Sitting of 4 November 1976

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

  ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

  CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration read.
  To be further considered upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Potato Supplies
    Mr. Richard Wainwrightasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is planning for the probability of another potato shortage in 1977; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): In line with our usual practice, we have determined the target area for 1977 on the assumption of normal weather conditions, and thus a normal yield.
    Mr. Wainwright: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the acreage for planting next year will not be lower than the acreage this year? Does he realise that the lower consumption of potatoes by the public this year was due solely to scarcity and high prices?
    Mr. Bishop: I can give no assurances. There is a target area agreed in con-
    1596
    junction with the Potato Marketing Board, but the area actually planted is a matter for the industry itself. Last season, the area planted was 204,000 hectares and this season it was 223,000 hectares. The target area for 1977 is 210,000 hectares, but the take-up depends on the industry.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the acreage this year was only marginally higher than that of last year because the Minister increased the guaranteed price only marginally? Is he aware that this price did not deliver the goods, and that if we had had a better guaranteed price for potatoes last season—as we suggested—there would have been a better crop, and prices would not have been so high? Will the Minister see that there is a guaranteed price next year which will ensure an adequate acreage and therefore reasonable prices?
    Mr. Bishop: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will take into account all factors when the annual review takes place. We always estimate, under normal conditions, an increased yield and this is reflected in the target area. The hon. Gentleman will also recognise that there are a number of factors which contribute to whether we have enough potatoes. One of the most important is weather. From memory, I believe that the guaranteed price was increased last year from £28 a ton to £40 a ton.
    Several Hon. Members
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Please may we have shorter questions and shorter answers?
    Mr. Ward: As we may have a shortage of potatoes next year and in later years, will my hon. Friend explore with the Indian Government the possibility of making adequate arrangements for the importation of Indian potatoes, which are of a very high quality and which could be of advantage to British housewives? Is he aware that only 2,000 tons of Indian potatoes were imported this season?
    Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there may be a shortage, but he would be equally right if he said that there might be a surplus. It depends on the weather, which no one can predict

    1597
    at this time. It is important not to overreact. We shall take any steps necessary at the appropriate time.

    Glasshouse Industry (Fuel Costs)
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the British glasshouse industry is not currently paying more for fuel than any of its competitors in the EEC; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): The price of oil and other inputs reflect a variety of factors, which may vary from one EEC country to another. The Commission has produced guidelines on fuel aids aimed at preventing distortion of competition. Under these guidelines all national fuel aids had to end before 1st July 1976.
    Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that the average price paid for the standard fuel oil used by the Lea Valley growers is now, after the latest rise, 24p a gallon, and that for the same amount of energy Dutch growers pay the equivalent of 14p? Does this not represent a tremendous distortion of competition, and is it not high time that we either told our European partners that they must do something or took action ourselves to defend our highly efficient industry?
    Mr. Strang: I am aware of my hon. Friend's deep interest in the horticulture industry. He is referring specifically to Dutch natural gas and this is the one energy input that is not equalised, although the Dutch Government's policy is to equalise the price of gas with oil.
    Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman has said that fuel aids must end by a certain date, but does he not agree that the specific problem of the Dutch Government and natural gas must be re-examined? Will he consider at the earliest moment, in the Council of Ministers, or elsewhere, tackling the problem of the special position of the Dutch, which is extremely unfair to British growers?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman might recognise that there is a distinction between the more obvious examples of unfair competition as a result of subsidisation and the price at which natural gas should be sold. I take the hon. Gen-
    1598
    tleman's point, but it is for the Commission to ensure that fairness operates throughout the industry.
    Sir David Renton: Is the Minister aware that most of our glasshouse growers became dependent on oil some years ago before the tremendous increases in the price of oil, and that because of the places in which they are situated they cannot convert to natural gas? Will he bear these factors in mind?
    Mr. Strang: I must make it clear that the Government are anxious to encourage the horticulture industry and that they have taken steps to do so. The most important thing that we can do is to advise the industry on ways in which to minimise energy usage.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent meetings he has had in the EEC regarding Great Britain's fishing industry.
    Mr. Bishop: My right hon. Friend participated in meetings of the EEC Council of Agriculture Ministers which considered the development required in the internal operation of the common fisheries policy, most recently at the meeting held in Luxembourg on 25th and 26th October. The extension of fisheries limits and relations with third countries have been examined by EEC Ministers of Foreign Affairs, whose most recent meetings were reported by my right hon. Friends on 20th October and 2nd November.
    Mr. Skinner: Did my hon. Friend take notice of the Foreign Secretary's remarks about proposing to stand firm on the 200-mile limit, which affects not only this country but the Common Market? Does he agree that our real requirement is not so much the 200-mile limit as a 50-mile limit for the British fishermen, because otherwise we shall have fishermen on the dole as a result of our entry into the Common Market, just as we have hundreds of thousands of industrial workers on the dole as a result of our entry?
    Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend will know, if he heard the statement a few days ago, that at the meeting at The Hague last week it was agreed that

    1599
    member States of the Community should extend their fishing limits to 200 miles as a first step— —
    Mr. Skinner: That is no good.
    Mr. Bishop: That is the fact, and I believe it is encouraging news. Further, my hon. Friend will know that the matter of limits, to which he referred, concerns the requirement of our industry to catch the quantity it needs to maintain its viability in future.
    Mr. Pym: Will the Minister confirm that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will accompany his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the negotiations on the internal regime, so that the expertise and knowledge of his Department will be immediately at hand and available during the vital negotiations to secure a 50-mile exclusive limit?
    Mr. Bishop: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will note the right hon. Gentleman's comments. We shall ensure that the fishing content of the matter is well taken care of at the negotiations.
    Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although the weakest possible hand was dealt to the Secretary of State by the terms of the Treaty of Accession, the House will support him in insisting upon this country's requirement of a 50-mile exclusive limit, whatever may be the indirect consequences of so insisting?
    Mr. Bishop: I am sure that the House finds a great deal of sympathy with the first comment made by the right hon. Gentleman, about the negotiations on the Treaty, on which we have to build substantially to look after the interests of the industry.
    Mr. Roper: Does my hon. Friend agree that the further stages of the negotiations dealing with the internal regime within 200 miles would really be much more appropriately carried out in the Council of Agriculture Ministers than in the Council of Foreign Ministers?
    Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend will recognise that there are a number of highly complex issues involved in his question. I can assure him and the House that there is close collaboration between all
    1600
    the Ministers concerned in the negotiations that are now taking place.
    Mr. Marten: If, by 1982, there is no agreement on what I call the federal fishing area by 1982, will the present derogation continue after that year, or will it then be a free-for-all?
    Mr. Bishop: My understanding is that we have to make changes in the present fishing policy, which was negotiated on accession, to bring about the necessary improvements. Apart from that, I think that the hon. Gentleman's question is hypothetical.

    Livestock Industry (Drought Damage)
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his intentions are with regard to the provision of assistance to other sectors of the livestock industry than dairy which have been damaged as a result of the drought.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I have already announced an increase of 3p per pound in the guaranteed price for fat sheep for the first three months of 1977, and I am proposing a change in the operation of the beef cow subsidy.
    Mr. Lawrence: We are pleased at the help that the Minister is giving to the dairy sector of the industry, but is he aware that the problems of the drought affected the whole of the farming industry? What more is he considering doing to protect the consumer, other than the measures he has just announced? Is he considering a reseeding grant? Is he, further, considering devaluing the green pound?
    Mr. Silkin: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get in a quick fast ball on the green pound. I have noticed that there is a Question or two on that subject later on the Order Paper. The use of the green pound as a drought measure would be the wrong approach, as the green pound is an un-selective weapon, whereas the drought was extremely selective. The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed this, but agriculture was the only sector in our economy to receive direct Government assistance following the drought.

    Pig Production
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom producer percentage share of the home market in the pig industry at today's date and in relation to 1975 and the previous five years.
    Mr. Bishop: The United Kingdom has been virtually self-sufficient in pork over the past seven years. As for home cured bacon, United Kingdom producers' share of the market increased steadily from 42 to 45 per cent. between 1970 and 1974, and then fell to about 42 per cent. in 1975, but has since recovered, and currently accounts for 46 per cent. of total supply.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the share will be much smaller than 46 per cent. next year, even taking account of the recent adjustments to the monetary compensatory amounts, unless the Minister takes further action? Is he aware that the present outlook for pig production is gloomy and makes a mockery of the Government White Paper?
    Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the share is higher than the lower levels of this time last year. The trend is expected to continue into 1977. As for encouragement for the industry, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the steps that have been taken and what has been achieved by my right hon. Friend at the recent negotiations in Luxembourg. He will also be aware that further steps are being considered.
    Sir P. Bryan: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, in terms of pence per pound, the difference that the new system of MCA calculation for pigmeat will make to the bacon curers, who are all operating at a loss?
    Mr. Bishop: The answer is that the negotiations have so far resulted in a devaluation of 8 per cent. That is a measure that will benefit the industry. I do not have the exact figures with me, but that is some achievement. My right hon. Friend hopes that he can make further progress in this direction at future meetings.
    Mr. Jopling: The Minister's reply to this question could not possibly be more
    1602
    complacent. Has no one told him that the bacon curing industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) has said, is going through one of the greatest crises that it has ever faced? Does he understand that the 8 per cent. devaluation is absolutely trivial in face of the difficulties that the industry is facing?
    Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman's invective is unjustified, in view of the facts. The 8 per cent. change already achieved helps the producer, the processer and the consumer. My right hon. Friend is not satisfied with that progress, and is going to take further steps at future meetings of the Council.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with his EEC colleagues concerning a review of the Common Agricultural Policy.
    Mr. John Silkin: I regard the improvement of the CAP as of vital importance and am having continuing discussions with my EEC colleagues. The Council of Ministers will be discussing the proposed programme of action to reduce surpluses in the milk sector at its next meeting on 22nd-23rd November and more general discussions will take place early next year when the Council considers agricultural prices for 1977–78.
    Mr. Renton: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer a question about the green pound, although he did not reply to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)?
    Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are eight Questions on the green pound linked together later on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Renton: Perhaps I can get one in now, Mr. Speaker, with your permission. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the short-term advantage to the consumer through the revaluation of the green pound is likely to lead to long-term disadvantages through the British farming industry not growing as much as it should? Does he accept that uncertainty about the future course of the CAP is leading to great doubt in the fanning industry?
    Mr. Silkin: I think that was a googly. As you, Mr. Speaker, pointed out, there are eight Questions on the green pound later on the Order Paper. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain his soul in patience for that part of his question.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is clear—I should have thought that it was clear throughout the House—that a number of parts of the common agricultural policy must be changed, and changed soon. For example, I regard our prime purpose as being to contain prices in sectors where there are expensive and wasteful surpluses. That seems an absolutely vital consideration. As we were discussing meat a few moments ago, I should say that another vital consideration is the more liberal importation of meat from third countries.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Regarding the negotiations that are to take place in Brussels on EEC policy, is the Minister able to give an assurance to our dairy and sheep producers that they will be able to hold on to their marketing boards, such as the Milk Marketing Board and the British Wool Marketing Board?
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when we last—I was going to say "crossed swords", but one is not allowed to do that in this House—met to discuss agriculture, we discussed the marketing boards, and I thought that I gave a fairly forthright answer. I believe that the marketing boards are an extremely important and valuable adjunct to British agriculture.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen the document produced by the Socialist Group of the European Parliament on this very matter? Will he consider taking that up as a basis for renegotiation of the common agricultural policy, as it lays stress on the importance of the consumer as against the producer, which is the emphasis in the CAP that is anathema to Labour Members?
    Mr. Silkin: It is interesting that Article 39.1(e) of the Treaty of Rome—I think that I have got it right—mentions safeguarding the rights of consumers. It seems to me that my job, as I am both the Minister of Agriculture and of Food, is to safeguard both and to ensure a proper balance between the two.
    Mr. Pym: I agree about the need for a continuing improvement of the CAP, but will the Minister tell us what the position of United Kingdom producers will be at the end of transition vis-á-vis their European partners? How does he reconcile his present negotiating position in Europe, as we understand it, with his declared intention of growing more food at home?
    Mr. Silkin: The two are highly reconcilable. I think that the prospects are extremely good for the industry, with the exception of the pigmeat sector, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). That is causing considerable worry. Frankly, we must balance the whole position of this country in the context of the Nine and, as I said, hold the balance fairly between the producer and the consumer.
    Mr. Pym: Will the Minister answer my question about the position of United Kingdom producers at the end of transition, vis-á-vis their European competitors.
    Mr. Silkin: The basis has been set out in "Food from our own Resources", from which I do not in any way resile.

    Fish (Production and Processing)
    Mr. Cleggasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether he considers his policy for expanding food production to be still relevant so far as fish is concerned; and, if so, what aid he is going to provide for both the production and processing side of the industry.
    Mr. Bishop: A policy of full economic use of our food production resources continues the right policy. The Government already provide considerable direct and indirect help to the industry. Expenditure in 1975–76 on support for the industry is estimated at over £27 million.
    Mr. Clegg: In the event of the Icelandic discussions failing to reach agreement or in the event of a greatly reduced fishing effort, what plans are being made to help the Fleetwood and Humber ports if deep-sea trawlers have to be laid up?
    Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that talks are taking place with both management and workers about the future of the industry. I think that he

    1605
    will have been heartened by my right hon. Friend's statement a few days ago about the negotiations now proceeding forthwith regarding Iceland. We anticipate that, with good will on both sides, progress can be made. However, if the reverse is the case, I think that we are in touch with the industry sufficiently to know about its future needs and what action may be taken.
    Mr. James Johnson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if we allow our fish stocks to be exhausted or fished out within the 50-mile limit we shall have less food in future? Therefore, is not enforcement important? Will he tell us what steps the Ministry is taking in liaison with the Navy and the Ministry of Defence to expand our fishery protection patrol?
    Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend, whose concern about this matter is well known, is right to suggest that the industry is concerned about conservation. This is important, because it concerns the future of the industry just as much as other aspects of the negotiations. My hon. Friend will know, from what we have said about that enforcement, that we are concerned not only about Community enforcement of quotas and other restrictions but about national enforcement. My hon. Friend will be aware of the steps that have been taken, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, for an increased number of vessels which may be considered necessary. This matter will have to be kept under constant review in the context of the development of a common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister agree that, since the publication of "Food from our own Resources", the economic situation demands that we produce from our own resources not only more fish, but more from all sectors of agriculture? Have more resources been ploughed into the agriculture sector since publication of the White Paper? What proposals have the Government for increasing them?
    Mr. Bishop: The Question relates to the importance of food rather than agriculture. We regard both as very important. The agricultural content of the White Paper is a matter for continuing review, including the coming annual price review and the CAP negotiations.
    1606
    The estimate of Government expenditure on the fishing industry this year is £27·8 million. That will be of substantial help to the industry in terms of vessel grants, aids to the processing sector, and all the other back-ups that the industry needs now and in future.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister agree that fish farming can play its part in the expansion of food production in this country? What plans are there, and what details can he give the House about those plans, for expanding fish farming within the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Bishop: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall the recent debate that we had on this matter, when I was pleased to see the House wake up from its apparent slumbers and ask what we were doing. In my reply I said, first, that we were spending over £1 million a year on fish farming, which is a high percentage of the total budget, and, secondly, that we were in close contact with the industry, which was considering a memorandum that we put out. These matters are still under consideration. I am sure that the House will recognise that, while the Government are keen on fish farming, they must be realistic about the contribution that it can make to our food resources.

