint regulation of employment in the docks, and that is what is important. For the Bill to have have real meaning for the dock workers, however, and for there to be a guarantee of security of employment, more will need to be done. There must be a direction
      182
      of work to the old-established and traditional ports like Tilbury in order to ensure that good employment is available there.
      The Bill has been thoroughly misrepresented by the Opposition, particularly by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). But his opposition to it has been uncertain. He was unable to make up his mind earlier whether to claim that the Bill was better because of the changes put in by his party in Committee or whether to maintain that the Bill would lead to dockers taking over other people's jobs and bring about all the other ills which he has ascribed to it. In that respect, the trumpet note from the Opposition has been uncertain today.
      Opposition to the Bill outside the House has been much more definite. There was a last-ditch stand over the weekend by the CBI, which reiterated its old claims that the Bill would give the dockers a stranglehold on goods leaving and entering the country, making it seem that dockers, apart from menacing other workers, were now to menace and blackmail the whole country—an absurd idea.
      Those opponents to the Bill claim that it will increase port charges. They say that the five-mile corridor is far too great and that half a mile would be sufficient. But these claims only go to show their misunderstanding of the nature of dock work. There is far too little work outside the scheme ports to make any real difference to the nation's import bill. The half-mile corridor would be quite useless because it would need continually to be extended in order to cover the cargo-handling areas.
      As for the unrest which the CBI claims will follow from enactment of the Bill, the aim is to regulate employment and to provide the best possible means of dealing with industrial unrest. No longer will there be the conflict favoured by the Opposition. Instead, there will be the continuing co-operation of employer and dock worker to ensure that all the problems faced by the industry are properly and carefully dealt with.
      10.34 p.m.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on her maiden speech. It is noteworthy that she launched herself into the matter under debate, which

      183
      is hardly uncontroversial, but her contribution was none the less appreciated for that.
      The Bill is irrelevant to the economic problems of the nation. It offers a stranglehold on many of the country's food supplies, and that is a potential danger. It is inflationary in that it proposes to increase the cost of distribution by £6 a ton. It will adversely affect our overseas trade. It will doubtless lead to industrial unrest, whatever might be said by Labour Members, because of the inevitability of disputes, and it will have an adverse effect upon investment in ports and related operations.
      Faced with this possible list of difficulties, it amazes me that the Government seek to continue to proceed with the Bill. It is not right that we should be discussing the preservation of the docker for all time in relation to the economic needs of the country. The problems of the ports have been shown to be due to the difficulties of organising dock labour, of equipping the ports and of being able to plan the effective use of the ports. But it is no substitute to say that all ports must be maintained in the same situation as they were before, that work should be directed there and that there should be no change at all. This Government favour progress as long as it does not bring about change.
      We cannot believe that, with 1·4 million unemployed, the Bill will make any contribution to the solution of our economic difficulties. We know that the Bill has been brought about by what we might term sleight of Foot, patched up with Mr. Jack Jones late at night. The only good argument that I have heard for metrication is that it will ultimately lead to the abolition of the foot.
      This is a bad Bill, presented in a ham-fisted way and brought under the guillotine, thereby stifling debate on it, and the sooner we are rid of it the better.
      10.37 p.m.
      Mr. Loyden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on a carefully-thought-out and well-delivered speech. I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from her in future on the docks and, of course, other industries.
      184
      Tonight we have seen the consistent argument presented by the Opposition about the economic effects of the Bill. In the disclosure of their intentions, it has become apparent that the Opposition wish the industry to return to casualisation.
      I do not suggest that the Bill presents the panacea to all the problems of the docks industry. Those who have worked in the industry are aware that the Docks Act 1947 and the first Regulations under it brought some degree of humanity and dignity into the lives of dock workers. That situation was brought about not by the consent of the employers but by the struggle of the dock workers over many decades. The 1947 Act ended the inhuman casual work nature of the industry and brought into effect the changes that dockers had rightly and justifiably fought for over the years. Since that time there has been report after report about the future of the docks industry.
      Dock workers have suffered a reduction of over 50 per cent. in job opportunities. The Opposition rightly make the point that a similar situation obtains among miners, railway workers and others. But the point they fail to make is that, no matter what reduction in job opportunities has taken place in those industries, miners still dig coal and railway workers still drive the trains and man the railways.
      What has happened in the docks industry? By an act of deliberate policy, the employers have moved away from dockland work which has traditionally been performed by dock workers. There has not been a reduction in work to create the loss of 50 per cent. of employment opportunities. That situation was brought about by the employers moving work away from the docks industry. Therefore, the dock workers recognised that they would have to do something about it.
      In 1972 the Conservative Government had an opportunity of dealing with this problem through what they would call the peaceful role. The Jones-Aldington study set out the alternatives for dealing with the problem of the stuffing and stripping of containers which was taking place in the highways and byways, in prisons and in other places.

      185
      The employers are concerned only with undercutting the dock worker. They want to be relieved of the responsibility of continuing to pay a levy to the NDLB which has been the basis on which the industry has been built. That is why they want to get away from the highly-organised workers in dockland to areas of high exploitation. That is what caused the reduction in the number of job opportunities in the docks.
      The Opposition failed in 1972 to grasp the opportunity to accommodate the wishes of the T & GWU and other unions in the industry to find a way of dealing with these problems. They rejected that approach out of hand and made it necessary to bring in legislation to give effect to the Jones-Aldington Report.
      That report was not designed by, or in the interests of, the Transport and General Workers' Union. It was prepared by people held in great respect throughout the industry. The Bill is essential because the report was not implemented. We need this measure if we are to have continuity of employment in the industry and if we are to avoid a return to casualisation.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on a very well-delivered maiden speech. I visited her constituency during the recent by-election campaign and I suggest to her that large numbers of the people who habitually support the Labour Party would not agree with her remarks tonight. This was shown in the election result. However, I do not wish to be controversial about her maiden speech and I wish that I could have made such a good first speech myself.
      I regard the Bill as a tragedy, taking us in precisely the wrong direction. I was not aware that the stuffing and stripping of containers was taking place in Parkhurst and Albany. I am interested in that piece of information from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden).
      I do not think that we have to go back to casualisation to do something different in the docks. Surely we all agree that we need to increase our exports. The Government have said that they are trying to get the economic position right by instituting an export drive. Does the Bill
      186
      help that objective? I suggest that it does not. Our exports need to be dealt with quickly and efficiently, which means increased productivity and no damaging disputes such as those we have seen in the past. I fear that the Bill will achieve the opposite results.
      There are many efficient scheme ports. Southampton, which I visited recently, is one, but why should firms in the five-mile corridor have to make yet more returns and fill in yet more forms for a local or national docks board? We are not sure at which level this work will be done, but I hope the Minister realises that it should be done at a local level.
      Do we not have enough bureaucracy? Should we not be trying to reduce the number of administrators who rule our lives? Is it necessary to have elaborate visitations round our coast to decide whether ports like Cowes, in my constituency, or Shoreham should be included, when it should be obvious to the most dim-witted of persons that they should not? For goodness sake, leave alone the ports which are doing a good job.
      There will undoubtedly be disputes. I have no doubt that there will be inter-union disputes, just at a time when in most parts of the country there are signs of industrial peace and co-operation. We all know of the fears of unions members in our constituencies. I have received a petition signed by about 30 members of the Transport and General Workers' Union working in the port of Newport in the Isle of Wight. If many of the small ports are to be included, costs will inevitably rise because part-time workers will be dispensed with and registered dockers will have to be employed in their place. This is very worrying in a constituency like mine, with a cost of living some 5 per cent. above the national average, and possibly higher, and with a high level of unemployment, which went up to about 9 per cent. last Christmas. The latter figure is down at the moment but it will undoubtedly rise in the autumn.
      It is still to be hoped that the other place will achieve what we who served on the Committee failed to pull off. Perhaps even the Government will relent at this late hour. In the meantime, all we can do is to show with our votes how much we disapprove of this ill-considered Bill.
      10.46 p.m.
      Mr. Barney Hayhoe: The Bill has found few friends today, and it is perhaps significant that throughout the Committee stage Members on the Government side tended to be below the Gangway rather than behind the Government Front Bench.
      I wish to be brief, but may I refer to at least one friend that the Bill has found today? I refer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), whom I congratulate on her maiden speech, which was delivered with great confidence and charm.
      The hon. Lady may well have created a precedent, because I know of no other occasion when a maiden speech has been made during a 45-minute debate under an allocation-of-time guillotine, but perhaps it was appropriate because the last occasion when the hon. Lady's predecessor, the late Hugh Delargy, spoke in the House was on the Second Reading of this Bill, and he was a well-respected and well-liked Member of the House. I am sure that all parts of the House were pleased with the tribute that the hon. Lady paid to him.
      This piece of legislation, however, is damaging and divisive. It is an unnecessary and unwanted Bill. It increases costs, reduces efficiency and eliminates job opportunities, and many Labour Members know how staggeringly irrelevent its provisions are to the needs of our time. What possible relevance has the Bill to the 1·46 million people unemployed or to the other 200,000 school-leavers who are devoid of a job? How cynically they must look upon Government Ministers who spend their time in promoting this measure.
      Yet we have had no indication of Labour votes against this legislation or of abstentions from the Labour Benches tonight. We may well ask "Where have all the moderates gone?" and get the answer "Lobby fodder every one." Perhaps the passage of the Bill will enhance the reputation of the Government Whips—and, believe me, they need to have their reputations enhanced—but certainly it will diminish the standing of those who are the self-styled social democrats on the Government Benches.
      If, as I fear, this nasty Bill is given a Third Reading, a particular responsi-
      188
      bility will rest upon their Lordships in another place. Conservatives, Liberals, cross-bench peers and perhaps, in Committee, some Labour peers with the guts to stand up for what they believe in will look askance at the Bill's uneven provisions and make major amendments to it. We in this House will then have a second chance to look at this legislation.
      Much can happen in three months. I wish no personal harm or injury to any hon. Member, but the Government have had their share of the luck in by-elections and perhaps their luck will run out in the next three months. Perhaps even the Manifesto Group will find its political nerve. Who knows what wonders might not happen in that time?
      Let us be clear tonight as the guillotine falls, leaving so much of this measure undebated, that the national interest demands that the Bill should not become law. We shall vote against it tonight, and if it manages to scrape through we shall return to the attack on this nasty measure in the autumn.
      11.51 p.m.
      Mr. Booth: I should like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on her maiden speech. We knew before she came how welcome her vote would be: we now know how welcome her voice is as well.
      At a time when there is much controversial legislation before the House, the Opposition have kept their most vicious attacks for this Bill. Some of their criticisms are notable. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was the first to describe it as a squalid deal betwen my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and Jack Jones. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) was the first to say that the Bill would give the dockers a stranglehold over the whole community through the control of food supplies. That has been reiterated many times since. The Bill has been criticised as increasing costs, preventing flexible use of labour, making for poorer industrial relations and involving unnecessary bureaucratic control.
      Yet with all that criticism by the Opposition, during all our long debates in Committee, there has been a void.

      189
      What has been missing is any alternative strategy from the Opposition. [Hon. Members: "Throw it out."] They have criticised the existing Dock Labour Scheme and they have criticised the Bill's provisions. Having done so, surely they must have an alternative. They cannot believe in what we propose, and they cannot believe in the existing scheme, yet their most constructive suggestion is that we should throw it out.
      Against the background of the history of the troubles in the docks and the failure to deal with the situation by appropriate and up-to-date legislation, nothing could be more thoroughly irresponsible than to say that the situation can be met by the phrase "Throw it out".
      Even at this late stage we must face the fact that the existing scheme has remained unchanged since its introduction and that at each port to which it applies there are long and complex legal definitions, which might be of interest to students of our history but bear no relationship to the requirements of a modern docks industry. For example, at the port of Ardrossan the existing scheme applies to the work of cargo handling, except for the work of persons directly engaged in horse or capstan movement. At the port of Fleetwood the scheme does not apply to scrubbing and catching when performed by boys. One could go through a whole list of these variations and challenge anyone with a knowledge of the dock work industry to say that they are relevant to the needs of a modern industry.
      A whole series of recommendations by impartial inquiries have told this House the same thing, yet on Second Reading the suggestion from the Opposition Front Bench was that there should be another inquiry. The Conservative Front Bench ignored the Bristow inquiry in 1970 and in 1972, after the third national dock strike following the Industrial Relations Act, decided to ignore the advice of the National Ports Council in relation to non-scheme ports. The Conservative Front Bench was prepared to leave until 1974 the Jones-Aldington Report, which also recommended that the Government should take action to deal with non-scheme ports. Still the Conservatives have not come forward with an alternative strategy.
      190
      When I quoted in the timetable debate the recommendation of the Jones-Aldington Report, I was challenged by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, who said that it did not recommend legislation—
      Mr. Brittan: It was not the Jones-Aldington Report I challenged; it was the ACAS Report. That is a very different report, and I made a very proper challenge.
      Mr. Booth: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He is right; it was the ACAS Report. I shall quote it in full so that he can never again say that it did not contain recommendations for legislation.
      The hon. Gentleman said on 20th July:
      "there is nothing in the report that says that the legislation is desirable or necessary".—[Official Report, 20th July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1667.]
      The ACAS Report stated:
      "One of the central issues in this and previous inquiries has been the legal definition of dock work. It seems clear to us that a definition set up in the 1940s has given rise to a line of interpretation which has become established by precedent and has thus been passed down into the 1970s, when the economic, technological and industrial relations environment has changed dramatically. It is not for us to say how the legislation should be changed—that is a matter for Government. But it does seem to us that it should be changed as soon as possible. Previous recommendations for legal reform have been frustrated, and it is understandable that those whose jobs are at stake should be impatient to see real action,"
      The recommendation was
      "that Government, having brought forward its proposals"—
      that is what we are talking about tonight, the Government's proposals which were referred to by that ACAS report—
      "for legislation relating to registered dock-work, should make every effort to give these proposals legal effect within the minimum period possible."
      That is what we are seeking to do tonight.
      The Bill provides orderly and sensible procedures for determining the proper application of the scheme in the light of modern conditions. What we have sought to do in the Bill, after the fullest consultation and with the support of the TUC, is to ensure that the legislation relating to the employment of dock

      191
      workers is brought up to date and can remain relevant in the swifty-changing conditions in the industry. I believe that the Bill is the best way of achieving those aims, and in that spirit I commend it to the House.
      10.58 p.m.
      Mr. David Price: I protest very strongly about the guillotine, because I would have responded to the Secretary of State had I been able to put proposals to him for local dock labour boards as an alternative to the scheme he envisages.
      The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that this is an enabling Bill. Therefore, we must consider how it will be implemented in practice. I believe that the Minister may have some sympathy for local schemes with a great deal of local variation. That is the system
      that I would prefer. That is precisely what the Australians are doing, following an inquiry set up by the previous Labour Government in Australia. Bearing in mind the turbulent history of the waterfront in Australia, we can learn something from what the Australians have decided.
      This also coincides with the depth of feeling among people across the political spectrum who want to get our industrial relations much more—
      It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [20th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed front the Chair.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 299.

      Division No. 280.]

      AYES

      [11.0 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Allaun, Frank

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Anderson, Donald

      Crawshaw, Richard

      George, Bruce

      Archer, Peter

      Cronin, John

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Ginsburg, David

      Ashley, Jack

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Golding, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Cryer, Bob

      Gould, Bryan

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Graham, Ted

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bates, Alf

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Bean, R. E.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hardy, Peter

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Deakins, Eric

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Bishop, E. S.

      deFreitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hatton, Frank

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Boardman, H.

      Dempsey, James

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Doig, Peter

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hooley, Frank

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Horam, John

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Bradley, Tom

      Dunn, James A.

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dunnett, Jack

      Huckfield, Les

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Eadie, Alex

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Edge, Geoff

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Buchan, Norman

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Hunter, Adam

      Buchanan, Richard

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      English, Michael

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Ennals, David

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Campbell, Ian

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Janner, Greville

      Canavan, Dennis

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cant, R. B.

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Carmichael, Neil

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Carter, Ray

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Cartwright, John

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      John, Brynmor

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Johnson, James (HullWest)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Flannery, Martin

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Coleman, Donald

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Judd, Frank

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Ford, Ben

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Concannon, J. D.

      Forrester, John

      Kelley, Richard

      Conlan, Bernard

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Kerr, Russell

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

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

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Corbett, Robin

      Freeson, Reginald

      Kinnock, Neil

      Lambie, David

      Ogden, Eric

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Lamborn, Harry

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Stoddart, David

      Lamond, James

      Orbach, Maurice

      Stott, Roger

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Strang, Gavin

      Leadbitter, Ted

      0venden, John

      Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.

      Lee, John

      Owen, Dr David

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Padley, Walter

      Swain, Thomas

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Park, George

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Litterick, Tom

      Parker, John

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Parry, Robert

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Luard, Evan

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Tierney, Sydney

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Pendry, Tom

      Tinn, James

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Perry, Ernest

      Tomlinson, John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Tomney, Frank

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Torney, Tom

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Prescott, John

      Tuck, Raphael

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Urwin, T. W.

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Radice, Giles

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Richardson, Miss Jo

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

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Madden, Max

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Magee, Bryan

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Ward, Michael

      Mahon, Simon

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Watkins, David

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Rodgers, George (Chor'ey)

      Watkinson, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Weetch, Ken

      Marquand, David

      Rooker, J. W.

      Weitzman, David

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Roper, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Rose, Paul B.

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Sandelson, Neville

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Meacher, Michael

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Whitlock, William

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Selby, Harry

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Mendelson, John

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Millan, Bruce

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Moonman, Eric

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Sillars, James

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Silverman, Julius

      Woodall, Alec

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Woof, Robert

      Moyle, Roland

      Small, William

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Snape, Peter

      Newens, Stanley

      Spearing, Nigel

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Noble, Mike

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Oakes, Gordon

      Stallard, A. W.

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Dykes, Hugh

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Burden, F. A.

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Alison, Michael

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Arnold, Tom

      Carlisle, Mark

      Elliott, Sir William

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Carson, John

      Emery, Peter

      Awdry, Daniel

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Channon, Paul

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Churchill, W. S.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Banks, Robert

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Beith, A. J.

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Bell, Ronald

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Farr, John

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Clegg, Walter

      Fell, Anthony

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Cockcroft, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Benyon, W.

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Cope, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Bitten, John

      Cordle, John H.

      Forman, Nigel

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Blaker, Peter

      Corrie, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Body, Richard

      Costain, A. P.

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Freud, Clement

      Bottomley, Peter

      Crawford, Douglas

      Fry, Peter

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Critchley, Julian

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Crouch, David

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Crowder, F. P.

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Brittan, Leon

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Goodhart, Philip

      Buck, Antony

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Goodhew, Victor

      Budgen, Nick

      Durant, Tony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      194

      195

      Gorst, John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      MacGregor, John

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Gray, Hamish

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Model, David

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Grist, Ian

      Marten, Neil

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Grylls, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hall, Sir John

      Mather, Carol

      Shepherd, Colin

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Maude, Angus

      Shersby, Michael

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Maudiling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Silvester, Fred

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mawby, Ray

      Sims, Roger

      Hannam, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Mills, Peter

      Speed, Keith

      Hawkins, Paul

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Spence, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Moate, Roger

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Molyneaux, James

      Sproat, Iain

      Heseltine, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Stainton, Keith

      Hicks, Robert

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Stanley, John

      Holland, Philip

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Morgan, Geraint

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Hordern, Peter

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Stokes, John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Stradling, Thomas J.

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Mudd, David

      Tapsell, Peter

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Neave, Airey

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Neubert, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Newton, Tony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Normanton, Tom

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      James, David

      Nott, John

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

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

      Onslow, Cranley

      Thompson, George

      Jessel, Toby

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Osborn, John

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Trotter, Neville

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Jopling, Michael

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Pardoe, John

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Penhaligon, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Percival, Ian

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Wakeham, John

      Kilfedder, James

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Wall, Patrick

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Walters, Dennis

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Raison, Timothy

      Warren, Kenneth

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rathbone, Tim

      Watt, Hamish

      Knox, David

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Lamont, Norman

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Wells, John

      Lane, David

      Reid, George

      Welsh, Andrew

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Lawson, Nigel

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Lloyd, Ian

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Loveridge, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Younger, Hon George

      Luce, Richard

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      MacCormick, Iain

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

      Bill read the Third time and passed.

COMMUNITY LAND ACQUISITION
11.15 p.m.
The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): I beg to move,
That the Acquisition from the Crown (Grants) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.
With the leave of the House I propose, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we take at the same time the second Order,
That the Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.
The Orders are both concerned with applying to certain land transactions within the public sector the principle of the community land scheme under which acquiring authorities are enabled to buy land for development at reduced prices.
The Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order, does two things. First, in article 3, it lists five bodies in addition to those specified in Section 26 of the Community Land Act to whom the arrangements in article 4 will apply. Second, in article 4, it modifies the rules for the assessment of compensation for compulsory purchase in their application to transactions between these bodies. I shall deal with the second point first.
The Order is necessary because until the second appointed day—when the basis of compensation will change to current use value—compensation for the compulsory purchase of land from the private sector will continue to be determined on the market value basis laid down in the Land Compensation Act 1961, or the corresponding Scottish Act of 1963, but the price the local authority actually pays will be reduced by the amount of any development land tax for which the vendor is liable.
What we could not do in the Community Land Act, because it preceded the Development Land Tax Act, was to make provision for similar arrangements to apply to transactions between local authorities and certain other public sector bodies. However, in anticipation of the Development Land Tax, Section 26 of the Community Land Act provided for the modification, by Order requiring the
198
approval of both Houses of Parliament, of the statutory rules for assessing compensation for compulsory purchase, in this limited field only. Of course, compulsory purchase between public authorities is almost unheard of, but it is the practice to apply the compensation rules to purchases by agreement, and it is in this context that the provisions of the Order will normally be relevant.
The principle underlying the net-of-tax purchase provisions of the Development Land Tax Act is that the benefit of being able to acquire development land at reduced prices should go to the authority which is to develop the land or bring it into development. The modifications to the compensation rules as set out in article 4 of the Order are designed to apply that principle to transactions between the specified public sector bodies, all of whom are both exempt from development land tax on disposing of land and entitled to deduct tax on buying it.
The effect of the modifications will be to reduce the cost to the acquiring authority by approximately the amount of development land tax which would have been due if the land were in private ownership.
Article 4(2) of the Order achieves the desired "net-of-notional-tax" result by providing that compensation shall be assessed as the difference between the normal open market value and the amount of development land tax that would have been deductible if the land were being acquired from a person liable to the tax. But since no actual tax liability is involved, certain assumptions, set out in paragraph (b) of the modified rule (2), have to be imported: first, that the selling body was not totally exempt from development land tax; second, that the time of the disposal is the date at which the compensation is to be assessed; third, that the consideration, from which the calculated amount of "notional" tax falls to be deducted, was the open market value; fourth, that the vendor's cost of acquisition—for the purpose of calculating notional tax—did not include any tax deducted by that body when it acquired the land—without that assumption, the benefit of the reduced price system would not be passed on to the acquiring body as intended; fifth, that no development value had previously been realised by the vendor.

199
Paragraph (3) of article 4 has the effect that the modified basis—the "net-of-notional-tax" basis—does not apply where the land being transferred was acquired by the vendor before 1st August 1976, when development land tax system begins to operate.
Article 3 specifies five additional bodies to whom the modified basis of compensation will apply. I have already explained the relationship of the order to the development land tax system, and hon. Members who have been studying the Development Land Tax Act may have noticed that these five bodies are among those specified in Section 11(2) as being exempt from development land tax. But they are also authorities which may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily, and they will therefore deduct tax when acquiring land from a person liable to pay it. They are bodies having functions and responsibilities which are broadly similar to those of the land scheme authorities themselves, namely, to develop land, or arrange for it to be brought into development, for the benefit of the community.
The comparability of these bodies with local authorities has been recognised for Community Land Act purposes by including them in the Community Land (Outstanding Material Interests) Order 1976, which came into operation on 6th April. It is therefore appropriate to bring them within the circle of bodies to which the net-of-notional-tax arrangements apply.
The Acquisition from the Crown (Grants) Order, which requires the approval of the House of Commons only, runs parallel to article 3 of the compensation Order, but in relation to acquisitions by the same five bodies from the Crown.
Since the Crown is outside the scope of the Development Land Tax Act, and also because land cannot be acquired compulsorily from the Crown, the arrangements for enabling public authorities to buy Crown land at reduced prices are covered not by Section 26 of the Community Land Act but by Section 40.
Under that section, the Secretary of State may make to any body mentioned in subsection (1), or specified in an Order under that subsection, a grant in respect of the acquisition of land from the
200
Crown. The intention behind Section 40 is that where the authorities buy land from the Crown the price they pay should correspond with what it would have cost them if the land were being acquired from a person liable to pay development land tax. But because the Crown is not liable to DLT, the land will be transferred at market value and the acquiring authority will receive a grant representing the DLT that would otherwise have been payable.
Article 3 and the schedule to the Order specify five additional bodies to whom the grant arrangements are to apply; and as I have said these are the same five bodies referred to in the Public Authorities (Compensation) Order. The reasons for applying that Order to them apply equally to the Section 40 grants scheme, and the grants Order provides accordingly.
Mr. Paul Hawkins: Before the Minister sits down—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The Minister has sat down.
11.23 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Rossi: I thank the Minister for the clear way in which he explained the meaning of the two Orders. At the same time, however, I wish to express the distaste of the Opposition for the way in which the Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order operates.
The Order seeks, by Statutory Instrument, to make a substantive change in legislation. As the Minister knows from our many discussions during the passage of the Community Land Act through this House, one aspect of it that we disliked more than any other was the arbitrary powers being given to the Government in a whole variety of ways. The specific instance now before us is that the Minister can now, by way of a Statutory Instrument, ask the House to amend an existing Act of Parliament.
In article 4 of the Order to which I have referred we are replacing part of a section of the Land Compensation Act 1961. In the ordinary way, such an amendment of legislation requires an Act of Parliament—an Act that follows the due legislative processes through both

201
Houses, when the matter is fully probed and ventilated. Indeed, the Minister is seeking by this device of a Statutory Instrument to amend substantive legislalation. Not only is this a matter of concern to all Members; it is a matter that causes great difficulty to people outside the House who are confronted with the task of interpreting and advising upon legislation. It is difficult enough, where there are a number of Acts, one amending the other, for legal advisers to be able to thread their way through the statutes, ariving ultimately at the up-to-date situation. As a practising lawyer, the right hon. Gentleman knows what difficulties can be encountered by solicitors and members of the Bar.
The matter is made even more difficult when such advisers not only have to refer to statutes but have to try to find various Statutory Instruments that may or may not be issued from time to time at the whim of a Minister, altering Acts of Parliament. The task of being up to date in the law and being able to advise citizens of their rights becomes well-nigh impossible when a process of that kind is followed. One cannot do anything but deplore it.
I turn to the Order. If I understood the Minister correctly, it not only relates to acquisitions of land between public authorities but can operate between public authorities and private citizens. I thought I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—that he is now adding five new authorities under article 3 to those authorities that now have the power of acquiring land net of development land tax. I understood the Minister to say that that means they would be in the same position as local authorities under the Act and could therefore acquire on that basis from other authorities who were not liable to pay the tax, or from private citizens who were liable to the tax.
If my understanding of what the Minister has said is correct it is a matter greatly to be regretted that he is adding to those who can assess, and, in effect, charge tax, five diverse bodies—the Highlands and Island Development Board, the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, the Scottish Development Agency, the Scottish Special Housing Association and the Welsh Development Agency.
202
In explaining the Order the Minister said that these bodies, when they buy land in future under the Act, will buy it at the difference in value between the market price of that land and the development land tax that would be chargeable on that land if the vendor were liable to the payment of development land tax. Who is to assess what the tax is? One can only assume that these five bodies, as with authorities which already have the power under the Community Land Act and Development Land Tax Act, will be able to assess and deduct that tax.
In other words, this Order is saying that these five bodies are now taxing bodies. They have, in effect, the same powers as the Inland Revenue, to assess someone's development land tax should be in order to arrive at the price at which the land is to be sold to them. This is a matter that we deplore. We think it is wrong that bodies of this kind should be able to assess tax in this way and acquire land as a result.
Perhaps the Minister can also explain precisely the meaning of article 4 (2) (v) which reads:
"before the disposal no realised development value had accrued or had been deemed to accrue to the vendor".
Does that mean that one has to discount the value attached to the land by reason of the cost of development? If one is to do that, how does one arrive at the development land tax? Perhaps the Minister can explain how one takes that factor out of account if the whole exercise of article 4 (2) is to deduct a development land tax from a price which is to be paid.
In the other Order we find that the same five bodies are listed as those authorities that may now qualify for grant when they acquire land from the Crown, because the Crown may not, under the Community Land Act, sell net of development land tax. Therefore, it must be made up to those authorities in some other way, namely, out of moneys provided by Parliament. Presumably, as the Minister has presented the Order to the House at this time, he must have in contemplation some transaction that these bodies, or some of them, wish to enter into. Can he tell us what the transactions are? What amount of grant will have to be provided by Parliament under

203
the operation of this Order? Will the Minister say whether any transactions are being contemplated at present to which either of these Orders would be applicable?
11.33 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I am glad to welcome the Minister back to these muddy waters of the Community Land Act and the Development Land Tax Bill. I thought that he had deserted us over the land tax. He certainly needs to grasp these matters to explain the Orders, as we need to grasp them in order to understand them.
Why have these five bodies been selected from the many bodies that are exempt under Clause 11 of the Development Land Tax Bill?
Mr. Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret having to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I find it very difficult to hear what he says against the background of conversation below the Gangway. I found myself being distracted during my speech by this conversation, but I carried on as best I could. If hon. Members wish to have a conversation that is unrelated to the matters before us, will you invite them to do so outside the Chamber?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that hon. Members in the Chamber have heard the words of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi).
Mr. Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). I learnt my politics on street corners, shouting down trams in North London, so I have always had a fairly good voice to get across the Chamber. However, I should be grateful for a little attention, because both Orders are extremely difficult to understand.
I was asking why the five authorities in the schedules had been selected. The Order refers to Section 40 of the Community Land Act, which deals with purchases by authorities from the Crown. It deals with purchases by local authorities, by new town authorities, by the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint and Lake District Special Planning Boards, and the joint boards established under Section 2 of the Act. Those are in the Act already. To those are added the bodies specified in the Order.
204
The bodies exempt from the payment of development land tax include a considerable number of other authorities, and among them are parish councils as opposed to district councils or county councils, and such other bodies as Letchworth Garden City and the Commission for New Towns, and so on. It puzzles me why they do not come into an Order of this sort.
I understand that after the House has approved the draft the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, for example, when acquiring property from the Crown, will receive a grant of an unspecified amount decided by the Treasury, as direct payment, instead of the development land tax that it might have pocketed on the way in other circumstances. Why do not other authorities, too, get this advantage? Why is a district council entitled, if acquiring from the Crown, to get a grant under Section 40 and yet a parish council is not? Why not include parish councils and Letchworth Garden City and the New Towns Commission? Will the Minister be good enough to explain why? It would be of assistance to those of us who are trying to understand the Order.
I come to the Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order 1976. This is a little more complicated than the other Order. As I understand the theory of the development land tax, it is a tax on a value created by the community so that the revenue from it must go to those who provide the services for the community. Normally it will not go direct but will reach the providers of the community service via the Treasury, the tax having been paid to the Board of Inland Revenue. If the purchaser is a particular kind of public authority—one of those set out in Section 11 of the Development Land Tax Bill—it may benefit direct by pocketing the tax out of the purchase money before paying the money over.
To use the example of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, if that authority were to acquire church property, it being so much worthier than the church it would be allowed to pocket the tax and to retain it for itself. It could deduct what it thought was the development land tax payable if it were to be accounted for to the Board of Inland

205
Revenue. The Community Land Act, in effect, provides that that could not be done if the sale were to another exempt body. That was provided for in Section 39 of the Act, which rules that there should not be purchases net of tax as between two public bodies. But that does not satisfy the Minister, because he turns back to Section 26 of the Community Land Act and finds that by fiddling about with the law of compensation he can bring about almost the opposite result to that which was set out in Section 29(2) of the Development Land Tax Act.
Let us assume again that the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority acquired land compulsorily from the South Hertfordshire District Council. It would have to pay only a fictitious price—the market value less what it estimated, the development land tax would have been if it had been a transaction with a private body. That would be because Lee Valley had acquired the land from a body mentioned in Section 26(2) of the Community Land Act. It is a local authority, and a local authority is defined in that Act either as a district council or a county council. The definition does not cover a parish council. It includes the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint and Lake District Special Planning Boards and the joint boards, but there are, as I mentioned in connection with the other draft Order, a lot of other exempt bodies which do not have to pay development land tax. If the Lee Valley authority acquired from a parish council, a police authority, a fire service authority, the Commission for New Towns, Letchworth Garden City, the North Eastern Housing Association or any of the Northern Ireland authorities, the transaction would be exempt. Why this selection? What is the principle that determines that the bodies mentioned in the Order shall enjoy the benefits while others do not?
If the district authority were acquiring from the Lee Valley authority it could pocket the tax. If a parish council from within that district were acquiring from the Lee Valley authority, it could not. On what principle is the distinction made? It makes nonsense of the Development Land Tax Act and the Community Land Act to make this selection.
206
We come to what must be deducted from the market value in the Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order. What has to be deducted is development land tax. That might sound simple to those who have not had to spend 28 sittings in Committee and many hours studying the Development Land Tax Bill, now of 192 pages, to try to find out what development land tax is and how it is calculated.
It is a problem for any authority when it is told "First, you must guess what the market value is"—I do not know whether it will go to the district valuer to find out or whether it can estimate the value for itself—"then you must deduct development land tax, which is not yet imposed by law". The Development Land Tax Bill is not yet on the statute book.
Mr. John Silkin: It is on the statute book.
Mr. Page: Is it?
Mr. John Silkin: Yes; from last Thursday.
Mr. Page: Then it is only just. It still has to be printed as an Act. I presume that it will turn out to have another 192 pages to be studied.
The provisions about purchases net of tax ate set out in Section 39 and Schedule 7 of the Development Land Tax Act. Are those provisions, consisting of 15 pages, for calculating what is to be deducted in net of tax transactions to apply to transactions covered by the Order? It does not say so. Why is it necessary, in any dealing between a public authority and a private person, to have to wade through 15 pages of calculations to find out what the development land tax is when, in an Order of this kind, one can say "The public authority guesses what the development land tax is and deducts that amount"?
I foresee a lot of trouble between local and public bodies over this matter. Who will assess the tax as between two authorities? If one is entitled to pocket part of the purchase money to which the other is entitled, I cannot see the one which thinks that it is entitled to a considerable part of the purchase money abiding

207
by an estimate by the purchasing authority of what may be the development land tax.
The Order gives no clue as to how the tax is to be calculated. It contains only five small paragraphs of assumptions that have to be made, whereas, for transactions between local authorities and private persons, there are 15 pages of the Development Land Tax Act setting out how the amount should be calculated. I suggest that the Board of Inland Revenue should assess the tax in the proper way and that we should not have this net-of-tax purchase procedure.
These five paragraphs of assumptions are not easy to understand. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey referred to the last one—that one must assume that
"before the disposal no realised development valued had accrued or had been deemed to accrue to the vendor."
That raises enormous problems under the Act. There are all the definitions of "realised development value", "deemed disposals", when development value is deemed to accrue, and so on. The tax is not easy to calculate. But the Order leaves it to the whim of the authority that is paying purchase money to some other authority to deduct what it sees fit from that purchase money.
This Order, complicated as it is, should be extended to give some clue as to how the development land tax is to be estimated by the authority that is to pay the purchase money and by the authority that is to receive the purchase money, so that there shall be no dispute between them about the amount of the tax.
My main questions are: why is there this discrimination between authorities, to the detriment of smaller authorities, and how can one estimate the development land tax to be deducted from an estimated market value?
11.50 p.m.
Mr. Paul Hawkins: I intended to ask only one question. I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) thank the Minister for making the meaning of the Order as clear as day. I have not been closely involved in these intricate matters, but I am bewildered and, from what my right hon. Friend the
208
Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said, so is he—which is saying something. My right hon. Friend, who is a solicitor, says that other solicitors may find difficulty in understanding these provisions. I can certainly confirm that chartered surveyors who will have to advise clients on value or compensation to be paid will find it very difficult.
When one public authority acquires from another, as is apparently the case in at least one of the Orders, is it permitted to delay payment of compensation for the extra three months laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent statement, in addition to the inordinate time by which all public authorities delay the payment of due compensation to ordinary private citizens?
This is one of the worst habits of all Governments. They use every excuse to prevent the citizen from receiving money that is due to him.
11.53 p.m.
Mr. John Silkin: I can tell the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that the extra three months' provision does not apply, though no doubt the legal profession, of which I have been a member for many years, will see that delays occur.
In reply to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), I must say that this is not a substantive change in legislation it is a modification of rules in the Land Compensation Act 1961.
I have endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to follow in the footsteps of my distinguished predecessor, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I have studied carefully everything done by him. I looked up Section 273 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and Section 252 of the Local Government Act 1972 and said that if they were good enough for him they must be good enough for me.
I do not want to do down the right hon. Gentleman. This provision has a very respectable parentage which goes back many years. I suspect that the hon. Member for Hornsey, who was not born yesterday, knows this full well.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West described his right hon. Friend as

209
being bewildered. He was not bewildered; he was a little confused, perhaps, as was his hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey.
I want to make it absolutely clear that this Order does not affect the question of public authorities and the private citizen, it refers purely to what happens as between a named number of public authorities and other authorities, under the Act.
Mr. Rossi: I am grateful for that assurance.
Mr. Silkin: What I tried to say in my opening speech was that the powers do exist vis-à-vis the private sector. There was a gap in respect of these public authorities and the public sector, and this Order will put the balance right.
Coming back to the earlier point—the power of the five bodies mentioned to buy net of tax is not contained in the Order but in the Development Land Tax Act.
The next point that the Member for Hornsey raised concerned article 4(2)(v). The point about it is this. Since the development land tax circumstances of a local authority that is selling are not the same as for a private seller, it has been decided that the nearest equivalent of an actual DLT calculation will be produced by treating each disposal as a first disposal in a financial year—in other words, no tax is payable on the first £10,000 of development value, and then, until 31st March 1979, 66⅔ per cent. is payable on the next £150,000, and so on.
Mr. Graham Page: This is an extremely important point. Does it mean that development land tax is to be calculated for this purpose as 80 per cent. and not 66⅔ per cent?
Mr. Silkin: No, it is the reverse of that.
The hon. Member for Hornsey asked about transactions affecting the Crown, I do not know of any.
The right hon. Member for Crosby asked about these five bodies, and he became very eloquent. He had every right to do so. These five are as nearly analogous as I could get to the local authorities themselves, and they have two distinct features. The first is the exemption from development land tax and the second is the power of compulsory purchase, which they had before this Order was ever produced. That is what
210
makes them distinctive. I think that deals with that question. Really, of course, it deals with most of what the right hon. Gentleman was saying, for example, when he talked about parish councils. They have no CPO powers. A parish council can go to a district council and ask that council to purchase compulsorily for it. The parish council does not come within this provision, because it has no compulsory powers of acquisition.
Equally, it may sound strange to the hon. Member—I must admit that it sounded strange to me when I first saw it—but Letchworth Garden City has no compulsory powers of acquisition, either. Of course, the Commission for the New Towns has no such powers. So although they are in many ways similar to these five bodies, they are not on all fours.
Mr. Graham Page: That distinction is irrelevant. All the bodies that I have mentioned, plus those in the Order, are those bodies that do not have to pay development land tax. There seems no reason why the Minister should have produced the Order merely picking out those with compulsory powers. I know that the Order says that, but why pick them out? Why not select all those that have the benefit of freedom from the tax?
Mr. Silkin: Because Letchworth Garden City, for example, and the Commission for the New Towns have no powers to acquire land compulsorily from, let us say, Crosby District Council, if there is one. It is for that reason that those are excluded. I do not know that these five bodies could acquire land from Crosby District Council, or would want to, but they have the power to acquire from a public authority.
I think that I have dealt with all the points put to me. I hope that the House is satisfied that the Orders are necessary. They come up only because the Development Land Tax Bill, as it then was, followed the Community Land Act. Had they run simultaneously, or in the other order, this matter could have been dealt with somewhat earlier. But this is the only procedure we have.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Acquisition from the Crown (Grants) Order 1976, a draft of which was

211
laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

COMMUNITY LAND ACQUISITION

  DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES [MONEY] (No. 2)
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Development Board for Rural Wales it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transfer to district councils of dwellings and associated property of new town corporations.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]

M3 MOTORWAY INQUIRY
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
12.2 a.m.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: As the Minister knows, there has been a great deal of fuss about the M3 near Winchester. I believe that the most important thing now is to cool it—in other words, to abate some of the emotion and excitement that has been generated, to look at the problem in perspective, and to bring some common sense to bear.
The Minister's plans for a new road across the Itchen Valley and then close beside the existing bypass have been confirmed and approved by successive Ministers in successive Governments. I make that point to emphasise that this is not a party political matter.
In 1971 a public inquiry was held concerning the proposed route, and any objections were voiced. An M3 Motorway Action Group was formed. The various objections were made fully known to the Minister at the time, both at the inquiry and since, by correspondence and in a previous Adjournment debate. I also took a delegation to see him. However, in 1973 the Minister confirmed the proposed corridor and line.
212
Even in the most advanced democracy a final decision has eventually to be taken. Argument cannot go on for ever!
I must emphasise the obvious fact that, of course, it is the Minister who has the statutory duty to take the decision and not the local Member of Parliament, and I do not envy the Minister his task. However, in a matter of such importance to his constituents a Member of Parliament must make up his own mind and hold an opinion.
My view throughout has been, first, that a new road is most urgently required both for local and national reasons and, secondly, that unfortunately no radically different alternative route is available which is less objectionable.
Although I know only too well that substantial numbers are still bitterly opposed to the motorway, a consensus among my constituents generally seems to be that an improved road is urgently needed, and the quicker the better. The elected county council, which is the highway authority concerned, has expressed its support for the Minister's proposals.
The objectors, however, are numerous. They include the action group, whose chairman is a Mr. David Pare and whose active president is Lord Aldington. The action group has support from the Winchester Preservation Trust, the Conservation Society and many other organisations and associations. It also has support from Winchester College and, latterly, from the Dean of the Cathedral and the Bishop, as well as some parish councils and many individual citizens, whether or not their houses or properties are directly affected. I have today sent the Minister a summary of over 20 headings under which the various protests have reached me, and I hope that it has been received by him.
I do not question the sincerity of the vast majority of the objectors. Most of them are reasonable and sensible people who, despite the variety of arguments they have put forward, all have this in common—that they feel very strongly about any threat to the peace, tranquillity and beauty of their city and its surroundings. Many of them also feel very strongly about the wider aspects of conservation. On these points I entirely share their view, and if I really thought that the M3 would ruin the city,

213
as it is so often put, I should be campaigning against it. But I have honestly and conscientiously come to the opposite conclusion. For me to oppose the new road would be dishonest and would not accord with my genuine opinion as to where the true interests of the majority of my constituents lie.
I am glad to say that, despite this marked difference of opinion, my personal relations with the chairman of the action group and his lieutenants have remained cordial, and this I very much appreciate.
Unfortunately, however, some people feel that the M3 must be stopped at all costs and by any means. At the first sitting of the current inquiry, which I attended, the tactics adopted by many of the objectors, although not all, were to disrupt the proceedings completely and to prevent the inquiry making any headway.
A number of my constituents, many well known to me and including some masters from Winchester College, were prominent among those using and orchestrating these disruptive tactics, both in this and subsequent meetings. In this they were encouraged by a certain Mr. John Tyme, who, I understand, is a lecturer at Sheffield Polytechnic. As far as I know, he has nothing to do with Winchester, except that he may have received a fee for his services. Mr. Tyme's evidence was designed to prove that the inquiry had no validity and was not properly convened.
Now that the inspector is prepared to hear objections about the line of the proposed M3 and about the need for it, Mr. Tyme's claims that the inquiry is "illegal" and "should be adjourned indefinitely" seem to be much less enthusiastically supported by his clients!
Dr. Reginald Bennett: Will my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the Headmaster of Winchester was involved in the disorder?
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: So I understand from the Press, but it is only fair to say that I did not see this event myself. That is why I have not referred to it.
While I entirely sympathise with those who wish to put forward valid objections, I utterly deplore these disruptive tactics. Democracy is at risk when pro-
214
perly authorised meetings are disrupted by organised groups in pursuit of their own particular aims. I emphase this, because it is more important than anything affecting the motorway.
Needless to say, some people claimed that it was necessary to make so much fuss because there was no other way to put their point of view. That is untrue, because throughout the long M3 saga I have always been available and willing to hear objections and have faithfully relayed them to the Minister even if I did not personally agree with them. I think the Minister's bulky files will bear that out.
In the event, it was the calm and reasonable arguments of Mr. John Spoke, QC, and Mr. David Keen, QC, when eventually they could be heard, which achieved the broadening of the scope of the inquiry, rather than the shouting of those who, following Mr. Tyme's line, wanted to prevent the inquiry being held at all.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that although Mr. Tyme has maintained that Parliament should make the decisions, as secretary of the Conservative Transport Committee and vice-chairman of the Conservative Group of Wessex MPs, I have never had a request from anyone even to discuss the issue?
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: That is an interesting point.
The events of which I have spoken are now in the past. Let us now consider the future and try to see where we go from here. One hopeful development may lead us out of the quicksands into which we have wandered. Until last year the action group's opposition was total and it had no construcive alternative to put forward. The action group—to which I pay tribute for its persistence and its good intent—has now put forward the constructive suggestion that instead of a completely new road extensive improvements should be made to the existing A33. If that were technically possible it would be a compromise well worth considering, because the Minister's decision to create a new road in this corridor would be implemented, while the action group would feel that it had achieved at least a partial victory by avoiding the worst aspects of running the

215
motorway through the water meadows. Certainly the removal of the two sets of lights should produce some amelioration of the traffic jams, and speed restrictions might be acceptable.
I do not know whether experience with other schemes shows that road improvements as a palliative are cost-effective or whether it is cheaper, in the long run, to construct a completely new road in such circumstances, but it is certain that the longer the work is delayed, the more costly it becomes.
I believe that a drawing of the action group's improvement scheme was sent to the Department some time ago; but I have a personal copy of it for the Minister, which I shall give to him behind the Speaker's Chair after the debate.
I shall ask the Minister to answer six specific questions. First, will he take a full page in the Hampshire Chronicle to show a really large-scale map of the proposed route, which even now is still not fully understood by everybody in Winchester, and also arrange for a model to be placed on exhibition locally, because that is much the easiest thing to understand?
Secondly, will the Minister accept an invitation to visit the area and see the layout, if he has not yet had an opportunity of doing so?
Thirdly, will the Minister personally consider the action group's alternative scheme and send his comments to it and to me when he has done so?
Fourthly, does the Minister realise that the unaccustomed behaviour of so many normally level-headed citizens of Winchester indicates, to say the least, some doubt and concern about the adequacy of consultative processes? Will he inform the House about the progress of Government talks with the Council or Tribunals, which, I understand, are intended to overhaul and improve the procedures for this type of inquiry?
Fifthly, has the Minister considered a proposal that the original design studies for new major roads should be put out to tender, so that private enterprise consultants could submit alternative schemes for consideration? That is an interesting suggestion arising from the action group and it might enable informal consulta-
216
tion to take place locally at an earlier stage than is possible at present.
Sixthly—I hope that this is not comic relief—can the Minister confirm or deny the report in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph that among the schemes likely to be axed under the Government's new expenditure cuts is the "controversial M3 scheme"?
My constituents will be grateful for anything the Minister can do to point the way ahead in this very difficult problem.
12.15 a.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: I do not want to enter into the merits of this controversy—that is for the inquiry rather than for us, but I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) that the need now is to cool the controversy. I also agree with him that it is a wholly non-party issue.
I should like to add a tribute to the inspector, who had a difficult job and is clearly anxious that there should be a fair-minded and thorough examination of the issues.
As I thought I heard the words "violence" and "disorder", it should be said that there was no violence at the inquiry. There were some loud expressions of protest, which sometimes rendered the proceedings inaudible, but that is not unknown in this House. We should not be too sanctimonious about that. The reason is that at these inquiries there has been a feeling that the real issues—whether there should be a road at all, and, if so, where it should go—have been ruled out of order. That has given a feeling of inadequacy and unfairness.
The Government have now altered their view. It is now not out of order at inquiries to argue the basic issues and advocate alternatives, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested. Now that the inspector has ruled that this should be done it seems to me that progress can be made. Indeed, the reason why the inspector postponed the inquiry until September was not alleged violence but precisely that he wanted further evidence that he considered necessary. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that that is so. I hope that from

217
now on the controversy will be conducted seriously on those lines.
If my hon. Friend the Minister accepts the invitation to visit the spot and see for himself, I shall be delighted to go with him.
12.17 a.m.
Mr. Robert Adley: I support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) has said. We owe him a debt of gratitude. He could easily have taken what appeared to be the popular line. Instead, he is taking the line he believes to be in the interests of the majority of his constituents.
I understand that without any of the hullabaloo in Winchester hon. Members concerned with the M42 in the Midlands recently put to the Department of the Environment alternative plans, which the Department considered, and the original plans were changed. If that had been done at any time by the Winchester protesters we might well have managed to avoid all the hoo-hah.
I deplore the argument that is put forward frequently, that the tactics used in Winchester could be justified by the breeding and social standing of the people concerned. That is wrong, and I hope that the Minister will say so.
12.18 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) for raising this important matter. I commend him both for raising the issue and for the way in which he has approached it. I am also grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members, particularly the tribute of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to the inspector. The argument that inspectors are the servants of the Department and are not independent must now have gone.
The hon. and gallant Member knows that the inquiry at Winchester has been adjourned until 14th September. Its opening days were disfigured by scenes of disruption of the proceedings and harassment of the inspector, and it was readily apparent that much of the dis-
218
ruption was planned beforehand. This raises very serious constitutional issues, which are rightly the concern of Parliament. At this stage I must express my appreciation of the hon. and gallant Member's interventions at the inquiry in support of law and order.
There have been so many wild and inaccurate statements about the purpose of the inquiry at Winchester that it is essential to spell out the facts clearly. I shall be coming to the points raised by the hon. Members shortly, but perhaps we can first get the whole matter into perspective.
The intention of providing a first-class route between London and Southampton has been the stated policy of successive Secretaries of State. The precise alignment of the various sections of the route has been the subject of a number of public inquiries, one of which was held in Winchester in 1971 to help the Secretary of State to come to a decision on the line between Popham and Compton.
Several alternatives were considered by the inspector at the 1971 inquiry, including the possibility of improving the existing bypass, but he recommended, and the Secretary of State subsequently agreed, that the best solution was to build a new road to the east of the city. The line of this road was established by statutory Order in 1973.
Three years later, in June of this year, the present inquiry was opened. This was to give objectors an opportunity of expressing their views on the Secretary of State's proposals for the side roads and road junctions on the route already fixed, and on the compulsory purchase order for the land required for the scheme as a whole.
Complaints are sometimes made about "the Secretary of State being judge and jury in his own case". Such complaints are misconceived. Trunk road inquiries, and the decisions which the Secretary of State has to make after considering inspectors' reports, are administrative, not judicial. The Secretary of State is responsible, under the Highways Acts, for keeping the national system of trunk roads under review and for extending or improving it as he considers necessary. He is accountable to Parliament for the way in which he carries out this responsibility.

219
But before deciding on the line for any particular trunk road, the law requires the Secretary of State to publish a draft order so that people who want to object to it can have their say, usually at a public inquiry. Where there is an inquiry, the inspector considers the Secretary of State's proposals in the context of the objections and reports his findings and recommendations to the Secretary of State. But the inspector is not an arbitrator or a judge. He does not make the decision. He presents his findings to the Secretary of State upon whom the ultimate decision-making responsibility rests.
It is against that background that we have to look at what happened at Winchester. I fully appreciate that there are strong feelings about the motorway proposals and their effect on the locality, but I think it is beyond question that, by any reasonable standard, the public interest is not being served by the behaviour of some objectors who, allegedly in the name of freedom and natural justice, obstructed the inspector and denied to others their right to be heard.
I think it is only right to say also that there is a particular difficulty in a highly charged atmosphere about the role of television camera crews. Naturally, we want the Press to be represented at these inquiries, but the presence of television crews needs very careful consideration. I shall say no more about that than that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is asking the Council on Tribunals whether it can help him with its advice on this matter.
At the inquiry a great deal of nonsense was talked about the so-called illegality of the proceedings. I am advised that these inquiries have the full sanction of the law and that, if there were any serious suggestions of illegality, there is provision under the Second Schedule to the Highways Act 1959 for questioning the validity of any trunk road Order or the procedure under which it is made. No action is taken by the Department to finalise schemes until after the expiration of the six-week challenge period under that Act.
It is a myth that, as was argued at Winchester, an inquiry is not opened until participants have made submissions to the inspector on points of procedure. The
220
inquiry is open when the inspector declares it to be open—even if his words are drowned by the shouts of demonstrators. Thereafter, under the rules of procedure, it is for the inspector to decide at his discretion what evidence he hears and the order in which he hears it. The present procedures presuppose that the members of the public taking part in the inquiry will have a proper respect for the law and the authority of the inspector. In trying to maintain this position at the few inquiries where disruption on a large scale has occurred, inspectors have naturally had to rely heavily on the police, and I should like to take this opportunity to thank them for their valuable cooperation in very provocative circumstances.
Perhaps I could turn now to the next stages of the inquiry. The inspector has now decided, as he has discretion to do, that when the inquiry reopens on September 14th he will hear arguments about the need for having a new motorway at all in preference to an improvement of the existing A33 trunk road, as defined by the M3 Motorway Action Group and others. He has asked for an analysis to be made of the costs and benefits of the action group's scheme, for comparison with the calculations which have already been made for the motorway route.
My Department has agreed to cooperate in providing further information for this purpose. Indeed, in recognition of the fact that a revised traffic justification for a new motorway would in any case be needed for the present inquiry in the light of new traffic forecasts the Department had provided updated traffic figures for the benefit of objectors some weeks before the inquiry opened.
Before concluding I should like to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester. First, there is the question whether the Department would publish a full-page map in the local Hampshire Chronicle. I want to consider the point about a map and model. Normally, the Department does not publish maps in the local papers, but copies are available in the offices of the road construction unit at Dorking and the Hampshire County Council at Winchester. These are available to the Press if it wishes to make use of them and reproduce them.

221
On the question whether I and my predecessors have visited the area, I have seen the Water Meadows, St. Catherine's Hill, the bypass itself and the route of the road. My predecessor did so at the time of the 1973 inquiries and so did the Minister for Transport Industries of the day. I shall put the suggestion to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.
As to whether I shall personally consider the views of objectors, objectors' views are known within the Department, and no doubt the inspector will take account of them in submitting his report to the Secretary of State.
Before taking any decision the Secretary of State will look carefully at the views of objectors in the light of the inspector's report. This is exactly the procedure that took place at the 1971 inquiry and at all other inquiries.
I appreciate that there is genuine doubt and concern about the adequacy of the consultative process. There is a problem here, although there are now formal rules of procedure governing trunk road inquiries. We have been assembling a considerable amount of further information and comment on the present consultative processes, and discussions with the Council on Tribunals will be beginning fairly soon.
The suggestion that design studies should be put out to tender is a difficult one. Tendering is an extremely expensive business for the firms that do the tendering, and I should like to consider that point further.
As to the report in the Sunday Telegraph about Government cuts and the question whether the controversial M3 will be cut, I cannot say anything about that now. Since Thursday the Department has been considering very urgently the question of the roads programme, and my right hon. Friend will be making an announcement fairly soon. But I must again express a personal point of view and say that if we are to have an export-led revival the roads to the ports are extremely important roads.
I should like briefly to make some comments on an article that appeared in a weekly magazine on Friday last. The Headmaster of Winchester, writing in support of the disrupters in this week's
222
New Statesman, quoted approvingly the words of Mr. John Tyme at Winchester:
"Which is to prevail in this room today—the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, or centralised bureaucratic power responsible to no one?"
It seems to me, from the actions at Winchester, that Mr. Tyme and his regular followers, and his temporary followers at Winchester, believe neither in the rule of law nor in parliamentary democracy.
The elected representative of Winchester in this House has tonight expressed his opinion of the attempt to prevent a properly convened inquiry from starting and disrupting it when it had started. I know of no Hampshire Member of this House or of any Wessex Member who has supported the objectors or the disruption. Hampshire County Council, an elected body, has not objected to the proposals, nor has it supported the disruption. Winchester City Council itself has not supported the disrupters, though it has some reasonable objections to the side roads order.
The centralised bureaucratic power of which Mr. Tyme talks is responsible. It is responsible to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is answerable to this House, as I am answerable tonight.
The Head of Winchester complained of being ejected for standing up when he had been told to sit down and for speaking when he had been told to be silent by an inspector lawfully appointed to preside over the inquiry. Perhaps some lessons on Parliament would not be amiss at Winchester. We in this House can be ejected for exactly the same kind of behaviour. If we have many more debates at this time of night, I shall be tempted to try it. I do not know what happens at Winchester College when someone keeps on shouting when he is told to be quiet, or stands up when he has been told to sit down, but, as a former headmaster of a boys' secondary school, I take a special interest in these matters.
I welcome what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. I cannot enter into the merits of the Department's scheme or of the objectors' scheme at this stage, but I hope that the explanations that I have given will assist hon. Members and all others who are interested in the Winchester inquiry.

223
It would be regrettable and of great damage to people's democratic rights if any further disruption at the inquiry were to prevent people who are directly affected by the proposals putting forward their views in a calm and reasonable atmosphere.
12.31 a.m.
Dr. Reginald Bennett: My duties take me past Winchester fairly regularly. On the last three occasions that I have sought to go past Winchester, I have been forced to turn round on the present bypass and go through the town. If the objectors go on with their disruptive work, all traffic will be forced through the town again.
On the last occasion of which I speak, I had to go through College Street and Kingsgate Street, which is presumably
224
just what the Headmaster of Winchester is trying to prevent.
There will be nothing to stop traffic going through Winchester if there is continued obstruction to traffic on the present bypass by these intellectuals who are against the new road and the whole principle of an improvement.
I admire the courage of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), which is as great in peace as it was in war, in standing up to this disruption—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE
  Senior Personnel (Subsequent Employment)
  Senior Personnel (Subsequent Employment)
  Scientific Guidance and Advice
  Scientific Guidance and Advice
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Computers
  Computers
  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Pensions (Public Service)
  Pensions (Public Service)
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Dining Facilities
  Dining Facilities
  POLITICAL PARTIES (GOVERNMENT AID)
  POLITICAL PARTIES (GOVERNMENT AID)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Summer Recesses
  Summer Recesses
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Department
  Party Meetings
  Party Meetings
  Devolution Debates
  Devolution Debates
  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY
  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY
SCOTLAND
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Urban Renewal (West Central Scotland)
  Urban Renewal (West Central Scotland)
  Roads (Work Force)
  Roads (Work Force)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Environment Conference (Iceland)
  Environment Conference (Iceland)
  Lebanon (British Subjects)
  Lebanon (British Subjects)
  Maritime Fruit Carriers
  Maritime Fruit Carriers
  Continental Shelf
  Continental Shelf
  USSR Ship "Kiev"
  USSR Ship "Kiev"
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Overseas Citizens (Members' Correspondence)
  Overseas Citizens (Members' Correspondence)
  Race Relations
  Race Relations
  Children (Immigration Control)
  Children (Immigration Control)
  Urban Aid
  Urban Aid
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Dangerous Driving (Convictions)
  Dangerous Driving (Convictions)
  Institute for the Study of Conflict
  Institute for the Study of Conflict
  Police Training Colleges (Lectures)
  Police Training Colleges (Lectures)
  Magistrates' Courts (Powers)
  Magistrates' Courts (Powers)
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Trico Factory, Brentford (Picketing)
  Trico Factory, Brentford (Picketing)
  Marble Arch—Trafalgar Square March
  Marble Arch—Trafalgar Square March
  Prisoners (Drug Prescription)
  Prisoners (Drug Prescription)
  Metropolitan Police (Photographic Activities)
  Metropolitan Police (Photographic Activities)
  Electoral Register
  Electoral Register
  Walton Gaol, Liverpool
  Walton Gaol, Liverpool
  World Revolutionary Conference
  World Revolutionary Conference
  Motoring Offences (Penalties)
  Motoring Offences (Penalties)
  MR. CUNNINGHAM
  MR. CUNNINGHAM
  ECONOMIC POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Uganda
  Uganda
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  European Community (Ministers' Meeting)
  European Community (Ministers' Meeting)
  Leeward and Windward Islands
  Leeward and Windward Islands
  International Bank of Reconstruction and International Finance Corporation
  International Bank of Reconstruction and International Finance Corporation
  Commodity Prices
  Commodity Prices
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Employment (Sugar Beet Growing)
  Employment (Sugar Beet Growing)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Beverages
  Beverages
  Plutonium (Irish Sea Organisms)
  Plutonium (Irish Sea Organisms)
DEFENCE
  Redundancy Pay
  Redundancy Pay
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Ministry Offices, St. Mellons
  Ministry Offices, St. Mellons
  Masirah
  Masirah
  RA Manning and Records Office
  RA Manning and Records Office
  National Army Museum (Children's Club)
  National Army Museum (Children's Club)
  Libya (Arms Supplies)
  Libya (Arms Supplies)
  Ministry Offices
  Ministry Offices
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Social Security (Cost)
  Social Security (Cost)
  Income Tax (Alleged Frauds)
  Income Tax (Alleged Frauds)
  Goods, Services and Transfer Payments
  Goods, Services and Transfer Payments
  European Community (United Kingdom Employees)
  European Community (United Kingdom Employees)
  Ministerial Travel
  Ministerial Travel
  Self-Employed Mothers
  Self-Employed Mothers
  Value Added Tax (Customs Officials' Visits)
  Value Added Tax (Customs Officials' Visits)
  Nationalised Industries (Chairmen)
  Nationalised Industries (Chairmen)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Foreign Currency Borrowings (Nationalised Industries)
  Foreign Currency Borrowings (Nationalised Industries)
  Fringe Benefits
  Fringe Benefits
  Bankrupts
  Bankrupts
  Tax Revenue (North Sea Oil)
  Tax Revenue (North Sea Oil)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Public Sector Receipts
  Public Sector Receipts
WALES
  Local Authorities (Contract Performance Bonds)
  Local Authorities (Contract Performance Bonds)
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Industry
  Industry
WALES
  Fish Farms
  Fish Farms
  Land Development (Industry)
  Land Development (Industry)
  Industrial Development Expenditure (Ebbw Vale)
  Industrial Development Expenditure (Ebbw Vale)
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Essex (Educational Premises)
  Essex (Educational Premises)
  School Building
  School Building
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Blind Children
  Blind Children
  Junior Schools (Non-Coeducational)
  Junior Schools (Non-Coeducational)
  William Tyndale School (Inquiry)
  William Tyndale School (Inquiry)
  Holy Rosary School, Aintree
  Holy Rosary School, Aintree
  "Rising-Fives" (Admission to School)
  "Rising-Fives" (Admission to School)
  Sixth-Form Education
  Sixth-Form Education
  Further Education (Fees)
  Further Education (Fees)
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Students
  Students
  Education Authorities (Administrative Staff)
  Education Authorities (Administrative Staff)
  Mixed Schools (Sex Balance)
  Mixed Schools (Sex Balance)
  Student Places
  Student Places
  Windsor Grammar School
  Windsor Grammar School
ENVIRONMENT
  Lorry Routes
  Lorry Routes
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Coastal Pollution
  Coastal Pollution
  National Type Approval Regulations
  National Type Approval Regulations
  Departmental Regulations
  Departmental Regulations
  Roads (Ambulance, Fire and Police Services' Priority)
  Roads (Ambulance, Fire and Police Services' Priority)
  Vehicle Taxation Evasion
  Vehicle Taxation Evasion
  Vehicle Testing
  Vehicle Testing
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Traffic Signals (London)
  Traffic Signals (London)
  Motorways (Fog Warning Lights)
  Motorways (Fog Warning Lights)
  Rates (London)
  Rates (London)
  Merseyside (Underground Railway)
  Merseyside (Underground Railway)
  Liverpool (Inner Area Study)
  Liverpool (Inner Area Study)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Manchester and Merseyside
  Manchester and Merseyside
  Water Abstraction
  Water Abstraction
  House Mortgages
  House Mortgages
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Winchester (Parking Fees)
  Winchester (Parking Fees)
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Waste Disposal (Charges)
  Waste Disposal (Charges)
  M1 (Traffic Census)
  M1 (Traffic Census)
  Council Homes (Allocation)
  Council Homes (Allocation)
  M1 (Kirkhamgate-Dishforth)
  M1 (Kirkhamgate-Dishforth)
  Voluntary Organisations
  Voluntary Organisations
ENERGY
  Coal Mining (Loans and Grants)
  Coal Mining (Loans and Grants)
  Oil Reserves
  Oil Reserves
  North Sea Gas Reserves
  North Sea Gas Reserves
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  North Sea Gas (Sales to British Gas)
  North Sea Gas (Sales to British Gas)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
TRADE
  Special Steels (American Quotas and Tariffs)
  Special Steels (American Quotas and Tariffs)
  Aircraft Noise (Heathrow)
  Aircraft Noise (Heathrow)
  New Zealand Lambs
  New Zealand Lambs
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Shirts
  Shirts
  Motor Cars
  Motor Cars
  Uganda
  Uganda
  LEGAL AID (UNDEFENDED DIVORCE)
  LEGAL AID (UNDEFENDED DIVORCE)
  SOLICITORS (LEGAL AID FEES)
  SOLICITORS (LEGAL AID FEES)
  LAW CENTRES
  LAW CENTRES
  LEGAL AID (QUALIFYING LIMITS)
  LEGAL AID (QUALIFYING LIMITS)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Footwear
  Footwear
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Funerals
  Funerals
  Tinplate
  Tinplate
  National Consumer Council
  National Consumer Council
  Monopolies and Price Commissions and Office of Fair Trading
  Monopolies and Price Commissions and Office of Fair Trading
  MAGISTRATES (LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS)
  MAGISTRATES (LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Computerisation (Unemployment Register)
  Computerisation (Unemployment Register)
  Whiteley Lang and Neill (Speke)
  Whiteley Lang and Neill (Speke)
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Overtime
  Overtime
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Wages
  Wages
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Pay Limit
  Pay Limit
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Ayr
  Ayr
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Employment Offices (Scotland)
  Employment Offices (Scotland)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
INDUSTRY
  Steel (Supplies)
  Steel (Supplies)
  Steel Production
  Steel Production
  Shirts
  Shirts
  Textile Quotas
  Textile Quotas
  Textiles (Outward Processing)
  Textiles (Outward Processing)
  Textile Imports (Surveillance Licensing)
  Textile Imports (Surveillance Licensing)
  Government Participation
  Government Participation
  Maritime Fruit Carriers
  Maritime Fruit Carriers
  Telephones (Mobile Homes)
  Telephones (Mobile Homes)
  Post Office (Industrial Disputes)
  Post Office (Industrial Disputes)
  Steel (European Community Aid)
  Steel (European Community Aid)
  Motor Cars
  Motor Cars
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Asbestos (Filtering)
  Asbestos (Filtering)
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Steel (Teesside)
  Steel (Teesside)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Tinplate
  Tinplate
  Ferranti Limited
  Ferranti Limited
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Alloy Steel Rods
  Alloy Steel Rods
NORTHERN IRELAND
  House Building
  House Building
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Murder
  Murder
  Environmental Services (Expenditure)
  Environmental Services (Expenditure)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Prisoners (Transfer Petitions)
  Prisoners (Transfer Petitions)
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Terrorist Attacks
  Terrorist Attacks
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Department of Commerce (Company Aid)
  Department of Commerce (Company Aid)
  Finagy Community Centre
  Finagy Community Centre
  Released Detainees (Further Offences)
  Released Detainees (Further Offences)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Widowers
  Widowers
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Thorium X
  Thorium X
  Departmental Criteria Codes
  Departmental Criteria Codes
  Population
  Population
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Poliomyelitis Vaccine
  Poliomyelitis Vaccine
  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Fraudulent Claims (Special Investigators)
  Fraudulent Claims (Special Investigators)
  National Health Service (Administrative Staff)
  National Health Service (Administrative Staff)
  Health Services (Losses Written Off)
  Health Services (Losses Written Off)
  Handicap Prevention
  Handicap Prevention
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Poverty Trap
  Poverty Trap
  Hospital Patients (National Insurance)
  Hospital Patients (National Insurance)
  Doctors and Administrators
  Doctors and Administrators
  Psychiatric Patients
  Psychiatric Patients
  Supplementary Benefits (Aliens)
  Supplementary Benefits (Aliens)
  Fraudulent Claims
  Fraudulent Claims
  Deafness
  Deafness
  Benefit Costs
  Benefit Costs
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
  Redundant Hospitals (South-West Region)
  Redundant Hospitals (South-West Region)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Cigarette Advertisements
  Cigarette Advertisements
  Mental Health Act 1959 (Detention Orders)
  Mental Health Act 1959 (Detention Orders)
  Area Health Authorities (Finance)
  Area Health Authorities (Finance)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Benefits (Receipts and Warnings)
  Benefits (Receipts and Warnings)
  Cohabitation
  Cohabitation
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (Implementation)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (Implementation)
  Brides and Bridegrooms (Average Age)
  Brides and Bridegrooms (Average Age)
  Family Income Supplement (Stockport)
  Family Income Supplement (Stockport)
  CORRIGENDUM
  CORRIGENDUM