    Bread
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek to introduce a policy of helping the bread making industry to change its processes to take account of the fact that the majority of existing types of bread produced in the United Kingdom require hard wheat, not usually grown in the United Kingdom in any great quantity.
    Mr. Strang: There is as yet no technical process, suitable for use on a commercial scale, by which bread acceptable to the United Kingdom consumer can be made entirely from home or Continental wheat.
    Mr. Farr: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply. I should like to inform him that it is incorrect—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not impart information. He must ask a question.
    Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a process, known as the microwave process, by which an entirely home-grown loaf can be produced and that, moreover, millers are unable to capitalise on the research into such a development because the price of the loaf is now controlled? What will he do about it? Will he take steps to encourage the research that has successfully taken place?
    Mr. Strang: I am aware of that important research. I should point out that even when the research and development effort is completed it will be enormously costly to change our industry from its present system of production to one incorporating the microwave process.
    Mr. Torney: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present viability of the bread industry is not very good? As he has just said, this greater expense would make its task more difficult. Does he agree that it is wrong that the British people should have inflicted upon them at the order of the Common Market, a different type of bread from that which they have been used to for so many years?
    Mr. Strang: I certainly agree that of all the nonsenses that could be imposed on us, it would be most wrong for us to fail to supply our consumers with the bread that they desire.
    Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the rather disturbing reports that not all wholemeal bread is genuinely wholemeal?
    Mr. Strang: I agree that it is quite wrong that any consumer should be sold bread described as wholemeal which is not wholemeal.

    Green Pound
    Mr. Dykesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he now proposes to take in the EEC Agricultural Council to adjust the green pound for the recent depreciation of the pound sterling.
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will alter the value of the green pound bringing it into parity with the £ sterling.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now devalue the green pound.
    Mr. Boscawenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now devalue the green pound.
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the value of the green pound.
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will devalue the green pound.
    Mr. John Silkin: As I made clear in the debate on 22nd October, I shall continue to keep the green pound under review but I do not consider now to be an appropriate time to make a change.
    Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman seize this opportunity to be bold, straightforward and dramatic, and concede that the green pound will have to be fully adjusted downwards by the time that the United Kingdom gives up the presidency of the Council of Ministers in the first half of next year?
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is looking eight months ahead. I have to deal with the position at this moment, and that position is absolutely clear. At the moment I do not have the slightest intention of devaluing the green pound.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend please say that he will continue to do what he has done up to now and protect the interests of the British housewife, because that is what matters and will stop prices rising? Prices have been rising ever since we have been connected with the EEC. I admire the stand that my right hon. Friend is taking and I hope that he will continue to take it.
    Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The rate of devaluation proposed by the ommission—4·5 per cent.—would have made a difference of about 1p in the pound on food at this moment. That was something to which I was not prepared to agree.
    Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that the cost of

    1609
    importing food and feeding stuffs has increased 400 per cent. over the last 15 years. I am sure, also— —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask a question?
    Mr. Howells: I am just wondering whether the Minister—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Torney: "Is the Minister aware …?"
    Mr. Howells: Is the Minister aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—that he will not devalue the green pound? What incentives will he give farmers to increase production from the land?
    Mr. Silkin: I am afraid that, in the cheers which greeted the hon. Member, I missed the last part of his question.
    Mr. Howells: What incentives does the right hon. Gentleman intend to give to producers to improve or increase production from the land?
    Mr. Silkin: Clearly, one must look always at what the question is in regard to the agriculture industry. This is made much more clear when one realises how long it took the hon. Member to frame his question. Of course I will keep this totally under review. At present, I do not believe that there is any danger to British agriculture at all from the stand I am making. So far as the British consumer is concerned, there would be a considerable amount of danger if I did not make a stand.
    Mr. Torney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we had never entered the Common Market the Tory Party would not now need to worry about the green pound, since we should still have our own system of price support and the annual review to help farmers?
    Mr. Silkin: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that if we had not entered the Common Market we should today be discussing many different questions.
    Mr. Mills: Is the Minister aware that he has shown today his lack of knowledge of agriculture and food production by saying that he is thinking only of the near future? Agriculture is a long-term business. Although it may be in the interests of the consumer in the short
    1610
    term to say "No" to the green pound, in the long term it will be fatal.
    Mr. Silkin: I have great respect for the hon. Member, who occupied a distinguished post in the Ministry in which I now hold one also, but I should like him to go back to do his sums on the 4·5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound suggested by the Commission, weighing what actual benefit the farmers would have got from it, and the loss to the consumer.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and on his stand on the green pound. Rather than trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, should we not be trying to end the common agricultural policy and revert to the policy that we had from the end of the war, which was good for British farming and for the British housewife?
    Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend has bowled a kind of posthumous googly, because we dealt with the CAP earlier. I said then that there were many changes that could be made in it and that I was anxious to get them under way as soon as possible.
    Mr. Boscawen: Surely the Minister realises that it is not the hard cash value of altering the green pound by a small amount which matters to the industry; it is the raising of confidence in the industry that we are moving in the right direction. He must make a small movement soon.
    Mr. Silkin: If the confidence of the agriculture industry depends upon the token devaluation of the green pound, which would hurt the consumer but would not help the industry, I can only say that the industry has been very badly advised over the past short while.
    Mr. MacGregor: Is the Minister aware that since he last spoke in the House about the green pound the decline in sterling has caused as big an increase in the retail price index as a modest devaluation of the green pound would have done, without any benefits to increased food production and therefore to the housewife in the long run? Will he also comment on the Agricultural Development Committee's view that there are substantial benefits to be gained by the

    1611
    balance of payments in the long run from narrowing that gap?
    Mr. Silkin: When the hon. Gentleman thinks about the first part of his question, I think that he will see that what he says applies equally to the green pound and its relation to what the consumer pays for food. Were one to devalue, it would inevitably increase food prices, about which the hon. Gentleman was rightly disturbed a moment ago. On the question of a general, for ever, policy about the green pound, one way or another, I think that I made it clear in the debate on 22nd October that this is a question not of philosophy but of what is best for Britain at any particular moment. That is what I intend to work by.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the old system of farm support worked very well and while the CAP is in need of urgent revision, if we returned to the old system it would cost this country about £1,000 million a year?
    Mr. Silkin: I have, and have always had, a great respect for my right hon. Friend, but the Question on the Order Paper was whether I intended to devalue the green pound. I think that we would both agree that if I did so now it would be disastrous. When people talk about a 40 per cent. gap, I wonder whether they realise what the effect on agriculture would be if we closed that gap. It would destroy it as surely as it would destroy the consumer.
    Mr. Pym: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that this misalignment of the green pound is one unhappy consequence of the failure of the Government's national economic policy, resulting in the fall in the value of sterling? Will the Minister acknowledge that, whereas the immediate result of what he is doing is that the consumers benefit to the tune of more than £½ million a day at our partners' expense, he is running the risk of shortages in a year or two's time so that in the long run the consumer will be disadvantaged? Has the right hon. Gentleman given sufficient consideration to that aspect?
    Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman has asked three supplementary questions in one. The answer to the second part of his supplementary question is
    1612
    "No, Sir". We are concerned with the immediate position, but we are also watching and guarding the whole future of the agriculture industry and will continue to do so. Secondly, it is impossible to have a common agricultural policy unless we have something like a common prices policy. Therefore, it was necessary to invent the unit of account. That requires differing monetary compensatory amounts and has nothing to do with the economic position of any country. It goes back to 1969. The only alternative would be economic and monetary union, which is what the Germans would have liked at that time but which is, as far as I can see, the wish of nobody in the House.

    Cold Stores (Food Surpluses)
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will pay an official visit to a cold store where food mountains are stored.
    Mr. John Silkin: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the beef mountain has been growing at over 1,000 tons a week for the past two years and is now over 300,000 tons? If the right hon. Gentleman will not visit a beef mountain, will he visit butchers' shops in Glasgow, where beef consumption is falling because the people cannot afford to buy it?
    Mr. Silkin: The beef mountain in the hon. Gentleman's cold store will be declining in size and becoming merely a hillock by the end of the year. I made clear in answer to an earlier question that there are certain aspects of the common agricultural policy which we seek to improve. Among those—I put it first—is the structural surplus that the hon. Gentleman calls a mountain.
    Mr. Jay: Does my right hon. Friend regard food mountains and the state of the common agricultural policy generally as one of the benefits that this country has derived from Common Market membership?
    Mr. Silkin: My right hon. Friend must have missed what I thought was a fairly clear answer to an earlier Question. No, Sir, I do not so regard it.

    Agricultural Production
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he expects (he loses will be in agricultural production this year as a result of the drought compared with last year's figures and those of the average of the last five years.
    Mr. Bishop: We shall be looking at the precise figures in the annual review, which will be starting shortly. But I have no doubt that there is a serious impact, though I do not believe it will turn out to be as bad as some estimates I have seen.
    Mr. Mawby: Is it true that the glasshouse industry recovered from the drought better than any of us could ever have hoped? If that is not true, has any thought been given to possible assistance towards reseeding?
    Mr. Bishop: We have not felt it necessary to help the agriculture and horticulture industries overall to recover from the drought. During the annual review within the next few months, we shall have regard to any factors that affected the industry adversely.

    Scotch Whisky
    Mr. Canavanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the policies of his Department as they affect the Scotch whisky trade.
    Mr. Strang: Yes. My Department fully recognises the importance of the Scotch whisky industry to the national economy and seeks every opportunity to further its interests at home and abroad.
    Mr. Canavan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing trend towards exporting whisky in bulk, to such an extent that bulk exports now account for about 35 per cent. of total whisky exports? Does he agree that this trend to export in bulk rather than in bottles presents a threat to the jobs of workers in the whisky and ancillary industries, including workers in United Glass at Bridge of Allan? Will my hon. Friend take the necessary action to stop this practice by the distillers, who are simply trying to make a fast buck instead of looking at the longer-term
    1614
    needs of the industry and the workers involved?
    Mr. Strang: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, but a considerable number of our workers are employed in the bottling of imported spirits. Therefore, it may be that the action that my hon. Friend should take is in persuading the industry rather than the Government on this matter.
    Sir John Hall: Is the Minister aware of the adverse effect upon the cash flow of the whisky industry of having to pay Customs and Excise duty long before it can be recovered in sales? What representations is the hon. Gentleman making to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about that?
    Mr. Strang: This matter is being constantly raised with us by the Scotch whisky industry. The hon. Gentleman will know that 85 per cent. of the industry's output is for export. In September, there was a sharp increase in whisky exports of 37 per cent. in value and 19 per cent. in volume—a very creditable performance.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Bulk shipment has nothing to do with the distillers. The American Government wish to import whisky in that way. What is much more relevant is the voice of the prophet of doom that duty is to be increased in the mini-Budget that has been mentioned. Would it not be more helpful to the Scotch whisky industry if the Minister made representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to increase the duty?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman must remember that 85 per cent. of the output is exported. The United States Government do not insist that their imports arrive in bulk; the wine gallonage system of taxation discriminates against bottled whisky. The Government are trying to obtain a modification of that policy.

  EUROPEAN HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  Mr. Townsendasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet his opposite numbers in Europe.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I shall be visiting President Giscard d'Estaing on 11th and 12th November, and shall meet the Heads of Government of all the EEC countries at the European Council meeting in the Hague on 29th and 30th November.
  Mr. Townsend: When the Prime Minister meets his colleagues, what will he be able to tell them about the likely trend in Anglo-American relations following the election of Mr. Carter? Will he discuss with the French President the danger to Europe of the Americans following his Government's line and cutting defence expenditure as Mr. Carter has promised?
  The Prime Minister: Anglo-American relations, which have been good with the Republican Administration, will, I am certain, be equally good with the Democrat Administration, because our relations with that country transcend individual parties. Therefore, I shall expect to say to my colleagues that, whilst we shall certainly work to continue the relationship that exists between our two countries, we shall also hope that Europe as a whole will continue to maintain good, or even improved, relations with the United States, if that is possible. I believe that all countries must regulate their defence expenditure both according to the external threat that they see and also in a way that will maintain the strength of their internal economy.
  Mr. Craigen: When the Prime Minister meets his opposite numbers, will he discuss with them the problem of youth employment, the serious threats that seem to be emerging, and how best the Community can tackle the immediate and longer-term problems involved?
  The Prime Minister: I began a discussion on this matter when I was Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I take the view that there are structural changes in the levels of employment in some of the industrialised countries that will make it very difficult to reduce unemployment in all our countries to the levels to which we have been accustomed during the past 20 years. I know, for example, that Chancellor Schmidt is concerned about this matter. He told me that he intends to make a detailed breakdown of statistics and groups. Because of the interdependence of our economies, this prob-
  1616
  lem affects us all and perhaps can be met only by our all working together.
  Mr. Lawson: If Chancellor Schmidt, Dr. Emminger and Old Uncle Fritz Cobbleigh and all are as full of admiration for the current management of British economic policy as the Chancellor likes to make out, why was it necessary for the Prime Minister to appear on television last week and threaten our allies in the most foolishly irresponsible fashion?
  The Prime Minister: I dealt with that matter a week ago at Question Time. The hon. Gentleman is rather behindhand. If he would care to see the reaction to the broadcast, I shall be happy to send him the comments that Chancellor Schmidt made after the broadcast when he said that he fully understood both the basis on which I was approaching this matter and the way in which I had said it.
  Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister use these occasions to begin discussions on the steps the Community might take effectively to relieve us from our situation as a holder of a reserve currency?
  The Prime Minister: I prefer not to go into detail on these matters at this time. I am aware that a number of statements have been made by Mr. Tindemans and others, which were intended to be helpful, but I do not wish to add to them this afternoon.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Cartwrightasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 4th November.
  Mr. Rifkindasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 4th November.
  Mr. Hoyleasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 4th November.
  The Prime Minister: I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet this morning. In addition, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
  Mr. Cartwright: When the Prime Minister meets other Ministers this evening, will he draw their attention to today's