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

FAMILY DOCTORS: CARE OF THE ELDERLY
Baroness VICKERS: 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 cutting down of the services in acute hospitals, they will state what action is being taken to reward family doctors for the considerable extra work they will have to undertake including the treatment of the increasing number of old people needing care in their homes.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we envisage a lower rate of growth, not a cut down in expenditure. The rate of growth envisaged for services—including hospital services—used mainly by the elderly is greater than the predicted increase in the elderly population. It would be for the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration to take into account, in the light of incomes policy, any increase in general practitioners' workload in the recommendations they make to the Prime Minister.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. He will agree with me, I hope, that the general practioners in the National Health Service play a really splendid part, and that, in view of the fact that there is to be a cut in the building of acute hospitals in particular, surely their burden will be increased? Bearing in mind the fact that they have to attend to many more elderly, whom we want to keep out of hospitals rather than put into hospitals, surely general practitioners need a just reward?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I understand the anxiety of the noble Baroness, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we recognise the valuable contribution which the medical profession makes to the health and happiness of the community, as it has done for many years. As the noble Baroness will know, the Consultative Document on Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services considered the position of the elderly and gave Regional Health Authorities certain advice in the matter; the advice being to give some priority to the plight of the elderly. We are satisfied that notwithstanding the reduced rate of growth it will be possible to deal with the needs of the elderly.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although the general practitioner had a very raw deal when the National Health Service was first introduced, he has quite a fair deal today?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: That is the view of Her Majesty's Government, my Lords.
Baroness SUMMERKILL: My Lords, do I understand from what the noble Lord says that the geriatric services have been specifically excluded from the cuts?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: They have not been specifically excluded, my Lords, but advice has been given as to how the needs of the geriatric services should be met.
Baroness BROOKE of YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, in view of the over-worked state of most general practioners, either in groups or singly, will Her Majesty's Government consider advocating a scheme whereby elderly people leaving hospital to return home to a solitary life on their own, are informed as to where they can get medical help and advice if they are suddenly taken ill again? I ask this knowing that many old people are very diffident about giving trouble.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, anyone entering hospital will presumably have a general practitioner as his or her doctor, so on leaving hospital the patient would know who his or her doctor is.

1033
I would assume that when an elderly person, as well as any other patient, leaves hospital the doctor would be informed that his patient has been returned to his or her home. So far as the elderly are concerned, I can see the need perhaps for some kind of watchdog, but I cannot say that there are any plans for this, which is a matter that is normally dealt with very effectively by voluntary organisations.
Baroness BROOKE of YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, will Her Majesty' Government consider looking at the scheme which I understand has been very successful in Eastbourne, whereby the milkman is the co-operative link in passing on knowledge?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall pass the comments and observations of the noble Baroness on to my right honourable friend.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, can the Minister tell me how long it takes generally, when an elderly patient has been discharged from hospital, for the hospital's letter stating what the hospital has done, to reach the general practitioner?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Not without notice, my Lords.

UNITED NATIONS: MOON TREATY
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is discussing a treaty about the moon, whether the United Kingdom is a party to these discussions, and whether a copy of the present working draft can be placed in the Library.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): Yes, my Lords. A moon treaty has been discussed for some years by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Her Majesty's Government are represented at the annual sessions of the main com
1034
mittee and of its sub-committee of legal experts responsible for preparing texts. The present working drafts are contained in documents issued by the United Nations Outer Space Committee, copies of which are automatically supplied to the Library as soon as they appear. Copies of the working drafts from the 1974–76 discussions are now available in consolidated form, and I have arranged to place copies in the Library.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what the world needs, in point of fact, are peace treaties for the problems of the earth before we worry about the problems of the moon?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Of course, my Lords, we all agree with that sentiment. On the other hand, man has landed on at least one celestial planet and may land on others—Venus, Jupiter, who knows? One hopes that he will be received with Jovial rather than Martial acclamation.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the Minister ask this committee of the United Nations to take measures that will prevent little green men from defacing the landscape of Mars by Shakespearian graffiti on the boulders?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will take that suggestion and advisement in conjunction with one or two suggestions I have heard that little yellow men should not deface cricket pitches.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I congratulate the Minister on being so full-sighted as to how his future responsibilities may be enlarged?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would not dare to attempt to start answering such a question.

METROPOLITAN POLICE STRENGTH
2.45 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: 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, in view of the increase in crime in all categories, and the overall deficiency of 5,208 officers of the Metropolitan Police for the year 1975, as stated in the Report of the Commissioner of Police to the Home Secretary (Cmnd. 6496, June 1976), what steps are being taken to bring the force up to approved strength.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the actual number of vacancies in the Metropolitan Police on 31st December 1975 was 5,401. I am glad to say that by 30th June 1976 the vacancies had been reduced by 489 to 4,912. In all, 992 recruits joined the force during the first six months of this year. The training arrangements have been expanded, and the force is now taking in as many recruits as it can absorb. The strength of the Metropolitan Police is now the highest in the history of the force.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that somewhat reassuring reply, may I nevertheless put a point to him and ask this question? Could the Minister say whether the approved strength of the Metropolitan Police Force is a policy matter which has been agreed, say, between the Commissioner of Police and the Home Secretary based on a judgment of what is necessary to maintain law and order in any foreseeable contingency which might arise? Therefore, in the circumstances of the reply which the noble Lord has given me, is he satisfied that, although the force will not be right up to strength, they have the number required to deal with any contingency in any breakdown which might occur in the foreseeable future? Can the noble Lord give some assurance on that?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Commissioner is aware that he can recruit up to his establishment, and that position remains after the current review of public expenditure announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. I think the answer to the second question is, "Yes".
Lord SLATER: My Lords, can my noble friend state how many police
1036
authorities have reached their establishment against that of the Metropolitan Police? What is the disparity between the two?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the manpower problem in London is by far the most serious, but, having said that, it is right to acknowledge that there has been a similar difficult problem in all the major conurbations. I think the London problem has been recognised by my right honourable friend and by his predecessors as by far the most single difficult problem facing the Police Service in this country, but it is also right to say that in 1975 we have been through one of our best years for police recruitment. There was a net gain of over 5,000 men and women last year, and a very substantial number of forces are now as near as it is possible to be up to their establishment.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can the noble Lord help us and make the matter a little clearer by giving us, perhaps, the percentage of the shortfall of membership of the Metropolitan Police? If he has not got that information to hand, can he tell us the total of establishment so that we can work it out for ourselves, in order to see just how serious this shortage is?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I indicated in my original Answer the shortfall which remained in the Metropolitan Police. Referring to the situation on 30th June of this year, I said that the number of vacancies had been reduced in the first six months of this year by 489 to 4,912. That is the situation. My knowledge of mathematics is, I regret to say, so sketchy that I dare not make an "off the cuff" calculation on a percentage basis.

MONTREAUX CONVENTION AND THE BOSPHORUS
2.50 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what communications have been made

1037
by the Soviet Union to the other signatories of the Montreux Convention of 1936 about the passage through the Bosphorus of the warship "Kiev", which appears to be an aircraft carrier and thus debarred by the Convention from passing.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the only communication of which I am aware is the notification under the Convention by the Soviet Union to the Turkish Government that an unnamed cruiser would transit the Straits in a Southward direction on 18th July.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, do the Government accept that this ship, which has a 600-foot long angled flight deck, and her superstructure to one side, and is capable of carrying—and apparently is carrying at the moment—some 35 fixed-wing aircraft, can be properly described as a cruiser?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in modern terms it could be described as either; but we take the view that, very much on balance, it fits the description of an aircraft carrier. However, the Montreux provisions are not absolutely precise on definitions. After all, the Convention was 40 years ago. The Soviet officials themselves described the vessel to the notifiable authority, the Turkish Government, as an antisubmarine cruiser. That is why the Turkish Government acceded to its transit through the Straits.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords do the British Government regard the Montreux Convention as prohibiting aircraft carriers from passing through the Bosphorus; and did the Soviet Union even go through the motions of removing the aircraft and the fittings as an aircraft carrier before this warship passed through the Bosphorus?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not know that they went through the motions of removing that equipment before sending the ship through the Bosphorus. The photographs would indicate that, whether they did so or not, they were very much there. On the first question, I think it is a matter for continuing discussion between us and our
1038
friends and allies as to the situation that arises in terms of the balance of power in the Mediterranean. NATO is properly concerned about the balance of power in the Mediterranean as in other theatres that concern it. On the political side, it is for us, as and when we consider it right, to consult the co-signatories, either all of them or some of them. This we have been doing and will continue to do. I do not think that anything could be gained by going at this question too early or too strongly.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my noble friend know of anything that can stop the Russians passing through the Bosphorus? If he does, will he inform us what it is—and is this part of the policy of détente?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, apart from my noble friend I can think of nothing immediately that would prevent the Russian vessels doing anything anywhere. This is a Convention of 1936 which was drawn in the light of the knowledge, technical and political, available to those who signed it at that time. It has served a very useful peaceful purpose since then. As a result of regrettable incidents like this it may be that it is time to look at it again. But, as I have said, we should not go at this too early or too strongly. I hope that my noble friend will curb his impatience for a short time.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord say, in view of the latest round of defence cuts, whether it was by accident or design that there was an RAF Nimrod and a base in Malta from which to take the photographs we have seen.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there was a Nimrod on the spot. For that, the noble Lord and myself should be rather gratified. As to the relationship of this matter to the proposed defence cuts, he knows better than anybody that it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree, since he has referred to discussions about the balance of power, that our authority in any discussions with our allies on this subject

1039
is bound to have been compromised by the decline in our defence position?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is a point of view; there are others.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, would my noble friend say precisely what action is open to us if Turkey decides to allow any ship to pass through the Bosphorus?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, under the Montreux Convention the Turkish Government was deputed to be the notifiable Government by any naval Power purporting to send a vessel through the Bosphorus, either out of the Black Sea or into the Black Sea. The Turks therefore exercise a power which, if they choose to say has been infringed, no doubt they will bring to the notice of the cosignatories to the Convention or some of them.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if my noble friend has not already answered the Question—he may have answered it; but if he has not—why not refer this to the United Nations or the Security Council and ascertain how many friends we have in that establishment?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly any suggestion made by my noble friend will be carefully considered by my Department.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, as the Minister used the expression "regrettable", would he on reflection tell us what is regrettable about a Russian vessel of war passing through the Bosphorus with the permission of the Turkish Government, as opposed to the escape into Turkish waters with all the consequences of the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" in the heyday of British Naval power, an event that came about entirely through the incompetence of the British Naval staff?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly the first part of what my noble friend said has substance. What is regrettable is that notification was made in terms of a vessel described as a cruiser but which is clearly more describable as an aircraft carrier. We take the view that, under the Montreux Convention, an
1040
aircraft carrier is not in the class of vehicles which ought to be allowed transit. It would seem to us—and I hope that I am wrong—to have circumvented the spirit, if not the terms, of the Convention.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that the same words can be used in relation to a proposal by Britain to build a through-deck cruiser which is an anti-submarine vessel, as this one is, armed with the Harrier; whereas this vessel has a considerable number of aircraft of a comparable class to an aircraft carrier. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, except for the typical ignorance and hypocrisy that is expressed today.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if my noble friend will look at what I said, he will see that I said that this vessel could be described as coming within either class. No doubt others could be so described. This is why I followed that remark by twice saying that it would be unwise to go at this too early and too strong.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, could the noble Lord say anything about Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the other eleven aircraft carriers which are apparently under construction in Black Sea yards? Is he aware that the House will take much comfort from the half courage of his second last answer?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not aware that there are that number under construction in the Black Sea. That is a point of fact which perhaps the noble Lord and I might discuss without engaging unduly in public speculation. As to what he said about the latter part of my remarks, it comes to this. Here is a Convention which in the context of 1936 and since has served the world well, and the Mediterranean world particularly. It may be that in the light of this incident and other facts, technological and political, of the modern world, we need to look at the position afresh. We should so so after due thought and not rush at it too early and, I repeat, too strongly.

ENDOWMENTS AND GLEBE MEASURE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Endowments and Glebe Measure, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Measure at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Measure.
2.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON The Lord Bishop of LONDON rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Endowments and Glebe Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I rise to invite this House to pass an Affirmative Resolution on the Endowments and Glebe Measure. As noble Lords will appreciate from the reports of the Legislative Committee of the General Synod and of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, this is a complex Measure and it would be all too easy for us to become so involved in the minutiae of its provisions as to lose sight of the broad principles underlying it. A great deal of preparatory work has been done, as is illustrated by the facts and figures supplied in the reports and I am confident that your Lordships would wish to express our thanks to those who have so carefully documented the issues that are before the House today.
The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament has by a majority resolved that this Measure is expedient. Having received a number of objections to the Measure—and there are always more people ready to express their dissatisfaction than there are those who are vocal in support of any measure—the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee devotes the greater part of its attention to the criticisms of the Measure and pays rather half-hearted tribute to the immense amount of care and labour which has been devoted by the Church Assembly and by the General Synod to the subject of the remuneration of the clergy over a period of many years. In a moment I hope to put before your Lordships the broad, positive principles which underlie this
1042
Measure, and the reasons why it is so important for the welfare of the Church and of the clergy that it should become law.
There are, however, three matters in the Ecclesiastical Committee's Report to which I must refer specifically, since otherwise misunderstanding may arise. The first concerns the last words of paragraph 17. The Committee is here considering the guaranteed annuity of up to £1,000 a year. The report states:
"…in considering the principle involved the Committee has proceeded as though this Measure provided that after the next vacancy the benefice will cease to have any income representing its old endowment income".
It is not clear why the Committee considered that it should proceed on this assumption, since it is patently not the case. The figure of up to to £1,000 is provided for the important psychological reason of ensuring a link between the old endowment and the new pay structure. So it must not be thought that on a vacancy a benefice will cease to have any income representing its old endowment income.
In fact, as Appendix II shows, 8,282 parishes out of the total of 10,595, having at the present time under £1,000 of endowment income, will continue to be guaranteed for their incumbent exactly the same sum as exists at present. The other 2,313 benefices with endowments over £1,000 will receive this guaranteed annuity plus the personal grant to a sitting incumbent equal to any excess over £1,000 per annum of net annual endowment income to which he is entitled so long as he holds that office. These facts are important and they should not be forgotten.
The second point which requires comment is contained in paragraph 18 where the report is dealing with the relevance of charity law. The report refers to Clause 11(2) of the Endowments and Glebe Measure which states that property held on trust by private trustees may be transferred to the Church Commissioners only with the consent of the Charity Commissioners. This refers of course to trusts of comparatively recent origin. What the Measure is dealing with in the main are those endowments, often of very ancient origin, conferred on the Church. Their administration was entrusted by Parliament some 140 years ago, not to the Charity Commissioners but to the

1043
Ecclesiastical Commissioners. This body was given its own legal framework within which it exercises its responsibilities. Accordingly, over the years legislation has increasingly dealt with them as endowments of the Church as a whole and not as endowments of individual charities as they would have been under the ordinary charity law. This measure is entirely consistent with this trend.
Thirdly, I must mention the issues raised in paragraph 22 on page 10. The argument is often used that the possession of endowment by a particular parish may protect it from being the object of pastoral reorganisation. The report quite rightly points out that there is no substance in this assertion. I have been a diocesan Bishop for 21 years and I have been involved both as a Bishop and as a member of the Board of the Church Commissioners with innumerable schemes for pastoral reorganisation. I cannot remember a single one in which the diocese hesitated in setting forward a scheme for pastoral reorganisation because one of the parishes was heavily endowed. Nor can I remember a single case in which the Church Commissioners either refused or agreed to forward a scheme because this issue was involved. Pastoral reorganisation is purely a matter for the statutory pastoral committee of the diocese and it exercises its responsibilities within the powers of the Pastoral Measure.
I come now, my Lords, to the broad principles of reform which the Measure seeks to establish. In the main, if approved by Parliament the endowments attaching to certain parishes will be pooled subject to certain safeguards and used for the benefit of the stipends of the clergy generally, and the ownership of glebe will be transferred from individual clergy to the Diocesan Board of Finance for a similar general use. Stated thus baldly the Measure sounds to be rapacious and ruthless. I confess that at one time I myself thought it to be so. I have a strong historical sense and I did not like the idea of detaching from individual benefices endowments which had been allocated to them by benefactors in the past. But I have studied the issues with care and I have come to appreciate that the Measure intends to do the right thing and I believe that it does so and therefore I am able to commend it wholeheartedly to your Lordships.
As the Legislative Committee's Report points out on page 17, Church legislation of this sort is not new. The Ecclesiastical Commission, created 140 years ago, deprived some of the great Sees such as Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester of their vast emoluments and removed the incomes of many Cathedral Chapters and sinecure offices for the creation and augmentation of the Commissioners' General Fund. You will remember, my Lords, that this led to a certain amount of acrimonious correspondence on the part of Sidney Smith at the time. I remember when my father, some 40 years ago, was made a prebendary in St. Paul's Cathedral he claimed that as a result of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners he had been deprived of some £38,000 a year for doing absolutely nothing. Thus it was an extremely unpopular move when the Ecclesiastical Commission was set up. But as my great predecessor Bishop Blomfield, the chief architect of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners remarked:
"They now blame me for these measures, but they will hereafter confess that those very measures have been the saving of the Church".
And he was right.
Nearer to our own time the radical Benefices (Stabilisation of Incomes) Measure 1951, passed by this House, provided that money endowments held by the Commissioners in trust for individual benefices were to be transferred to their general fund with a fixed annual payment, so that any income growth would be available not to the benefice but for the benefit of the clergy generally. The Pastoral Measure passed by this House in 1968 authorised by a scheme or order the diversion of part of the endowments of a benefice to the Diocesan Stipends Fund for the benefit of all the clergy without requiring the consent of the incumbent concerned.
This Measure therefore stands in a long line of enactments designed to provide a more just and equitable distribution of the Church's endowments for the benefit of the clergy generally. It is the Church's commitment to minister to the whole nation, both in the town and in the country, and it is no part of this Measure to take the clergy away from the country, as has sometimes been suggested. On the contrary, what we want to be sure of is that the clergy are placed right throughout the whole nation and that in

1045
any place, whether they be in town or the country, they have enough to live on.
The substance of this Measure has been under discussion for well over 10 years. Following a report entitled Partners in Ministry which was published in 1967, a questionnaire which went out to the dioceses revealed that 85 per cent. of the replies favoured a more uniform system of remuneration and nearly 60 per cent. favoured the pooling of endowment and glebe income. The Terms of Ministry Committee, which was set up to advise on the best way forward, recommended, and the General Synod accepted in 1972. that benefice endowment income and glebe income should he pooled and the glebe transferred into diocesan ownership. This Measure is the outcome.
Subject to the safeguards I have already mentioned, we should ask: does this Measure impose any injustice on anyone? I can confidently assert my belief that it does not. I ask your Lordships to note how small in fact is the immediate impact of this Measure. All dioceses have accepted a minimum stipend for incumbents of £2,400 a year, plus a house which is rate and rent free. Thus, Appendix II reveals that there are only 413 parishes out of 10,595 which have endowments sufficient to meet this modest target. All the rest must he subsidised from central funds. Again, out of the 4,846 benefices which receive income from glebe, 4,622—that is all but 224—receive less than £1,000; and they are going to be granted a guaranteed annuity of up to £1,000.
I can state that as a result of this Measure no clergyman will be worse off than he is at present, and progressively many will be far better off. All that will happen is that the present incumbents will continue to enjoy the equivalent of the existing income from endowments and their successors will have a guaranteed sum of up to £1,000 and for the rest will be brought up to the diocesan standard from central funds and parochial giving. If the incumbent owns glebe, he will no longer be able to manage it himself (a task of which many would be gladly rid) and he would not be the beneficiary of any increase of income from the glebe if, for instance, it were to be sold for a large sum. But neither is he such a beneficiary today, since it is always open to a diocese
1046
to promote a scheme under the Pastoral Measure for a diversion of the income of a benefice to the Diocesan Stipends Fund even without the consent of the incumbent if, as a result of fortuitous circumstances, the benefice income is inflated beyond the general standard of diocesan remuneration.
But, my Lords, is it offensive to natural justice to take away from some benefices sources of income which were allocated to an incumbent at the time of his institution? The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, clearly thinks it is, since in his Amendment he seeks to persuade your Lordships to refuse an Affirmative Resolution to the Measure on the grounds that:
"contrary to natural justice, it removes from certain incumbents the ownership of lands lawfully bestowed on them."
I confess that it is a surprise to me that such an Amendment should emanate from the Benches of a radical Party devoted to reform, as I had looked for support from that quarter for a Measure which is so clearly forward-looking and progressive. The noble Lord uses the term "natural justice", and I am advised that in English law it is used only in limited contexts, such as a failure in a judicial tribunal to give each party the opportunity to state their case or to fail to decide a dispute honestly and without bias. I am advised that in law there is no breach of natural justice if property is taken away from a person by the due processes of law. We all have a good deal of our property removed by taxation; some of us have had property removed by compulsory purchase. None of us enjoy the process, but we submit because such action is taken by Statute in the interests of the nation as a whole.
It was this principle which was at work when there were transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the estates lawfully bestowed on bishops, deans, chapters and other ecclesiastical corporations in the last century by Statute, for the benefit of the Church as a whole. It is this principle which is at work in the Pastoral Measure today, because if in the process of promoting the scheme of pastoral reorganisation it is necessary to do so, a clergyman can be deprived not merely of income but of the benefice itself, so long, of course, as he is properly remunerated and compensated. This

1047
Measure continues this process, and I submit that there is no breach of natural justice.
My Lords, in the broadest terms, this Measure is one further step in bringing the Church of England out of the 19th century and into the 20th. Rightly, we no longer tolerate a Bishop of Barchester living in luxury in his palace and Archdeacon Grantley enjoying his wealth at Plumstead Episcopi, while Mr. Quiverful and Mr. Crawley of Hogglestock eke out a miserable existence on a few pounds a year. We still need to get away from the picture of the parson as a landowner, relying for much of his income on the proceeds of his glebe. The establishment of the Church Commissioners as the Central Stipends Authority has at long last brought us nearer to a uniform system of payment for all the clergy. We have a long way to go to provide a proper standard for the payment of the clergy, but if we are to go to the laity and ask them for a greatly increased standard of giving we must be able to assure them that the Church is using its resources justly and efficiently. We shall be able to give that assurance if this resolution is passed by this House today.
The Measure is, as I have reminded your Lordships, the outcome of many years of thought and consultation by the Church and there is no ground whatsoever for saying that there has not been enough consultation. It received final approval in July of last year by a vote of 229 in favour and 34 against, with five abstentions. I trust that your Lordships will endorse the judgment of the General Synod, and help us go forward in the demanding task of rewarding the clergy adequately. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Endowments and Glebe Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent—(The Lord Bishop of London).
3.20 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY rose to move, as an Amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after ("House") and insert ("declines to direct that the Endowments and Glebe Measure be presented to Her Majesty for Royal
1048
Assent on the ground that, contrary to natural justice, it removes from certain incumbents the ownership of lands lawfully bestowed on them".) The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is an unusual Amendment to be moved in your Lordships' House and, as the right reverend Prelate has already suggested, I am possibly an even more unusual person to move it. There are many people who think, because of the position of the Establishment, that Parliament should permanently have the right to pass judgment on and, if necessary, veto the Measures of the Church, and I know that among those who are to speak today there are at least one or two people who take that point of view. It is a very understandable one, but it is not one that I myself take.
I believe it is right that the Church of England should, within very broad limits, have control of its own affairs and if it is argued, as indeed it is argued by some of my colleagues, that the price for that should be disestablishment, I, for one, would not flinch at paying that price. Therefore, I should not, in the normal way, seek to persuade your Lordships to obstruct a Measure coming from the Synod to Parliament, however much I disagreed with, or disapproved of, what it had to say. But there is an exception to this rule, and I suggest that we have such an exception before us today. I think that the Church should have control over its own affairs, in the same way as any other body has control over its own affairs; that is, within the limits of the law of the land and the bounds of what I, however inaccurately, persist in calling natural justice; for, whatever the specialised meaning of the term, I have no doubt that most of your Lordships understand what I mean.
Although as a nation we are used to the idea of compulsory purchase, it is not one which we have handed over indiscrimately to other bodies, apart from the Legislature and those which are obviously immediately dependent upon them, such as local government. Therefore, there is a very distinct difference between the compulsory purchase as it is usually employed in this country today, and the compulsory purchase which we are asked to approve in the House this afternoon. So when the Church comes to this House and asks

1049
us to allow it to expropriate the rights of individuals in a manner which no other body would be allowed to do, and which, if the Church were self-governing, would be disallowed by the courts, I think we have an absolute right to object, for here we are not interfering with the legitimate self-government of the Church; we are being made use of by the Church to allow it to do something which would otherwise be illegal and which I certainly believe to be immoral. If I can show to this House that this Measure does exactly that, and that it is oppressive of the rights of certain citizens, I hope that it will send it back to the Synod to look at it again.
Some of your Lordships who will be speaking today, and a large number of people outside this House, believe that this Measure is ill-conceived. Although I realise that this is a very difficult problem, I am broadly in sympathy with the aims of this Measure. I welcome the efforts of the Church, which the right reverend Prelate has so well described, to deploy its own resources to the best possible advantage. As a member of the Church Assembly, as a religious journalist and as what I might call an ecclesiastical activist, I have campaigned on that side of the argument for a large number of years. Therefore, it is all the more painful to me that this Measure contains one matter which I would not fight for, and which I must oppose; that is, it removes from present incumbents, during their own incumbency, their right to the ownership of the glebe land which was inalienably, as all thought then, bestowed on them when they were inducted into their benefices.
I do not believe there is any need at all for this. When it was first put forward, the original scheme allowed incumbents to opt out for the period of time when they had their benefices, and the glebe land would naturally fall in before the next incumbent took over. It may be argued that that would still have been unjust to the parishes, but, nevertheless, there was then no injustice done to an incumbent who had been given the ownership of this land. That, indeed, was what happened when, as has been quoted before, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners took over the land of the Bishops and other land in the last century. Individual Bishops were given the right to opt out until their tenure of the See ended.
We have not really been told why this has been done, why it has been neglected to put in a clause, as was originally suggested, to the effect that incumbents could opt out of their own right, and I suggest that it is merely for administrative tidiness. So far as I can see, there is no precedent for such a thing in the history of the Church. I am told, indeed, that even when the Dissolution of the Monasteries occurred, there was a voluntary deed of surrender on behalf of the abbot or prior concerned. What pressure was used to exact this voluntary deed, I do not think we need go into. But, at least the forms of law appear to have been preserved on that occasion, and I think we are entitled to know why ownership of the glebe may not transfer as incumbencies fall in.
I am quite prepared to be told that this is a very small point, and obviously to a large number of people it is. The Ecclesiastical Committee—I think rather unfortunately—did not even consider it. We shall be told that there is very little glebe, and that is true. We shall be told that most incumbents would prefer to get rid of it. I am sure that some of them do. We do not know how many, because they have not, on the whole, been asked; at least, those who have written to me to protest about this Measure have told me that. We are told that they receive compensation. They receive money for money, and I am the first to acknowledge the fairness of the monetary considerations the Church has laid down in putting forward this Measure. But those of them whose pride and pleasure it has been to have a stake in the country, and to have the ownership of some of the land going with their parish, receive nothing for that. Indeed, there cannot be any monetary compensation for that pride and pleasure and that link with the countryside being taken away from them, out of the blue, in the middle of their incumbency, which, as I said, was given to them inalienably when they were inducted.
We may well be told that to send a Measure back for such a small matter would cause chaos, but I think that that can be easily overstated. It is one small matter to which I am objecting and, although it means that the Measure would have to go through many stages again, it would presumably be able to go through them rather quickly. But, even if it