  1617
  news that British Leyland's sales in the United States are running at a figure of over £215 million a year? Are not these the first fruits of the Government's industrial strategy and do they not demonstrate the foolishness of the Conservatives, who would have let British Leyland go to the wall?
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry that it is left to my hon. Friend to point to the success of British Leyland with its record sales in the United States. However, I cannot forbear to remind the House that if the Conservatives had had their way and had abolished the NEB, as they still threaten to do and continue to oppose it, the Midlands would now be a wasteland—and I hope that the electors of Walsall will remember that.
  Mr. Rifkind: In advance of any election results from the three by-elections, will the Prime Minister agree that they should be treated as a verdict on the Government's policies? If they show a massive repudiation of those policies from both Labour and Conservative voters, will he undertake to withdraw his divisive policies, and in particular the obnoxious legislation which is now going through the other place?
  The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that the necessary process we are going through at present, of regenerating British industry and controlling public expenditure after the profligate extravagance of the Conservative Party—[Interruption] I know that the Government cannot expect to secure 100 per cent. support from the Opposition. We intend to carry on governing the nation, and we shall carry it through to success.
  Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister please ensure that hon. Members are enabled to ask Questions about a private company that receives loans and grants from the Government, particularly a firm such as Courtaulds which received £40 million between 1970 and 1973? I am sure that he will agree that the public have a right to know who is dipping into the public purse. Should not all future loans and grants be channelled through the NEB so that there is complete public accountability?
  The Prime Minister: There is a strong case for increasing the amount of re-
  1618
  sources available to the NEB so that that body may assist with reconstruction or help some of our industries that find themselves in temporary difficulties. On the question of accountability, it is my strong desire, as is known to the leaders of the CBI, that the Government should work in conjunction with them on this policy agreed by all three parties—namely, the CBI, the TUC and the Government—in order to secure success. I understand that the CBI reciprocates those views and wishes to make a success of the policy.
  Mrs. Thatcher: As one of the Prime Minister's official duties on Thursday is to answer Questions and as he was so evasive to me on Thursday when carrying out that official duty, will he confirm the Chancellor's warning on Tuesday night that the Government will have to take action in the next few weeks to cut borrowing requirements?
  The Prime Minister: I fully agree that because of some of the measures which have been left to us to undertake as a result of what happened in the Administration of which the right hon. Lady was a distinguished ornament—I refer to the introduction of matters such as VAT and the bureaucracy that was introduced into the National Health Service and local government reorganisation—there are many reforms which the Government will need a full five years to undertake. As for any statements which have been attributed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with Press commentaries on what he is supposed to have said, I wish to assure the right hon. Lady that he said no more and no less than he said at Question Time.
  Mrs. ThatcherIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have come to regard official Press leaks as containing some truth—for example, in regard to the guillotine, which was leaked before the House of Commons knew anything about it? If there is no truth in the alleged statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be well if the Prime Minister were to deny it now; otherwise we shall assume that he will confirm it later.
  The Prime Minister: As I am sure the right hon. Lady will discover one day,

  1619
  it is a well-established precedent in this House that it is not a ministerial responsibility to comment on Press leaks.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us have cause to be grateful to the Government for, if I may paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), picking a winner in British Leyland and thus preventing the West Midlands from becoming a desert? Will he assure me and my constituents in Skelmersdale that the Government will also help to pick winners there, and thus prevent Skelmersdale from becoming a desert?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to pursue this point because I know the assiduity with which he represents his constituents' interests. He and I have had an opportunity of seeing the work that is undertaken in that town. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry met Sir Arthur Knight of Courtaulds and we shall continue to review the matter. I shall be discussing the subject with my right hon. Friend, but I prefer not to give an undertaking until I have examined the situation.

  FOOD PRICES
  Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination of policy between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection on food prices.
  The Prime Minister: Yes.
  Mr. Taylor: In view of what the Minister of Agriculture has been doing, will the Prime Minister agree that the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection has proved to be a costly and bureaucratic washout? If the abolition of the Department and its Ministers were announced among cuts in public expenditure, in what way would the consumer be any worse off?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "No". As for the second part, I think that there is a great deal of value in having a Department concerned with consumer affairs and whose job it is to
  1620
  ensure that the consumer gets a fair deal. The hon. Gentleman may take it that it is not my intention to get rid of that Department for the time being.
  Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister say whether it is Government policy to reduce Britain's dependence on foreign food? If that is the case, does he think that this is more likely to be done by having high or low food prices? In particular, will he turn his attention to EEC subsidies on food? Does he consider that those subsidies on imported food into the United Kingdom are likely to strengthen or weaken Britain's ability to produce its own food?
  The Prime Minister: What is important is that until CAP is revised and reformed, as we think it should be, there is every case for Britain to expand its agricultural system. Indeed, even when it is reformed, the case probably still exists for having these resources available.
  The second part of the supplementary question, which is a much more technical matter, I must leave to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to answer.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Will my right hon. Friend take time off from answering the constant carping criticisms of Opposition Members to congratulate Mr. Carter on behalf of all of us on his election and to assure him that the criticisms which undermine the achievements of our economic recovery do not represent the true situation in this country?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have already sent a message to the Presidentelect, as, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has. My hon. and learned Friend refers to the undermining of our position in the United States. I very much regret that that has been done, and done by members of the Conservative Party.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that food prices in Scotland are amongst the highest in the United Kingdom and that the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection has so far failed to do anything to aid the Scottish housewife? Will he issue a directive to the Department to get moving and to conduct an inquiry into the marketing and distribution of food in Scotland to see what can be done?
  The Prime Minister: I will look into that matter, but it is totally untrue to say that margins of food prices have not been restrained by the action of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. A very great deal has been done, and the Scottish housewife, like every other housewife in the country, has benefited from it.

  STANDING ORDER NO. 9 DEBATE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition to ask the Business Question, I want to make a brief statement.
  I was given to understand this morning that there might be some question of civil proceedings being instituted in relation to the subject of the debate under Standing Order No. 9 today. I had careful inquiries made this morning and at lunchtime was assured that no proceedings for an injunction had been instituted in either the Queen's Bench Division or the Chancery Division. It may be that proceedings might be instituted this afternoon, but, although this House has always had careful regard to the administration of justice, I do not think that we can conduct our business on the basis of some last-minute application which it is difficult to confirm at short notice and may be based on hearsay.
  I propose, therefore, so to exercise my discretion in regard to the sub judice rule as to allow the Standing Order No. 9 debate to proceed. The sub judice rule will therefore not apply even if it is later submitted that proceedings might have started.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week, please?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8TH NOVEMBER—There will be motions supplementing the Orders of the House of 20th July relating to timetable motions.
Debate on the Paper on a proposed new Highway Code.
TUESDAY 9TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Education Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10TH NOVEMBER and THURSDAY 11TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to Bills.
FRIDAY 12TH NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Supplementary Benefit Bill (Lords), which is a consolidation measure.
Motions on EEC Documents on lawyers, R/2133/75 and R/646/76 and on road worthiness tests, when R/1795/ 72 and R/1614/74 may be relevant.
Motion on an amendment to Standing Order No. 73A relating to Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.
MONDAY 15TH NOVEMBER—Motion on the Endowments and Glebe Church Measure.
Mrs. Thatcher: We are glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back, but he has come back to announce one of the most oppressive programmes ever announced for one week by any Leader of the House. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the worst use of the guillotine and the most dictatorial denial of free speech in modern times? He may well be able to adduce the odd example when we have had one day for Lords amendments, but is he aware that, when we had a highly controversial Bill under the Conservative Government to which the Opposition took great exception, we gave five days for the discussion of Lords amendments—the longest time ever given in this House for Lords amendments? Why does he not follow that precedent for this very controversial Bill?
Secondly, can he say what other Bills he hopes to have on Wednesday and Thursday?
Thirdly, when will the Autumn Budget be presented?
Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Lady for the kind remarks that she made at the beginning of her questions.
On the latter point—the question of any announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I have nothing to add to any reply given to the right hon. Lady on that matter.

1623
The right hon. Lady asked what other Bills may be taken. The reason that we have not named them in my announcement is that the Lords themselves still have to reach further conclusions on these matters, but we expect two Bills, the Dock Work Regulation Bill and the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, to be taken on the Wednesday and the Thursday.
On the general question raised by the right hon. Lady, I think that the language she uses is extremely exaggerated. She used similar language prior to the introduction of the earlier timetable motion, but when we came to debate these things all those accusations were dissipated and the House generally accepted that what we were proposing was reasonable in the circumstances.
Mr. David Steel: On personal grounds, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back, but it must be unusual for a Leader of the House to announce a guillotine of Lords amendments to Bills which were themselves guillotined in this House—in the case of some of them before the Lords have even made any amendments. While I share his views on the supremacy of this elected House, I would have no hesitation in advising by noble Friends in another place, if parts of the Bill went undebated in this House, that they would be right to maintain their amendments.
Mr. Foot: I do not know how much the hon. Gentleman will be able to proceed with his proposals for inciting the other House to act against this House, but I do not think it an advisable course for him to follow. I think that he should take into account that a Labour Government have very different circumstances to deal with from those with which other Governments have to deal. We have to deal with a situation in which there is a permanent Conservative majority in the other place, and in which some may wish to use that situation to injure the timetables we have in this House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that into account before he tenders any advice to those in another place as to how they should proceed, because—and I would have thought that hon. Members in all parts of the House would agree—one of the principles we have to sustain and
1624
establish is the supremacy of this elected House of Commons.
Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend will, I know, accept that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members are delighted that he is back and that he is much fitter than he has been for some time.
It is inevitable that the Opposition will be upset by the guillotine motion, but the simple principle at stake is that the Government must be allowed to govern, and on that principle my right hon. Friend is right to bring in a guillotine to ensure that Government business is obtained.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has not asked a question, and this is Business Question time.
Mr. Mellish: If I am not asking a question, I do not know what that lot over on the other side of the House have been doing. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House will support the principle of the guillotine next week because that is the only way in which the Government can get their business? Is that all right, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Foot: It is all right with me. We are proposing that there should be discussion in the House of amendments received from the other place. As I was pointing out, Labour Governments are faced and confronted by difficulties in parliamentary business which are never faced and confronted by Conservative Governments.
Sir David Renton: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his threat to muzzle the House of Commons in this undemocratic way until he has a clearer idea of the amendments passed hi another place? In deciding upon that, will he bear in mind that if all the so-called Labour peers had turned up in another place and supported the Government, there might have been fewer Lords amendments?
Mr. Foot: I repudiate any suggestions that on these important Bills we have been seeking to muzzle either this House or the other place. The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill had 46 hours and 13 minutes Floor time and 141 hours

1625
Committee time. That is not muzzling the House of Commons. The Dock Work Regulation Bill had 19 hours 38 minutes Floor time and 87 hours Committee time. That is not muzzling the House of Commons. The Education Bill had 41 hours Floor time and 86 hours Committee time. That is not muzzling the House of Commons. The Health Services Bill had 24 hours Floor time and 74 hours Committee time. That is not muzzling the House of Commons. The same applies to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill.
It is a complete misuse of language to say that we have been pushing some of these Bills without proper time for discussion.
Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Leader of the House irrelevantly to waste the time of the House by relating what has happened during the progress of Bills in the House of Commons when the question put to him concerned Lords amendments?
Mr. Speaker: I am quite sure that we shall hear much more about that—but not this afternoon.
Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend take the necessary steps to muzzle the unrepresentative voice of the other place?
Mr. Foot: I am not muzzling anyone. What I have anounced is the considerable time that will be afforded next week, quite properly, to discuss the amendments that come from the other place. I hope that we shall deal with them properly in the time allocated.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in following this course he is pretending to pay attention to the supremacy of this House but what he is saying to the country at large is that this involves the passage, totally unaltered, of the Government's programme, regardless of the support for it here and in the country?
Mr. Foot: That, again, is a complete misrepresentation of the situation, because, in fact, as was shown in the discussions that we had on another Bill that came from another place a week or so ago, the Race Relations Bill, the Government have accepted some of the amendments that came from the other place. It may be that that will apply in
1626
the case of the other Bills, too, so it is complete misrepresentation to say that the Government have taken no notice of the representations made in another place about amendments. However, what we are not prepared to have happen is that the Bills themselves should be so mangled and mutilated that they are not proper Bills at all.
Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the timetable that he has allowed is infinitely more generous and far more proper than the way in which a Tory Government treated the House of Commons when imposing a vicious and cruel timetable on the massive issue of entry into the Common Market? Does he not agree that his timetables on these issues are something that do credit to the Government and to the sensibility of the House of Commons, and that they are not derived from the vicious manner adopted by a Tory Government on the great issue of entry into the Common Market?
Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend. As to the conduct of the other place on the European Communities Bill—when it had gone through this House unamended and that House did not take any steps whatsoever to invite us to consider that matter afresh—when the House of Lords took that step I think that their Lordships injured their claims of objectivity in these matters.
Mr. Mayhew: As a guillotine motion is being proposed in respect of Bills that the House of Lords has not even finished considering, would it not be far more honest for the Government to say that they do not believe in a revising Chamber at all rather than to perpetuate a disgusting sham?
Mr. Foot: As I have already said, we have recently had evidence in the House how amendments that have come from the other place on other Bills have been considered by the Government and how some of them have been accepted by this House. That is a complete repudiation of the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion.
Mr. David Watkins: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the two agreed Lords amendments on the Industrial Common Ownership Bill? When will the House come to a decision on

1627
those agreed amendments to what is largely, I think, an agreed Bill?
Mr. Foot: I shall certainly be ready to consult my hon. Friend about the matter to see whether we can provide time for it. We should like very much to get it through, and as it has been agreed in another place, we should certainly like to do so if we can. I cannot give an absolute promise, but I recognise the significance of my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Cormack: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his ostensible belief in parliamentary democracy with his total determination to refuse proper consideration of Lords amendments to these vital pieces of legislation? Does he believe, in all honesty, that the country is behind him in what he is saying?
Mr. Foot: I repudiate any suggestion that we are interfering with proper debate in the House of Commons. When large numbers of controversial matters are going through the House, that limits the amount of time which can be made available for each Bill. However, we have secured the support of the House of Commons for all these measures. I believe that that should be taken into account in another place as well.
Mr. William Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend not recognise that the current situation is likely to be repeated at the end of each Session as long as we have that horrible place along the Corridor? Does he not accept, therefore, that the use of the instrument of the guillotine is directed at the wrong target? The target should be the place along the Corridor and not the Bills.
Mr. Foot: We must deal with one thing at a time. We have to deal with the immediate situation. In order to carry out the will of the House of Commons on these Bills, we must proceed with the Bills. What deductions may be drawn for the future depend partly, I suppose, on what another place may do about these matters.
Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall the example of the Industrial Relations Bill? The Lords amendments were given no fewer than five days by
1628
the Conservative Government for consideration in the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "A rotten Bill".] This is a rotten lot that we are dealing with.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions, to which I should be grateful for answers. First, has he formed any estimate at all of the number of Lords amendments to these five Bills to which the Government will, in the event, be proposing disagreement? Secondly, how many of these amendments does he think will go undiscussed altogether in the House of Commons, or has he not yet formed any estimate? If he has not yet formed any estimate, in my view he is being grossly irresponsible.
Mr. Foot: There is a different situation on each Bill, both about the number of amendments which have been put through in another place and about the number of those amendments concerning which the Government might be able to meet what has been proposed. Therefore, I certainly could not give, off the cuff, an answer to the questions that the right hon. Gentleman is asking. However, that is precisely the reason why motions are moved in the House to deal with these matters, and all such questions would be in order when we debate the motions on Monday. That is the normal way in which the House of Commons deals with such questions, on supplemental motions.
The Industrial Relations Act is a very apposite case, because in that matter the House of Lords did not exert its authority in order to bring forward any critical amendments against the Government of that time. Most of the amendments that came from the House of Lords on that occasion were due to the appalling character of the Bill in the first place, and even so, that was not improved sufficiently. But if the House of Lords had been performing on that occasion the function that it claims to be performing now, we should have had several hundred more amendments coming back on that occasion, and perhaps that Bill would never have reached the statute book. That would certainly have been the House of Lords intervening to help the country, but it never did so.
Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, shamefully, all that he

1629
is doing now is to put up a screen of verbiage— —
Mr. Russell Kerr: This is ersatz indignation.
Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman is a specialist in ersatz. All that the right hon. Gentleman is doing is to put up a screen of verbiage to conceal the fact that the Government have only an appetite to get this legislation through and have given not the slightest thought to the points made in the House of Lords.
Mr. Foot: All that I was concerned about was that the country at large should not be misled by what the right hon. Gentleman said. What we propose in order to deal with the Lords amendments is the normal process—that is, that we should have a supplemental motion for enforcing a timetable. That is what we are doing, and it is what our predecessors did in other circumstances.
The question of the effect on particular Bills is primarily one for discussion when the issue is debated. There is nothing wrong in that. There is no abuse of the normal procedures of this House. It is the only proper way in which to proceed.
Mr. English: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are in danger of talking about the bath water and forgetting that there is a baby in it? Will he ask the agreement of the Opposition for the House to discuss next week the British economy, with particular reference to the statements which have just been made in the United States by the person who is in all probability the most powerful economist on the face of the earth, the principal economic adviser to the President-elect of the United States? That is a matter which in my view is slightly more important than a procedural motion in the House of Commons. It would be desirable if this legislature of a small State could express its opinions upon the options he has posed before a decision is made upon them.
Hon. Members: What are they?
Mr. Foot: No doubt there will be full opportunities for discussing these economic questions in the House. What we propose for Monday is the proper procedure to enable us to carry through the legislation.
Mr. Grylls: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that pursuing these nationalisation proposals in the House next week will make the pound go up or down?
Mr. Foot: What we propose is to enable the House to carry forward the measures it has already supported. Such arguments have gone back and forth during the whole of the debates on this matter. I know that the Opposition do not like the Bills. That has been evident. But we say that the majority will of this House must be carried out, and I believe that that is good for the pound and good for democracy.
Mr. Skinner: Because of the heavy pressure of business next week and, we assume, in the weeks after that, will my right hon. Friend see to it that there is an inquiry, as distinct from a debate, into the buying practices of the National Coal Board, especially in view of the recent allegations and condemnation of the accountants, Thomson McLintock, who were involved in the Hilton Transport Services investigation and were in the main responsible for making the decisions about the Board's arguments on its buying practices? In view of this new development and the sacking of Alan Grimshaw, will my right hon. Friend see that there is an investigation?
Mr. Speaker: Will hon. Members please try to relate their question to the business for next week?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an investigation. My hon. Friend and some of my other hon. Friends have already approached me saying that they wished to make representations to me on that subject. I shall be interested to hear what they have to say.
Mr. Pym: In view of the strong views expressed, will the right hon. Gentleman have another think about the five-bladed guillotine he is proposing to bring down on Monday? Will he consult not only the Patronage Secretary but also the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)? Is he aware that if he consults the latter right hon. Gentleman he will find that, although an Opposition always want more time than they are allowed, the time we allowed as a Conservative Government for the measures guillotined then was a great deal more generous than

1631
anything timetabled by himself? In the interests of the House of Commons as a whole and of fair trading between the two sides of the House, that is a reasonable request to meet. Will the right hon. Gentleman have that discussion and think again?
Mr. Foot: We have put down on the Order Paper the motions for Monday, which we think are reasonable. We propose that the House should debate them, and if the Opposition put down amendments to them we shall consider those amendments. That is what the debate will be for. But our belief is that what we propose is a proper way in which to proceed.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend ignore much of the synthetic indignation from the Opposition Benches over the question of the guillotine? Will he apply his mind to the question I put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last week, when I asked for a discussion in the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs on the whole question of unemployment on Merseyside and in the North-West? It is a vital matter, particularly in view of the Courtaulds Ltd. developments, which could affect the North-West and Merseyside in particular.
Mr. Foot: I accept the importance of the subject to which my hon. Friend refers, and I confirm what my right hon. Friend said about the matter last week. I am prepared to refer the matter upstairs for debate. That does not preclude the possibilities of further debate in the House as well later.
Mr. Graham Page: Are not the Government, in order to stifle proper debate on important legislation, using the excuse of the rule that Bills die with a Prorogation? Why does not the Leader of the House put down on the Order Paper, instead of the guillotine motion, a motion to extend the life of Bills beyond Prorogation?
Mr. Russell Kerr: My right hon. Friend has better things to do.
Mr. Foot: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that this matter has frequently been discussed. Although it sometimes appears to be a solution to some of the pressing prob-
1632
lems of parliamentary time, it is often found on examination to be not as good a solution as people have suggested. It may eat up the time in the next Session. Therefore, I do not think that we can solve the problem in that way, although it is obviously a matter that can be discussed by the main Procedure Committee, which is looking at the whole question of the affairs of the House and the way in which it conducts its business. In my view it should look at that subject along with others.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Rather than finding time for Lords amendments, will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss the future of the Lords? If it is not possible to do it in this Session, will he ensure that in the Queen's Speech there is a reference to the matter, because there is great resentment in the country over the fact that the House of Lords comes to life only when the Conservatives are in Opposition?
Mr. Foot: We are operating under the rules of Parliament which exist now. If we are to secure our measures, if they are to be placed on the statute book, according to the present provisions we must get these measures through this House and another place. The future position of another place is a much larger question, and I do not think that we should complicate next week's business by trying to settle it then.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the resentment in the country is over the way in which the Government are playing it? There may very well be a case for abolishing the Lords, but there is no case for the Government's going along with them when they are rubber-stamping Government legislation and then taking offence when they put down amendments, or for using the Lords as a dumping ground for unwanted passengers.
Mr. Foot: It is not a question of taking offence—nothing of the sort. It is a question of ensuring, while giving time to consider amendments from another place, that the Government's legislation, which has been supported by this House, shall reach the statute book. That is what we are concerned about, and why we say that we have the right to ask the backing of all hon. Members who wish to see the democratic will prevail.

1633
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will assist us on many of these Bills. I am sure that the vast majority of the people of Scotland want to see them on the statute book.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose— —
Mr. Speaker: I propose to take a total of four more questions, because there is a Standing Order No. 9 application to be made before we come to the first debate.
Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that the whole furore worked up by the Opposition about this particular matter of the guillotine is utterly spurious, not merely because the basis of the House of Lords itself is completely undemocratic but because the Conservative Opposition in this House have no desire whatsoever to consider amendments seriously? Their only aim is to thwart the opinion of the majority of this House.
Mr. Foot: I hope that my hon. Friend will not tempt me to go too far in using too many adjectives. I do not say that the opposition to the measures is spurious. Of course, the Opposition have a right to criticise what we propose, to put down amendments and to discuss them. What I am contesting is the suggestion that we have not the right to ensure that proper time shall be made available so that these measures shall reach the Statute Book.
Mr. Marten: If some of the Lords amendments are not properly debated here because of the guillotine, and this fact is then reported back to their Lordships, will not the Leader of the House have been inciting them to put those amendments back to this House once again? At the end of the day will not this take rather longer than if the Leader of the House had given a more generous allocation of time?
Mr. Foot: I am not doing any inciting, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not inciting others to alter again the Bills which we may send them from this House. There have, of course, been occasions on which matters have been reconsidered in another place and returned to this House. We have to take that into account as well. I believe that the Bills as they leave this House will be
1634
in a satisfactory form, and I hope that the other place will accept that.
Mr. Tebbit: Will the Leader of the House tell us how this House or its representatives will agree on the grounds we shall give to the House of Lords for rejecting its amendments if this House has not been able to discuss the amendments?
Secondly, will the Leader of the House tell me whether it was on his authorisation that somebody briefed the Press on Tuesday night about the precise details of next Monday's business, or whether it was done—[Interruption.] The Press was briefed on Tuesday night and the publication was on Wednesday. Will the Leader of the House say whether it was on his authority that a member probably of his staff briefed the Press on Tuesday night with the precise details of Monday's guillotine motion?
Mr. Foot: As to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I believe that the debates we have in this House next week on these Bills will give opportunity for the House to express its views on the amendments which come from another place from both the Government and the Opposition.
Concerning the second question, it was certainly not on my authorisation, or authorisation from any member of my office or staff, that any leakage came to the Press upon that subject. Certainly we did not authorise it in any way. It may be that, on the contrary, some leakage came not from the Government but from another place. It may be that there was some anticipation in some quarters as to what it was thought might happen. But certainly there was no leakage to the Press and no Press conference given by me or by any member of my staff.
Mr. Michael Latham: What makes the Lord President think that on Monday, after the thrashing that his party will get in today's by-elections, he will have a majority in this House for the guillotine?
Mr. Foot: We must wait and see what happens. When the House looks at these matters next week, and looks at all the circumstances, I believe that it will come to the same kind of conclusion as it reached when we had the general debate on the guillotine motions. At that time, the House upheld the view taken by the

1635
Government. We not only won the vote but overwhelmingly won the argument as well.
Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there must come a time in this House when you, Mr. Speaker, must assert your authority over a Government who are deliberately seeking [Interruption.]—to stifle debate on crucial issues. Can you advise when, if ever, that time will come? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House vests a great deal of authority in the Speaker. Most of it is undefined. But it has not yet given me authority to tell either the Opposition or the Government what they shall do, and the Order Paper of the House is not in my control.

CABLE & WIRELESS LTD.
Mr. Viggers: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important mater that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the situation of Cable and Wireless Ltd., a State-owned corporation."
This company has had to adjourn its annual general meeting indefinitely because it faces a management crisis. All five executive directors have declined to stand for re-election. They are senior men who have devoted most of their lives to the company, and their action cannot be treated lightly. Were the matter to involve only the company it would be serious, but the issue raises certain crucial matters of national significance.
First, the dispute apparently arises from the fact that some employees of the company are paid more than the directors because of the implementation of pay restraint. The control of senior salaries is common to all nationalised industries, and its resolution is a matter of urgent national significance.
1636
Second, the action of the executive directors has put a question mark over the control of the company, and particularly the manner in which the Secretary of State for Industry exercises his powers of appointment to nationalised boards. The appointment of Mr. Edward Short as a part-time chairman of the company at a salary of £9,080 a year, compared with the £10,330 for the executive directors of the company—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—may he relevant in this context.
There can be no dispute, Mr. Speaker, that a major State-controlled corporation faces a serious management crisis which I believe to be unprecedented. The fact that this crisis is currently delaying the annual general meeting makes the problem an urgent one.
Resolution of the problems raised must of its very nature involve very wide and fundamental issues affecting the Government's pay policy and the relationship between Government and nationalised industries.
I therefore respectfully ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker, that the House should now adjourn to discuss these issues.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seeks to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the situation of Cable and Wireless Ltd., a State-owned corporation."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the hon. Gentleman—I am grateful to him for giving me notice this morning—but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