1051
were true that it would cause a lot of trouble, I do not think it would matter; for what are we here for? We are not an instrument of the bureaucracy of either Church or State. Among our duties as part of the High Court of Parliament, one of the most important is the protection of the rights of individuals, no matter how few those individuals are, no matter how unimportant their rights may seem to us, no matter how worthy are the people who are expropriating them, no matter how inconvenient our actions may be; for if we do not protect the individual rights of these people nobody else will. My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Moved, as an Amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after ("House") and insert ("declines to direct that the Endowments and Glebe Measure be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent on the ground that, contrary to natural justice, it removes from certain incumbents the ownership of lands lawfully bestowed on them".).—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
3.31 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for his lucid account of this Glebe Measure in moving the resolution for its approval. I may not be so progressive as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, but should like to assure the right reverend Prelate of my support for the Measure and I hope to persuade other noble Lords on all sides of the House also to give their support to the right reverend Prelate.
It is true that there have been objections to this Measure and that they have taken three main forms. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has voiced some of the objections, but they all lack substance. The first group of objections is that the Measure is in some sense unfair to existing incumbents. My answer to that, one which has already been expressed in much greater detail by the right reverend Prelate, is that no existing incumbent will suffer any loss of benefice income as a result of this Measure. That is stated categorically in paragraph 8(4) of the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee on the Measure, and precisely how effect is to be given to it.
1052
Secondly, it is not by any means the case that all incumbents have always received in the past the benefits of all rents, sales and other transactions in glebe, for orders diverting some of the proceeds from transactions in glebe land from the benefice to diocesan boards of finance have frequently been made for many years, most recently under the Pastoral Measure. Therefore in so far as there might be some diversion—and in this case no diversion will result in an existing incumbent suffering a reduction in income—certainly it is not breaking fresh ground to divert the proceeds from glebe land to somebody other than the incumbent.
The second group of objections is that here we are witnessing signs of the parochial system being swept away in favour of a centralised bureaucracy. Like the right reverend Prelate, and not being all that progressive, I am sorry to see an historic, albeit archaic institution, falling into desuetude. But the Churches are not meant to be museums of archaic institutions; they are supposed to serve and minister to all the citizens of the nation, wherever they may be, and this involves a change in the pattern of the parochial system from that laid down in mediaeval days. If the Churches are allowed to ossify into some past parochial system they cannot possibly serve the needs of the present. For that purpose changes are being made, and have been made for some years, in the financial arrangements from the centre and from the parish to the diocese.
These are the trends with which this Measure is concerned. That is not centralisation; it is concentration of the administration of the Churches' financial assets at the level of the diocesan boards of finance. The parochial system is not being swept away but, under the Pastoral Measure, carefully, deliberately and very gently adjusted to fit the 1970s and changed with a sensitiveness to consultation and participation, compared with which current secular practices in participation and consultation seem like the work of the veriest mogul or Mikado. The Churches simply cannot complain that too much is being done at too much of a rush with too little consultation.
In fact, the third body of objections is that in this case the consultation has been

1053
inadequate. That is not so. Once again, as the Ecclesiastical Report makes clear, what we see in this Measure was envisaged as long ago as 1967 when the report Partners in Ministry on the deployment of the clergy was published and issued to the Churches. Since then the report has been widely discussed at every level. The final step in respect of this Measure was a leaflet that was sent, with the authority of the General Synod, to every beneficed incumbent in July 1975, but between the publication of that report in 1967 and the issuing of a letter to every incumbent in 1975 there have been innumerable debates in the Synod and the Church Assembly.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, had quite a lot to say about the propriety or otherwise of Parliament interfering so as to overturn Measures which have already had the approval of the General Synod. Certainly our Constitution provides for that eventuality, but I should like your Lordships to consider whether this is a case when such a step would be justified. It might be justified if there were matters of very considerable concern both to Church and State regarding which, for example, the Houses of the General Synod had come to a conclusion only by the narrowest of majorities. However, in this case the final votes on this Measure took the following form: in the House of Bishops, 28 for, one against; in the House of clergy, 103 for, 19 against; in the House of Laity, 98 for, 14 against. I suggest that in the Houses of Parliament, where in another place at the moment legislation is being put on the Statute Book with tiny minorities, we cannot say that this is an issue upon which the Church has not clearly made up its mind.
For all those reasons, my Lords, I personally have no hesitation in supporting the resolution of the right reverend Prelate and I hope that many others of your Lordships will do likewise.
3.39 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, the Ecclesiastical Committee of which I am a member has passed the Measure which we are discussing today. Therefore I am not going to object to it in any practical way whatosever. But, before we pass it,
1054
I should like to put on record some of the things that I feel rather regretful about. One of the things I am chiefly against is the principle of pooling those gifts which are personal gifts. One has to remember the circumstances under which some of these gifts, although certainly not all of them, have been given. Land or money may have been given by someone who has been living in the parish perhaps for the whole of his or her life, who has a great love for it and who wishes to give some sign of what is felt to have been received from it. In such cases these are gifts not to the incumbent but to the parish, and that is one point which I feel nullifies the argument that the present incumbent is not going to suffer at all. It is the parish which is going to suffer.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way for a moment, will he also confirm that the gifts that he has just mentioned were not gifts to the diocese?
Lord SOMERS: No, my Lords; that is quite true, but the fact remains that the gifts are personal gifts. One can imagine, for instance, what would be thought of a Government that ordained that personal legacies left in one's will were all to be pooled and dealt out to the population as a whole. If I leave £1,000 to my godson or to my oldest friend, or something like that, is it going to be taken from him and pooled, so that out of the common pool everybody in the population can perhaps receive one half-penny? I think that principle in itself is wrong. Incidentally, although I have not really worked this out and so cannot say with authority what the result will be, I feel that the whole of the additional income when it is pooled is unlikely to add a very great deal to any one of the individual parishes throughout the country. Therefore, although I am not going to oppose this Measure, I feel that there are some aspects of it which are regrettable. I mentioned them when we discussed it in our Committee and I am glad to see that our noble and learned Chairman is with us today and is going to speak; perhaps he will allay my fears.
3.44 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I have a great respect for the sincerity with which the noble Lord,

1055
Lord Somers, has spoken, and I am sure we shall all agree it was right that that point of view should be put by a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I do not share it myself. It seems to me that he left out of account the wider purpose for the benefit of the Church and of religion in this country which the Measure seeks to serve. This is not an arbitrary act of depriving certain parishes of continuing income from endowments given to them long ago. On the contrary, as the Legislative Committee has explained, it is part of a general strategy of the Church of England to enable it to maintain a parochial system throughout the country that is suitable to modern needs.
I would venture to suggest that the urgency and importance of this has perhaps not been sufficiently stressed so far in this debate. It is quite clear that those who are responsible can no longer take it for granted that there will be enough money available for the Church to support an adequate array of parochial clergy to do the job that everybody connected with the Church of England, and many others, take it for granted should be done. After all, compulsory purchase, although it is odious when it affects oneself, can never be carried out unless Parliament has been satisfied that the further purpose for which the compulsory acquisition is sought is one that deserves the support of Parliament and will serve the interests of the country as a whole. If we had no system of compulsory purchase, it would, for example, be quite impossible to create a modern road system in this country. Indeed, compulsory purchase was first approved by Parliament in the days after the Great Fire of London, when it would have been impossible, if the exercise of compulsory purchase powers had not been permitted, to carry out the reconstruction that was required.
I am not a member of the General Synod nor the Ecclesiastical Committee; I have no special qualification to speak on this matter, and I have no vested interest in the progress of the Measure. I simply have an interest as an ordinary member of the Church of England in desiring to see the Church acting sensibly and taking whatever steps seem to be necessary to ensure that the continuance of an adequate parochial system for the whole country can be financed.
1056
I know the argument has been used although I do not think it was used by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the effect of the Measure will be to discourage further giving to the Church. So far as I am aware, for a good many years there has been relatively little giving by way of capital gifts for the augmentation of endowment incomes. That sort of money is seldom available now and, where it is, it will probably take the form of a gift for some immediate parochial purpose, such as the repair of the church roof or something else which is urgently needed for Church purposes in the parish, rather than the payment of a capital sum, the interest on which is intended to increase the endowment.
There was a good reason for capital gifts of that kind in olden days, when otherwise there might have been no adequate income to support a parson in the parish. That is now looked after by the Church Commissioners and the Diocesan Boards of Finance with the money that they have available for the purpose. That money however is not sufficient, and the Church therefore has a duty to consider how it can be augmented. I do not foresee any serious falling off of gifts of that kind as a result of this Measure. But if the Church is to attract from the laity all the additional money which it is quite clear will be required as the years go on, it must give the ordinary people of the country a double assurance; that is, the assurance that the money which the Church has is being put to the best possible use and the further assurance that the existing resources of the Church are being developed in the best possible way.
I think this Measure is intended to answer both those questions, although at the moment neither assurance could fairly be given. I believe that general public opinion is now against the degree of lack of uniformity of income which exists within the parochial system. The range may not be so wide as in Trollope's day, but it is still wide; there are still parochial clergy who are receiving two, three or four times the norm—though that norm itself may be relatively low—for responsibilities which are not exceptionally high in those particularly well-endowed parishes.

1057
As to the best development of its resources, I am quite certain that the existing system of glebe management by incumbents is not the most profitable way of making use, for the clergy, of the glebe asset which the Church possesses. We learn from these reports that at the moment glebe income amounts to just on £1,200,000 a year. From my limited knowledge, I venture to suggest that this amount of £1,200,000 a year could be very substantially increased if systematic management was introduced by the Church Commissioners and the diocesan authorities, as envisaged in this Measure. I find significant the fact that in seven dioceses there have been created voluntary schemes under which incumbents can hand over their glebe to be managed centrally by the diocese. This experience is already showing that glebe income can be materially increased by centralised diocesan management at relatively small extra cost in expenses.
My Lords, I know that there are some glebe-owning clergy who manage their glebes splendidly, and that no criticism can be made of them from whatever point of view, social or financial. But I think your Lordships will agree that these are a minority of the total number, nearly 5,000, of glebe-owning clergy. I am bound to say from my experience and knowledge that in a great many cases the glebe property is not handled and managed as sensibly, skilfully and farsightedly as it might be. Indeed, how should it be? When a man enters a theological college he is trained to assume his responsibility for the cure of souls in the parish to which he hopes one day to succeed; he is not trained to be a property manager, and although some people may thoroughly enjoy being property managers, it is surely not an essential part of the training of a clergyman. Consequently, I feel certain that the General Synod is right in believing that there is a considerable untapped resource here which the transfer of glebe to the diocesan boards of finance will secure, for the benefit of the parish clergy of that diocese generally.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is taking objection to one single point. I hope he will forgive me for saying that the terms of his Amendment suggested, at any rate to me, that his objection to the Measure
1058
was much more broadly based. I see now that the one point which he wished to establish in our minds was that permission should be granted to existing glebe owners, if they so wished, to retain the management of their own glebe for the rest of their incumbency, or until such time as they might freely wish to hand it over. This is an interesting idea. I confess I was not aware that this is what happened in the last century in the case of the bishoprics. But trying to interpret this suggestion in practical terms now, it seems to me that it would put a very considerable brake on the speed with which the diocesan boards of finance could proceed with making more systematic and intelligent the management of the glebe which they were taking over.
In each diocese, the board would have to proceed with the knowledge that in a number of parishes they could not plan to touch any of the glebe in any way, by way of sale for example, until the existing incumbent died or retired. It would be impossible to forecast how long that time would last, and consequently they would be taxed with the unfortunate task of seeking to establish well-devised diocesan machinery for making the best use of all the glebe within the diocese, while being excluded from considering or touching a certain amount of glebe scattered somewhat arbitrarily among a number of parishes, which might revert to them at some unknown dates in the future. If we are taking seriously the need of the Church for more money, I do not really think we ought to envisage that kind of sacrifice of income and possibly capital, although I wish in no way to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for calling the attention of the House to what is being done.
My Lords, I am not one of those who think that Parliament automatically should endorse every Measure sent forward by the General Synod. I believe that in your Lordships' House we missed a point with regard to a recent Measure which was subsequently rejected by another place because it failed to give personal right of appearance to incumbents who might be affected by it. Having said that, I must add that the figures which have been given this afternoon for the majorities by which this Measure was passed in all three Houses, the House of Bishops, the House

1059
of Clergy and the House of Laity, must be taken into account and carefully weighed by your Lordships, because, except for the most urgent reason, it would certainly not be for us in this House to act arbitrarily and send back a Measure which received such wide support in the General Synod. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I do not think his argument adds up to that, and therefore I shall support the Measure so brilliantly introduced by the right reverend Prelate.
3.58 p.m.
Lord CROSS of CHELSEA: My Lords, as chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, it is perhaps proper that I should say a few words on this Motion. Most of the Measures which come up to us from the General Synod for consideration are uncontroversial. The Measure which is the subject of the next Motion on your Lordships' Order Paper, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure is a wholly uncontroversial Measure. In such cases, the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee simply sets out the effect of the Measure and recommends to Parliament that Parliament give its approval to it. But this Measure is a highly controversial one. The Ecclesiastical Committee received over 100 written representations against it.
In those circumstances, we thought it right to make a detailed report setting out the arguments for and against the Measure as we understood it, and, in appendices, also including supporting figures explaining the position. Of course, that procedure involved a great expenditure of time. The Committee had to sit on three days. It also involved the clerks of the Committee and, if I may be permitted to say so, also the chairman of the Committee, in some additional work. But I hope that your Lordships will think that the time was well spent, because I do not see how your Lordships' House can debate a controversial Measure of this sort without the material provided by a report such as we put in.
My Lords, before I come to the details of the Measure, I should like to say a word on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, as to the approach which we in Parliament should take in considering whether to approve or not
1060
approve a Measure. The enabling Act in 1919 gave the Church Assembly, which, of course, is now the General Synod, general legislative powers over matters affecting the Church of England, subject to the approval of Parliament. In those circumstances, it seems to me, as I think it seemed to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that one should not simply ask oneself, "If I was a member of the General Synod, would I myself have voted in favour of this Measure?". That does not seem to me to be the proper approach at all. When a Measure has passed in the Synod, and especially by such huge majorities as in this case, there is a heavy onus on anyone who says that Parliament should reject it. One can conceive of cases where some measure, on grounds of principle, although passed by the General Synod, ought not to receive the approval of Parliament. But I do think that a strong case has to be made out.
Coming to the details of the Measure, I think one should distinguish—at least I found it useful to distinguish—between, first of all, the part of the Measure which provides for the management of glebes, the negotiation of leases and the effecting of sales, being transferred from the individual incumbent to the diocesan boards of finance, and the part of the Measure which provides for the pooling of all the rents of glebe and of the endowments of individual parishes vested in the Church Commissioners, the pooling of all that income at the centre.
So far as the management goes, undoubtedly, as my noble friend Lord Brooke has said, the evidence shows that there are some clergymen who enjoy managing their glebe and manage it very well, and they, naturally—and one can sympathise with them—do not like the prospect of their rights of management coming to an end. On the other hand, the evidence showed very clearly that there were many clergy who found it a nuisance to manage their glebe, and there were some at least who managed it very badly. In many dioceses there are voluntary schemes in operation under which individual incumbents can provide for their glebe being managed during their incumbency by the diocesan authorities. Those schemes seem to work successfully and a great deal of glebe in dioceses is being so managed.

1061
One case see the force of the argument, why not let that system continue? Gradually, more and more glebe will come to be managed centrally under these voluntary arrangements, and those clergy who like managing their glebe can continue to do so. One can see, on the other hand, that the existence of two parallel systems of management, parcels of glebe passing oil changes of incumbent from management by the incumbent to management by the voluntary body, would be unsatisfactory. It is a question of balancing advantages against disadvantages. The General Synod has decided emphatically in favour of central management.
My noble friend Lord George-Brown says, perhaps quite rightly, that I should say "Synod", but the pronunciation "Synod" has been used throughout the sittings of the Committee, and without going into the right and wrongs of it I shall continue to say "Sinod". I think this question of management is emphatically one which does not raise any question of principle, and it would be quite wrong, whatever one's personal view, to take a view different from that taken by the General Synod.
I come now to the question of the pooling of the income of parish endowments and the rents of glebe. That seems to me to raise a more difficult question. The present position, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, is that under the Pastoral Measure schemes can be made diverting surplus income from parishes for use in other ways. But I would emphasise that under the Pastoral Measure it is only surplus income that can be treated in that way. There are a few parishes still left where the income enjoyed by the incumbent is, on any fair view, excessive or surplus—very much larger, shall I put it, than the ordinary diocesan average.
Orders can be made under the Pastoral Measure diverting that income. But, of course, the point which was made by the objectors to this Measure is that the Measure goes much further than that, because it deals with the pooling of income which is not in any sense surplus to the requirements of the parish. Supposing, for example, a parish has endowment income of, shall I say, £2,200, the diocesan minimum being £2,500. There
1062
is obviously no surplus income there which could be diverted under an order made under the Pastoral Measure. But under this Measure that endowment income will be taken away and replaced by the guaranteed annuity of £1,000 a year to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
That sort of parish, of course, objects very strongly to the Measure and says that it is being deprived of an advantage, the possession of an income which it can offer to a clergyman, which might enable it to maintain its independence. The answer given to that by the witnesses of the General Synod and the answer given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is that it does not really make any difference to a parish whether it has an endowment income or not quoad its continued existence as an independent parish.
When the Pastoral Committee and the Bishop and the Church Commissioners have to consider whether or not to make a scheme amalgamating the parish with another parish they will not, the witnesses said quite clearly, as the right reverend Prelate said too, take into account the possession by the parish of an independent income. So although cannot help having considerable sympathy with parishes in the position I have described, on balance I think that there is no question of principle at issue, and as the General Synod has passed this Measure by such large majorities I would urge your Lordships to approve it.
4.7 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I was very glad to read in one of the leaflets distributed by the General Synod that they declared their present strategy to be to maintain the countrywide ministry. All sincere churchmen must be concerned with the maintenance of the countrywide ministry, which covers the recruiting, the pay and the deployment of the ordained clergy; and in so doing they must not forget the interests of all the Christian people who make up their regular congregations and beyond, who together make up the Church.
When looking at this problem it is all too easy to say that it is wrong that some parishes should be endowed generously, or perhaps less so, with glebe and

1063
other resources, while others, particularly new centres of population, should not have those advantages. But it is wrong to assume that up till today there has been no effort in the Church to be fair as between parishes. For long enough there have been augmentation funds which were intended to bring those parishes with small endowments up to a level which was accepted within the different dioceses. If it applies to parishes as well as to men that "those to whom much is given of them shall much be required", I would entirely agree. But I am disturbed when I see this new and egalitarian spirit which seems to have taken over one side of the Church's leadership. The new policy could be described as robbing Peter to pay Paul and the bureaucratic approach is disturbing, not least because the Anglican Church's administration is extremely complicated and its bureaucrats are very slow-moving.
The small parish in Cumberland where I live had trouble with its endowment in the Middle Ages and it appealed to the Council of Constance; I think it was in the early 15th century. We got a reply. Something similar happened recently and, while we have tried very hard to get the information, we are still waiting after 2½ years. Even allowing for the fact that the postal arrangements are sluggish today, that is overlong. With regard to the management of the glebe, which the noble Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, mentioned, as a former land agent I entirely agree that the management of glebe in the hands of an individual priest can present a problem which he is ill-equipped to handle. But if one does not want to take responsibility for glebe, I cannot see why it is so difficult for a successor who is interested to take over once again from the more central controlling office.
It is not reasonable to suppose that all parsons should handle the glebe, since the management of land can be a highly technical business, especially when there are buildings on the glebe. But I should have thought there was still merit in a country priest taking a real interest in the glebe if he felt so inclined and competent to farm it himself. To take away the glebe for all time in return for what is called "a guaranteed annuity" seems to me something different and there is no mention, so far as I can find, in any of
1064
these reports of what happens when the value of money changes. What we are asking incumbents to do is to exchange real property for a guaranteed annuity which has about the same value as undated Government stock. If it is intended that these annuities should be uprated in any way in accordance with any drop in the value of money, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will tell us when he comes to reply. I do not really think that all this is moving from the 19th into the 20th century, as he said in his opening speech.
I was very glad to hear the noble Lord opposite draw attention to the Christian people of old who gave endowments not to the diocese but to particular parishes and districts—often very scattered, often very poor districts—where the donors wanted the Christian message to be preached, and a church where Christians could meet. Now this is to be undermined because not only, as I said, is this Measure robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is going to mean robbing the country to pay the towns. If recent central Governments have set a bad example of this I do not think that that is a good reason why the Church should follow it, even though it may try to justify it by saying that it is not breaking new ground.
We have all had experience of group parishes and most of us would agree that such groups are likely to get larger, and the services in these remote churches fewer. I have often thought about what would happen over the years in the parish where I am a church warden. We are now one of a group of three, and in the course of time we may be part of a larger group. Then there could well be a move to close a small church like ours, which like many others, was founded and endowed in the Middle Ages. With the profits of our glebe I believe that the parishioners and church wardens together would not find it so difficult to maintain the building and regular services. Without the glebe it would be very much harder.
The arguments behind this Measure—and we have heard them this afternoon from several noble Lords—seem to me too facile. The life of the church in country districts is not likely to be strengthened by this Measure, not least because there are two important questions that have not yet been touched on. First, what is

1065
to be the future of the parson's freehold? I believe it is crying out for some amendment, and it is a question that cannot be entirely detached from the issues we are debating this afternoon. Secondly, what greater part should the church warden and other laymen be encouraged to take in the holding of our regular services? I do not mean preach, my Lords; most laymen do not want to preach—although sometimes they might do it better. But there are many who feel that they could do more if only the lead were given; but the result of this Measure, I fear, will be that they will be encouraged to do less.
4.16 p.m.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, will your Lordships forgive me for speaking before the right reverend Prelate replies. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, whether he was in fact speaking for a committee which my secretary insists on calling "The Eccles Committee" and I keep saying is the "Ecclesiastical Committee". We meet in the Moses Room. He said perfectly fairly that he was speaking for himself, which leaves me free to say that during the course of consideration of this Measure in the Ecclesiastical Committee, which is a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, I was in fact an objector. I think it would be unfair if I did not make it clear that I am still an objector, as a member of the Anglican Church, for reasons which seem tome to be fairly strong.
I agree in part with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and in part not; I agree in part with other objectors, and in part not. We will leave out the personal argument as to whether the Church is more involved in "sin" and therefore insist upon calling it the "Sin.od", whereas I, as a classical scholar, insist that it is really called "Sie.nod". We will leave all that on one side. The real issue is one which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, brought up at the beginning of his argument. If we wipe out the rights of parishes to use their income for the reasons they think are right, I must say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London (who is, I should think, the outstanding bureaucrat in the Church) that we are in fact doing what every bureaucrat everywhere wants to do; as in the Labour Party, as in the trade unions, as in the Church
1066
of England—hand it all over to Jack Jones, Ron Hayward, or the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and all will be well. The fact of the matter is that all is not well. It just becomes a bureaucrat's paradise.
If we down there in Jevington in Sussex, like the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, up there in Cumberland in some distant place I know not of, wish to do it our way, why, for simple, mathematical, bureaucratic reasons should some fellows down here tell us, Nay? They will take this over from us; they will take the money away; they will give us whatever, and then the next thing is that they will close our church and merge it with the next one, and it is all beautifully done according to books. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I think you preach Christ to people, and you have to go where people are. If somebody long since past left us some money which we can use for that purpose, why—I was going to say "why the devil", but even looking at the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London I think that is possibly exaggerating—should we not be allowed to do it the way we, the laymen (and this is a layman's Church; even though I call myself a Catholic, one of the differences between us and the Romans is that this is a layman's Church), have done it and the way we still try to do it?
I am unrepentant in that I was about the only one who voted against the Measure all the way through. I should tell noble Lords that I still think that it is wrong. I still think that what will be achieved by doing what the Measure provides is so little that we might just as well leave matters alone. By doing what is proposed, we shall be failing to do the real thing, which is to persuade Anglican churchmen like me that we have to support our Church out of our own funds. This looks like a way round it, but it is not; it misleads people. I am, for all sorts of reasons, with which I will not burden your Lordships now, against this, mostly because what it will achieve will be so little and because it will be so misleading. Of course the Bishops—at least those who are bureaucratic Bishops—will be so pleased to have got something through, but what they should be doing is facing we laymen in the Church with what we should do. I beg noble Lords' pardon for interrupting.
4.22 p.m.
The LORD BISHOP of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, my intervention will be very brief, and I would not intervene at all were it not for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, may have given the impression that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London stands alone as the bureaucrat of the Church of England. I would tell your Lordships that the right reverend Prelate represents I think all of us except one so far as voting is concerned, and that he has expressed the views of the majority of the Bishops: not only of them, but of the majority of the clergy and the majority of the laity. Many hours of time, thought and prayer have been given to this matter, and there has been an overwhelming vote in all three Houses in the General Synod in favour.
It so happens that in my diocese there is an interesting mixture at which perhaps some of your Lordships might be surprised. One probably thinks of Southwark in terms of Battersea, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe and Deptford, or the concrete city where I am going this evening; namely, Thamesmead, but I also have two little village churches in the Surrey Hills which, I think, are still lit by candles and oil lamps; I suspect that they will soon be the only churches which can afford to have lighting. I was in one of these parishes quite recently when I asked the rector about his glebe, and he said, "I am not quite sure—the parish goes back hundreds of years—whether it is 11 acres or more or perhaps less. There are two fields here where they are claiming squatter's rights". He added, "Nobody who has known anything about the management of land has been here for years". That is one half of the diocese, and then there is the other half—places like the concrete city of Thamesmead. The rector of that parish was certain that the Measure was right and would get the matter on a sound and sensible basis.
Thus, as the Bishop of a diocese who sees both sides—little parishes and vast modern housing estates—and as one who sees the needs of the people and sees (I hope the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will believe me) the desperate need of proclaiming the Gospel to all sorts and conditions of men, I believe that the Measure to which the right reverend
1068
Prelate the Bishop of London has spoken will go a long way to meet the needs of the Church of England. I shall support it and I hope that noble Lords will support it, too.
4.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I am sure that all of us who sit on these Benches and all who care for the welfare of the Church of England will be deeply grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, even though they may disagree with the terms of the Measure. It is, indeed, encouraging that these matters are cared for in the way that is illustrated by this debate, and we are grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Perhaps I may come at the end of my reply to the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I wish, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, very much for his sympathetic and understanding statement about the meaning and purpose of the Measure.
I am sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said is something that moves us all very much, and indeed I mentioned those very points in my opening speech. But he will know—because he was a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee—how very small a part of the endowments of the clergy come from individual gifts. As noble Lords will see in Appendix 4, of the original of Benefice Endowment Income payable by the Church Commissioners, the total is £7,300,000 of which only £800,000 consists of gifts and bequests paid over to the Commissioners and to their predecessors since 1704. It is a very small amount of the total available for the endowment of the clergy that comes from these small individual gifts. Moveover, he will know that if in the future any individual wishes to give an endowment to a parish by private trust, it will be open to individuals to do that and such money will not be involved in these schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made a very important speech and I think and hope that his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will meet many of the objections. The Church of England must have a general strategy for the payment of the clergy if it is to be able to pay a living stipend to them, and these are

1069
endowments for the benefit of the whole Church. It is the responsibility of the Church to see that those endowments are used as correctly and as well as possible. Moreover, Lord Brooke made a very important point when he said that in these days when people want to help the Church they will not do it by capital endowment but by direct giving year by year. This is the way in which the Church is being helped at the moment. This is the way in which the Church has most courageously met the enormous challenge of inflation; namely, by direct giving. This is what the Church believes to be right and this is what the pattern will be in the future.
I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Cross of Chelsea for the sympathetic way with which he dealt with the many objections that the Committee had to deal with. There is, in fact, no advantage to a parish to have large endowments these days, because only but a very few have sufficient endowments to meet the modest standard of £2,400 a year which, again, has got to go up this year and which, again, will go up next year if we are to keep pace with inflation.
I am sure that we were all very much moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, speaking from a country parish. I would assure him that the question of the distribution of the very limited number of clergy is not a matter of money but of pastoral policy and, therefore, the way that the noble Lord should see that his parish is protected is by seeing that the pastoral committee of his own diocese is acquainted with the needs. If it is decided by the diocese through its pastoral committee that a particular parish should continue, then he can be assured that the diocese is under an obligation to see that that clergyman is properly paid. The fact that there are large or small endowments will riot make any difference because we shall very soon have run up to the standards of even the highest endowments which are still left and we are still making up the lower ones.
The noble Lord put two particular points to me: the first concerned the future of the parson's freehold. I hope that what I have said indicates that this Measure does not affect the parson's freehold. What is happening throughout the Church
1070
is that, with union of benefices, with group and team ministries and so on, the parson's freehold is becoming less and less important. I have always been a great upholder of the parson's freehold, but I believe that if the noble Lord were to consult especially the younger clergy he would find that they do not attach as much importance to this as do clergymen of my generation.
The noble Lord also asked about the use of churchwardens to take services. More and more shall we have to use the services of laymen or of people who are ordained to what is called the auxiliary pastoral ministry—men who are earning their living in the secular world but who are ordained to the priesthood and are able to minister to congregations. The office of Reader is a very important one and women are ordained to that office. There are the deaconesses who help very greatly throughout the Church. I am sure that more and more the ministry of lay people to augment that of the clergy will become of increasing importance.
The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, made a fighting speech. I only wish that, if he feels so strongly about these things, he would stand for membership of the General Synod and there make these important points rather than making them at this late stage. The General Synod of the Church of England sometimes needs a certain amount of liveliness, and I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, were a member of the General Synod he would contribute greatly to its life and vitality. However, the noble Lord kept using a phrase which is simply not true. He spoke of, "If we wipe out the right of the parish to use its income as it wishes". We are not talking about the income of the parish. All we are talking about is what belongs to an individual benefice. This is money which belongs to the clergy and, even if it were available in some other way, it would not be available to the parish to do what it thinks right because it is the property of the benefice.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate used a rather dangerous phrase. He said that I had said something that was "simply not true", In the mouth of a Prelate, that is a very dangerous remark. Now the right reverend Prelate is, if I may say so, equivocating

1071
between a parish and a benefice. In fact, it is for the benefit, the right reverend Prelate might like to say of the benefice and I might like to say of the parish. But does he really mean that I am saying something that is not true when I assert that that money was for that parish?
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I am sorry if I have hurt the noble Lord's feelings and I immediately withdraw if he feels that I have said he has said something which is not true. However, I believe that it was a verbal inaccuracy and it may be because we do not exactly understand the terms we are using. The word "benefice" means the clergyman and what attaches to his office as clergyman. And, when we are talking about endowment and glebe income, we are talking about money which is attached to the person of the incumbent. It is not, therefore, open to the parish to have any say as to the way in which that particular area of Church finance is administered.
May I finally come to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and to his Amendment. I believe that we must use the words "natural justice" in their direct terms, because it is important to recognise that Parliament has the right, by legislation, to remove from people something which they possess. It has done this generally in secular legislation and it has frequently done it in ecclesiastical legislation. The noble Lord makes the point that in "an earlier draft of the Measure "—I believe that those were the words he used—some discretion was given. I do not know to what he is referring. My advice is that there was no mention of this in any of the official documents. Partners in Ministry was going to provide for a transfer of existing owners to a central authority, not to the diocese. It is the Terms of Ministry Committee which provided for a glebe to go to the diocese and, as far as I know, no draft of the Measure ever provided for this alternative scheme whereby some clergymen could opt in and some out. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell me about that.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I apologise if I used the term "draft" Measure. I think I said, "when the matter was first discussed". In 1960, when the matter was discussed, and
1072
particularly when it was discussed in a debate in the House of Clergy, admittedly the scheme was a very different one because it was then to go to a central authority to be administered by the Church Commissioners, if they would undertake to take it on. But, at that stage, it was specifically said that, if such a scheme were to go through, there would be an option for incumbents to opt out. Between then and now there was a twilight period when I believe many people assumed that that assurance still held good. Latterly, it has been quite clear that it did not, but it has never been made at all clear why what was regarded by the authorities in 1960 as just, right and a proper thing to do to help incumbents should have been withdrawn in the period since.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. However, that was 16 years ago, in a very different situation and with a different scheme. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for thinking that he gave the impression that we had been discussing this particular option in relation to the present Measure. I am glad to know that that is not the case. All that is being taken away from clergymen who at the moment have glebe is the right to manage it. As I have already pointed out, they will get the income from it from different sources; they will not get the augmentation that may come since, if it was a very considerable amount, it would be removed by a diversionary order in any case. So it is really only the management of glebe that the noble Lord appears to be raising.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, regarding the £1,000 a year, when inflation is at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, the value of £1,000 is halved in ten years: is there any plan for making up that figure? The rental value of the land is likely to increase whereas the other will not.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, these sums will be held by the Church Commissioners and will be disbursed as they have to do by Statute to the dioceses for the use of their Diocesan Stipend Fund. Therefore, if there is a decrease in the value of money, the increase will presumably be within the

1073
funds held and administered by the Church Commissioners and will come back to the diocese in a different way for the use of the whole diocese.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that I had not described the advantages of the pooling of glebe. I can do so very quickly. For the first time the Church will have a full record of this important asset which helps it to provide clergy stipends. Secondly, there will be less risk of glebe being lost, as it has been, because of inadequate local records and because of successive incumbents losing touch with their tenants. This has happened, and it is obviously something we want to avoid. Thirdly, clergy stipends as a whole and the holders of glebe in particular will benefit from realising the true potential of glebe, both as regards its true rental and its market capital value when this is realised. There are always great difficulties for the clergy when they are administering their glebe.
I can speak from my experience when I was Bishop of Chester. There were some clergy who had glebe in the South of Cheshire, and those of you who know that delectable part of the country will know how magnificent is the fertility of the soil. Some ten years ago it was fetching in the region of £10 an acre per year. Now it fetches very much more. I remember a particular case in which the glebe was let to the churchwarden for about 30 shillings an acre, and the vicar did not like to tell his churchwarden that he ought to be paying more because he feared that there would be difficulty of relationships between the two. Therefore the Church was losing out on the value of a very proper asset. By getting the administration of glebe into the hands of the diocese—and not the Church Commissioners or anything as impersonal as that—one will be able to see that these matters are administered properly.
Fourthly, I remind your Lordships that over 90 per cent. of clergy who have glebe have to have their benefice income augmented in any case. With regard to my last point, from the general point of view I again make the point that, if we are to ask the laity to give generously, they are entitled to expect of us that the assets of the Church will be used wisely and profitably. As regards the incumbent,
1074
he himself will be guaranteed his existing income from the glebe irrespective of future expenditure made or required of him for repairs and improvements of his glebe. He will receive that income in regular monthly payments, instead of in arrears, on due dates (probably half-yearly) and he will not have to worry about late payment of rents or non-payment, as frequently happens.
Finally, he will not be caught up in financial arguments with tenants, who may be parishioners, in respect of regular rent reviews and the carrying out of repairs and improvements, and indeed in what may involve him in legal transactions. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will feel that these provisions are to the benefit of the clergy as a whole, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, may feel that he can withdraw his Amendment.
4.44 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that the debate has produced an extremely interesting and useful discussion about some of the wider aspects of this Measure. In particular, I think we are very privileged to have heard the views of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, because what they are saying represents a very important voice which is not now a very fashionable one. When I was a member of the Church Assembly their voices were in the majority. They are no longer so, as we can see by the votes which have gone to this Measure. But I still think that what they are saying is of immense importance and it has seldom been said so well as it has been in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
I still think that, by and large, this Measure is right. I still think that, by and large, their views are mistaken, but I must confess that I am no longer as sure that I am right as I used to be 10 or 12 years ago. The whole organisation of the Church and the whole question of the bureaucracy of the Church needs great examination; I will not say "greater" examination, because I know that the Church is involved in this in a very great way. But this question needs great examination. I tend to think that one of the key answers is to have much more and much smaller dioceses and that that would

1075
do away with much of the distrust between the bishop and the parishes which still unfortunately exists. But that is by the way.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, if my Amendment was drafted rather misleadingly. My only excuse is that I had a great deal of difficulty in drafting it at all, and I am sorry if it went too wide. I thank the noble Lord for his very wise and very generous contribution to the debate. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, had to say. The only point which rather baffled me was why his vote was not going to follow his voice, seeing that it did in the Ecclesiastical Committee. I hope that this does not presage a new doctrine of the collective responsibility for the Ecclesiastical Committee and that, once it has put forward a collective decision, all its members must abide by it. I say this because we must remember that in the Ecclesiastical Committee there was a singificant vote against saying that this Measure should go forward.
I turn to the arguments about the point which I was specifically putting forward. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has answered—or at least largely answered—the point about what happened to the original 1960 suggestion that incumbents should be able to opt out. I still have not been given a reason why they should not be allowed to opt out now. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that it would make for extreme administrative difficulty, seems to be overstated. Anyone who has to manage land is quite aware that if he takes up a policy of taking land in hand—as the phrase is—he may have to take it in by dribs and drabs over a period of time. That is not tidy, but neither is land nor its administration tidy; nor should it be so.
I was enormously disappointed over the feeling that if people were compensated by money for the money they would get from the income of their glebe that was enough and they suffered no loss. This was put most starkly in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I think it very strange that in your Lordships' House, where there are so many people who are attached to the land, who have
1076
heritage and who understand the traditions of land and of the Church, we should not realise that when we take away the management of the glebe—or I would go further and say the actual concept of ownership of the glebe—we are taking away something which may be valued extremely, and judging by the letters of my correspondents, who are incumbents managing glebe, is valued very highly. I am very disappointed indeed that the Church should not have gone out of its way—even what I should have thought would be just a little—to see that the present incumbents were not treated in this way.
Nevertheless, I realise that this is a Measure which has the overwhelming support of the Church as a whole, because whether or not we agree with it there were enormous consultations and there were overwhelming votes. I still think that the point I have made was worth making. I still regret that I have not received enough support in your Lordships' House, but it is quite clear that I have not. Therefore in begging the leave of your Lordships to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name I should merely like to say that I wish the Measure as a whole well and I hope that it will go some way to help the work of the underpaid, underprivileged and overworked clergy of this country.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Goschen): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: No, my Lords.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Contents have it—I will put the Question again. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: No, my Lords.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, your Lordships will forgive me if I am wrong—and I hope we may get some guidance on this matter—but my understanding is that, although I asked for my Amendment to be withdrawn, if any noble Lord wishes it not to be withdrawn it should stand and be voted on: and I would certainly not seek to refuse

1077
the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, that right if he so wishes.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I think the appropriate next Question would be, That this Amendment be agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Question is, That this Amendment be agreed to.
Division called.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Not-Contents have it.
Amendment negatived accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) MEASURE
4.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON The Lord Bishop of LONDON rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I now have to ask your Lordships to give an Affirmative Resolution to the Church of England (Miscelleneous Provisions) Measure—a very different kettle of fish from that which we have been examining during the last two hours. This is an omnibus Measure because, as we are very well aware in the General Synod, it is very irritating for your Lordships' House to have a stream of very small Measures dealing with unimportant points. Therefore, we have kept them and put them all together in this one Measure. I do not think that any of the points is controversial, and I hope that your Lordships will not think so.
The first clause gives legal power to dispense with certain legal statements that have to be made, either when a man is about to be ordained or at the time when he is instituted. Thus, for instance,
1078
one of the things that is required is what is known as Si Quis, which is a document which has to be read in the parish of the man who is being ordained in order to discover whether there is anybody there who knows of any impediment against his ordination. Nowadays, when we have such very careful training and selection of men for the ordained ministry, when it is known who they are and when they have been through the mill of examination, it is really no longer necessary that that document should be solemnly read.
Again, there is another very mysterious declaration which a clergyman has to make before he can be licensed or instituted, which is called the declaration against simony. It is an exceedingly complicated legal document, and, in fact, is so unintelligible that most bishops require that it should be said in the presence of the churchwardens in the vestry before the service, because it really does not conduce to a worshipful atmosphere within church. I believe that it was originally required to prevent clergymen buying themselves into a particular post, or otherwise to prevent a father from buying a rich advowson when his son was born and putting someone in on the clear understanding that in 23 years or more he would resign, and then putting his son in, where he would enjoy for the rest of his life the emoluments of the benefice. I know of no other employment (though there may be one) in which the person who is about to be appointed has to make a solemn statement that he has not got the job by any underhand or improper means; and it seems to be rather strange that a clergyman, whom one would expect to have reasonable standards of behaviour, should be required to make this solemn statement.
Clause 2 clears away a doubtful point as to whether a bishop is legally entitled to license a clergyman for a limited period as for an unlimited period. There are some posts to which he might want to ask a clergyman to go for a limited period of time, and all that this clause does is to give the bishop power to set a term to the licence.
The third clause extends the area in which a bishop can delegate his authority when he is ill or when he is absent from his diocese. There are certain occasions when it is valuable that he should be able to give what we might call a power of

1079
attorney to somebody else, but there are certain things which a diocesan bishop alone can do, and this extends the power whereby be can delegate his authority. Moreover, if the Archbishop cannot act then this clause gives the senior bishop of the province power to appoint a person as a deputy to a diocesan bishop—and, as I am the senior in the Province of Canterbury, I can assure your Lordships that I have no personal interest in this particular clause.
Clause 4 removes the legal obligation which some cathedral statutes lay upon the bishop to conduct a formal visitation of his cathedral from time to time. Some statutes do not lay any sort of obligation of this kind; others say that the bishop "shall" conduct a visitation of his cathedral, say, every three years. I believe that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Rochester is under one of these obligations. A formal visitation of a cathedral is a very complicated and sometimes very expensive operation. It may be necessary from time to time, but it is undesirable, in our view, that the bishop should have to conduct a visitation of his cathedral at stated intervals.
Clause 5 makes it possible where there is a vacancy, to allow the remuneration of lay workers as well as clerks in Holy Orders. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is not here to hear that clause which is in favour, and to the advantage, of lay people. Clause 6 extends the right of burial in a churchyard not only to parishioners who are resident in the parish but also to parishioners who are there by virtue of being on the electoral roll. It sometimes happens that a person does not live in the parish but takes a full part in the life of the parish, and that his name is on the electoral role; and when he dies, his family would like him to be buried in the churchyard of the parish which he has served most of his life. This clause makes that legally possible. It also clears up some doubt as to who has the authority to allow other people who are not parishioners to be buried in the churchyard. The minister has to take general regard to the opinion of his parochial church council in giving a decision.
Finally, my Lords, we come to the Burnley Rectory Act of 1890 which ties the suffragan see of Burnley in the diocese
1080
of Blackburn to the parish of Burnley. If the Bishop of Blackburn wishes to have a suffragan bishop, one of his being the Bishop of Burnley, then he must also be the rector of Burnley. In these days the demands made on suffragan bishops are such that it is difficult for a suffragan bishop to have as well the charge of a big and important parish; so that this clause separates the rector of Burnley from the office of suffragan bishop. These are the matters contained in this miscellaneous provisions Measure, and I hope that they will meet with your Lordships' approval.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
5.3 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
Clause 26 [Provisions supplementary to s.25]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 36, line 6, after ("authorised") insert ("in writing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment designed to make subsection (1) of Clause 26 consistent with subsection (1) of Clause 24. Both subsections deal with the entry of authorised persons on to land in connection with the exercise of powers in the Bill (in the case of Clause 24 for the purpose of making a dangerous tree safe). It is clearly desirable that in both clauses the person

1081
entering on the land should not only be authorised but be authorised in writing.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 36, line 38, after ("shall") insert (", subject to the following subsection,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 3 (which is the substantive one) remedies a potential injustice regarding the compensation payable to persons having an interest in land on which works have been carried out to enclose dangerous excavations. Amendment No. 2 is consequential. The Amendment arises from discussions that have taken place between my Department and the Lord Chancellor's Office following the insertion of this clause at Report stage. Its purpose is to remedy a potential injustice where compensation to persons having an interest in land on which works have been carried out is concerned; for example, where the edge of the excavation comes so close to the boundary of the land in question that it is necessary to erect a fence on the adjoining land. The Amendment therefore has the effect of permitting compensation to be paid to a person having an interest in land, on which works are sited when the excavation itself is situated on other land.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Baroness that I think the Government have been a little sparse with their punctuation in these two Amendments. In subsection (3) we have no fewer than 145 words, or words and groups of either letters or figures running to only one semi-colon. Clearly, from the drafting point of view, it is difficult to draft it in any other way; otherwise the punctuation would have been put in for the benefit of those who use this particular clause. I feel it is difficult to read and I hope that the Government will observe my remarks in regard to breaking up sentences.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I shall pass on the noble Lord's remarks. I can only say that those people who will have to read those clauses will be used to this
1082
sort of language; but I sympathise with his point of view.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 36, leave out lines 43 to 45 and insert:
("( ) No compensation shall be payable by virtue of the preceding subsection, to any person having an interest in the site of the excavation in question, in respect of damage attributable to the presence of permanent works on any land other than damage attributable to interference with an easement or profit.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to,
Clause 27 [Alterations of supplemental provisions of Public Health Acts];
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 38, line 39, after ("295") insert (",section 313 ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, subsection (6) of Clause 27 makes it clear that the repeal by this Bill of Sections 295 and 314 of the Public Health Act 1936 does not affect any order made under those Sections which may still be in force. It is possible that orders made under Section 313, which is also repealed, may still exist and these should also be allowed to Continue. These orders amend or repeal local Acts as necessary on the passing of the Public Health Act 1936. Without the Amendment the repeal of Section 313 would allow them to lapse with the probable result that any amended local Act provision would revert to its original, unacceptable form. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Restoration or continuation of supply of water, gas or electricity]:
5.7 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 43, line 15, after ("council") insert ("if satisfied that the undertakers have given the occupier not less than three days' notice in writing of their intention to cut off the supply,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to the new clause inserted into the Bill—and for which I am enormously grateful. It is a clause which comes to the rescue in the limited class of case where a tenant has electricity, gas

1083
or water supplied to his premises paid for by him inclusive with his rent and his landlord defaults in payment of the electricity, gas or water bill. The innocent occupier, the tenant, has his supply of electricity gas or water cut off. This clause comes to his rescue in this limited case. At the Report stage a further Amendment was introduced by the Government which took care of these cases not only where there had been a cut-off but even where a cut-off was contemplated; so that the tenant could, in suitable cases, be rescued by the council without going through the tiresome procedure of cutting off the supply and reconnecting it.
This Amendment arises from the horror with which I learned from the speech of the noble Baroness in Committee—and although we have discussed this question since on Report, I still have this feeling of horror—that, since the contract is between the statutory undertaker and the landlord, there can still be cases where the tenant, the occupier, only discovers that something is wrong when he arrives home to find his gas, electricity or water supply actually has been cut off. It seems inhumane in a civilised country like this that a perfectly innocent person can arrive home to find that his electricity supply has been cut off without any warning that that was going to occur.
May I explain that the Amendment requires that a statutory undertaker in these cases shall give not less than three days' notice in writing of their intention to cut off the supply if they are to qualify themselves to recover payment from the local authority. One finds in the clause that the occupier, in order to avail himself of this opportunity to be rescued by the local authority when he suspects a cut off, has to give the local authority notice in writing that the electricity is about to be cut off. If he is to give the authority notice in writing, then as night follows day, he must be given notice that he is about to be cut off. What the noble Baroness said about this on Report stage is quoted at column 203 of Hansard for 13th July:
"…in those cases where an occupier had some intimation, or guessed, or heard by chance or found out, that the supply was likely to be cut off, we could act there."
I should have thought that was a hopelessly haphazard way of approaching a
1084
serious matter of this kind. It sticks out a mile that these occupiers were entitled to notice that they were going to be cut off. That alone amply justifies this Amendment but that is not my main point. My main point is the inhumanity being inflicted by a monopoly undertaking which is supplying a vital commodity to a user who has done absolutely nothing wrong. The noble Baroness said at column 202 of Hansard in the same debate on 13th July:
"…statutory undertakers do not want, nor do they feel it is their job, nor do they feel they have the resources, to act as welfare authorities."
I should not have thought it could be called an act of a welfare authority merely to give somebody notice his supply of electricity was about to be cut off if the electricity bill was not paid.
Furthermore, I should have thought it was thoroughly bad business for the statutory undertaker not to give notice because when the landlord defaults, it is the tenant who is much the best risk against whom next to try to extract the money to pay the account. The tenant is in the strong position, if he has the money or can raise a temporary loan, to pay the bill and deduct the money from future payments of rent to the landlord. If the local authority is going to bail out the tenant and seek to recover from a landlord who has already been defaulting in his dealings with the statutory undertaker, in a large number of these cases the ratepayer is going to he landed with the bill and the defaulting landlord is going to get away with it.
The noble Baroness said at Report stage that this Amendment was defective. She used these words at column 203 of Hansard:
"The point is that his Amendment does not impose a new obligation on the statutory undertaker. The only way he could bring about the result he wants is by imposing an obligation on the statutory undertaker."
I did not follow that argument then and and I do not follow it now. I should like to cite the parallel case of the houseowner who applies for an improvement grant to improve his house. The law provides that the local authority may at its discretion provide an improvement grant on condition that the owner pays his share of the cost of the improvement. There is no legal obligation on the houseowner to contribute to the cost of the improvement. He need not if he does not want to.

1085
If he does not contribute his share, he does not get the grant. That is a parallel case and this Amendment cannot be called defective upon that ground.
If, my Lords, you are thinking purely in terms of people's obligations, you do not always get very far. I am under no legal obligation to stretch out my hand and save a child that has fallen into a lily pond; but I am expected to act with some decent humanity. Likewise, the monopoly statutory undertakers are expected to behave with some humanity to their users who have done nothing wrong. The noble Baroness said at Report stage that there might be administrative difficulties. I can see that in a very limited class of case, where the landlord and his tenant both live in the same building in separate flats and the electricity board are not sure which flat the landlord occupies and which flat the tenant occupies, there can be difficulty. In those few cases the board could take the precaution of sending the printed notice addressed to "The occupier" just to make sure that they brought themselves within this clause.
I have to admit that strictly in theory a statutory undertaker which took the view that they were determined not to issue the notices to occupiers and were determined to disqualify themselves from going to the local authority for payment of their bills, in those cases the Amendment would work against the interests of the occupier and would prevent the local authority stepping in and helping him. Those cases would be infinitesimal in number and any statutory undertaker which behaved in that way would quickly find public opinion mounting up against them. They would quickly put themselves in a position where they did not disqualify themselves from going to the local authority for payment when the landlord had failed. In those circumstances I trust that this Amendment will be found acceptable. I beg to move.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, we have been round this course before. The Government opposed this Amendment at Report stage and I will not repeat the arguments to the House at length. No doubt they will be fresh in everyone's memory. I
1086
can summarise them shortly. First, as the clause stands it allows the local authority to help either when the supply has actually been cut off or when, in their opinion, it is likely to be cut off.
I would remind the noble Lord and others that the second part was following representations by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and other noble Lords for the Government to try to do something. I felt at the time that, if I possibly could, I should do something, and that I would try to get the best possible result. I must give full marks to the noble Lord for trying very hard but, with respect, I must say that at times I find him a little trying. The noble Lord now adds a qualification that the authority could act only if the undertaker has served notice on the occupier.
May I say, first, that in our view this limit on the authority's powers is both unnecessary and undesirable. This would be a step backwards. It would take away from the authority the full discretion to intervene, if necessary, which it would have under our Amendment. Secondly, it would be wrong in this Bill to try to impose any new practices on the statutory undertakers. The noble Lord believes that if his Amendment were accepted the undertakers would amend their existing practices and serve not only the statutory notices on the person with whom they have a contractual relationship but also an extra notice on the occupier, if he is someone different.
I do not believe this Amendment would have that effect. Undertakers, under their present codes, rely on their traditional weapon of disconnection and they would not need to go to great lengths to persuade local authorities to intervene. So, in practice, the authorities' power to help would be severely limited by this Amendment. It is not really good enough for the noble Lord to say theoretically that this or that is so. We are dealing with a factual situation. This is not a question of the Government's taking a less humane view about this: we must not accept something which would worsen the situation but we must try to help it.
Briefly, these were my reasons for opposing the Amendment on Report, and I stand by them now. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, gave the analogy of

1087
improvement grants. Without going into great detail about them, these do not represent an exact analogy because improvement grants involve only the local authority and the individual; but in this case we have another authority in between, which is the statutory authority; so that this really is not on all-fours. In any case, we should be all the more reluctant to add to legislation concerning disconnection at present, because the whole subject is currently being closely examined elsewhere.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the Oakes Report which was published on 10th June. Its full title is Review of Payment and Collection Methods for Gas and Electricity Bills: Report of an Informal Inquiry. This Report looks at the whole question of procedures for payment of these bills, and one of its recommendations is that disconnection as a penalty for non-payment should no longer be allowed. I understand that the Report and its recommendations are now being considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy, in consultation with the statutory undertakers concerned. I really cannot anticipate the Government's decision on this, but the fact that the whole subject of disconnection is now under review would be a very good reason why, at this moment, it would be quite inappropriate to pass this Amendment.
In addition, I would point out that since this is entering into what is obviously a very delicate area, with strong views being expressed about it, I should hate to be in any way instrumental—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, now that I have given this explanation, will take the same view—in perhaps queering the pitch of the discussions which are now taking place. I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment at this stage and leave matters as they are.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness finds me at all trying. I did explain at the outset that, far from finding her trying, I was very grateful for the fact that the Government had come so far along the road of helping these unfortunate people about whom I am so concerned. I really wish the noble Baroness could avoid using the phrase "the weapon of disconnection", when she is talking about an occupier who
1088
has done nothing wrong and is having a vital commodity which is necessary to human comfort taken away from him by a huge monopoly. It is the inhumanity of such a situation which concerns me so much.
I am, indeed, glad to hear about the report and the fact that the matter is under review. I am sure it will be helpful to Her Majesty's Government if, when they consider this report, they consider also the discussions that we have had on this subject both on Report and, again, this afternoon, because I think it would help the Government to come to a sensible conclusion. Being somewhat comforted by that thought, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
Prescription of signs, etc., on certain buildings
"—(1) This section applies to any substance which in the opinion of the Council is likely to involve special hazard to persons engaged in operations for fire-fighting purposes.
(2) The premises to which this section applies are any building or place in the area for which the Council is the Fire Authority used for the manufacture or storage of any substance to which this section applies (including any part of such a building or place) and any premises of which such a building or place forms a part.
(3) The Council may in relation to any substance to which this section applies and in respect of any premises to which this section applies:—

(a) prescribe:—

(i) warning signs which indicate to such extent and in such manner as the Council think fit the nature and properties of the substance and the precautions to be taken in dealing with that substance in the event of fire; and

(ii) the size and colour of such warning signs and the materials from which they are to be made;

(b) subject to the provisions of this section, by notice given in writing require the occupier of any premises to which this section applies within such reasonable time (not being less than 21 days) as is specified in the notice to:—

(i) affix and thereafter to keep fixed during such period (only) as the particular warning signs are appropriate to the particular premises in such conspicuous position or positions in or on such premises as may be specified in the notice one or more of the appropriate warning signs which have been prescribed by the Council

1089
under the foregoing paragraph and forthwith to remove therefrom any such warning signs as are not appropriate to the particular premises and replace them by appropriate warning signs and forthwith to notify the Council in writing of such removal and replacement; and

(ii) arrange, to the satisfaction of the Council, for any such substance to be stored in such a manner as the Council may require in the notice:

Provided that the power of the Council to make requirements in respect of the manner of such storage shall extend only to requirements for the purpose of reducing any special hazard to which in the opinion of the Council persons engaged in operations for firefighting purposes may be subjected by reason of the nature and properties of any such substance or the proximity of any such substance to any other substance whether or not it is a substance to which this section applies and in making such requirement the Council shall have regard to good custom and practice and to the reasonable needs of any undertaking, trade or business carried on in those premises.
(4) The Secretary of State may give directions as to the warning signs to be prescribed by the Council under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection and the Council, in exercising their powers under that paragraph shall comply with any such directions for the time being in force.
(5)(a) Where requirements have been made under sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section in respect of any premises to which this section applies no alteration which results in a contravention of those requirements shall be made in the manner of storage therein of any substance to which this section applies.
(b) Where it appears to the Council that requirements made under subsection (3) of this section are no longer appropriate for the purpose for which they were made the Council may from time to time, by notice given in writing, vary or revoke such requirements or make such further requirements as they consider necessary and any reference in this section to requirements made under the said subsection (3) shall include a reference to those requirements as varied under this paragraph or to any further requirements made by virtue of this paragraph.
(c) A notice served under the last foregoing paragraph which varies any requirement made under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section or which makes further requirements shall specify a reasonable time (not being less than 21 days) within which the requirements of the notice shall be complied with.
(6) Any person who is aggrieved by any requirement made under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section which relates to the manner of storage of any substance to which this section applies, may, within a period of 21 days beginning with the date on which such requirement is notified to him, require the Council to deliver to him a certificate stating the grounds for the making of such requirement and he may appeal to the Secretary of State within 10 days after the receipt of the certificate.
(7) Every appeal to the Secretary of State under this section shall be made in writing asking that the requirement may not be made or may be modified in such manner and to such extent as may be set forth in the appeal, and shall be accompanied by the certificate of the Council given under the last foregoing subsection.
(8) Where an appeal is brought under this section the Secretary of State may confirm, vary or quash any requirement which is the subject of the appeal and his decision on the appeal shall have effect for the purpose of any requirement as if it had been made by the Council.
(9) Before determining any appeal made to him under this section, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks it necessary or desirable, cause an inquiry and report upon the matter to be made to him by such person as he may appoint for the purpose and shall forward to the appellant (whether in person or by counsel, solicitor or other representative) and to the Council, if either so desire, an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by the person so appointed.
(10) An officer of the Council authorised by the Council for the purposes of this section shall have the like powers of entering premises for the purposes of this section as are conferred upon authorised officers of councils by section 287 (which confers powers to enter premises) of the Public Health Act 1936 and accordingly:—

(a) that section shall have effect as if the references therein to an authorised officer of a Council included references to an officer authorised by the Council for the purposes of this section and as if among the purposes specified in subsection (1) of that section there were included the purposes of obtaining information for the purposes of this section, taking samples of any substance stored on the premises, ascertaining whether the premises contain any substance to which this section applies and whether there is, or has been, any failure to comply with any provision of, or requirement of the Council under, this section;

(b) section 288 (which imposes penalties for obstructing execution of the Act) of the said Act of 1936 shall have effect as if a person acting in pursuance of the powers conferred by the said section 287 as extended and applied by this subsection where acting in the execution of that Act.

(11)(a) Any person who:—

(i) fails within the time specified to comply to the satisfaction of the Council with a requirement of a notice under subsection (3) of this section; or

(ii) alters the manner of storage in any premises to which this section applies of any substance contrary to paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of this section;

shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 and to a fine not exceeding £20 for each day on which the defence is continued after the conviction therefor:
Provided that no offence under sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph which involves a failure to comply with such a requirement as is referred to in subsection (6) of this section shall have been committed by any person until the end of any period within which an appeal under this section

1091
may be made by him in respect of the requirement in question, and, where such an appeal is duly made, until seven days after the appeal has been withdrawn or determined.
(b) In any proceedings for an offence under this subsection, shall be in defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.
(c) If in any case the defence provided by the last foregoing paragraph involves the allegation that the commission of the offence was due to the act or default of another person or to reliance on information supplied by another person, the person charged shall not, without the leave of the Court, be entitled to rely on that defence unless, within a period ending seven clear days before the hearing he has served on the Council a notice in writing giving such information identifying or assisting in the identification of that other person as was then in his possession.
(12) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, removes a warning sign which is for the time being affixed in or on any premises to which this section applies in accordance with the requirement made under subsection (3) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
(13) During such time as any substance to which this section applies is stored in any premises to which this section applies being premises which are for the time being regulated by or under:—

(a) any of the relevant statutory provisions as defined in subsection (1) of section 53 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 174; or

(b) the Radio-Active Substances Act 1960;

and the manner of storage of that substance in those premises is controlled by or under any of those enactments, the provisions of this section shall not apply to that substance so far as they relate to its manner of storage.
(14)(a) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to any premises to which this section would otherwise apply if the interest of the occupier of those premises is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest, but if it appears to the Council that satisfactory arrangements for reducing any special hazard to persons engaged in operations for fire-fighting purposes may not have been made in or on any premises exempted from the said provisions by virtue of this subsection by the display of suitable, practicable and appropriate warning signs relating to any substance to which this section applies or by reason of the manner of storage of any such substance, they may report the circumstances to the appropriate authority, who if satisfied after due enquiry that there is cause for complaint, shall cause such arrangements to be made as the appropriate authority may consider to be practicable to make adequate provision in respect of the matters aforesaid.
(b) The fact that there subsists in any premises to which this section applies a Crown interest or a Duchy interest shall not prevent or affect the application of this section to those premises or to anything done thereon so long as that interest is not the interest of the occupier of the premises and the provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly in relation to those premises and anything done thereon and that and all other interests therein.
(c) The provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to any premises to which this section applies which are occupied for the service of a visiting force as if the interest of the occupier of those premises were a Crown interest and those premises were under the control of the appropriate authority by arrangement with whom those premises are occupied.
(15) In this section:—
"the appropriate authority", "Crown interest" and "Duchy interest" have the meanings assigned to them in subsection (7) of section 266 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;
"the Council" means the County Council;
"fire-fighting purposes" has the same meaning as in the Fire Services Act 1947;
"the Secretary of State" means the Secretary of State for Employment;
"visiting force" means any such body contingent or detachment of the forces of any country as is a visiting force for the purposes of any of the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and includes any headquarters or organisation for the time being designated by an Ordering Council under section I of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisation Act 1964, for the purposes of that Act; and
"warning sign" includes a warning symbol or notice."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gisborough and myself, I beg to move this Amendment. I must apologise in so doing that, on the face of it, this is a very long Amendment running into several pages. But when I explain that in fact it is taken from another Act of Parliament (that is, the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975), with only very minor amendments, I think your Lordships will appreciate that it is part of an existing Statute and bears very close examination.
The difficulty about this particular Amendment, which relates to the prescription of signs on certain buildings in relation to fire hazards, was particularly noticeable when we discussed my previous Amendment on 13th July during the Report stage of this Bill. At that time, we had an Amendment which my noble friend and I adduced, which was based on the Teeside Corporation Act, 1971. At that stage, the Government considered that the Amendment was defective, and they further believed that the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 provided sufficient powers. In fact the noble Baroness said about it on 13th July at column 212:
"The most important point I can make is that the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has been advised that these powers are adequate to make regulations covering the provisions proposed in the clause."