POST OFFICE ACT 1953 (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gorst.]
Leave having been given on Wednesday 3rd November under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
The action of Post Office workers in failing to deliver mail to Grunwick Processing Laboratories in contravention of the Post Office Act 1953.
Mr. Walter Clegg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the coming debate there will be very serious legal issues before the House. Would it not be preferable, therefore, to have a Law Officer present during the debate?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that I do not decide who sits on the Front Bench, but his words will have been noted.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the subject for this emergency debate is stated on the Order Paper? Would it not therefore be right and courteous to the House for the Minister responsible for the Post Office, a Law Officer, or, indeed, the Home Secretary, since he is responsible for law and order, to be present and to speak in the debate, rather than a Minister who has no responsibility in this matter at all?
Mr. Speaker: I have no responsibility for who sits on the Front Bench and who speaks for the Government.
4.9 p.m.
Mr. John Gorst: What we are discussing this afternoon is specifically the illegal action of the Post Office workers in preventing Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd. from receiving its mail. We are not discussing and we are not concerned with the rights and wrongs of a protracted industrial dispute. We are not discussing the rights and wrongs of the dispute which preceded the action by the Union of Post Office Workers last Monday. Nor am I involved in trying to promote the case on one side or the other.
My interest in this matter arises because a member of the company that I have named came to see me as his constituency
1638
Member of Parliament to seek the protection of the law against an illegal act. Of course the implications of what has been done go much further and wider than my constituent's interests and could well go to the heart of much industrial activity in the whole country.
Before I deal with a number of important matters of principle, it may be helpful if I describe the normal postal procedure in this firm. The usual practice is for the firm to send a company van to the WCI sorting office. On arrival, the driver, with the help of Post Office workers, carries sacks of packets addressed to the firm from the first floor of the building to his vehicle. I understand that the Post Office does not deliver these items because the company prefers to make its own collection in order to have control over the time at which these items are delivered. As for the company's outgoing mail, the usual practice is for the company to frank it and hand it over in bulk to the Cricklewood sorting office. The present position is that since last Monday UPW members have refused to accept outward-going mail at Cricklewood or to hand over incoming mail at the WC1 sorting office. A number of important matters of principle are at stake here, and I shall deal with them in order.
First, there is the deliberate breaking of the law. Section 58 of the 1953 Post Office Act lays down:
"If any officer of the Post Office … wilfully detains or delays … any … postal packet, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable to imprisonment or to a fine, or to both".
Secondly, there is the highly questionable position taken up by the General Secretary of the UPW, who is quoted as saying that the Act was written many years ago and has not been tested. Surely no one can support this dangerous doctrine, least of all Ministers whose duty it is to uphold the law. If criminal acts can be committed on the basis of the antiquity of the statutes that make them crimes, criminal law in this country will immediately collapse into chaos.
Thirdly, there are the repercussions that must result if a law is broken and no action is taken against the law breakers and if they succeed in their purposes. Surely every reasonable man must then suppose that law-breaking can be advantageous if only one gives a little

1639
thought to which laws should be broken. Could there be a better recipe than that for bringing the law into contempt?
Mr. Joseph Ashton: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in 1973 when a Conservative Government were in power Post Office workers in Japan and in New Zealand, at the time of the French nuclear tests, asked our Union of Post Office Workers not to deliver mail to France. The UPW complied with that request and the Conservative Government did nothing about it.
Mr. Gorst: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not recall that, but I recall an official strike by Post Office workers in, I think, 1971. However, I do not think that either is particularly relevant.
Mr. David Weitzman: According to the Order Paper, the hon. Gentleman has put down the subject for debate as being
"The action of Post Office workers in failing to deliver mail … in contravention of the Post Office Act 1958."
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that—
Mr. Speaker: I should have apologised to the House at the beginning of this debate for that misprint. The fault lies with me. It should read "1953", not "1958".
Mr. Weitzman: In that case I apologise for making the point against the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst).
The other point that I wish to make is that the hon. Gentleman read the relevant section in relation to which he says the law has been broken. However, will he take it from me that the words are
".… wilfully misspends his time so as to retard the progress or delay the arrival of a mail bag"?
The essence of the matter is the word "wilfully". How can the hon. Gentleman say, if an action is authorised by the union, that— —
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Now we know.
Mr. Gorst: The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) will perhaps be interested to know that Section 68 of the Act—not Section 58—reads:
"If any person solicits or endeavours to procure any other person to commit an offence punishable on indictment under this Act, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."
If I may return to the matters of principle that I was discussing, the fourth is that we must consider carefully——
Mr. Robert Adley: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but would he not be well advised to pursue the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), who appeared to suggest that the authority of a trade union is more important than the authority of Parliament?
Mr. Gorst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall be saying more about that in the course of my speech.
The fourth matter of principle is that we have to consider most carefully the implications which arise if interference with the monopoly delivery of the mails on a selective basis is allowed to take place. There are few businesses, particularly small ones and especially mail order firms, which are not highly vulnerable to postal disruption. Illegal action such as that which we have seen since last Monday may well lead to the winding-up of this business, because this sort of action kills rapidly.
If this sort of industrial action goes unchallenged, one wonders how long newspapers or periodicals which go through the post, or banks for that matter, can survive a determined onslaught of this nature. I imagine that the commercial life of the country could very soon be disrupted.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: And the political life, especially if it were to coincide with a General Election.
Mr. Gorst: The fifth matter to which I refer relates to the action which is now to be taken to deal with the situation. We hope that at this moment, some action is being taken somewhere. But the law is emphatic about what may not be done.

1641
I ask the Government who is to apply the law. Will the UPW now call off its illegal action and take the initiative immediately? Will the Post Office itself institute proceedings if the UPW continues to flout the law? Will the Attorney-General pass the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Should the onus be put on the injured party to take legal action? Can or should the matter be left to action by the general public to interfere in order to see that observance of the law is re-established? There are reports in the Press that such action is already either contemplated or taking place.
These are questions for the Minister to deal with when he replies to the debate. What we shall be expecting from him, though, will be something far more emphatic than we had from the Minister of State last Tuesday when he signally failed to deplore the UPW's illegal actions and gave no indication that the Government intended to fulfil their obligation to uphold the principle of law. What steps do the Government propose to take to restore legality to the situation in the North-West of London?
Mr. Ashton: Send in ACAS.
Mr. Gorst: No one suggests that the best way to conduct industrial relations is by having to fight out a dispute in the courts. Government supporters do not suggest that, and nor do Opposition supporters. This is not what the issue is about. The issue here is quite clear. It is that a group of workers, namely the Union of Post Office Workers, are not in dispute with the Post Office, but have illegally decided not to hand over public mail which by law they are bound to hand over.
Postal communications are to the infrastructure of commerce what the jugular vein is to the human body, and Parliament is right to insist that this intensely vulnerable spot should receive special legal protection. This example which we have to consider from the North-West of London is perhaps a trial run by the union, a test case to see whether the Government are on the side of those who uphold the rule of law.
I hope that the Government will not seek refuge in the shocking doctrine that all is fair in industrial disputes, or that there is a certain amount of illegality
1642
which must be expected and tolerated if one provokes or displeases a union. The Government have always insisted that they will not suffer the trade unions being above the criminal law. This was the point at issue in the Shrewsbury case, and it is the point at issue here.
The Union of Post Office Workers is breaking the law and we want to know what the Government propose to do about it. Are they going to support or deplore this kind of law breaking?
4.21 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The dispute at the Grunwick Processing Laboratories, which this week has suddenly become so important to members of the Opposition, has been going on for more than eight weeks. That is a fact. Since 23rd August, 136 employees have been on strike because they are seeking to reinstate 10 fellow employees who it is alleged were unfairly dismissed.
Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that the business before the House is the motion,
"That this House do now adjourn,"
and that on that motion technically anyone can talk about anything. But the subject for debate here is
"The action of Post Office workers in failing to deliver mail to Grunwick Processing Laboratories in contravention of the Post Office Act 1953."
I wonder what the limiting effect of these words is. Is it in order to go wider than the actual words on the Order Paper? The matter we are discussing is that which you gave us permission to debate, namely, the behaviour of Post Office workers in this matter, rather than the actual dispute itself.
Mr. Speaker: I have given a great deal of consideration to this matter because I realised that this question might arise. The wording on the Order Paper is much the same as the wording for the Adjournment each night. On an Adjournment debate hon. Members are free to go wider than the actual subject as long as they do not call for legislation. This is the rule. I have had research done into what has happened in Standing Order No. 9 debates over the past 15 years. I understand that the result of the research

1643
is that generally the debates have gone wider.
Mr. John Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out that when an hon. Member raises an Adjournment debate at night he is entitled to say which Department he hopes will answer him. What is unfortunate today is that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) addressed the point to the Department of Industry and now we have to suffer an answer from the Secretary of State for Employment who has nothing to do with the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is so. Although he may be interested in the industrial dispute, he has nothing to do with the conduct of the UPW or the failure of the Post Office to do its duty. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman has to say, it will be of little interest to the House.
Mr. Booth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I submit to you that it is the contention of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who opened the debate, that an illegal action has been committed by members of a particular union in this particular dispute. That is his allegation. It is not his allegation that any strike action by postal workers at any time is illegal. Therefore I submit that, even within the narrow terms of reference to which he has referred, it must be possible to deploy every aspect of this dispute which has led to the industrial action.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In addition to that point, may I remind you that the Private Notice Question on this matter which was raised in the House earlier this week was answered by the Department of Employment?
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to all hon. Members for their help. I think that the Minister should now make his speech.
Mr. Booth: When the strike began, the company decided that it would sack those on strike. The strike was immediately made official by the union involved, APEX, so it was an official strike from the outset. APEX has sought the services of ACAS to obtain conciliation but the company refused to
1644
meet ACAS or to meet APEX under the auspices of ACAS. Therefore from this point conciliation has proved to be impossible.
APEX decided on 15th October to refer the recognition issue involved in the dispute to ACAS under Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act. The Union of Post Office Workers decided on 29th October to authorise its members not to handle mail to and from the company. It backed this decision after APEX had used its proper rights under Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act in an attempt to resolve the dispute, and the company had refused to co-operate in a process for the resolution of this type of dispute which has been approved by the House of Commons. When the House of Commons passed Section 11 of the Act it decided that this was the proper method.
Mr. Adley: Can the Secretary of State please answer a simple question? Does he believe that, whatever the circumstances, any trade union has the blessing of this Government to overthrow an Act of Parliament passed by this House if it wishes to do so?
Mr. Booth: Of course I can answer that question. No Government Minister standing at the Dispatch Box can endorse the action of any individual or organisation in defiance of the law. But by the very same token no Minister could stand at the Dispatch Box and do what the hon. Member for Hendon, North did, which was to set himself up as both judge and jury on an issue. The hon. Member was acting in the capacity of judge and jury. He tried the Union of Post Office Workers and he found it guilty of a breach of an Act of Parliament. I contend that that was a most unreasonable action which could be held to prejudice the outcome of a criminal proceeding which might arise.
Mr. Clegg: On this case, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Attorney-General or one of the Law Officers to come to advise the House?
Mr. Booth: No. I will not suggest that the Attorney-General should be here, and the reasons for that will become clear if I am allowed to continue my speech.
Let me deal now with the hon. Gentleman's point about Section 58 of the

1645
Post Office Act 1953. Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any time in history when this section has been used as a means of resolving an industrial dispute, official or unofficial? I take it that the hon. Gentleman agrees that up to now that section has never been used for that purpose. From that point of view, therefore, we are considering a completely new proposition.
This is not the first time that the country has faced a strike of postal workers. In the strike of 1971 the then Conservative Government did not consider it appropriate to use Section 58 to deal with the dispute.
Mr. Gorst: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a major difference between withholding labour and withholding mail?
Mr. Booth: I can see no practical difference for the purposes of Section 58 between withholding labour and withholding mail. Surely the effect of an industrial dispute by the Union of Post Office Workers involving the withholding of labour by its members must be to cause the mail to be withheld, unless the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the members have not only withheld the mail but have, by their action, prevented others from transmitting it.
Mr. Tom King: Surely the significant difference is that in the 1971 dispute none of the union members concerned drew pay from the Post Office but that in the current dispute they are in fully paid employment by the Post Office and are discriminating against one customer. In that connection, if the Minister cares to look at the 1969 Act he will see the powers that the Minister has in that respect.
Mr. Booth: It has been alleged that there has been illegal action by a breach of Section 58. I can see nothing in that section which in any way draws a distinction between postmen who are being paid and postmen who are not being paid. The issue is whether the section is appropriate to deal with an industrial dispute. All of the precedents to which one can turn, and particularly that of the 1971 strike, indicate that never before have a Government or has any hon. Member suggested that Section 58 should
1646
be used to deal with a dispute by postal workers.
Again, in the 1973 case already quoted there was the refusal of postal workers to handle mail to and from France in support of a dispute by Australian and Japanese postal workers. That was a selective action called in response to postal unions abroad. Nevertheless, the Conservative Government chose not to use Section 58 as a means of dealing with it.
Mr. Patrick Mayhew: Is the reason for the absence of the Attorney-General this afternoon that he has told the Secretary of State that he cannot stomach the argument that is being advanced?
Mr. Booth: No. That is not the reason for the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend.
It has always been the contention of Labour Governments that industrial disputes are better resolved by negotiation and conciliation than by recourse to the criminal law. I very much regret that the Opposition, after such a long silence about this dispute, should now rush to the conclusion that the criminal law provides some sort of remedy.
Mr. Peter Thomas: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman must have obtained some legal advice before taking it upon himself to reply to the debate. Is it not right that if a Post Office officer wilfully withholds the delivery of mail he is, under Section 58, and in the absence of any exemption contained in the proviso in that section, guilty of a criminal offence? Does he not agree that although in the contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute civil illegality may on occasions be justified, crime can never be justified, and if committed in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute it still remains a crime? What advice has the right hon. Gentleman been given on that matter.
Mr. Booth: The decision whether an illegal action would have taken place in the event of Post Office workers having withheld labour either selectively or generally under the terms of Section 58 has never been tested in a court. Had it been so tested, I might have been able to obtain much wider advice than has proved possible. The right hon. And

1647
learned Gentleman knows very well that in the absence of any court decision as guidance, it would be most improper for me to express a view whether a criminal act had been committed. That is why I regret that the Opposition have, after such a long silence, now rushed to the conclusion that an illegal act has been committed.
The House of Commons has twice considered in recent years the issue of illegality in industrial disputes. On the 1971 legislation we debated whether there should be criminal sanctions for the withholding of labour by workers in the public services. On that occasion, the House decided, on the proposition of a Conservative Government, to repeal Section 4 of the 1875 Act which made it a criminal act for workers in the gas and water industries to withhold their labour. We also repealed then Section 11 of the Electricity Supply Act which might have been held to make it a criminal act for workers in that industry to withhold their labour.
In the debate on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill we considered as a House whether secondary boycotts should give rise to civil actions and we decided that they should not do so, that they should not be illegal. Therefore I hold that in so far as this House has given any indication of its attitude on this question whether the withholding of labour by people in a public service should be dealt with by criminal action, it has been to the effect that that is not the way in which it wants to go.
Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we all understand that he has no need to listen to pompous interjections from ex-Cabinet Ministers on the Tory Benches, especially when we take into account the fact that in the period January to February 1971 seven statements were made in the House on the Post Office dispute by the present Lord Carr on behalf of the then Tory Government and that at no time was this issue raised? When it comes to this question of illegality, it is nothing less than hypocritical for Tory Members to talk about this particular strike.
Mr. Booth: I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, that there is nothing whatever, from any previous discussions
1648
in the House, to suggest that there was concern about this issue generally. It must be something peculiar either to the occasion or to the dispute.
Mr. Gorst: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Monday I sought guidance on this matter from the Minister of State, Department of Industry, who is sitting beside the right hon. Gentleman? The Minister of State was not in his office at that time and his officials put me in touch with the Post Office, which informed me that it was about to inform the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers that he would be breaking the law. I was referred by the Post Office to these two sections.
Mr. Booth: I have checked carefully upon this point. The Post Office has not informed the Union of Post Office Workers that it is breaking the law by taking this action. The Union of Post Office Workers yesterday stated to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service that it would call off the action of its members provided that the company would accept the recommendation of ACAS on the issue—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Socialism!
Mr. Booth: This has resulted in the company agreeing, for the first time, to co-operate with ACAS in the Section 11 inquiry and also in the company agreeing to abide by the outcome of that inquiry.
In view of this the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers came to me this afternoon and delivered a letter to me of today's date— —
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Special delivery.
Mr. Booth: —in the following terms —[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to conduct the debate in a less noisy fashion. The debate can last for only three hours from the time of its commencement and there is a large number of hon. Members who wish to take part.
Mr. Booth: The General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers has written to me in the following terms:
"The UPW has considered the situation which has developed at the Grunwick Film