1093
Since discussions were taking place with the Health and Safety Commission at that time in regard to these powers, there was an element of dubiety about the existence of the powers, which relate to Section 15 of the Health and Safety Act, and derive from that section. This dubiety is still in the background: nevertheless, I should very much welcome the noble Baroness's clarifications later in this debate.
We believe it can be claimed that this Amendment is correctly drafted, that it has no defects in it and that, far from duplicating the situation, it provides a safety net. I believe the noble Baroness may well claim that it is unnecessary duplication; and if she can demonstrate to your Lordships that duplication will exist, may I suggest to your Lordships that perhaps this Amendment might be accepted on the grounds that the Secretary of State, using his powers in the earlier part of the Bill, may order that this section may not be operative. If, however, the noble Baroness is totally convinced that full powers exist, then this will be entirely satisfactory. I am entirely satisfied that our aims are totally parallel. Although we may have different approaches to improving the legislative situation in so far as signs are concerned, our aims are ultimately the same.
Finally, in regard to bringing in the regulations, it was understood on 13th July that it could be a year before they were drafted. That added a greater spur to this Amendment, since preliminary arrangements are already in hand in certain parts of the country for carrying this out. Nevertheless, the problem is to some extent remedied, because I understand that the Health and Safety Commission are now able to proceed at once and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to confirm that that is the position. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, this Amendment results from Amendments moved on Third Reading in another place and in Committee in your Lordships' House. At that time, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that this was the wrong Bill and that this point should be included in the Health and Safety at Work Act, but it was felt that there would be a delay if that course was adopted. She made
1094
many points, one of which was that the Amendment was incompatible with other legislation, but I believe that most of them are now covered by the subsections in this Amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will either accept this Amendment or give a very firm assurance that its objects can be achieved quickly through the Health and Safety at Work Act. This is an important matter, as I know she recognises. My Lords, I beg to support the Amendment.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I do not wish to attack the Amendment, but my noble friend is speaking from our Front Bench and he has used the word "we", so I am wondering to what extent this Amendment represents Conservative Party policy. Secondly, I am wondering to what extent he or his colleagues have had consultations with bodies which may be affected by this Amendment. There is one body which has certainly not been consulted—if it had, it would certainly not have supported the Amendment—and that is the CBI. I am certain that my noble friend will agree with that.
This very long new clause is headed "Prescription of signs, etc., on certain buildings", and I am wondering to what extent local authorities would have any knowledge of the requirements regarding, for example, subsection (3)(b)(ii) which states:
"Provided that the power of the Council to make requirements in respect of the manner of such storage shall extend only to requirements for the purpose of reducing any special hazard".
Then a little later the same sub-paragraph states:
"… the Council shall have regard to good custom and practice and to the reasonable needs of any undertaking, trade or business carried on in those premises."
My noble friend Lord Sandys referred to the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975 and, so far as I can gather, he wants to extend the powers granted under that Act to all local councils throughout the country. But the GLC have not used the powers under the 1975 Act although, if any council has the necessary know-how to implement the powers which my noble friend is trying to introduce, it is the GLC. I do not know whether some local authority such as Clevedon is involved, but I do not think it has the necessary know-how. So I

1095
sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will reject this Amendment very strongly, because, in spite of the fact that my noble friend has used the word, "we", I do not have the impression that this is Conservative Party policy. I should have thought that these were matters which could better be dealt with under the Health and Safety at Work regulations.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to answer two points raised by—
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is out of order. He moved the Amendment and I believe he has a chance to reply at the end of the discussion on it, which I should have thought was the right procedure to follow. Perhaps we can see whether anyone else wants to intervene, before I reply.
May I first say that I shall certainly be reluctant to enter into any disputes within the Party opposite, and I hope that, no one will be too hard on the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who seems to have stepped out of his Manifesto. However, I think what I say will get him off the hook, and that everybody will be satisfied. He said that he hoped I would be able to say something which would move the matter forward, and he was quite right in what he said. It is true that since the Report stage there has been a development. The Commission have now instructed the Health and Safety Executive to prepare regulations urgently, and this work has already started. I intended going on to explain why it would be wrong in principle to legislate in this Bill when adequate statutory powers are already available, especially when they are about to be used. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, did it very well for me and explained exactly why this provision should not have a place in this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will be satisfied that this matter is now being dealt with urgently, and that what he and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, want to achieve is already happening, and that he will therefore withdraw the Amendment forthwith.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think I should reply to two points raised by
1096
my noble friend Lord Merrivale. First, he suggested that there has been inadequate consultation and he referred especially to the CBI, but I assure him that I was speaking to that body only half an hour ago. I had already discussed our policy on this subject with them at an earlier stage, and again this afternoon I intimated our policy on this Amendment. My noble friend mentioned that local authorities have insufficient experience, and he referred to the Cleveland authority. I can disabuse him of any doubts he may have, because that local authority has enormous experience in this field for reasons which I gave on Second Reading.
Lord MERRIVALE: They drafted the Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: I should further like to remind my noble friend that a very interesting discussion took place at Scotland Yard last week, in regard to the application of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975 and the operations of the Hazchem scheme in the Metropolitan district. As the experience of the police, in conjunction with the fire service and the local authority, has been extremely happy in regard to this matter, it greatly encouraged me to believe that the Amendment as set out in the Marshalled List was one which should be open to further discussion. Before I withdraw the Amendment, which I propose to do in a moment, I should like to say that it is thanks to the hard work and initiative of the Cleveland local authority that the matter has been raised in such detail. If their efforts are to be rewarded by the speeding up of regulations to be made by the Health and Safety at Work Commission, they will have been well worth while. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.41 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
"Extension to parish and community councils of power to provide nature reserves. 1949 c. 97.
(". The powers conferred on a county council and district council by sections 21 and 99(6) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, shall, with the approval of the Nature Conservancy Council, also be exercisable by a parish council or community council and references in those sections and section 23 of that Act to a local authority shall be construed accordingly.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, originally I put down an Amendment to Clause 18 which had much the same intention as this Amendment, but the noble Baroness opposite and the Nature Conservancy Council suggested that that was an inappropriate place since it would put nature conservation with recreation. This Amendment has the same intention, but goes right back to the provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and is almost the ipsissima verba of the clause which first gave local authorities the power to set up nature reserves.
I should remind your Lordships that under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act the larger authorities—the county councils and county boroughs—had absolute power to set up nature reserves. Although the smaller authorities—the rural and urban district councils—had that right, it was subject to the consent of the Nature Conservancy Council. It seems then to have been thought that it was likely to become a major local authority function and fairly elaborate provisions were made to settle squabbles between a county council and a district council, both of which wanted to set up a reserve on the same piece of land.
In the event, however, that has not happened; not many local authorities have set up nature reserves. Most nature reserves have been set up by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Naturalists' Trust and other voluntary bodies like the RSPB. Those authorities which have set up nature reserves have almost invariably done so—indeed, invariably so far as I know—in co-operation locally with the Naturalists' Trust which provides the expertise. Among them have been a number of urban district councils but not, so far as I have been able to find out, any rural district councils. This is largely because a rural district council was an administrative unit concerned only with administration, whereas the urban district councils, which had a good deal of civic pride, were anxious to see maintained the remaining natural habitats and their associated fauna and flora, such as wetlands created by mining subsidence and interesting parts of the neighbouring coastline; and those they have turned into nature reserves.
When the Local Government Act 1972 was passed, the smaller authorities ceased to exist; they were all thrown into the new district councils, which are administrative units like the old rural district councils. The urban district councils, which had shown such enthusiasm for nature conservation, became parish or community councils. That came about quite fortuitously but, as I have said, setting up and managing reserves has not become a major local authority function. It has become almost a personal function in these very personal rural areas. It has not grown to be, nor, indeed, of any necessity need it grow to be, a major function; nor is there any necessity for it to be administered over a wide area like education, roads or housing. As I have said, the necessary expertise is available locally through the Naturalists' Trust.
I have sent a copy of this Amendment to the Nature Conservancy Council who have made the following statement:
"The Nature Conservancy Council are in sympathy with the proposal that parish councils should be able to establish nature reserves. It is their understanding that this is already being done at one level—i.e. by the acquisition of small parcels of land, e.g. parish copses".
In parenthesis, may I say that they are, I believe, referring to the Open Spaces Act 1906. The Nature Conservancy Council go on to say:
"Additionally, under existing legislation county and district councils can establish statutory local reserves on behalf of parish councils".
That is a fact under the Local Government Act. Finally they say:
"Departure from this position would have important and wide-ranging implications which the Nature Conservancy Council have not yet had the opportunity to assess in detail".
That is the statement of the Nature Conservancy Council. They welcome the intentions which lie behind the Amendment but they have not yet considered the method proposed.
The Open Spaces Act allows a parish council to acquire open space, which is defined as being used for the purposes of recreation or lying waste and unoccupied. It seems curious that it should be recommended in that way, although I am grateful for the recommendation. It shows parish councils what they can do. The Local Government Act allows a local authority to exercise its functions through another local authority. The

1099
Act also allows local authorities to make such arrangements between themselves as they find mutually convenient in arranging who should pay for the carrying out of the function.
Both of those meet certain of my points, but the last is the one which the noble Baroness may think is not altogether satisfactory. We know that the district councils do not possess the expertise to do this job. This means that they do not possess the expertise to judge whether or not the proposals of a parish council are sensible. The Nature Conservancy Council have that expertise. Our Amendment—when I say "our" I am not referring to my noble friends who are of the same political complexion but to those who are of the same commonsensical outlook on nature reserves as myself—means that it seems to be better to leave the decision to the Nature Conservancy Council who know what they are about than to the larger local authorities which, ex hypothesi, do not.
I hope the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment. I find it difficult to see how they can possibly find any reason against it, and with hopeful anticipation I beg to move the Amendment.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, as I may claim to have something of the same common-sensical attitude, in a limited field, as has the noble Earl, may I support the Amendment and ask the noble Baroness who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government to view it sympathetically. It appears that this Amendment does nothing to run counter to the legitimate authority held by other bodies, but it would allow a local body, which has a specific interest in these matters, to designate a small area.
In the work which I was forced to do in order to relieve my ignorance when I introduced into your Lordships' House a Bill dealing with endangered species, I learned that flora and fauna in this country were often threatened because of the disappearance of some local habitat, which might be quite small. This is best known to the groups of enthusiasts in a district, and if they can exercise local influence in order to get something like this done and get the Nature Conservancy Council to agree with them, it would seem to me that something eminently desirable
1100
and something that cannot possibly do any harm is being done. So I support this Amendment.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I too should like to support my noble friend. I think this is the third time that my noble friend has tried to insert this new clause into this Bill, and I am most interested to know how the noble Baroness will deal with it in view of the way in which she addressed the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. My noble friend certainly is persistent. I support this Amendment wholeheartedly. In a situation such as is envisaged in a council the local people become really involved. In this House we pass legislation and on occasions we tend to forget that it affects people. A parish council is the smallest unit of, almost, self-government, and the councils are intensely interested in their areas. When enthusiastic people in a small council such as that will go to the trouble to preserve something, and will go to the Nature Conservancy Council for that purpose, then I feel they should be supported.
I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will look with favour upon this Amendment, which I think will be of great assistance not only to the morale of the people on parish councils but also to the conservation of a great deal of flora and fauna which is becoming more and more threatened every year.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I can do so with a clear conscience because I voted against the 1972 Local Government Bill from beginning to end; so I am not speaking against my own Party—as the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, mentioned—without having shown my colours beforehand.
I am thinking particularly of my county of Devon. I believe it is now the biggest county, and obviously it cannot get down to the local level of so many parish councils who understand what is happening in their districts. I remember the excellent document which was written by a member of the Party opposite, the late Arthur Skeffington, when he was a Minister in the other House. He wrote Consult the People. I thought it was one of the best documents that had ever been produced. As time goes on

1101
we consult the people less and less, and therefore this is one of the reasons why I support this Amendment.
I also support it because I have personal experience of what can happen. Certain woods in Devon were to be sold for commercial purposes. I and a number of other people were very angry about this, and in two months we raised £8,500 and, with the consent of the local council, gave this sum to the National Trust in order that they might have the woods looked after. That was all done by local people because they were so anxious to preserve those beautiful woods and I am glad to say they are to be preserved for all time. That may be a rather larger project than most, but we want to get the people in those small districts and the community councils interested in their own areas. If, by this Amendment, they can be helped in any way and be given further pride in their areas, I hope the noble Baroness will consider it favourably.
It is not just a matter of the actual conservation but of keeping the whole place tidy. Many districts now have "Best Kept Village" competitions. These particularly interest local people and should be encouraged. If the noble Baroness could accept this Amendment I feel it would give further encouragement to parish councils and community councils. I am an addict of "The Archers" programme on the BBC and when I listen to all the interest that is taken in their local areas by the characters in that programme I think it is a good example of what can be done to help to encourage people in this way. With those few words I hope the noble Baroness will consider accepting this excellent Amendment.
Lord CRAIGTON:My Lords, I too should like to support this Amendment. Over the weekend I have consulted a number of local people who are interested and who take part in the local bodies which will be affected by this Amendment, and the unanimous consensus of opinion is that this Amendment must be right because, as the noble Baroness said, the more people who are interested in nature reserves, the better for all concerned.
Whether in relation to any particular area these powers are used at all, and if so, how they are used or by which authority,
1102
is a matter for purely local negotiation. They may not necessarily apply in every area, but there will be areas where this is the complete solution. The main problem with nature reserves arises after they are initially set up. In the first flush of enthusiasm numbers of people are interested, but we who are concerned all the time in nature reserves know that when the interest has cooled the nature reserve has to be maintained and the fences have to be kept in good order and that is a job which is much better done by local people: people who are interested, people who care and people who take a pride in their local nature reserve.
Without doubt—and I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will agree with me—there will be cases where a particular reserve in a particular area is best served by one of the local organisations rather than by a more remote authority. This Amendment will solve, not a great many but a number of serious problems and, in spite of what the Nature Conservancy have said in their letter to my noble friend, I cannot see that it will create any new problems for anyone. After all, the Nature Conservancy Council have the whip hand in the end and we are all grateful to them for what they do.
5.59 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, this Amendment clearly has strong support on all sides of the House and I think perhaps it will not be a surprise to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook if I add my somewhat muted support while having great sympathy with what he intends to do. In fact on this occasion my noble friend Lady Young and I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in what she said during the Report stage of this Bill. Speaking of the Nature Conservancy Council she said this—and I quote her exact words:
"While I am anxious to see the establishment of as many nature reserves as possible, my view—which is also the view of the Nature Conservancy Council—is that there should not be a lowering of the standard of what is statutorily classified as a nature reserve."—(Official Report; 13/7/76, col. 188.)
In a period when considerable strictures are placed on local government finances, it is a difficult problem to ensure that new powers are granted to a parish council.
While I am very much in favour of the establishment of further nature reserves,

1103
I am just wondering whether this Bill is the right place to do it. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook sought to bring a very similar Amendment before your Lordships under Clause 19 of the Bill; that was under the clause dealing with places of entertainment. I hope he will appreciate the extent to which we admire his continuity, his perseverance and his researches, because I was certainly not aware of the Open Spaces Act 1906, to which he referred, having previously imagined that most legislation in this sphere took place very much later.
My Lords, we believe that the Amendment, while correctly drafted, will not have entirely satisfactory results. We believe that it would be better if there were delegated powers, so that district councils may act on an agency basis for a parish in a particular instance, or, in a similar situation. In this regard, I was very much of the same opinion as my noble friend Lord Craigton. I share his view almost completely in this field. It would be possible within the context of local negotiations to achieve what is desired, but I am rather doubtful whether this particular clause could be inserted in the Bill with total satisfaction.
6.2 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the knowledge in these matters of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I admire his persistence, a word I think used by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. I sympathise with the aim of the Amendment, and it is therefore with regret that I must continue to oppose the efforts of the noble Earl on this point, although in doing so I find, having a strange political bedfellow, that I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, opposite, who traced a great many of the arguments which I have used and am going to use on this Amendment.
First of all, as said before, this is not the place for a new clause of this kind. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to provisions commonly precedented in local Acts. This clause does not appear in any local Act. But that really is not the general basis of my opposition to the clause. It does not depend on that argument, because there are other powerful objections. The distribution of functions between local authorities was carefully considered when the Bill, which
1104
became the Local Government Act 1972, was being prepared. I personally, and the members of my Party, consider that this is a thoroughly bad Act, and I am very glad to have, in this instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, on my side, who said the same thing. Nevertheless, the Act is here, and for the moment it is here to stay. At that point, parishes could then have been given power to set up nature reserves, but this was not done. I must point out that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said that the new districts have not the expertise to set up new nature reserves; but these are the successors, with better resources, of the former urban districts, which the noble Earl applauded. So from that point of view there is not a great change except, I would say, for the better.
I believe it would lead to confusion if the same powers were available concurrently at three levels of authority—parish, district and county. To make new powers available to some 10,000 authorities must have implications for public expenditure, both for parishes and for the Nature Conservancy Council. Probably this is part of the reason for their comments. The noble Earl read out the comments of the Nature Conservancy Council. While they expressed in practically the same way as I did the same sympathy with the aims, they also pointed out, as I was going to do anyway, that this is already being done at one level by the acquisition of parcels of suitable land without actually declaring them to be nature reserves; secondly, they can and do ask districts and counties to act on their behalf, and these are the authorities which are the result of the reorganisation. Thirdly, they can ask the districts to enter into agency agreements under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 for the parish to exercise these functions on behalf of the district.
Taking the facts as they are at the moment, and working under the present Local Government Reorganisation Act, I would suggest these procedures in that context are a much more realistic way for parishes to achieve their desired result. However, having said that, I think the noble Earl is probably aware that the National Association of Local Councils have recently submitted proposals on a range wide of matters concerning parishes. When those proposals

1105
are put in, we will consider them, along with others and this no doubt will be one of them. Then, in the greater time available, we shall be able to look more thoroughly into the implications. But, at this moment, for the reasons I have given—and the reasons were expanded by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, on the one hand, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, also made some very pungent points on the question of nature reserves—in the present setup to change the organisation, the redistribution in that way would be wrong, and certainly in the context of this Bill. So I hope that the noble Earl—and I think this is his third attempt—will now withdraw his Amendment once again.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I hope those of your Lordships who do not sit on either Front Bench will have noticed the extraordinary way in which both Front Benches have reacted to any proposal to alter the status quo. There was a Latin tag. I am not quite certan whether I remember it rightly, but it ran something like aliquot novum pro horrifico—anything new is absolutely terrible. That has been the reaction of both of our Front Benches. There is some excuse for the noble Baroness opposite. She is briefed by her Department, and we all know that the invariable reaction of every Department is to say, No, and scarcely to bother to look for any reason for saying, Yes.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, would the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, give way? This is absolutely untrue. I am arguing this on the basis of an Act of Parliament, passed and put through by the Party of the noble Earl when in Government. I am dealing with that—
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I am coming to that.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, what I am objecting to is the idea of just being brief, and not reading the brief. This is not true, because I have gone into this carefully. I have great sympathy with the rights of small bodies and individuals. It is for this reason that I am so strongly opposed to the present Local Government Reorganisation Act. It is no good the noble Earl blaming that on this Front Bench.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I was trying to find excuses for her, because all I can say about my own Front Bench is that they are acting wilfully, feloniously and with malice aforethought, without the advice of any Department. And if the noble Baroness wishes to put that cap on she is at liberty to do it. I understood that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills come out one after the other after every successive local government reform Act, trying to pick up the mistakes made. I rather agree with the noble Baroness that a great many mistakes were made in the last Act, and that this was a major one. This seems to me to be an entirely appropriate place in which to put it. I must apologise to your Lordships, and to the noble Baroness for having been so persistent, but obviously I made a mistake at earlier stages. I chose a method to which both the noble Baroness and the Nature Conservancy Council objected. I had hoped that I had now got a method to which people would not object.
I do not wish to repeat myself too much, but the position here is that we have a number of the larger parishes, and your Lordships should remember that parishes, which when we were young were silly little places like my own, with populations going down to a few hundred, have now gone up to many thousands. There are parishes of varying sizes, from the very small ones right up to parishes with populations of 30,000, and, I. believe, one of even 40,000. These large parishes were formerly urban districts which had the power to do this; they exercised that power and they exercised it admirably. If this was done deliberately in the Local Government Act—I cannot believe it was; I think this came about ambulando while the Bill was going through—it was a grave mistake that this power was taken away from people who had exercised it exceedingly well; there were a very small number of them, but they exercised it well. In the world of nature conservation we cannot afford to neglect the willingness and the sense of people who wish to set up nature reserves, whoever they are.
So far as the control of these reserves are concerned, I cannot help feeling a little cynical when it is suggested that the 1906 Act should be used, because in

1107
point of fact the 1906 Act was exactly like Clause 18 of this Bill, and I was told off for putting down an Amendment to that clause for this purpose. That Act was generally used to provide places for recreation, but there is, fortunately, a phrase in it which talks about places which are wild and uncultivated, and it just brings in these smaller places, as the Nature Conservancy Council says. So at the moment the smaller parishes can use their existing powers. I am ashamed to say that I had not realised this until I learned it from the Nature Conservancy Council. They can use their existing powers under the 1906 Act to set up what are called little places in their parishes. It is the larger ones which I am concerned with, those which controlled the reserves admirably in the past and which I now suggest should do it under the control of the Nature Conservancy. Nothing that the Front Benches on either side have said has led me to believe that this Amendment should be withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Cranbrook withdraws or does not withdraw his Amendment, perhaps I may make three comments on what he has said. I sympathise a great deal with the point that he is trying to make, and I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, over this. When my noble friend said that the purpose of the Bill was to put the 1972 Local Government Act right, he was not quite correct. The purpose of the Bill is to
carry out one of the provisions of the 1972 Act; under that Act a certain amount of legislation will run out, both in 1978 and in 1984, and it is essential, therefore, that it should be re-enacted in this Bill. Two general principles govern the Bill. One is that the legislation should be precedented and the other is that it should be non-controversial.
So far as the noble Earl's Amendment is concerned, I think we might all agree that this may be a very good thing to do. But the fact is that it is not precedented, and if it were accepted it would be altering the functions as laid down in the 1972 Act. I should think that it was outside the terms of this Bill, and we should get ourselves into considerable difficulty if we agreed with it. For that reason I feel unable to support my noble friend, although I have sympathy with the point of view that he is trying to express.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I reply again at the end of the debate. I must say to the noble Baroness that I am unlikely to be here in 1984, when she might do it in my place. I want to see it done now.
6.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:— Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Derwent, L.

Robbins, L.

Amulree, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Davids, V.

Banks, L.

Gainford, L.

Somers, L.

Berkeley, B.

Goschen, V.

Spens, L.

Boothby, L.

Greenway, L.

Stamp, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strange, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Kimberley, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Byers, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strathspey, L.

Chelwood, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lyell, L.

Vickers, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wade, L.

Craigton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L.

de Clifford, L. [Teller.]

Northchurch, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

De Freyne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Peddie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Balogh, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hughes, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Caradon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Castle, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Vaizey, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Melchett, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

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

Murray of Newhaven, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

George-Brown, L.

Oram, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 38 [Use of spare capacity of computers of local authorities]:
6.22 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 49, line 10, leave out ("as beneficial to the authority as those") and insert ("terms").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment corrects defective wording in the clause. Our attention was drawn to this by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to whom we are grateful, because the clause is much better drafted now than it was originally. Noble Lords will remember that the object of the original Amendment was to ensure the sale of surplus computer time by local authorities at a rate not less than another undertaking, notably a commercial firm, would charge. The intention was the same in my original Amendment, but the way it has now been redrafted makes it very much better and more positive and not quite as inverted. I beg to, move.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, finding a defect in a Government Amendment is rather like winning a hole against Gary Player—not that I have ever done that. I am sure that this is an improvement.
Clause 48 [Licensing of private hire vehicles]:
6.24 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 9
Page 56, line 34, after ("of") insert ("roof").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9, and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 10. I appreciate that this again is a course that we have been round several times on this Bill already, but I put down these Amendments again, the principle of which we have debated before, because they are ones on which those who have an interest in private hire cars believe to be of considerable importance.
I have read with great care what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said on Report. As I understand it, under what is now Clause 48 a district council, if it so wished, could agree that a private hire firm could indicate the name of the proprietor upon it. What my Amendment seeks to do is to make this something which would, under Statute, happen in all controlled districts. The one point which the noble Lord did not answer last time was that although a subsection similar to my Amendment is included in the Plymouth City Council Bill, and as the whole of this Part of this Bill is taken almost precisely from the Plymouth City Council Bill, why has it not been included in this Bill?
As I understand it, it was included in another place and then was taken out. I further understand that there have been no difficulties about the working of this subsection of the Plymouth City Council Act in Plymouth. The major objection raised to it is that members of the public

1111
would be misled into believing that a private hire car was similar to a hackney carriage and was therefore plying for hire. But, as the wording of my Amendment makes clear, it is not my intention that there should be any element of deception at all, which I think would be quite wrong, and that the signs should be such as would not lead a member of the public to believe that the private hire car was a licensed hackney carriage. I believe that this would be for the convenience of the public. I beg to move.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I too should like to ride my horse round this familar course once more in support of this Amendment. To be pernickety, I should have preferred that the words in the Amendment, "would lead to public to suppose", were "might lead the public to suppose …" I think that might be preferable, but it is a small point. We have to balance the inconvenience to members of the public, emerging together say, from a theatre, having ordered a hire care and needing to identify it and being able to identify it if it has a sign upon it because they know the firm from whom they hire it, whereas the driver may not know them or be able to identify them, with the other factor that members of the public in the street may think, when they see a sign on this car, that it is a taxi and may hail it and may temporarily be inconvenienced and disappointed because they find it is not a taxi and have to wait a little longer, perhaps in the rain, until a real taxi comes along.
I am not really very concerned about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that a situation might arise where the car hire firm responds to the person who hails a taxi and illegally, therefore, plies for hire. I should have thought that the police and the taxi trade between them would very soon be able to catch up with any car hire firm which started to adopt that sort of practice. If the odd occasion arose when the hire car got away with it and did ply for hire as a taxi, I would not lose very much sleep over that. Therefore, I am strongly in support of this Amendment.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Baroness said, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, agreed, that
1112
this is an old friend; I well remember the speeches that were made on the last occasion we debated this matter. I will therefore, as briefly as possible, explain why the Government still find this proposal unacceptable. We begin—at least, the noble Baroness and I do—with agreement on the central question of principle involved; that is, we are both anxious to ensure that there should be no element of deception, and in that I entirely agree with her.
As drafted, in Clause 48(2) the Bill grants to a district council the power to attach conditions to the granting of a private hire vehicle licence, including conditions which either require or prohibit the display of signs. The Amendment seeks to limit this power to require or prohibit the display of roof signs, which would lead the public to suppose that the vehicle was a licensed hackney carriage. The clause as worded is intended to aid local authorities in preventing illegal plying for hire by private hire vehicles. It will allow them to control the display of signs form private hire vehicles with a view to minimising the possibility that such signs would lead members of the public to assume that the vehicle was availale for immediate hire. The clause will not however prevent local agreement being reached as to signs which might be permitted with a view to legitimately identifying private hire cars—the point the noble Baroness put to me—and this may be given effect under the Bill by district councils banning all signs other than those which it specifically permits.
The problem with the Amendment is that roof signs are not by any means the only method used throughout the country to identify a vehicle as a hackney carriage or to lead the public to suppose that the vehicle is available for immediate hire. If roof signs only were to be dealt with in the Bill, there would, for example, be nothing at all to prevent some of the less scrupulous operators from displaying illuminated signs inside the vehicle or elsewhere, on the exterior, bearing the words "Taxi" or "For hire", or resorting to other methods of advertisement clearly designed to mislead the public.
Thus, the situation is that, as drafted, the Bill brings in a degree of control, or could do so, over all signs. The Amendment, on the other hand, deals

1113
exclusively with roof signs and, as I have indicated, for that reason—because it would be possible for the less scrupulous to evade the intention; the noble Baroness and I agree that there should be no element of deception and there should be no way in which a person with a private hire licence could pretend that he is available for hire and is therefore a hackney carriage—we believe that the Bill as drafted is right.
The noble Baroness raised the question of the Plymouth City Council Act. To be blunt—and I think the noble Baroness will agree with me here—the position is that we regard this as a forward-looking Bill but not perfect in every conceivable respect; As she knows, we should not have chosen to put this in the Bill in the first instance. But it has been done and we have sought to improve the Bill in such a way as will make the enforcement powers in this clause, and in the Bill generally, capable of being applied in the area of any local authority. Our view is that this is the best way of approach, and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will agree with us.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. It is extemely important that there should be no element of doubt that the vehicle one uses is a hackney carriage. When one realises the stringency of both the training and control involved with these vehicles as opposed to the still quite loose type of control of the private hire car, it is important that the men concerned should have their livelihood protected, and I fear any erosion. It is easy to say that people coming out of a theatre must be able to recognise the vehicles wating for them, but it is equally true to say that people will hail a car going through the city and displaying, quite illegally, a bright sign. I have seen it done. I think that members of the public would be deceived, and as this is a group in the community which has to earn its passage, we should do everything to protect the position of licensed vehicles.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we are all agreed on the principle and nobody is trying to deceive the public into thinking that a private hire is a licensed hackney carriage. Of course the answer to the
1114
noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is that under the Bill very stringent provisions will apply to the drivers of private hire vehicles, so I do not think that even her argument would apply, about the possibility of getting a private hire driver not being up to the standard of the driver of a hackney carriage vehicle. I do not intend to press the Amendment because I believe that representations could be made to the local authority which could, under Clause 48(2), achieve what they wish, and I think that that would be the right way to approach the subject. However, it is important that those whose livelihood is directly affected by the Bill should have been the subject of the maximum amount of discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Drivers' licences for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles]:
6.36 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 60, line 7, after ("vehicle") insert ("housed in any parish or community where in the opinion of the district council it is desirable to encourage the housing of a private hire vehicle in order to provide a better transport service for the inhabitants or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not think there is as much difference between myself and the Front Bench opposite on this Amendment as there was over the last one we discussed. The Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, moved on Report was intended to cover the cases which I have specified in this Amendment. The only reason I have tabled this Amendment is because, to be frank, the administration of some of our new district councils is a very long way from the small parishes, and I should like it made abundantly clear to them that this is one of the reasons they must have under consideration if they decide to reduce the fees. I do not think I need add more in moving the Amendment.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, perhaps I might explain the point we have reached on this issue. Clause 53 as drafted provides that a district council may charge, for the issue of a licence to drive a taxi or a private hire car, such fee

1115
as the council considers reasonable with view to recovering the costs of issue and administration. The clause further provides that where the council thinks it appropriate, it may, in the case of the driver of a private hire vehicle, charge a lower fee, or no fee. The purpose of this relaxation, although not spelled out in, the Bill—the noble Earl is right about this—is to take account of the circumstances (described by the noble Earl on Report) of remote rural areas having no readily available taxi services and but limited public transport facilities. The noble Earl feared that the imposition of normal levels of fees might cause such public-spirited citizens, who sometimes do this on a part-time basis, to cease their transport activities.
As I said on Report, the Government have every sympathy—indeed, there was agreement throughout the House on this—with the problems of people living in such areas and are concerned to see that increased operating costs resulting from the introduction of licensing should not tend to deprive small and remote communities of such transport facilities as they at present possess. As a result, the Government introduced the Amendment, to which I referred and which was accepted by the House, having the effect of making it clear that where a district council thinks it appropriate, it may charge a lower licence fee or indeed dispense with the fee altogether, and that is now in the Bill.
The noble Earl's Amendment, if carried, would add nothing to the relaxation set out in the Bill. Rather, it would introduce a kind of limitation, in that it would refer in particular to vehicles "housed" in a parish or community where certain factors applied, going on thereafter to refer to the more general case. As I pointed out on Report, the area in which a vehicle is housed or garaged is not necessarily that in which it is operated as a private hire vehicle and a transport service for the inhabitants of a parish may be provided by a vehicle which is garaged outside the parish.
As a result, I do not think that the present Amendment would assist in achieving the objective with which the noble Earl is concerned. I believe that the power which has now been written into the Bill to give the district council
1116
power to waive or to lower the fees meets the point and, although I do not want to be tied too explicitly to this, I shall certainly consider whether, in the circular which will go out to local authorities when the Bill is on the Statute Book, we might perhaps be able to spell something out as far as this is concerned. I hope that that will meet the noble Earl's point. I have attempted to point out why I think that the present form of words is better than what is suggested.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, if the noble Lord would withdraw the word "perhaps" I should be perfectly satisfied.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl can leave it. I shall do my best to ensure that this point is met.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75 [Saving fir certain vehicles etc.]:
6.44 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 72, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) apply to a vehicle used in pursuance of a contract fot the hire of the vehicle for a journey not wholly within a controlled district;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to Clause 75 which provides saving for certain vehicles et cetera. Its purpose is to confine the application of the whole of this Part of the Bill to journeys which take place wholly within a controlled district. The reason for the Amendment is that, without it, the position of the multiple car hire firms which undertake long-distance journeys will be made very difficult because they will be travelling, for instance, in and from uncontrolled districts into and through controlled districts. Even as between one controlled district and another there may be no uniformity because there are numerous places in this part of the Bill where the particular local authority is allowed to impose its own terms and

1117
conditions. This will make the business of the multiple car hire firms extremely difficult.
I do not think that I need apologise for putting down this Amendment again having done so on Report. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, thought that this point was dealt with in his subsequent Government Amendment and, as so often happens on these occasions, spent so much time describing the merits of his Amendment that he ran out of time or out of steam and never got round to telling me the demerits, if any, of my Amendment.
So, here we are, discussing it again. If it is adopted, presumably it will work satisfactorily because, after all, since, as we know so well, the whole of this part of the Bill is practically copied out from the Plymouth Local Act, it was presumably worth while introducing it for Plymouth and Plymouth clearly had no power to impose it on any other outside district. Of course, we do not know how many local authorities will adopt this part of the Bill and it is entirely up to them whether or not they do so. Some will. As a result, we shall have, so to speak, a number of "Plymouths" dotted about the country, each operating a control which Plymouth presumably finds satisfactory for its purposes. So, in putting forward the Amendment, I suggest that for those reasons it ought to work satisfactorily.
When we come to the Government Amendment put forward on Report as supposedly meeting the case, that was the Amendment which is now enshrined in the clause as subsection (2). Of course it does not meet the case because subsection (2) only deals with vehicles operated from within a controlled area and does not apply at all to vehicles operated from an uncontrolled area. So there is a lacuna there. Therefore, I put it to your Lordships that the Amendment is required.
While we are discussing subsection (2), I hope that we shall be told how this will work: what is to happen to those operators who operate from what is now an uncontrolled area? Of course they will want to have the protection given in subsection (2) and will want to become licensed in some
1118
controlled area so that they will get the resulting protection. How are they to achieve that? In the early stages, there will not be all that number of controlled districts, so what are these operators to do? They will have to find a controlled district and they will be strangers from outside that district applying to the local authority for licences.
Does that not make nonsense of the whole system of local licensing operations? Surely, local authorities issue licences to people whom they know something about or about whom they can easily find out because they are local people. If a large number of operators come into a district from outside to apply for licences in order to obtain the protection of subsection (2), will they be welcomed by the local authority and will the latter be at all happy about dishing out licences to these people from outside about whom it knows so much less than it does about its own local people? I just do not know how this system is to operate. Perhaps we can be told. However it is to operate, I suggest that we require the Amendment in any case to save this embarrassment to the long distance operators. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said, we debated this very thoroughly on Report. The argument that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, used was that if we allowed an Amendment similar to this we should be going against the principle of this Part of the Bill. I have read very carefully what he has said on this matter but what concerns me is the very practical point about places like London where I gather there are 20,000 private hire vehicles. In order to operate the clause, they will presumably have to get themselves licensed somewhere, otherwise they will not be able to operate outside London because they will be in an uncontrolled district. I was glad to hear that that district includes Heathrow. However, there are plenty of other places to which people may wish to travel outside London. I feel that it would be very helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would explain how he sees operators in London and similar districts working if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, or something similar is not accepted.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 cover the same territory and so I shall speak to both. The effect of the first Amendment would be to take wholly outside the controls contained in Part II of the Bill any vehicle hired for a journey crossing the boundary of a controlled district, and, as the noble Baroness surmised, the Government remain as hostile to the principle of the Amendment as they were on the last occasion we debated it. If the Amendment were carried, the only journeys which would be controlled under Part II of the Bill would be those performed entirely within a district. Such journeys would have to be performed by a licensed vehicle, driven by a licensed driver, and booked by a licensed operator within the district. That would be the position. But if the Amendment were to he accepted for any journey going outside a district and for the whole of that journey, the hirer would be deprived of the benefits and the protection which the Bill is intended to provide.
This would be a return to the present uncontrolled situation which has itself caused Parliament to add Part II to the Bill. For such a journey, the hirer would be liable to find himself driven in an untested, unlicensed, inadequately maintained or insured vehicle, by a driver of whom nothing is known. That would be the position if the Amendment were carried and, frankly, this is wholly contrary to the general intention of this Part of the Bill. The Bill already provides Clause 75(1)(a) that any vehicles, whether or not licensed, may bring a passenger into a controlled district under a contract made outside it and provided that the vehicle is not made available for hire in the district. This is to allow businesses operated from outside the controlled district to perform journeys into or through controlled districts without the need of licences, and it safeguards the right of vehicles from uncontrolled districts to perform hirings into controlled districts. But I said—
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, are we now on Amendment No. 14? I ask this because I want to move that Amendment separately.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord,
1120
I propose to speak to both Amendments, and I shall gladly speak again on Amendment No. 14 if the noble Lord wishes. But both Amendments are objectionable in principle and I am endeavouring to point out why. I think it would be more helpful to your Lordships if I were to make it quite clear now that both Amendments are equally unacceptable so far as the Government are concerned.
As I indicated at the Report stage we cannot agree that a vehicle from an uncontrolled area should enjoy the privilege of offering for hire in a controlled district. Not only would this be quite unfair to the tested and licensed operators, but it would be misleading to members of the public. The remedy lies with the operator in the uncontrolled district. If he wishes for complete freedom of action in all areas, he has only to submit his vehicles for inspection and licensing in a controlled area and to use only licensed drivers. The noble Baroness asks what is the position regarding London—and to go back to a point we debated on the last occasion, the same question can be asked regarding Scotland. The fact is that if they wanted to do this, they would have to cause themselves to be licensed, and it would be for them to determine in their own business interest when that time had arisen. But clearly that is the only way in which, in my view, we can create a fair system of licensing control.
The noble Lord has, I think, suggested that there may be circumstances where this situation could be confusing for the multi-base long-distance hire companies, but I do not think that this should be so. Such a company has only to have its vehicles licensed in any one area in order to benefit by the wide relaxation contained in subsection (2) of Clause 75. This allows that the vehicle and its driver may be used in any controlled district if licences for the vehicle and the driver, issued by any other controlled district, are in force. There will be no problems arising from conditions of licensing, for the only conditions applying to any vehicle are those attaching to its licence. Conditions normally imposed by the councils of other districts to which it goes, or through which it passes, will not affect it, for they do not form part of the licence for the vehicle. The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would tend to upset the whole purpose of including

1121
Part II in the Bill in the first place and, in my view, is not in any event necessary. For this reason I hope that the noble Lord will decide not to press the Amendment.
6.56 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I have listened to the Government's reply with great interest, but I do not think that the Minister has begun to answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and myself. How do these people in uncontrolled districts set about getting licences in controlled districts? If there are 20,000 operators in London and, say, 15,000 of them want to keep their options open to do long-distance journeys, or at any rate journeys taking them outside London, where do they go for their licences? Let us suppose that the nearest council which has adopted Part II of the Bill is the council that covers Redhill. Do 15,000 London private hire operators descend upon the local council at Redhill and say: "We are applying for licences under Part II of this Act"—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? We are in a slight difficulty here. I do not have a right of reply because this is the noble Lord's Amendment, but he is asking a question and, if he will forgive me, I think ought to give him the answer. As I said in reply to the question from the noble Baroness, the answer is for the private hire vehicle operator to decide when he wishes to make application to another local authority. Let us take an absurd example and suppose that there are only one or two local authorities in the whole of the country which have used these particular powers laid down in this clause. It will not be to their commercial advantage to do so. It would be a foolish thing to do.
But if it is quite clear, as no doubt will be the situation, that an increasing number of authorities introduce these powers, then when that time arises the operator, within London or, indeed, in Scotland, will, at that moment, decide to apply to a particular local authority. I do not think that all the operators will apply to the local authority in Redhill. I think that they will simply decide that it is to their commercial advantage to do so at a
1122
particular time, and that would seem to be a rather sensible way of proceeding.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question before he continues. Why does he assume—I think rather gloomily—that only so few district councils will take advantage of this provision?
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I think the answer to that is that so far only Plymouth has sought a power of this kind, but it has been within the power of any other local authority which chose to follow Plymouth's example to do so and no local authority has. I think that perhaps that is the answer to the noble Baroness. But I am not going to be put off my stride by what the Minister said just now. Admittedly, Redhill may not be the only one.
Let us suppose that within driving distance of London there are six local authorities which make themselves controlled districts, and we divide these 15,000 London operators by six. Where does that lead? There would be 2,500 operators going to each of a number of local authorities outside London, saying "We want to register with you in order to get the protection". It is very important that the absurdity of this should be seen. Those operators may say, "We wish to get protection under subsection (2) of Clause 75 and so we are coming to you from London to apply for licences". Each of those six local authorities will say, "We were expecting to issue about 50 licences to people in our district about whom we know something. How are we expected to cope with issuing 2,500 licences to people from London about whom we know nothing?" I suggest that this really makes nonsense of the local licensing system.
The Minister really has not begun to face up to the practical problem that is going to be created here. In all his observations, I think the Minister has only confirmed what I said; that is, that with this Amendment we shall have dotted about the country a number of, so to speak, Plymouths—local authorities which have chosen to adopt this part of the Bill in the way that Plymouth adopted it for themselves—and what is going to be the

1123
matter with that? If it works all right in Plymouth, presumably it will work all right elsewhere.
If that does not solve the whole of the problem that is worrying the Minister, we already know (because he told us in an earlier debate) that the Government have their plans to introduce their own legislation to deal with private hire cars later on. Why not leave that matter to that Bill? As far as we know, these multiple long-distance operators are not causing any concern or trouble; they are not misbehaving, or anything of that kind. Why not leave them alone until the Government have really thought out what they want to do about that aspect of the problem, instead of catching them in this clumsy net which has been created since the Standing Committee on this Bill in another place, and which still bears all the signs of not having been properly thought out? My Lords, I cannot withdraw this Amendment; I am very sorry.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
7.2 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 72, line 7, after ("district") insert ("or taking them outside a controlled district").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are discussing this separately although the Minister chose to give me his views upon it in advance, which should be to my advantage, of course. This is an Amendment to paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the saving clause. The clause saves those vehicles used for bringing passengers within a controlled district from outside—to them the whole of Part II does not apply—but it does not apply in the case of journeys for taking those people outside a controlled district from within it. The purpose of this Amendment is to bring those people within the saving clause, so that, whether people are being brought into a controlled district or are being taken out of it, they are saved from the provisions of Part II.
This, again, is a matter which is not covered by the Government Amendment which has become subsection (2), because—and I must say it again—subsection (2) applies only to vehicles operating from within a controlled district, and to those
1124
many which will be operating from an uncontrolled district it will not apply. To take an example of how this matter is going to work out in practice as the position is under the Bill at present, without this Amendment, if a noble Lord who lived in an uncontrolled district had a daughter and wanted to send her to a dance in a neighbouring district, which was a controlled district, by hire car, he could send her in a car supplied by an operator whom he knew and in whom he had confidence because he would be sending her within a controlled district, and the operator could operate because that would save him from Part II. But suppose your daughter went straight to the dance from her work in London, and there she was, in a controlled district, and you wanted to fetch her to your home in an uncontrolled district. Could you send the hire car of the firm that you knew to collect her? As the Bill stands you could not, because you would be taking the car into a controlled district to bring somebody out. So the consequence of this would be that the girl would have to find, in the district where she was, a car hire firm, about which she might not know anything, she would have to negotiate the fare, and so on. What an absurd situation this would be, and what useful purpose would it serve?
This matter cannot be of any interest one way or the other to the car hire firms, because over any period of time, surely, the journeys undertaken by an operator in one district are going to cancel out with the journeys undertaken by an operator in the district next door. So it is not going to affect them at all. This is merely going to make the most frightful nuisance and difficulty for members of the public, who will be pointlessly restricted in hiring cars from the firms that they know in order to take members of their family from one place to another. It is really quite stupid, and that situation will be cured by this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I dealt with the substance of this matter when I spoke on the last Amendment because I thought it right that the House should be aware of the Government's attitude towards both. To take the particular example given by the noble Lord concerning the problem of one's

1125
daughter in this particular situation, the answer is that one's daughter, the noble Lord will be delighted to hear, can be collected in the same car because the contract will have been made for going there and returning. If the noble Lord will forgive me and allow me to finish, I should at this stage like to answer his Amendment. I think it right to inform the House why the Government do not find this Amendment acceptable.
The position is that exemption is already provided in subsection (1)(a) of Clause 75 to vehicles, whether licensed or unlicensed, used for bringing passengers into a controlled district, and this permits them to perform contracts made outside the district. But to collect passengers within a controlled district must be the prerogative of a licensed vehicle; and any operator wishing to do this, as I indicated on the last Amendment. may submit his vehicles for licensing. That is the way in which he can deal with this particular problem. He cannot be refused on the ground that any numerical limit is applied to the number of licences which may issued, and if his vehicles and drivers are found fit they must be licensed.
If a local authority behaves wholly unreasonably, there is of course an appeal to the magistrates' court. A licensed vehicle may of course freely take passengers or goods outside a district. No control applies to its departure from a district, and the provisions of Clause 75(1)(a) and Clause 75(2) would appear to permit it ready entry into whatever other district it then enters. I think, with respect, that the question of substance is whether we are going to have this form of licensing control. I think this is in fact not an unreasonable approach, and for that reason I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, it really would be helpful if Ministers would pay attention to the speech that is made in support of the Amendment which is moved. It really is not good enough for the Minister to get up and say that there is no problem here because the contract would be to take the girl in both directions, that the contract would be made at the same time, and that no difficulty arises. I took very great care to ask about the case
1126
where the girl goes from her work in London to a dance in a controlled area. She does not have to be taken by the private hire car into the controlled area; she only has to be fetched from it and taken home into the uncontrolled area.
I sought to intervene and to explain this again to the Minister. if he had given way, he might have had an answer to it. I do not know; I do not think he would have had an answer. I do not suppose that he has one now and, as we are on Third Reading, the procedures in this House count for something. The point has not been answered. Here is a clear case where all that is being achieved is the inconvenience of members of the public. Here is a girl who could so easily otherwise have been carried in a car which she and her parents knew about, and who knew the driver, instead of her having to find some other car in a strange place and to negotiate the fare and so on.
Nothing is being achieved by resisting this Amendment except the inconvenience of members of the public. It is a very disappointing affair. I have a good deal of sympathy for the Minister. He has been frank in saying all along that this matter was sprung on the Government and is so largely unconsidered. It will be a shame if it is to go on the Statute Book in this form. It is not doing any good at all. I am not going to withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree—because most people have been in this situation—that where you are in one place and you have to call a car to take you home and you call the car from the place you know, that that in fact is the most expensive way to do it. Normally, you would call a car at the point where you are to take you back from where you started.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I do not see that at all. A car must make a return journey in either event. If it is a question of hiring a car from a chap I do not know to take me home and ringing up a chap at home whom I do know and with whom I have an account, asking him to come and fetch me, I know which of the two I would choose to engage.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 80 [Interpretation of Part II]:
7.13 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 74, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert—
(""operate "means in the course of business to invite and accept bookings for a private hire vehicle and to control or arrange the journey to be undertaken by a private hire vehicle whilst on hire under section 46 of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to Clause 80 which is the definition clause. We have been round this course twice before. The definition of the word "operate" is one which has concerned us for some time. As we have been discussing, on Clause 75, the question of operators and how they act in particular circumstances, the definition of the word "operate" becomes of even greater significance. On two previous occasions, my noble friend and, subsequently, myself suggested that it was to be recommended that the definition be widened. We believe that by adding the second half of the sentence and drawing attention specifically to Clause 46 of the Bill, it acts as a definite signpost and has merit in itself. We believe that the definition clause in many Bills can be widened and improved with benefit. We cannot see why the Government feel that this is to be rejected.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as the noble Lord has just pointed out, we have had a discussion on this matter before but that is no reason why we should not have another today. We have had a number of previous debates on most of the questions which we have debated today—and, I think, for a perfectly good reason. That is, the circumstances, which we have discussed on a number of occasions—and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned them again—in which this Part of the Bill came to be written into the Bill. I will, if I may, although I may be wildly out of order in doing so, thank all noble Lords on both sides of the House who have made this Part of the Bill more sensible and practical than when it arrived in this House.
Having said those gracious words, I am afraid I cannot go on to say that I find that this particular Amendment would make
1128
the Bill a great deal better. Perhaps I may deal with some of the anxieties which may lie behind it. First, there may be concern that the particular provisions do not bite on people in the hotel trade, travel agents and others outside the field of operating licences who, in the course of their normal duties of providing services to clients of their businesses, may also provide a degree of facilities to invite and accept bookings for private hire vehicles.
We would certainly agree with the principle here. It is not the intention of the Bill that the general services provided by the hotel, catering or travel industries be hindered or that licensing requirements be imposed on such fringe activities. Our view is that the persons referred to are not in the private car hire business and do not accept bookings for private hire vehicles, they put would-be hirers into contact with operators or they accept requests for vehicles and pass them on to operators, much as they might accept requests for flowers and pass them on to the supplier. They are not in a position to accept bookings themselves. If they do so, and provide vehicles on their own behalf from resources available to them, then they are clearly in business as operators and require to be licensed.
We believe that to import the concept that to be an operator a person must control or arrange the journey to be undertaken"—that is the language of the Amendment—might allow many operators to escape the control. Some operators keep lists of private owner-drivers who make their vehicles available for bookings through the centralised facilities of the operator. The drivers are not employed by the operator but work on a commission basis. There may be circumstances in which it could be held that the operator leaves it to the driver, who is also the proprietor, to control and arrange the details of the journey. We would certainly want to be wary of so re-defining the word "operator" as to open the possibility that, by this technique, some could escape control. Therefore, for that reason particularly, we would prefer that this Amendment be not made.
There is a second point; that is, that some may argue that if a private hire firm puts one of his staff, sometimes in a uniform, at a desk or something of that sort in an hotel, a railway station

1129
an airport or an exhibition or in some other similar site for the purpose of making vehicle reservations, no requirement as to licensing should arise. Then, we would part company with those taking that view. In our view, such an employee of a private hire organistion represents that organisation and is engaged upon its business. It would, in our view, be wrong to differentiate on the grounds of the scale of the temporary nature of such an arranngement. They are the two reasons of substance why we are reluctant to accept this Amendment. I hope that upon reflection the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will not press his Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before my noble friend decides what he will do about this Amendment, may I clear my mind? I understood the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to say at the beginning of his remarks that this definition of "operate" would not apply to someone in a hotel who was simply taking the bookings, because it could not be said that he was licensed to operate. Then, I understood the noble Lord to say that, if a licensed company employed a person in a uniform to sit in the hotel and take bookings, he had to be licensed, although it seems to me he is performing precisely the same function as the original person.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, without breaching the rules of order even more than I am afriad I am in the process of doing, I will deal with that point. There is a distinction; the second person is an employee of the private hire firm but the first is not. It is a point of substance, because if you are a uniformed representative of a particular company permanently in the foyer of an hotel, you are clearly an employee of the firm. If you are simply at the reception desk of an hotel, you are not an employee of the firm and therefore would not be caught by the Bill.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for detailing the particular problems that we have encountered at various stages of the Bill. I do not wish to detain your Lordships further; we have covered most of the points. I cannot say that we are wholly satisfied with the situation as it stands; at least we appreciate the diffi
1130
culties which surround it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Enactments repealed.]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 81, line 51, column 3, at end insert—
("In paragraph 11 of Schedule 8 the words" and 170".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together. These are drafting Amendments to tidy up the repeal Schedule. All these repeals are references to enactments which are repealed or replaced by clauses in the Bill. The first relates to Section 170 of the Housing Act 1957 which is superseded by Clause 15 and the second and third to Sections 271 and 323 of the Public Health Act 1936, both of which are repealed by Clause 27. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 82, line 3, column 3, after ("sections") insert ("271,").
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 82, line 5, column 3, at end insert ("and the reference to section 323 of that Act.")
7.24 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I rise merely to thank my noble friend Baroness Birk for the letter which she sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and me after we had moved an Amendment to Clause 19. The purpose of that Amendment was to delete from the powers to be given to local authority councils the right to establish riding schools. We moved that deletion for two reasons. First, we felt horse-riding was a very dangerous recreation. We do not want

1131
to featherbed young people (or old people, for that matter) and the noble Baroness and I are both fairly experienced riders. But one reads nearly every day in the papers reports of severe accidents which occur to horse-riders; and we had a reminder of that from Montreal only a few days ago. In the Sunday Mirror a fortnight ago there was a tabulated list drawn up by an eminent neurosurgeon. A number of head injuries were scheduled which occured as a result of various kinds of sport. The neurosurgeon stipulated about 20 sports. For boxing, there were 4 cases; for judo, six and gymnastics, 9. But for horse-riding, there were 162 cases, and six of the people died.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and I considered whether we would bring forward our Amendment again at one of the later stages of the Bill. After reading the letter from my noble friend, Lady Birk—which fell far short of what we desired—we felt that we would leave matters as they were. My noble friend Lady Birk suggested in this letter that as soon as the Bill had passed, she would send a circular to local authorities drawing attention to the problems of establishing riding schools and also of the risks involved, mentioning the high expenditure that councils might have to incur in setting up schools at a time when they are supposed to be following a policy of economy. I thank my noble friend for this promise to send out a circular. I hope that there will be some plain speaking in it, and that it will be couched in terms which will tend to discourage rather than encourage local councils from setting up these riding schools.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, now we have come to the end of our deliberations on this Bill, may I say that I think there are some good things in which will be found extremely useful by local authorities. But I feel the section dealing with hire car services does not fit into the Bill and would have been better deleted. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness have been extremely courteous to us from the Government Front Bench. They have been stern in resisting some suggestions which would have made improvements to this Bill. They were hard on the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, just now. I do not think they gave a
1132
satisfactory answer to the point he raised about the girl friend at the dance. The distance quoted would have been precisely the same either way. Some of the provisions in this Bill will be much appreciated by local authorities and save them a great deal of money over the years in being able to take advantage of this Bill instead of having to promote separate Bills. That was the main object of the exercise. A good deal has been achieved in that direction.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Viscount said. If just now I was less than courteous to the Minister, I appreciate that he has been having a most difficult task piloting Part II of the Bill through the House, having to defend so much that is so indefensible. Coming to the general point, as was said in the proceedings on the South Glamorgan Bill, and in support of what the noble Viscount has said, one hopes this is only the first of a series of miscellaneous provisions Bills, because, as has just been said, any general provision avoids the need for provisions in local Acts. The difficulty about provisions in local Acts is that you do not find the local authorities precisely agreeing with one another so that the law on a particular topic, if it is controlled by a series of local Acts, is just slightly different as between one district and another. That is really a great irritation and annoyance; so I would hope that we could have a series of miscellaneous provisions Bills in order to avoid the necessity for a multitude of local Bills having to be promoted.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do think this is the time to make long speeches, but I should like to thank noble Lords on both sides of the House who have contributed to this Bill. I hope that this "series" does not start too soon or go on too regularly, because this Bill has had a long scrutiny and, because of the weather, it has sometimes seemed even longer.
In spite of what was said by the noble Viscount—and I thank him for his kind words—as far as the Bill is concerned, I think both my noble friend and I have accepted a number of Amendments. A number of new clauses—I will not list them now—have been included as a result of consultation with the local

1133
authority associations, and also as a result of comments and suggestions put forward by noble Lords opposite. On the whole, T think this is a much better Bill than when it came to this House, and I fervently hope that it will lead the way towards preventing most local authorities bringing forward their own private Bills.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the number of Amendments they have accepted. It is always disappointing when one does not get everything that one asks for, but a great many Amendments have been accepted and I personally believe that this is one of the occasions where the true value of the House of Lords as an amending Chamber can be appreciated. I believe that the whole exercise has been worth while and, although it seems to me the Bill is nothing like perfect and I only wish that we had more time available so that we could get it right, nevertheless, I believe it is a great deal better than it was. Finally, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Sandys for his support throughout the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (COMPENSA TION) ORDER 1976
7.33 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN rose to move, That the draft Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order 1976, laid before the House on 15th July, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Birk in moving for the approval of the draft Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order 1976, I think your Lordships will find it helpful if I explained a little of the background to it before dealing with its content.
Your Lordships will recall that under the community land scheme a stage will be reached when it will become the duty of all land scheme authorities to acquire all land needed for all relevant development.
1134
It will then be possible to introduce the final stage of the scheme, the second appointed day, brought in by order under the Community Land Act. As from the second appointed day, the basis of compensation for a land transaction will be current use value—broadly the value of the land in its existing use, taking no account of any increase in value conferred by the grant or hope of a fresh planning permission.
But in the interim period until that stage is reached, compensation will be assessed in accordance with the rules laid down in the Land Compensation Act 1961 (or, in Scotland, the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963), under which compensation is essentially market value. The arrangements for securing the development value of land for the community will lie in the Development Land Tax Act, which received Royal Assent on 22nd July and which comes into operation on 1st August. Under the Development Land Tax Act, Community Land Act authorities, certain other local authorities and some other public bodies which are both exempt from development land tax and which possess compulsory purchase powers in relation to the land being acquired, will deduct from the consideration or compensation on an acquisition from a private owner an amount on account of any development land tax for which the private owner may be liable on the disposal. In short, in this interim period, certain public authorities will buy land net of development land tax.
I should like to make one further background point perfectly clear. The order is concerned entirely with transactions between certain public bodies. It does not affect private transactions or transactions between the public and private sectors, for which the arrangements for the application of development land tax to the market value basis of compensation, which I have just described, will apply.
Turning now to the intention and contents, the order has been laid under the powers contained in Section 26 of the Community Land Act and requires the approval of both Houses if Parliament. The purpose of Section 26 is to apply the principle of the net-of-tax system to land transactions between the bodies specified in that section, that is to say where land

1135
belonging to a local or new town authority, the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint Planning Board, the Lake District Special Planning Board or any joint board which may be established under Section 2 of the Community Land Act, is acquired by one of those bodies or by a Minister. The draft order also proposes, in Article 3, to add certain other bodies to that list. I will deal with those in a moment.
Your Lordships will realise that an arrangement of this kind is necessary simply because when one authority empowered to buy net of development land tax is buying land with development value from another such authority (which, by definition, is exempt from paying the tax), the problem arises of which authority is to have the tax benefit. They cannot both have it, and a choice has to be made. The choice proposed in the order is that the benefit should go to the acquiring authority. The proposal is founded on the principle that, in the same way as if the land were in private ownership, the benefit of being able to acquire land net of development land tax should go to the public body which is to develop the land or bring it into development. The selling authority will retain part of any increase in value which may have been due to their own activities, but on the other hand there will be little or no difference for the acquiring authority between buying from another authority or the private sector. For example, where a district council is buying from a county council land which the district council need for council houses, the price assessed under the land compensation rules would be the open market value of the land as a housing site. Under the rules as modified by the order, the price will be reduced by approximately the amount of development land tax which would have been due if the land had been in private ownership. The actual cost would be somewhere between current use value and market value depending upon the factors which have to be taken into account in an actual development land tax calculation, such as the original cost of acquisition by the county council and any expenditure on improvements.
If I may now deal with the technicalities, it was explained at the Committee stage of the Community Land Act that the financial basis for transactions between local authorities is the Land Compensation
1136
Act 1961 or the Scottish Act of 1963. Although the 1961 Act governs compensation for compulsory purchase—and compulsory purchase between public authorities is almost unheard of—the practice is to apply the rules to acquisition by agreement; and it is in this context that the provisions of the order will be most relevant.]
It was, of course, impossible to provide in the Community Land Act, since it preceded the Development Land Tax Act, for a net of development land tax formula to apply to these transactions. Hence the Act made provision in Section 26 with the intention of enabling what one might call a "net of notional tax" basis to be applied by order. Article 4(2) of the order achieves the desired "net of notional tax" result, by modifying the compensation rules to provide that the compensation shall be assessed as the difference between the normal open market value and the amount of development land tax which would have been deductible if the land were being acquired from a person liable to the tax.
Since no actual tax liability is involved certain assumptions, set out in paragraph (b) of the modified rule (2), have to be made: first, that the selling body was not totally exempt from development land tax; secondly, that the time of the disposal is the date at which the compensation is to be assessed; thirdly, that the consideration (from which the calculated amount of "notional" tax falls to be deducted) was the open market value; fourthly, that the selling body's cost of acquisition—for the purpose of calculating notional tax—did not include any tax deducted by that body when it acquired the land. Without that assumption the benefit of the reduced price system would not be passed on to the acquiring body as intended; and, fifthly, that no development value had previously been realised by the vendor body (so that in every case no notional tax deduction is made in respect of the first £10,000 of realised development value, 66⅔ per cent. of the next £15,000 is deducted, and 80 per cent. is deducted from any amount in excess of £160,000).
Article 4(3) has the effect that the modified basis—the "net of notional tax" basis—does not apply where the land being transferred was acquired by the

1137
selling body before 1st August 1976, the date from which the development land tax operates. The reason for this is that, by and large, most land in the possession of land scheme authorities was acquired before the development land tax system was made known—let alone introduced—and these acquisitions were carried out without the benefit of the net of tax arrangements. It was therefore thought right that the proposals, now embodied in the order, should apply only when the vending authority acquired the land in the first place after the operative date of the Development Land Tax Act, 1st August.
If I may turn back now to Article 3, this specifies five additional bodies to whom the modified basis of compensation will apply. I have already explained the relationship of the order to the development land tax system, and if noble Lords have been studying the Development Land Tax Act they may have noticed that these five bodies are among those specified in Section 11(2) as being exempt from development land tax. But they are also authorities who may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily, and they will therefore deduct tax when acquiring land from a person liable to pay it. They are also bodies having functions and responsibilities which are broadly similar to those of the land scheme authorities themselves; namely, to develop land, or arrange for it to be brought into development, for the benefit of the community. The comparability of these bodies with local authorities has been recognised for Community Land Act purposes by including them in the Community Land (Outstanding Material Interests) Order 1976 which came into operation on 6th April. It is therefore appropriate to bring them within the circle of bodies to which the net of notional tax arrangements apply. My Lords, it is a complicated order, but I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order 1976, laid before the House on 15th July, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, it is indeed a complicated order, and the noble Baroness knows only too well how much
1138
we on this side dislike anything to do with the Community Land Act, which this is, and the development land tax, which goes with it; and I do not notice very much enthusiasm from her own Back Benches either. But after that little salvo, I have to admit that if we are to have these wretched provisions, those provided in this order are sensible and necessary. However, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could confirm that there is nothing in this order Which empowers the bodies specified in it to acquire land compulsorily under the Community Land Act. My understanding is that that is done under Section 18 of the main Act by order of the Secretary of State, and I like to think that all we are concerned about now is the code of conduct that will govern transactions between those main authorities, which are referred to in Section 18 of the main Act, and the further authorities specified in Section 26 and in this order.
Secondly, is this list of authorities exhaustive? It does not seem to me that it is. For example, there is an authority known as the Chichester Harbour Authority, which is exactly on all-fours with the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, but which is not in the order. So what are the criteria by which this batch of five authorities, which I can see have need to deal in land, are selected, and, it seems to me, quite a lot of other authorities, of which the Chichester Harbour Authority is one, do not appear in this list?
7.47 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is that his assumptions are right. This order is only for the purpose of assessing compensation. Secondly, the list is not necessarily exhaustive. As he said, there are other bodies which may be able to make out just as good a case as the ones we have included, and any others can be added by further orders if their case is made out. Any bodies that are added to the land scheme as bodies able to buy net of tax from these authorities have to satisfy two conditions: first, that they should themselves be exempt from development land tax on disposing of land in their ownership; and, secondly, that they should possess the compulsory purchase powers. Section 11 of the Development Land Tax Act lists all of the bodies which

1139
are not subject to development land tax. Subsection (1) lists the generalised bodies—the county and district councils and so on—and subsection (2) lists eight bodies by name. Five of these eight bodies possess compulsory purchase powers, and it is these five which we have now included in Article 3 of the order.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS (AMENDMENT) BILL
7.49 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This very short amending Bill passed through all its stages on the nod in another place on 16th July. That was something which I think was most unusual and, in my experience at any rate, unique. But it showed three things: first, that this amending Bill is not controversial; secondly, that it has the Government's blessing; and, thirdly, that there is a need for it. As Parliament has had no explanation whatsoever of the need for this amendment of the Protection of Birds Act 1954, as amended in 1967, because there was no opportunity in another place, may I please say a few words, in spite of the hour being latish, because I think it is important that there should be something—even something brief—on the record?
The fines for any person guilty of an offence against the Protection of Birds Act 1954 have not been changed since that Act was put on the Statute Book. Clause 12(2)(a) of the Act laid down a maximum fine of £25 for especially serious offences. Those offences fell into two main categories: first, excessively cruel methods of killing or taking wild birds, such as the use of gin traps, or the use of blinded decoy birds, or the use of bird lime. Those are three examples which spring to mind and they were described in detail, together with other excessively cruel methods of taking wild birds, in Section 5 of the 1954 Act.
The second category of specially serious offences which are subject to a maximum fine of £25 involve the taking of rare or very rare birds which are listed in the First Schedule to the Act. Incidentally, the very first bird in that Schedule is the
1140
avocet, because the Schedule is alphabetical. This bird is the symbol of the RSPB. At the moment I am wearing the tie of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, whose President is the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who sits opposite. For many years this society has done splendid work for the protection of wild birds and it is extremely anxious to see that this measure reaches the Statute Book.
Section 12(2)(b) of the 1954 Act laid down a maximum fine of £5 for all other offences under the Act. It is sad but true that the purchasing power of the pound since 1954 has fallen so steeply that to impose the same penalty in real terms today the fines would need to be, in round figures, £90 and £18 instead of £25 and £5. Thus this Bill introduces no more than an increase that offsets the inflation since 1954. In addition, the fines under the Protection of Birds Acts are now seriously out of line with the most recent legislation in the conservation field. The Badgers Act 1973 laid down a maximum fine of £100. The Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 laid down the same maximum fine of £100. The really important reason, however, for this short amending Bill must be the ever increasing demand for, and hence the pressure on, rare species of birds, in particular birds of prey, and the extraordinarily high price that these species fetch on the black market.
Already this year your Lordships will be shocked to know that some 30 pairs of peregrine falcon, the only bird that we have breeding in Britain which is listed in the Endangered Species Bill, have failed to rear their young because either their eggs or their young have been taken illegally. The peregrine falcon is a Schedule 1 bird and offences involving it are subject, naturally, to the £25 maximum fine. It is reasonable to assume that by the end of the breeding season rather more than 40 pairs of peregrine falcon will have been robbed of either their young or their eggs. Acts such as the Protection of Birds Acts are notoriously difficult to enforce. But enforcement must be made more difficult, surely, in that £25 fines, even when costs have to be paid as well, represent a small risk when speaking about a bird such as the peregrine falcon. which has a value, believe it or not, of £500 or more for a mature bird. So,

1141
for that matter, does the golden eagle. Those are the prices at which these birds are changing hands on the black market.
The number of prosecutions under the Protection of Birds Acts gives, unhappily, only an inkling of the widespread and numerous infringements of them. I have a long, sad list of successful prosecutions during the last 12 months or so under the Acts and I am sure that they are only the tip of the iceberg. Rare birds' eggs—for example, the osprey's or the snowy owl's eggs—fetch very high prices from egg collectors, as do the birds themselves, alive or dead, from so-called bird fanciers or taxidermists. In my view, the 1954 Act needs several important amendments to make it more effective. Incidentally, this Act was introduced by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie in another place and amended in 1967 by the late Lord Hurcomb in your Lordships' House. The two Acts together need further amendment in the light of experience.
I hope to have an opportunity to introduce another amending Bill to the 1954 Act in the next Session of Parliament. Meanwhile, Mr. Peter Hardy's Bill which, brought from another place, we have before us now will, if it commends itself to your Lordships, go some way, although in my view not far enough, towards deterring law breakers who seek to profit from the suffering of wild birds and the senseless greed of the collector.
When considering the maximum fines which should be imposed under the Acts, it is reasonable to bear in mind that the prison sentences provided for in the 1954 Act are no longer regarded as an appropriate form of punishment for offences committed under these Acts. Surely this clearly points to the need for stiffer fines. At present, the fines are derisory and are taken in their stride by unscrupulous people. We can do something to make the law more effective if today we give this modest Bill a Second Reading and if it passes its remaining stages on Thursday of this week.
I am exceptionally grateful to my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton for being kind enough to come to listen to this very short Second Reading speech and, I hope, to lend me his support. In fact,
1142
I feel sure of his support. I am also very grateful indeed to the noble Lord the Minister for being on the Front Bench opposite, and I hope to hear from him that this small measure has the Government's blessing. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chelwood.)
7.58 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to say straight away that I am most grateful that my noble friend Lord Chelwood has seen fit to bring this measure before your Lordships' House. Needless to say, as he anticipated, I can assure my noble friend of the full support not only of myself but, I suspect, of every member of the Party for which I stand. As my noble friend has said, regrettably the pound has fallen in value since 1954 and accordingly the value of collectors' items, he they alive or dead, has gone up far more than one would ever have wished.
The noble Lord mentioned the peregrine falcon. When one considers that each young peregrine falcon commands £250 and each adult £500, one wonders how £25 can be considered an adequate fine. My noble friend said that 30 pairs of young peregrine falcon have already gone and that possibly 40 pairs will have gone by the end of the year. That is at £250 each—not for a pair but £250 for each young bird and £500 for each adult. It is a lot of money, and £25 is not much of a deterrent.
May I say that my noble friend Lord Craigton, whose influence in this field is so great and whose knowledge is so enormous, has asked me to say how sorry he is that he is not able to be in the House tonight to add his views. I told him that on his behalf I would inform your Lordships that the World Wildlife Fund's allocations committee had come unanimously to the conclusion that in their view even the suggested £100 fine was inadequate for the elimination of these racketeers.
May I ask the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply one question which is in no way derogatory of the Bill. I understand that the Government are favourably disposed towards this Bill, for which, like my noble friend, I am most grateful.