1649
Processing Laboratories since Monday, when the union began to take sympathetic action on behalf of the work-people involved in the dispute.
As you are aware this firm had steadfastly refused to treat with ACAS on a Section 11 reference. Since Monday, however, the firm has now agreed to provide facilities for ACAS to undertake a Section 11 canvass. It has also agreed to bind itself to the result of that inquiry. It is likely, therefore, that the recognition question can be settled by the end of next week.
In the circumstances, our union has discussed this matter with APEX and as a result our members have now been instructed to withdraw from the sympathetic action which began on Monday and normal service will be resumed immediately."—[Interruption.]—"It is a matter of regret that our union should have been forced to take the action it did."—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise. Am I to take it that hon. Members wish to bring the debate to a conclusion in view of the statement by the Minister? Is that what they are saying?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Certainly not.
Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible for the Minister to confirm or deny what I have just been told, namely that the industrial action has been withdrawn?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not responsible for what the Minister says.
Mr. Booth: If the House will allow me to read the terms of this letter the House will be informed. I will re-read the appropriate paragraph:
"In the circumstances, our union has discussed this matter with APEX and as a result our members have now been instructed to withdraw from the sympathetic action which began on Monday and normal service will be resumed immediately.
It is a matter of regret that our union should have been forced to take the action it did. But this conclusion could have been reached at any time during the past 10 weeks had the firm"—[Interruption.]—"concerned been prepared to accept the facilities available for conciliation. Yours sincerely, Tom Jackson, General Secretary."
We are debating this afternoon the first occasion on which the Union of Post Office Workers has taken official sympathetic dispute action in support of another union— —
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: And broken the law.
Mr. Booth: I reiterate the statement of the General Secretary. Had Grunwick responded to ACAS or APEX approaches—[Interruption.]—I believe that the sympathetic action by the Union of Post Office Workers would not have taken place.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not ridiculous to have a situation in which the noise from hon. Members, mostly on the Conservative side of the House, is forcing my right hon. Friend to strain his voice to such an extent that I and most civilised Members are having great difficulty in hearing? May I ask my right hon. Friend to speak in a whisper and so reduce the volume of noise from the hooligans on the Tory Benches?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I hope that all hon. Members heard my appeal a few moments ago for a less noisy debate. In my view the interruptions and the noise are coming from both sides of the House.
Mr. Booth: At a time when the number of strikes in our country is lower than in any comparable period since 1953, when the number of days lost is the lowest since 1968, when there is every reason to believe that the number of days lost through strikes this year will be 50 per cent. lower than last year, it is a matter of considerable regret that the Opposition should choose to focus on a peculiar dispute knowing full well that that carries with it the danger of focussing the attention of the House and country on one aspect of one dispute when what we need to make clear to the world is that we are resolving our industrial relation problems and that the conciliation services are doing their job well. The workers of this country, those who work in the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, are meeting with success in their efforts to overcome—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."]—our industrial problems.
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must warn the House that if these noisy demonstrations continue to the point when it becomes imposible not only for

1651
the Chair but for hon. Members to hear what is being said, I may have to suspend the Sitting.
4.50 p.m.
Mr. Tom King: I know that I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that we are extremely pleased that this industrial action has been suspended and that the mail is now being carried through. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) for initiating this debate and drawing attention to an issue of grave concern.
I was particularly pleased to hear about the letter which the Secretary of State received from Mr. Tom Jackson. I know of his union's reputation and I am pleased that it has taken this action. It is entirely in keeping with what one would expect from the UPW.
However, my congratulations do not extend to the Secretary of State, whose contribution to the debate was deplorable. He appeared to be saying that the union's action was justified because it had achieved a certain amount, including the intervention of ACAS. It is deplorable that a Secretary of State for Employment should applaud illegal industrial action.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman has said that he and his hon. Friends are delighted that the union has withdrawn its strike action. The whole House will share that view. However, did the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) suggest to the firm during this 10-week period that it should go to ACAS? If not, why not?
Mr. King: I had never heard of the firm before. I do not know whether my hon. Friend knew of it, or whether he became aware of the situation only when a constituent came to see him.
I welcome the action taken by the UPW, but many questions remain unanswered, including the attitude of the Government in this sort of dispute. The Secretary of State is the wrong Minister to answer this debate, because we are concerned exclusively with the Post Office, the Post Office Acts and the Union of Post Office Workers. The motion makes that quite clear.
1652
When the Minister of State, Department of Employment answered the Private Notice Question this week, it was clear that he had not read the Post Office Act 1969 and was not aware of the powers and responsibilities of the Minister who answers on Post Office matters.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There was no necessity for me to refer to these matters on Tuesday. He will bear in mind that the Private Notice Question was directed to the Department of Employment and not to the Department of Industry.
Mr. King: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why he said:
"It is not for me to judge the legality or illegality of such action."—[Official Report, 2nd November 1976; Vol. 918, c. 1200.]
Is he familiar with the requirements of Section 11(4) of the Post Office Act 1969?
Mr. Harold Walker: When I said that it was not for me to judge the legality or illegality of actions, I did so on the fundamental premise of the law of this country that a person is innocent until proven guilty by the courts. As yet, neither of us, not I nor the hon. Gentleman, sits in judgment.
Mr. King: I shall read to the hon. Gentleman the responsibilities and powers of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications contained in the 1969 Act. These have now been transferred to and subsumed by the Department of Industry and although responsibilities change rapidly I understand that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), is the responsible Minister.
Section 11(4) says:
"If it appears to the Minister"—
there is no question of going to the courts—
"that the Post Office is showing undue preference to, or is exercising undue discrimination against, any person or persons of any class or description … he may, after consultation with Post Office"—
again there is no question of going to the courts; he must satisfy himself—
"give it such directions as appear to him requisite to secure that it ceases so to do."
I shall explain why these responsibilities exist and I hope that the Minister of

1653
State for Sport and Recreation, who is President of APEX, will pay attention. The importance of this matter is clear, despite the smokescreen put up by the Secretary of State. This is the first occasion in history that the Post Office has exercised discrimination against a single customer in this way.
The industrial dispute at the firm was made official and I understand that the TUC circulated affiliated unions to ask for their support. The UPW knows as well as anyone the contents of the Post Office Acts. I understand that members of the union's executive met to consider the gravity of the TUC request and, because they were in a rather different situation from other unions—since the 1953 and 1969 Acts make it a criminal offence for a postman to detain or delay the mail—they went back to the TUC and asked whether the gravity of the request was fully understood. I understand that the TUC replied that it understood the position and required the union to join in the solidarity being shown in this dispute.
There is a clear responsibility on the TUC to make a statement about how it can possibly justify members of an affiliated union having to indulge in an illegal act.
Mr. Robert Mellish: If I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, he is suggesting that the Union of Post Office Workers is subject to the law to which he has referred and that it may never delay mail and may never go on strike. In 1971 and 1973, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office, action was taken by the Union of Post Office Workers. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us what he did?
Mr. King: It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to be in the Chamber earlier, as we have covered that ground. He has made half a point, but not a very good one. During the Post Office strike none of the members of the Union of Post Office Workers was drawing pay from the Post Office. They were not then working in the Post Office and drawing pay from the Post Office.
That distinction is that in this case all those who have been concerned in what we hope is now a concluded dispute are fully paid and employed by the Post Office. They have been drawing pay but
1654
detaining or delaying mail to a particular customer. That is the seriousness of the situation and that is the real distinction.
Mr. Booth: Is it the hon. Gentleman's contention that had the postmen refused to draw their pay, they would have been acting quite legally in refusing to handle mail for the firm?
Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the situation is entirely different when employees are delivering all the mail that is coming in for other addresses but preventing one particular addressee from even collecting its own mail from the Post Office.
Mr. Booth Mr. Booth rose——
Mr. King: No, I must get on. It must be understood that the Union of Post Office Workers is in a different position from any other union. I shall not enter into the argument about secondary actions as the whole point of the motion is to attract attention to the position in which members of the Union of Post Office Workers find themselves.
A further point that was not brought out by the Secretary of State is that every employee on joining the Post Office has to sign an undertaking. Included in the undertaking is a reference to the relevant sections of the Post Office Act 1953. On joining the Post Office an employee's attention is drawn to the fact that
"Under the Post Office Act 1953 it is an offence for a Post Office servant to delay any other postal package in the course of transmission by post."
Every employee has signed that agreement and everyone has been made aware, in the correct way, in his contract of employment of the conditions under which he serves.
The seriousness of the action required by the TUC was to put uniquely the members of the Union of Post Office Workers in a position in which they were exposed to the risk of criminal prosecution. I sincerely hope that there will never be another occasion when the TUC will seek to put individual members of a particular union in that situation. The Secretary of State is aware that there is no legal immunity for the Union of Post Office Workers as exists in certain other forms of industrial action. There is no legal immunity for the leader of the

1655
union or the union's officials when they encourage what in this case is defined as a criminal act. That adds to the gravity of the TUC's action.
Mr. Booth: When I challenged the hon. Gentleman to say why the action was illegal when other Post Office disputes were not he contended that it was because the union's members were being paid. When I asked him whether in every other action they would have been held to be acting illegally on the same ground, he changed his ground.
He says that their action was illegal under Section 58 not because they were being paid but because they were being selective as to which customer's mail they would handle and which they would not. Why was it that in 1973, when the Union of Post Office Workers was being selective and interfering with mail from one source but not from another, action was not brought by the hon. Gentleman's Government?
Mr. King: I do not know whether the Secretary of State has better sources of information than I have, but I understand on direct information from the Post Office that there has never been a comparable incident. If the right hon. Gentleman can obtain better information from the Post Office than that, I shall be interested to hear it. I obtained that information myself direct from the Post Office at a senior level and I understand it to be correct.
If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to continue to justify the action that has been taken, and if he is trying to take up these points and argue them in justification of the action, he had better start considering the position he has adopted. Every time the right hon. Gentleman intervenes and opens his mouth on the issue he casts Mr. Tom Jackson in a very much more favourable light and adds to the statesmanship of the action that he has taken. That makes the Secretary of State's view look singularly unattractive.
At an earlier stage one or two unfortunate statements were made implying that the provisions of the 1953 Act were perhaps a little out of date and not relevant. As anyone familiar with the Post Office knows, there are good reasons for such powers existing. Parliament has
1656
conferred on the Post Office the privilege of a sole monopoly in the carriage of mails in this country. With that privilege, that monopoly, go certain responsibilities. One of those responsibilities or duties is that the Act requires the Post Office to deliver mails and perform all services in that connection. It also provides strict penalties for anyone who attempts to discriminate, detain or delay in any improper way. It should be recognised that that price is paid for the privilege of a monopoly. That is why the Union of Post Office Workers is in a special situation.
In this instance a public service—it does not matter whether it is the miners, the electricity workers or those engaged in supplying water, as all such action gives rise to concern about public utilities and their ability to cut off certain people—has discriminated against a firm. As it was the Post Office that was involved, there are two essential differences.
The first difference is that the goods being carried by the Post Office were not the Post Office's property. The goods that it carries are other people's property. Therefore, it is that much more grave for the Post Office to delay or detain property that does not belong to it. Another difference is that whereas power supplies, for example, are paid for in arrears, the service offered by the Post Office has been paid for in advance of the goods being shipped, goods that are other people's property. That means that there is a very different situation from that existing in the other public utilities.
It is important that people realise that the Post Office Acts are not old statutes that we have forgotten about because they are 20 years old. They are statutes that Parliament has designed. As far as I know—the Secretary of State may like to confirm that this is the position—the Government have no intention of amending the requirements of the 1953 or 1969 Acts. The House has been told no such thing. We therefore assume that the statutes are still in force and that they should be observed.
Mr. Skinner Mr. Skinner rose——
Mr. King: No, I shall not give way.
Another argument that has been advanced is that somehow there were certain circumstances pertaining to the

1657
dispute and the operations of the company that were such as to justify industrial action.
Mr. Skinner: On that very issue——
Mr. King: I hope that the Secretary of State will make quite clear——
Mr. Skinner Mr. Skinner rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member addressing the House does not give way, no other hon. Member may intervene.
Mr. King: I hope that the Secretary of State will make quite clear that where the law is specific and where it involves criminal offences, no matter what the situation and no matter how grave the secondary dispute in which the union itself is not involved, the principles contained in the Post Office Acts should be observed. We have had no statement to that effect from the right hon. Gentleman or from the Minister of State.
Unless the Secretary of State accepts that principle, who will judge in each case what is a bad company? Who will judge when action is appropriate in not so bad a company? Who will then say "Whereas it is quite a good company, we feel so strongly about the situation that we feel entitled to break the law"? That is the rule of anarchy. In that situation we have either the rule of law or——
Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. King: I shall not give way.
It has been recognised that the use of the Queen's mail as a weapon of industrial warfare is intolerable in such situations. I have said before that in such situations the Queen's mail is a vital lifeline to any company in this country. It is a crucial element in commerce. To anybody involved in mail order, it is an essential ingredient. Any company in that sphere threatened with industrial action of this kind will find it impossible to continue. Because of the gravity and seriousness of the principle involved, the Post Office Acts were designed to make clear the duties and responsibilities of those who enjoyed the privilege of a monopoly service.
Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman has made wholly unjustified com-
1658
ments on remarks of mine on Tuesday. If he had taken the trouble to listen, if he was present on Tuesday, or had looked at Hansard, he would have realised that I said that we expected workers and other people everywhere to behave in accordance with and to uphold the law. I hope that he will withdraw his remarks.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has deliberately misunderstood what I said. Whatever he may say about expecting people to uphold the law, I suggest that it would have been a good thing if, before he came to the House to answer questions, he had read the law himself. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I should be interested to hear his views on Section 11(4) on the duties and responsibilities of Ministers.
The hon. Gentleman implied that he had no status and that the Government—he speaks on behalf of the Government because he is a Minister of the Crown—had no status in that matter. That is fundamentally incorrect. It is no use the Minister's saying that he told people to observe the law when he blithely ignored a crucial element in the law—namely, his direct responsibility as a Minister of the Crown. I suggest that part of the duty of the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications, now subsumed in the unlikely personage of the Minister of State, Department of Industry, the hon. Member for Ardwick, is to advise the hon. Gentleman on his duties. Fortunately, the gravity of the situation—defiance of the Post Office Acts—has now, albeit late, been recognised, and we welcome that recognition.
Mr. John Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I know that he has had a lot of interruptions, and I apologise for interrupting him now. I imagine that the Secretary of State had the courtesy, before the debate, to hand my hon. Friend a copy of the letter from Mr. Jackson informing the right hon. Gentleman, as he should have been informed, of the progress of this dispute. Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether postal deliveries have been effected to this company? It is important that we should know at this time whether that is so.
Mr. King: I am afraid that I have not seen a copy of the letter. The Secretary

1659
of State did not extend that courtesy to me. Therefore, I am unable to say whether the mail is now being delivered. I understanad that it is.
This debate has been extremely important and will be of value because of the contributions that will be made by my right hon. and hon. Friends in emphasising the crucial difference between the Post Office and the Union of Post Office Workers. We welcome the fact that this aspect of the dispute appears to have been settled. But we still deplore the fact that we have had no indication whether the Secretary of State approves or disapproves of industrial action of this kind of defiance of the law. I hope that before the debate is concluded he will rise to his feet and make it clear that the Government thoroughly disapprove of action of this kind.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Whenever the Opposition have a thin case—I speak as a Member who has spent more years on the Opposition Benches than on the Government Benches—it is characterised by a lot of interjections, a lot of noise, interruptions of the Minister's speech, and even by calls for other Ministers to be present. This debate has been no exception to that rule.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), unfortunately, would not give way to hon. Members in the same way as my right hon. Friend was prepared to give way time after time. I should like to take up two points which were made by the hon. Gentleman. The first concerns the 47-day strike in 1971 when the then Government did nothing. The hon. Gentleman talked about the narrow action of the Union of Post Office Workers. In doing so he ignored entirely the blacking of post to France in 1973. All other post was delivered and postmen were still being paid. The Conservative Government took no action in either case.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) tried to narrow the debate. I do not blame him. It was as though for some reason the cause of the action by the UPW was a matter about which we need not bother. What has caused the dispute to be resolved has been the fact that after five years the company has at last agreed to go to the conference table. It would not have done that but for the action of
1660
the UPW. It might seem to the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Jackson descended like one of the fiery gods from heaven for no reason. Thank God for Mr. Jackson! Without the action taken by the UPW, hundreds of my constituents who have done sweated labour year after year would still be facing sweated labour year after year.
Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pavitt: No. I propose to give way three times, but not yet. The hon. Gentleman may be one of the favoured Members who catch my eye.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a most unusual declaration for a Member to make. I have never heard it before. Perhaps the hon. Member could cut it down to one.
Mr. Pavitt: I am an unusual Member, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Grunwick is a sweat shop with a management which could have been lifted straight out of the Dickens era. Conditions and management attitudes such as these have never been seen in Willesden since the First World War. They are a blot on an extremely good area. Many factories—Heinz, United Biscuits and a brewery which makes Guinness—are a century ahead of Grunwick.
The majority of Grunwick workers live in my constituency in Alperton and Wembley. Some workers live in Brent, North and others come from Brent, East, the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. Until 1974 the Grunwick factory was in my constituency, but not now as a result of boundary changes.
For the last eight years I have had a tremendous struggle in trying to achieve ordinary humane conditions in the area. In 1973, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson), I became involved in a similar dispute because it is in our area. Now it is in his area my right hon. Friend has taken a major role. Contact with the company has been in our joint names. Indeed, I have here a copy of a letter dated September 1973 from my right hon. Friend to the company pleading for it to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. I have a stack of letters in our joint names.

1661
My right hon. Friend is naturally inhibited from entering into the debate because of his ministerial position. However, since the end of August, my right hon. Friend has made repeated attempts to get the management of Grunwick to go to the conference table. I served on the picket line for a while at the beginning of September and was delighted that, at about 7.30 a.m. or 8 a.m. yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East was also present to see what was going on in that area. That is the responsible way in which Members of Parliament should treat a dispute in one's area.
I charge the hon. Member for Hendon, North with gross discourtesy. I know that it is not obligatory to inform hon. Members when raising a matter affecting their constituency under Standing Order No. 9 or on a PNQ, but it is traditional in the House for a note to be put on the board to say that it is happening. It did not happen in this case. My right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member pleading with him at the beginning of this week and he has not yet received the courtesy of a reply. That is scandalous.
Mr. Gorst: With regard to the letter to which the hon. Member refers, I received it as I came into the Chamber this afternoon.
Mr. Heffer: That is your own inefficiency.
Mr. Gorst: As for giving notice, I was acting on behalf of a constituent just as much as the hon. Member is acting on behalf of constituents. Furthermore, the dispute about which I am concerned relates to what has been happening in sorting offices in Cricklewood and WC1.
Mr. Heffer: Why are you not concerned about the workers in the factory?
Mr. Pavitt: I will come to the point about the sorting office, with which I am familiar, later. The hon. Member does himself an injustice when he fails to follow the normal courtesies of the House. My right hon. Friend was able to communicate with me faster than the hon. Member says it took him to receive his letter. I do not understand that, because the services of the House are the same for all.
1662
I turn now to the support for the motion expressed by the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Adley Mr. Adley rose——
Mr. Pavitt: I shall give way in a moment.
The Opposition have revealed that since the time of the three-day week, when they went out of office, they have learned nothing about relations with trade unions. If—Lord forbid—we ever had a Tory Government again, we should be back again to confrontation and conflict. They seem to think that the sooner they can get into an argument with the unions the better. Even the hon. Member for Bridgwater sought to extend the conflict and to have a bash at the TUC. That is typical of the Conservative attitude to these problems. Unlike the hon. Member, the TUC does not live so far back in the past.
When the hon. Member for Bridgwater was unfolding the full panoply of the two Acts he quoted, I was able to follow the paragraphs to which he referred. The Act in question was No. 9, Queen Anne, Chapter 10, AD 1710. I was able to follow him word for word and it is always as well to refer to precedents. The hon. Member rested on an antiquated Act. If any Government want to tackle the Union of Post Office Workers or any other union, let them do it. They will have to justify what happened in 1710 in terms of what happens in 1976.
Mr. Adley Mr. Adley rose——
Mr. Tom King Mr. Tom King rose—
Mr. Pavitt: I will give way to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley). I will give way to the other hon. Member later.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that if he allows both hon. Members to intervene he will have exhausted the number he promised.
Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman said that he believed that the action of the Post Office workers had brought about the settlement. Surely what has happened is that the granting of this debate by Mr. Speaker has brought about the settlement. Were it not for the assiduity of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and the action of Mr. Speaker, the firm would have gone

1663
out of business and that is how the dispute would have ended.
Mr. Pavitt: No one cares for this honourable House more than I do. No one is more aware of its profound influence and no one cares more deeply about its influence. But I must tell the hon. Gentleman that in this case, whether this debate had taken place or not, once the management was prepared to go to conciliation, the strike would have stopped. The solidarity of APEX, the UPW and the rest of the TUC made the management think twice about its ridiculous action. For the first time in seven or eight years the management has agreed at last to talk.
Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member referred to a passage that I quoted as being somewhat antiquated. I was reading from a copy of the Act passed in 1969 by his Government and piloted through the House by the former right hon. Member for Walsall, North, Mr. Stonehouse, which is an interesting thought at this time. The hon. Gentleman accused me of "bashing" the unions, which I certainly was not. I was seeking to suggest that it was unwise of the TUC to recommend to the UPW that it should join in the action when it involved the union acting against the law. Does he feel that the TUC was right to encourage the UPW to break the law?
Mr. Pavitt: The hon. Member does me an injustice if he thinks that I do not do my homework when quoting an Act of Parliament. Of course I knew the two Acts to which he referred, but it is not for me to advise the TUC or the UPW. They are capable of standing on their own feet. They are both responsible bodies and I should be happy to accept the advice of the TUC or the UPW on any action they decided to take. I would support it, and I would support it unequivocally.
I am indebted to the Brent and Willesden Chronicle for a reminder of events in which I was involved in February 1973. That was the occasion of the last attempt to organise a trade union, more than three years ago, when the mostly Asian workers sought some form of recognition. It was ruthlessly crushed by the management.
1664
I am trying to show the House that this is not something which was blown up by the hon. Member for Hendon, North suddenly getting a brainwave in the middle of this week. It has been hanging over my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and myself for many years—[HON. MEMBERS: "What have you achieved, then? "] The Chronicle of 16th February 1973 said:
"Police stood by as 150 workers ended their first month of picketing. There had been an attempt to organise a TGW branch and five were sacked and 35 others walked out in support. The union was formed in 1972 in order to secure proper overtime rates for compulsory overtime."
Rates given by management were no extra up to 46 hours; 46–52, time plus a quarter; over 52, time plus a half. Easter and summer were very busy but workers were expected to work throughout the night with no extra overtime rates. There were no cleaners for weeks, the lavatories were in a filthy and unhealthy state and there were no canteen facilities. These conditions prevail in 1976 as they did in 1972.
Workers were sacked for no given reason, on average one a week. The management said that its policy was not to make people redundant, but as time went on people were sacked and their places were filled. That was ruthless repression of an attempt by ordinary people to organise themselves at their place of work by a management as antiquated as that 1710 Act, a management not living in modern times.
There has been no change and elementary rights are still denied. The majority of members now on strike have testified that when they wished to go to the lavatory, they had to put up their hands where they were standing and wait for permission to leave their desks.
Mr. Heffer: The Tories are defending that.
Mr. Gorst: No one is defending that.
Mr. Peter Bottomley Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West) rose——
Mr. Pavitt: Does the hon. Member wish to intervene?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot give way any more. He has exhausted his number of interventions.
Mr. Bottomley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had not noticed me, Sir. I was asking whether I might intervene.
Mr. Pavitt: Not just yet.
I have here a statement of terms of employment of an employee of Grunwick, but this is only a short debate and perhaps I should not take up too much time with these details.
Mr. Mellish: Let us have the whole story: they have not given it.
Mr. Pavitt: It is too long to read. Mr. Heffer: No—go on.
Mr. Pavitt: This refers to Mr. Rajendra Pandya, like many of my constituents, a Gujerati. According to these terms of employment, his commencing rate of pay was £28 a week, his normal working week would be 40 hours, with half an hour extra without overtime and any extra would have to be worked when necessary. The hours worked meant that he had no time to get lunch. There was no canteen, so workers could only clock out for their lunch hour and then simply clock back again when it was over. I am prepared to leave this document on the Table for hon. Members to read. No hon. Member has in his constituency a factory in which the terms and conditions of employment are such as are to be found in that one. Yet we are asked why there is a need for organised trade unions.
The UPW decision was taken responsibly by responsible men. I cannot speak too highly of the postmen in the sorting office in Station Road in my constituency. Councillor Bill McLellan has been a councillor for many years, and Ashworth Elwin is a key community worker. There is a scheme in my constituency whereby postmen look after the old-age pensioners. They give their services voluntarily to make sure that no old person in winter is left with inadequate contacts. Any idea that the UPW is an irresponsible group of people who take decisions lightly is complete nonsense.
I have here a stack of correspondence. The efforts which have been made ever since August have been concerned with getting the company to sit round the table. The whole correspondence boils down to a request for arbitration and conciliation. We say that we do not want
1666
strikes and stoppages; we want to meet and talk matters out round the table. But the Opposition are not content with that.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North said that he had an interest in that his constituent is the managing director of the company. He is perfectly right to pursue the interests of the managing director, just as I have a perfect right to pursue the interests of my workers.
Grunwick's response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East was not just negative but arrogant to the point of rudeness. In my 17 years in the House during which I have had extensive correspondence with the management of hundreds of firms, I have never received that sort of treatment from any other firm in Park Royal and Alperton.
The fact that the Secretary of State has been able to tell the House after all this pressure that at long last the services of ACAS are to be utilised robs me of my peroration. I intended to say that I would go on my hands and knees to beg him to exert his influence. Fortunately, thanks to the UPW——
Mr. Adley: Thanks to Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Pavitt: —the ACAS is to conciliate. This case represents the worst form of exploitation. Most of the workers are Gujerati, coming from Kenya and Uganda. They have black faces and most of them have come to this country as refugees, having been thrown out. They have difficulties in language, in establishing a family home and they have to try to establish themselves as workers and members of the borough in which they settle. This firm exploited them to such an extent that the House of Commons has had to debate the matter. It has revealed a domination and wage slavery unparalleled anywhere in the United Kingdom. I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity you have given me to put that lot on the record.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: I
5.34 p.m.
suppose that the verdict of the Government and their supporters on the debate would be that all's well that ends well. A company which is alleged to have behaved badly has at last been forced to go to the conciliation procedure which it might have used much earlier.
I know nothing about the company, and I fancy that many other hon. Members—perhaps a majority—know nothing about it either. We should be unwise to leave the matter in the context of all's well that ends well, for the debate has given us an illustration of what the Minister for sport, droughts, floods and other things had in mind recently when, speaking in his role as President of APEX, he spoke of the need, as he saw it, for members of the union to pay their political affiliation to the Labour Party and referred to the need for political protection.
At the time I thought that was an expression which might have been more easily used by the chap going into the liquor store in New York and saying to the owner "You need protection". Now we have a much clearer idea of what political protection means. It means that if the objective is one of which Labour Members generally approve, it is permissible to use methods which are at the best dubious and in all probability illegal to achieve it.
The Minister of State for Sport and Recreation (Mr. Denis Howell): Will the hon. Gentleman do me the honour of quoting the rest of that speech so that the House may know exactly what I said on that occasion?
Mr. Tebbit: It is not for me to waste the time of the House in quoting the right hon. Gentleman's speech in full. He knows that he used the expression "political protection", and I am entitled to draw from it the conclusions I do.
Mr. Denis Howell Mr. Denis Howell rose——
Mr. Tebbit: No doubt the right hon Gentleman at some stage will wish to make a speech, but not in an intervention during my speech.
Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am quite willing, although it is not relevant to the debate, to explain the context of that quotation. Is it not in accordance with our procedures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if an lion. Member is misquoting or selectively quoting part of another hon. Member's speech, he is asked to give the whole context and if necessary to put it on the Table?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In view of the exchanges that have occurred, it would be just and gentlemanly if the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) allowed the Minister to explain his position during an intervention.
Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman proposes to repeat his speech, which was a long one, I do not think that he should. If he intends to tell us briefly what he means by "political protection", it would be a good idea if I allowed him to do so.
Mr. Denis Howell: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) reads my speeches—my members do not always read them. I was talking about the importance of paying the political levy and of having in the House trade union Members of Parliament to protect the legitimate interests of union members from the activities of the Conservative Party. I drew attention to the Industrial Relations Act, which was put on the statute book by a Conservative Government and which created more havoc than the country had ever seen.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: You created unemployment.
Mr. Denis Howell: I also drew attention to the fact that large numbers of our members because of the pay policy——
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Are worse off.
Mr. Denis Howell: I said that a large number of our members who were employed in the aircraft industry, the coal industry and so on needed advice from Members of Parliament. The debate today has confirmed every word of the advice I gave to them.
Mr. Tebbit: You will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how wise I was initially not to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. However, he has made my point for me. He sees the importance of political protection for his members as being the scheme by which he and other hon. Members achieve their position in this House. It enables them to espouse the doctrine that their friends in the unions are above the law.
I do not know what other construction could be drawn from the expression used by the Secretary of State when he said