1143
I merely want to ask, in a spirit of genuine inquiry and making no Party political points, a question about the Endangered Species Bill which was recently before us. We asked then whether the fines were adequate, and I seem to remember the noble Baroness who answered for the Government saying that the James Committee was recommending increased fines in the case of all Acts of Parliament of this sort which would bring fines up to a level to make them adequate to the rate of inflation as compared to the time when they were introduced. Therefore, at that moment we were asked not to insist on Amendments in Committee and on Report stages because the Government wished them to be dealt with across the broad spectrum in all Acts of Parliament. I merely ask this question. If, as I understand, the Government are favourable to this measure—for which I again say that I am most grateful—ought one's honourable friends in another place now consider increasing the fines which we were advised not to increase in such cases as the Endangered Species Bill? I am slightly puzzled, because that seems to be a parallel to this measure. Having injected that slightly carping note into what is otherwise a happy occasion, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Chelwood.
8.2 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is the second time within recent weeks that the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has taken up cudgels on behalf of the animal world and, I am happy to say, this is the second time that on behalf of the Government I have been able to nod rather approvingly in his direction. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord piloted through this House the Dangerous Wild Animals Bill which received Royal Assent last Thursday. Your Lordships wholeheartedly approved of the Bill, as did those in another place. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, I believe he is hoping to introduce yet a third Bill in the not too distant future. He has struck lucky on this occasion and I hope, if the Bill is suitable, he will complete a hat trick.
As the noble Lord explained, the Bill before us increases the financial penalties under the Protection of Birds Act 1954, to take account of changes in the value of
1144
money over the last 22 years, and to bring them into line with those provided in recent comparable legislation. Let me say here and now that the Bill has the support of the Government. Indeed I am giving away no secret when I say that these penalties, along with many others, are currently under review by the Home Office. We are indeed well aware that many Statutes provide for financial penalties which over the years have simply lost all or a great deal of whatever power they may have had to deter people or to punish them. As your Lordships know, we have been studying the recommendations of the report of the James Committee on the distribution of criminal business among the courts. As may be imagined, this is quite a lengthy exercise, but I can say that one aspect of our consideration will be the revision of the maximum fines imposable on summary conviction for particular offences. That study will inevitably embrace the fines we are talking about today, and the end product would almost certainly be a Government measure which inter alia would take account of the fall in the value of money since 1954.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, was right in his recollection about various things that were said during the passage of the Endangered Species Bill, when I think he may well have been given to understand that this was a matter that we hoped to deal with. The reason why it is being done on this occasion—and I do not want to go all over the ground already covered by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood—is simply that Mr. Peter Hardy took the initiative to do something in that direction in this Bill. Whether it would be worth the noble Lord's while to talk to his friends in another place, I do not know. I think probably that if the Bill has not yet been through another place it might not succeed in getting through there this session. However, I will certainly convey what the noble Lord has said this evening to the appropriate Department because, as he will know, it is not the Department for which I am speaking here this evening. I will convey his remarks to my right honourable friend in that Department. To that extent it can be said that this Bill will do for a very small area what a Government Bill in a future Session of Parliament is likely to do over a much

1145
greater area of the criminal law. We shall try to do that as soon as we possibly can.
I wish to repeat that the report of the James Committee covers a wide area, and a good deal of thought and consideration as to the kind of action that is to be taken would have to he given to it. Meanwhile, the Government give their approval and support the Bill now before your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STOCK EXCHANGE (COMPLETION OF BARGAINS) BILL
8.8 p.m.
Lord TERRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Having spent the greater part of my working life in a city partnership it gives me particular pleasure to he associated with a Bill of this nature in your Lordships' House. I say "particular pleasure", because this Bill is concerned with modernisation and simplification in an area which I realise from personal experience is highly desirable, especially for the investing public.
Before embarking on the Bill itself, it might he helpful if I were to spend a short while on matters relating to the existing procedure for transferring securities, because I suspect that the average investor is probably not aware of exactly what is involved. But before doing so, in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding I should like to explain that this Bill is solely connected with a computerised settlement system. It is not concerned with computerised dealing and therefore has nothing to do with the Ariel system set up by certain institutions.
To begin with, it may come as a surprise to your Lordships to learn that settlement work represents between a quarter and a third of the running costs of a London firm of stockbrokers, and despite economies carried out during 1974 those settlement costs continue to rise. Furthermore, the present system has difficulty in coping with the enormous amount of paper that has to be handled at times of high market activity, and certain aspects of the system
1146
complicate settlement as well as bemusing investors of all types.
In fact, both in 1968 and 1972, and again in the first quarter of 1975 there was evidence that the systen was in danger of breaking down, as it did in New York in 1970. I can vouch from personal experience what that meant in Wall Street, because I was working there at the time. The increasing difficulties of managing the settlement arise mainly from the fact that it relies heavily on skilled and experienced staff in firms' offices who carry out complex but routine work. This type of staff is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit, particularly where overtime is involved. Therefore, it seems to be quite logical that the Stock Exchange authorities should decide to simplify the process by transferring the complexities of settlement to a centre equipped with computers and modern systems which can overcome the problems now facing the market.
So far, I have avoided the use of jargon, but in explaining the existing system of settlement, perhaps I may he allowed some licence so that I can spell out my main reasons for believing a change is urgently required. The present procedure is based on what is known as "ticket passing" which, although appearing distinctively simple, is complex, expensive, and creates peak loads during periods of high dealing activity. It is a system under which the broker deals with a jobber, but to avoid the costs and delays of registration into the name of a jobber, the broker is normally paired with another broker dealing in the opposite way. Since in most instances the buyer has dealt in a different amount of stock from the seller, the result is a need to "split" and certify stock. Furthermore, when delivery instructions are passed on a "ticket" from buyer to jobber and thence to the seller, every stock "split" implies splitting the "ticket."
This antiquated and somewhat cumbersome system has operated almost unchanged for the past 100 years. What is now proposed is much simpler, and is called "Talisman", or, in other words, Transfer Machinery and Lodgment for Investors, Stock Management for Jobbers. The basic idea is to set up a depository for the holding of stock passing through the market in the course of the settlement. Its aim is to simplify present practice, while at the same time retaining all the

1147
advantages of the present fortnightly account, although I might add here that the system is highly flexible and can therefore fit in with various international settlement systems which do not operate on the basis of a fortnightly account.
Under the system, the Stock Exchange authorities will set up a nominee company called SEPON, or in other words, Stock Exchange Pool Nominees. This company will have a single undesignated shareholding account in the register of every company participating in the scheme. All sold stock will be transferred from the seller into the name of SEPON and purchasers will receive transfers out of SEPON. This is the "pool" account, to use another piece of jargon, and is a single holding of all stock in the course of transfer.
Finally, the Stock Exchange Centre, acting as the agent for each owner, will maintain within the "pool" account a number of separate accounts for each jobber dealing in the stock. These stock accounts reflect the changing status of stock during the settlement process. I could go into a great deal of detail on the whole question of transfer procedures under this new system, but, if I may, I will confine myself to one overriding matter about which I believe your Lordships wish to be informed when considering the merits of the Bill.
Here, I should like to emphasise that while the legal title of a stock will pass to SEPON on registration with the company concerned, the beneficial rights attaching will remain with the seller until he has been paid. Not until account day will the beneficial ownership be transferred to the jobber, and the selling broker will then receive payment. What happens to the stock of course will depend on instructions given to the Centre by the jobber, but normally it will be used to fulfil purchase orders—or, to employ another piece of jargon, a process called "apportionment". Once this has taken place, beneficial ownership is transferred to the buyer.
My Lords, I have tried to outline the existing and the proposed new systems in the simplest possible way, and I hope that in the process I have not bored your Lordships to excess. But I feel that some of the details of the mechanism have to
1148
be explained as the necessary background to the Bill. I should now like to turn to the positive advantages attaching to this new system, with particular reference to the investing public. By that, I mean all investors, whether investing directly or through pension funds, life assurance companies or unit trusts.
At this point I should declare another personal interest, as a member of the Wider Shareownership Council, by saying that any proposition which simplifies matters for the smaller investors is especially welcome to me, because I am a firm believer in employee participation through equity investment.
My Lords, the "Talisman" system in fact will return to the simplicity of having bargains "settled as dealt" This will eliminate the delays so often experienced today and herein, in my submission, lies the chief merit of this modernising Bill. In future, investors will receive their certificates more quickly and also their dividends and rights issues. At present, there is often a delay when securities are sold "cum dividend" or "cum rights". In transferring those dividends or rights from the seller to the buyer under the new system, these problems will be sorted out quickly by the Stock Exchange Centre.
I do not think my introduction would be complete without some reference to the benefit accruing to the United Kingdom securities industry itself. Although these are naturally financial benefits, they are not unimportant, bearing in mind the role of the City of London as a major financial centre. Not only will there be a saving in costs to member firms of the Stock Exchange, but company registrars also will benefit from a much more even flow of transfers. In fact, I understand that the registrars of larger companies have estimated that this system should reduce their costs by something like 10 per cent. To my mind, any system which can reduce costs and free the time of member firms to concentrate on providing a better service to United Kingdom and international investors merits wholehearted support. It is on this note that I now turn to the Bill itself.
This Bill is necessary to allow the principal legal innovation of "Talisman", which is to enable the transfer of securities by book entry and also to allow an interest

1149
in a beneficial title to be pledged to a third party by entry in a pledged account. Clause 1 takes care of this point by exempting companies from issuing certificates relating to securities allotted or transferred to a Stock Exchange nominee designated by the Secretary of State, in other words, SEPON. This exemption is necessary because the number of shares held by SEPON will be changed from day to day. No useful purpose would be served by requiring companies continually to issue and reissue certificates. In any case, it would impose an intolerable burden on company registrars. Instead, the company will maintain in its registers a running total of the number of securities held by SEPON at any one time.
The next most important point is the need to amend the Stock Transfer Act 1963, to enable new transfer forms to be authorised. Here, I should like to mention that the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, who introduced the 1963 Bill into your Lordships' House, has asked me to say that he fully supports this new Bill. The prescribed forms to be used for the transfer of registered securities arc set out in the Schedules to the 1963 Act. Section 3(2) of that Act provides that the Treasury may amend the said Schedules so as to alter the forms or substitute new forms, or add forms for use as alternatives. The introduction of "Talisman" will involve a substantial change in the system for transferring securities dealt in on the Stock Exchange, and will require more radical alterations in the transfer forms than was envisaged when the Stock Transfer Act was drafted. In particular, special forms will need to be prescribed for transfers to and from SEPON. These forms will not need to contain all the information envisaged by the 1963 Act. They will be executed mechanically rather than by hand. Clause 6 widens the powers available under that Act so as to enable such forms to be prescribed, but existing forms, of course, will continue to be authorised for transfers not made through SEPON. Under this scheme, there will be two transfers, a seller's and a buyer's, and it is proposed that duty will be levied on the actual buyer of the stock. This is taken care of in Clause 6. Arrangements have been made in the 1976 Finance Bill empowering the Stock Exchange to
1150
collect this duty on behalf of the Inland Revenue
My Lords, so far as the other clauses in the Bill are concerned, I should like to draw some attention to Clause 2. The efficiency of the new system depends on the early deposit of certificates by the seller in order that securities can be transferred to SEPON. Since the seller may have only recently taken delivery of the securities, it is essential that new certificates should be issued promptly to purchasers. One of the principal obstacles to the prompt issue of certificates is the necessity for them to be under the common seal of the company. The process of affixing the seal may take time, particularly if the certificates have to be sent elsewhere for this purpose. In order to cut out delay, this clause enables companies to have a special seal which may be used for authenticating certificates and for no other purpose. If a company chooses to make use of this facility it will be able to entrust the special seal marked "Securities" to the company registrar, who will then be able to issue certificates without reference to head offices.
Before leaving this clause, perhaps I ought to mention that gilt-edged securities, such as Government and corporation stocks, are not to be included in the Talisman settlement system, as they are, of course, dealt in for cash and not for the account.
With regard to Clause 3, this clarifies the law regarding the keeping of registers and other records on computers. At present there is some doubt about whether company records may in fact be kept in this way. Clearly it is desirable that in these modern times there should be no impediment to keeping records on a computer, provided suitable safeguards are applied, and in fact the 1973 Companies Act included such provisions in Sections 81 and 82. The clause, therefore, requires that any information kept in a non-legible form shall be capable of reproduction in a legible form, and that any duties imposed on companies to allow inspection of records, or to provide copies of them, shall be interpreted as being a duty to allow inspection or to provide copies of a reproduction of information in legible form.
This clause also gives the Secretary of State the power, by regulation, subject to

1151
Negative Resolution procedure, to make special provision in connection with registers and records kept on computers, as the Companies Acts lay down various requirements concerning records, such as the places where they are to be kept and rights to inspection. These Acts were, of course, drafted long before computers were in common use and they naturally assume that the records will be in legible form. But it is important to ensure that the rights of the users of the records are not in any way prejudiced as a result of the information being computerised. Furthermore, it is important that companies cannot use computerised records as a means of evading the law, and it is, therefore, necessary to adapt the existing requirements so as to make them applicable to computerised records. This regulation making power will enable this to be done.
The clause, of course, applies to records generally, but for the purposes of this Bill the most important records are the registers of members and debenture holders. In large companies registers will include thousands of entries, and it will, therefore, be of major convenience for registrars to have this matter put beyond any doubt. It will greatly facilitate the process of keeping the registers up to date, while, at the same time, the safeguards provided in the Bill and in the regulations will ensure that the interests of all those who require access to the registers are fully protected.
I have already spoken at some length rather late in the day, but I hope your Lordships will bear with me a little longer because I must finally deal with an important clause which was not included in the original Bill, but was added in Committee in another place. Clause 5 is concerned with the position of securities held by trustees operating under this new system, and it removes any doubt that might exist as to the ability of trustees and personal representatives to participate in the Talisman scheme.
As I have already explained, under the new settlement system, sellers will part with title in securities to a Stock Exchange nominee before receiving payment and buyers will make payment before the securities are transferred to them from that nominee. It might have been argued in relation to trustees or personal representatives that to part with title before
1152
receipt of the purchase moneys or to pay the purchase price before the transfer of the securities to them amounted to a breach of trust or a failure to administer the estate properly. This additional clause specifically provides that trustees and personal representatives are not liable to be charged with breach of trust on the grounds that they have paid the purchase price before securities are transferred to them or that they have transferred securities to Sepon before receipt of payment. I hope that noble Lords who may have been concerned about this aspect of the Bill in its original form will find this clause satisfactory, as I am aware of some views expressed that trustees need specific authority to participate in the Talisman settlement system.
Finally, I should like to say a brief word about liability from losses arising from the use of Talisman. I am aware that concern has been expressed about this question, as losses might be due to a breakdown in the system or to fraud or negligence on the part of those operating it. But this is not a new problem, and in fact there could be less risk of loss under Talisman than under the present system, as sellers will no longer have to complete open transfers. In future all transfers will be made out to Sepon, thus reducing the opportunity for fraud or error. However, the Stock Exchange authorities recognise the importance of public confidence in this new system, and have accepted that, in the event of a valid claim, they will he fully responsible for any malfunction or misfeasance in the operating of the system. Furthermore, they are taking steps to ensure that anyone who does suffer a valid loss is reimbused quickly.
In commending this Bill to the House I should like to conclude by saying this: a great deal of thought and preparation has gone into this new system. As long ago as 1970 a City Working Party, under the chairmanship of the then Chief Accountant of the Bank of England, published its report. A part of this report contained proposals which formed the basis for Talisman, and as a result the Stock Exchange Council set up the Directorate of Information Systems and Settlement charged with the responsibility for developing and introducing the new system after extensive consultation with representatives of the securities industry.

1153
In November 1972 the Council decided that introduction of the new system could not take place in a single step. It, therefore, authorised the development of CHARM (or to give it its rather dull official name, Checking and Reporting for the Market). This intermediate step, which is based on the "ticket" system, is now substantially in operation. Although no firm decision has been taken by the Stock Exchange, the authorities are considering the use of a pilot operation of Talisman in 1977 which will enable all organisations concerned to obtain practical experience of the new system on a limited scale at a low, and therefore controllable, volume.
I believe that a limited running-in procedure is a desirable prelude to the full working of the Talisman system, but, of course, this cannot be carried out next year unless the necessary legislation contained in this Bill is passed during the present Parliamentary Session. So you will see, my Lords, that there is now some real urgency in this matter, and in seeking the support of the House for the Second Reading of this Bill I would ask your Lordships to bear this rather important point in mind. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Terrington.)
8.28 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Terrington—and I use the word "friend" in a personal rather than a conventional sense—has provided a very full explanation of the complex background to this short and simple Bill. Accordingly, I do not think there is any need for me to go into any further description of the present antiquated machinery or to go into the details of Talisman. I should, however, like to add my support to the Bill and briefly reinforce one or two of the arguments for bringing in this new system.
During the many years that I was working in the Stock Exchange, I have so frequently been aware of the disruptive effects of the peak loading of settlement arrangements on Account Day for transactions carried out during the previous 10 days and sometimes 15 days. If times were more normal, I would have encouraged noble Lords to visit the transfer
1154
department of a firm of stockbrokers on Account Day to see how hectic is the activity culminating in the delivery and payment of stock before the banks close. But the volume of transactions is now so low that such a visit would only reveal a relatively false picture.
My noble friend has pointed out many of the advantages that will be gained by Talisman. One of the most important will be the elimination of the delays that are often experienced by the buyer of shares in obtaining benefits attaching to those shares, dividends and interest payments, rights and capitalisations, takeovers, conversions and so on. This is particularly important in the case of' private investors, many of whom naturally do not understand the technical reasons for such delays, though the institutions are well able to look after their own interests. I have, however, made it my business to inquire of a number of institutions, all of whom are in favour of Talisman in principle, as are the various governing bodies.
There will be a vast amount of detailed work to be done at managerial level by the banks and other institutions in conjunction with the Stock Exchange, which is planning a pilot operation in 1977. There is, therefore, great urgency, as the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, said, that this Bill should pass quickly, so that the myriad nuts and bolts can be put together, since the managers of these institutions are naturally not prepared to get down to detail prior to the passage of the Bill.
I hope and believe that the Government look favourably on this Bill, and I should not like what I am now going to say to be taken amiss in any way, particularly as it is not strictly relevant to the Bill. It is, however, so topical that I cannot resist making a comment. Noble Lords will have noticed in the Press last Thursday that a flat refusal was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a carefully reasoned argument by the Stock Exchange for the removal or reduction of the dollar premium surrender. The surrender rule, as your Lordships will know, obliges United Kingdom residents to give up to the Treasury 25 per cent. of the premium attached to an overseas stock every time it is sold. This refusal is a regular annual event which has been the outcome of submissions made by the Stock Exchange

1155
to the Government of the day since this temporary measure was introduced 11 years ago.
It is common ground that greater investment is needed for modernisation and expansion of our manufacturing industries so that our visible exports are competitive. By the same token, it is just as important that the service industries, which are responsible for our invisible exports, are similarly developed. Considering the tremendous part they have played over the last 200 years it would be madness not to build them up to the greatest possible extent. Unfortunately, what occurs in practice is that succeeding Governments impose or maintain positive handicaps to growth and development. The dollar premium surrender is a prime example.
Noble Lords will be aware that this impost was introduced as a temporary measure in April 1965. This action, at a stroke, wrecked the market in North American securities. Not only is this temporary measure still in force, but it was widened to include sterling area securities in 1974, and this has resulted in a large part of the South African market moving to the USA. A few weeks ago there were three firms of jobbers dealing in Kaffirs—as gold mining shares are known in the market. One of the three withdrew before the Chancellor's reply was received, and another immediately afterwards. So now there is only one. I do not consider that this constitutes a proper market. No doubt more business will now move to the USA. What can be the purpose of shackling the City, which is responsible for so many of our invisible exports?
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will forgive me for raising this matter at this time, though I did give him advance warning of my intention. But I do wonder whether many noble Lords, or honourable Members in another place, are conscious of the handicaps that are imposed upon the securities industry by Governments of either Party. Having briefly drawn attention to it today, I will seek an opportunity for further debate on this subject after the Summer Recess. So, my Lords, I will say no more except to reiterate my support for this modernising Bill.
8.26 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think that the House will be immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, for his detailed and excellent speech. This Bill may not be one of the longer Bills to come before the House, but nevertheless it is a very important Bill for the Stock Exchange, for the financial institutions in the City of London, and I believe for the general public at large. The details which we have had explained to us by the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, are not over-complicated—at least compared with some Bills that come before your Lordships—yet these details have to ensure that our system of registering certain company records and documents provides the best and most efficient service to all who may need these records.
The clauses dealing with exemptions from the obligation to prepare separate share certificates and company seals give adequate safeguards to everyone, but it is Clause 3 that I consider the most interesting, and indeed the most important, clause in the Bill. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, this clause covers the use of computers and non-legible data for company records. This is going to allow the Stock Exchange, and other institutions, to make the fullest use of electronic data processing, so that all securities transactions can be speeded up, with no loss of efficiency, nor of the ability, for those who are concerned in share registers, to obtain legible copies of the information they may need from time to time.
If there is one major point in the Bill that should be emphasised it is this one, since company registrars are already able to give very swift and accurate information, and we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, of how they approve of this particular clause. Indeed, this clause will enable them to provide the services that they already render more efficiently and, what is very important, at no increased costs. Indeed, there may be decreased cost to start with.
Other details in the Bill we have seen, and heard from the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, cover unregistered companies and the rights and duties of trustees. There is of course this highly technical point which arises in Clause 6 dealing

1157
with the possible alteration of stock transfer forms, but it seems that the entire purpose of this Bill is to improve the efficiency of handling, dealing in, and in buying, selling and examining securities, bonds, stocks and shares.
This process of changing our company law to permit the pooling of Stock Exchange bargains is, I understand, the third and final stage of this acronym called "Talisman" that we heard so nicely explained by the noble Lord. This, apart from ensuring that the London Stock Exchange maintains its competitive position among the leading exchanges in the world—for example, the New York Stock Exchange, together with the Tokyo Stock Exchange—should give, and I believe will give, to the British investing public and to the other London financial institutions the sort of efficient service that the Stock Exchange wants to give.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, will be aware that these financial institutions do much to promote the well-being and health of the City of London, which, as all of us know, is responsible for such a large proportion of our invisible exports. It is for this reason that I join the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, and my noble friend Lord Cullen, in their plea to the Government to at least re-examine the apparently temporary provision of the 25 per cent. premium surrender when overseas shares are sold. This provides a valuable sum for the reserves, currently in the region of £180 million each year; but there is this sad side-effect for the London Stock Market, and it is the influx of U.S. and foreign brokers into London. Already the United States' dealing side of the London Stock Exchange is minimal, and there are signs as we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Cullen, that other markets are already being affected.
Investors are very sophisticated and intelligent people and when United Kingdom investors find the Government placing what may appear to be temporary barriers before them on such occasions when they wish to invest in any overseas security, its attractiveness must be immensely strong if United Kingdom investors wish to continue investing in overseas markets. Portfolio investment by United Kingdom citizens abroad is still
1158
very strong, but what concerns the financial institutions in London is the cost of switching investments they may make overseas back to the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, will be aware of the correspondence between his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of Parliament, but I should like to add my support at this stage to the pleas of both noble Lords who spoke before me. The House may not see the immediate relevance to these pleas for a re-examination of the surrender premium, but the Stock Exchange believes in being able to offer all investors, United Kingdom and overseas investors, a competitive and comprehensive service.
We have been discussing this evening a Bill which will ensure, we hope, that the third link in the "Talisman" system is forged and it will be a notable step in providing the more efficient matching of bargains for investors in the United Kingdom. But the stock market is part of the financial institutions of London, which in turn provide a large part of the City's invisible exports. What we have discussed will help the back end, as I would call it—the administration, the administrative end—of the Stock Exchange, whereas the continuation of the surrender inhibits what I might call the front end of the market, that side of obtaining new markets. Such business is not easily found nor easily retained.
My Lords, we are talking of an institution that can provide an investor from any part of the world with an opportunity to invest in securities which are now collectively worth nearly £78 billion; £47 billion worth of securities were traded in the last year on the London Stock Exchange. The former figure shows that a large proportion of portfolio investment capital finds a profitable home in the United Kingdom, and the latter figure shows that investors find the London Stock Exchange to be a very keen and competitive market. Our discussing these measures this evening will mean that the investors of the world can continue to look on London as providing the efficient service which befits one of the three major stock exchanges of the world.
The "Talisman" system, which I understand was begun in one form in

1159
1971, should be fully operative by 1977 or 1978 and certainly by, say, 1980, but all the advantages of speed, efficiency and security will be maximised by the operation of this system and, what is more, as we have heard from Lord Terrington, the investor and, above all, the small investor, will gain. All the provisions of the Bill seek to increase efficiency while maintaining security for the investing public, and for these reasons alone I am happy to support Lord Terrington's efforts and, of course, the Bill.
8.44 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I wish to say briefly that we welcome the Bill, and I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, on having taken it up in your Lordships' House after its successful passage through another plcae in the hands of Mr. Shersby. Lord Terrington almost apologised at one point for using jargon, but I found the way in which he explained the Bill most clear and I am sure that if he did use jargon he used it in a way that was most helpful to noble Lords and we are indebted to him for his explanation.
The new Talisman settlement system represents a vital step towards a more modern and more efficient Stock Exchange capable of meeting contemporary demands. It is easy to underrate the many jobs which go on behind the scenes, but without an efficient settlement system it is impossible to have an efficient Stock Exchange. Investors will not be prepared to invest their money on the Stock Exchange unless they can be sure that they will receive their certificates promptly, will get the dividends and rights issues to which they are entitied without delay or fuss and that when they sell their securities they will receive payment on the due date. Talisman is an important advance and will help the Stock Exchange to provide a better service to investors while also benefiting companies and streamlining the Stock Exchange's own procedures. The increased efficiency of the settlement system will, as Lord Terrington explained, bring useful financial savings, benefiting in particular the institutional investors; insurance companies, trade unions and pension funds.
The Bill enables the new settlement system to take effect. It makes some minor but necessary technical changes
1160
in the law relating to the issuing of certificates and the keeping of registers and other records which will enable companies to take advantage of modern computer and other data processing methods. It will thus also in some ways benefit other companies, and not merely those whose shares are listed on the Stock Exchange. The changes proposed are minor but nevertheless well worth while and the Government therefore readily support the Bill. The benefits of the Talisman system to the Stock Exchange, to the securities industry and its users will be considerable and the Government therefore give their wholehearted support to the Bill, which will enable it to be operated to full advantage.
One other issue has been raised tonight, both by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and I am indebted to Lord Cullen for having given me notice that he intended to raise the question of the dollar premium surrender rule. His concern is apparent from what he said, and I am sure he welcomed the support he got from his Front Bench. He conceded, and I am glad that he did, that the question he raised is only indirectly related—I was tempted to say "remotely connected"—with the Bill, but neither I nor, I am sure, Lord Terrington, will complain that he has seized this opportunity of putting his views on the record; there is a connection and I am not denying it. However, he will not be expecting me to add anything to what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said in reply to the representations which were made to him by the chairman of the Stock Exchange.
This question of the 25 per cent. requirement has of course been a subject of regular representations to the Treasury by the Stock Exchange, and the Chancellor has recently had the question fully reappraised. The principal objection to the proposed change at the present time is the reduction which would be made in the substantial contribution which the requirement makes to our foreign reserves, which are so vital for the years ahead. The Chancellor made clear in his reply to the chairman's recent letter that while the matter would be kept under review—and I gather that Lord Cullen intends to keep it before your Lordships' House—an alteration to the rules in a way which

1161
would reduce the benefit to our balance of payments in the shorter-term cannot be contemplated, and I am sorry that there is nothing further that I am in a position to add to my right honourable friend's statement. Although, therefore, I am afraid that we must agree to differ on this particular matter, we can, as I have indicated, all agree about the value of the Bill which Lord Terrington has introduced, and on that subject I am glad to give the Government's full support and to commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
8.50 p.m.
Lord TERRINGTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Bill and to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for giving it the Government's blessing. I particularly want to say this to the noble Lord because, during the last Session, as some noble Lords may be aware, I found myself at variance with the Government Front Bench over certain matters that concerned the Stock Exchange and, on two occasions, I felt compelled to divide the House on my Amendments. It has therefore given me great pleasure on this occasion to find myself in harmony with the Government. I am most grateful for their support and I look forward to a speedy passage through the House for this Bill. At the same time, I should like to go on record as expressing my appreciation of all the help we have received from the staff of the noble Lord's Department.
Finally, I should like to return the compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, by referring to him as "my noble friend" and to say that, although his final remarks about the dollar premium were not strictly relevant to our debate, I very much welcomed them. As some noble Lords may be aware, I have personally concerned myself with this particular subject in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions in recent years and I am therefore equally disappointed with the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Thursday. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to pursue the matter on this occasion but, as my noble friend has suggested, we could perhaps return to it in the autumn after our holidays, as a basis for further discussion. Once again,
1162
I should like to thank all the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Reported with Amendments.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee; a Special Report made and to be printed.
  INDONESIA: POLITICAL DETAINEES
  INDONESIA: POLITICAL DETAINEES
  BRUNEI: CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS
  BRUNEI: CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS
  RABIES LEGISLATION AND QUARANTINE RESTRICTIONS
  RABIES LEGISLATION AND QUARANTINE RESTRICTIONS
  BROMPTON ROAD: ROAD WORKS
  BROMPTON ROAD: ROAD WORKS
  CESSPOOLS: WATER RATE CHARGES
  CESSPOOLS: WATER RATE CHARGES
  PUBLIC INQUIRIES: STATUTORY OBJECTORS
  PUBLIC INQUIRIES: STATUTORY OBJECTORS
  HIGHWAY INQUIRIES: INSPECTORS' QUALIFICATIONS
  HIGHWAY INQUIRIES: INSPECTORS' QUALIFICATIONS
  PUBLIC INQUIRIES: LEGAL REPRESENTATION
  PUBLIC INQUIRIES: LEGAL REPRESENTATION
  HIGHWAY INQUIRIES: ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURE
  HIGHWAY INQUIRIES: ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURE
  PLANNING APPEALS: INSPECTORS' QUALIFICATIONS
  PLANNING APPEALS: INSPECTORS' QUALIFICATIONS
  EEC MEAT IMPORTS
  EEC MEAT IMPORTS