1669
that the UPW had authorised its members to ignore the provisions of the Post Office Act. On what authority did the union authorise its members to ignore those provisions? What is the authority given to the trade union movement—even such a reasonable bunch of chaps as members of the UPW—to interpret the law, and indeed to tell those members to defy an agreement which they signed when they took up their employment, an agreement making it plain that they were not allowed to detain or delay a packet in the post? The Minister is a little stuck to say what that authority was.
This debate has not been about the Grunwick firm, but about illegal interference by Post Office workers obeying union instructions to "black" certain articles of mail. It is interesting to ask whose mail was being affected. It was not everybody's mail as it was in the 1971 strike. If it was the intention of the Post Office Act to make industrial action of all sorts illegal—in other words, to make a Post Office workers' general strike illegal—the Act would have said so. It does not. Therefore, there is every reason why nobody attempted to use the Act in the context of a Post Office workers' national strike.
The mail delayed in this case was not everybody's mail, but mail consigned to or from a particular company. It was not the property of that company, but the property of many thousands of individuals who had gone to the Post Office having bought stamps, stuck them on their property and entrusted that mail to the Post Office to be delivered.
Those people had no quarrel with APEX, with Indian or English workers, or anybody else. But they were exercising their rights enshrined in the law under the Post Office Act in the expectation that their mail would be properly delivered. Those facts are not in dispute.
There is no dispute about the meaning of Sections 58 or 67 of the 1953 Act. The Minister may say that the matter has not been tested in law and that the Act is an old one but, so far as I know—and the hon. Gentleman who sits beside me, the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will tell me if I am wrong—the Act of Union has not been tested in law and that, too, is an old Act. I do not know whether that means that those
1670
who live in Scotland need not pay income tax.
Mr. David Penbaligon: It is all according to the laws of arithmetic.
Mr. Tebbit: The laws of arithmetic have been defied by Chancellors of the Exchequer over many years.
We must ask ourselves why the powers in the Act were granted. The Post Office is a State monopoly whose services are as essential as one can imagine. The coal mines are also a State monopoly, but people can still buy their paraffin if there is a shortage of coal. None of the other monopolies is of the same kind as the Post Office, whose functions are laid down in the 1953 Act.
Section 69 of the 1953 Act bears close examination. It is headed "Limitation of liabilities" and makes plain that there is no action to be taken against the Post Office for loss or damage as a consequence of loss or damage in mail or delay in mail except in the narrowest of circumstances relating to registered mail.
The unfortunate individual, let alone companies affected by the dispute, has no alternative supplier to go to and can take no action against a State monopoly by seeking damages. That is why there is such a responsibility laid on those who choose to work in the Post Office—and they are not compelled or conscripted to do so—in the knowledge of the law as it affects them.
Section 11 of the 1969 Act relates to a large number of powers to give general directions, save one—and that is the one that is relevant to this case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). This is not an instance of the Minister having powers to give general directions to a nationalised industry. In this case he has in subsection (4) one specific power to make a particular direction and that is because it is a Post Office monopoly. Subsection (5) then says
"The Post Office shall comply with directions given to it under any of the foregoing provisions of this section."
If the Minister had had the guts to make the direction, the Post Office would have had no option but to comply with it. The fact that he did not do so speaks for itself. The fact that this dispute has been

1671
in support of a third party dispute is no excuse for it.
We are glad that the dispute is over, and very much hope that the conciliation offered will be successful. When I say "successful" I do not mean, as some Labour Members may assume, that the union will be recognised. I mean that the workers in the company will be free to decide without pressure from employer or union.
Mr. Denis Howell: That is what they are fighting for.
Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman could have fooled me.
Mr. Howell Mr. Howell rose——
Mr. Adley: Stick to water, Denis.
Mr. Tebbit: At the end of the day there are three questions which still remain to be answered at the end of this dispute. The first question is this. The Government say that it is legitimate for the Post Office workers to take selective "blacking" actions to support other industrial disputes. Indeed, some Government supporters have said that it is legitimate to do so and indeed highly praiseworthy—[Interruption.] I wish the right hon. Member for "Drought" would not jab his finger in that rude manner. We must ask ourselves whether the time has come to end the statutory monopoly of the Post Office and to end its immunity from claims for damages as the result of its wrongful actions or those of its employees.
Secondly, there is the general question of whether the Government, the Labour Party and the TUC are now committed to the view that compliance with the law is a discretionary matter, and that they and they alone are the owners and keepers of conscience in that respect.
The final question hanging over the debate is who will be next for this treatment. I might approve or disapprove of Grunwick—I do not know, because I have not got the facts. But I cannot disapprove of all its customers, that is for sure. I disapprove intensely of both the Communist Party and the National Front or National Socialists, or whatever they call themselves now, as political parties. Many hon. Members opposite disapprove of either one or both of those organisations. But that
1672
does not give me the right to stop their mail and it gives no one else the right to do so.
Will Post Office workers in future, in pursuit of industrial action, be encouraged to cut off the telephones of companies or persons? Will one day a Member of this House find that his telephone is cut off? Indeed, will one of us, or a company, or any other individual, one day find that his telephone is being tapped in defiance of the Post Office Act in order to get material for some good purpose in an industrial dispute?
We must remember that the layman's definition of the act of conspiracy, which is still, happily, illegal in this country, is that it includes the use of illegal methods to achieve a legal object. Even if that is not often used these days, it could perhaps be used in some of these disputes.
This has been the thick end of a very thick wedge. I regret that that wedge has got so far, and I regret that the use of what we believe are illegal methods has borne fruit, because, unhappily, although that fruit may be good, the implications for the future are very bad for this House and the rule of law.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. T. W. Urwin: In joining the debate, I declare an interest—sponsorship by a trade union in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, chairmanship of the trade union group of Labour MPs, and some dozen years of experience as a full-time trade union official before entering the House.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said that we were not discussing the rights or wrongs of this case. He could not have been more wrong in opening his remarks on that premise. It is largely the wrongs of the case that concern the House and ought to concern every decent-minded person in the country, whatever his politics.
From what I have been able to learn of this matter, it seems to me that the question of whether there has been an illegal practice by the UPW need never have arisen. The hon. Gentleman could have offered his constituent the advice which I am sure the majority of hon. Members on this side of the House would have offered him in the circumstances which were apparent at the time.

1673
Why did not the hon. Gentleman advise his constituent to stop being regressive in his attitude to the union representatives and to respond to the pleas of the people on the shop floor to refer the case to the ACAS? I am sure that if that advice had been offered to and accepted by the management, there would have been no need for this debate, no need for the withdrawal of labour and no need for Tom Jackson to take the action—the successful action, incidentally—for which he was responsible on Monday.
Mr. Gorst: The hon. Gentleman's argument is almost analogous to saying that, when a constituent complains to me about a burglar whom the police will not apprehend, I should ask him not only why he is bothering me but at the same time why he is beating his wife. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the wrong-doing in breaking the law, which was what the union was doing, rather than to the rights and wrongs of the dispute itself.
Mr. Urwin: The hon. Gentleman confirms my suspicion that he did not think about offering the kind of advice which he should have given to his constituent, because it has a direct bearing on the legal issue on which the debate is based.
Many people in the trade union movement have deeply held reservations about the exploitation of immigrants, and some of those reservations may be perfectly justified. I have heard from time to time substantial evidence of people in this category getting less than the negotiated union wage rates. That cannot be good for the factory in which they work, nor for industrial relations as a whole when these things are discovered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) gave a lurid picture of the conditions of employment in the factory. It was the responsibility of the hon. Member for Hendon, North to satisfy himself, at least first of all, that a genuine case was being presented to him by his constituent. My hon. Friend told us about the £25 weekly wage for 35 hours' work and £28 for 40 hours' work. He said that overtime working is a condition of employment in the terms of contract which these people are called upon to sign, and that the overtime rate is at the appallingly low level of time and a quarter for the first six hours and time and a half for the next six hours.
1674
These are conditions of employment which indigenous British workers and even immigrants who have been here for some time would never dream of accepting.
Mr. Pavitt: There is nothing for the first six hours' overtime. Only after the first six hours' overtime do they get time and a quarter.
Mr. Urwin: That is even worse. I am sorry that I misunderstood what my hon. Friend said. That is even more appalling than I intimated earlier. Therefore, it is quite understandable that the labour force employed in this factory has by this time, because of more or less normal evolutionary processes, become largely Asian. On the evidence presented in this debate, it seems that these people have been very seriously exploited over the past two or three years.
One must ask this question of the hon. Member for Hendon, North and his right hon. and hon. Friends. What is it that they seek to defend? What right have they to say that Asians or people of any other nationality working in this country should be subjected to these wholly intolerable conditions of employment? One may go so far as to say, with complete justification, that this appears to be a case of a firm that is indulging in a rabid form of racialism. No other group of workers would tolerate this situation.
Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Urwin: Perhaps in a minute or two.
Concerning the actions of the union, it must be placed on record that the activities of Mr. Roy Grantham, for example, and his full-time trade union colleagues have been absolutely impeccable. They did everything possible to resolve this dispute in the early stages by representing the case of their new members to the management, and latterly they tried to persuade the management to join in discussions with the ACAS. No such discussions have taken place. Even as recently as this morning, representatives of this recalcitrant firm have been saying that they have no intention of negotiating with a pistol held at their heads. What arrogance! What sheer nonsense! Who is holding a pistol at

1675
their heads? They have no intention of being bullied, they say, but the 71 employees, who, I understand, signed a petition to the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago, are surely the people who have been bullied, as well as exploited, by the management.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South has referred to the way in which the factory is run and to people being treated like schoolchildren, having to put up their hands in order to get permission to leave their places of work to use toilet facilities. That takes some believing.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does my hon. Friend agree that these workers are being treated more like slaves than schoolchildren, and that the Opposition are actually condoning slave labour?
Mr. Urwin: I hesitate to use the term "slave labour". The term "sweat shop" has been used. That conjures up visions of what we have read of Dickensian conditions of employment. It could not be put any higher than that.
The company is in an absolutely indefensible situation. The Tory Members who are responsible for this debate, and those of them who have participated in the debate so far, tend to encourage this kind of activity rather than to denounce it.
Mr. Adley: Rubbish.
Mr. Urwin: It has been said more than once in the debate by Opposition Members that they knew nothing of the conditions that existed. They are very concerned about the breach of law. Of itself, that is a vitally important issue. However, the related factors are surely the matters that ought to have received their attention before they took the issue as far as they have taken it. It seems that they do not learn by their mistakes. They were in Government for about three years and eight months and they incurred the wrath, hostility and opposition of the whole trade union movement.
Despite all the claims made by the Leader of the Opposition, supported by her right hon. and hon. Friends, that if the Conservatives are successful in coming back to Government—heaven forbid!—
1676
they will seek to associate harmoniously with the trade union movement, I am sure that Labour Members and the electorate at large will take that assertion with a large pinch of salt.
The Conservatives seek to perpetuate exploitation and victimisation in this case. One must ask whom the hon. Member for Hendon, North really seeks to represent in this issue.
Mr. Gorst: Law and order.
Mr. Urwin: The hon. Gentleman is certainly not representing the people being exploited in the factory. If he had sought in the first place to help them, we might well not have faced the present situation. The result has been that one of the most moderate of trade union leaders, Tom Jackson, has responded in the way he has done in order to try to reach a satisfactory conclusion to this dispute. It is tragic, to say the least, that a man of his calibre and make-up should put himself in this position. I have the highest respect for law and order, as does any other hon. Member. It should be upheld at all costs in every section of society. [Interruption.] Whoever was responsible for that remark may be pleased to know that in all probability I am a great deal more honest than he is.
Mr. John Page Mr. John Page rose——
Mr. Urwin: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I have said that law and order should be upheld in every section of society. Clearly there has been a breach of law. I am equally sure that Tom Jackson knows as well as anyone else that he has been in breach of the law. The most important feature here is that Tom Jackson has withdrawn the sanction that he imposed in the name of the Post Office workers. However, I wish that Opposition Members had not behaved so boorishly when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the statement arising from a letter he had received from Tom Jackson earlier in the debate. Opposition Members were boorish in the extreme.
The only satisfaction that emerges from this matter is not for the Conservative Benches. It is for the people employed in the factory concerned and those who have participated in the dispute. Had

1677
the action not been taken, the dispute would not be on the way to being solved, as it certainly is at present.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I should like to say that it is self-evident that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. The debate will finish at 7.9 p.m. I make an appeal for brief speeches.
6.9 p.m.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: I shall try to comply with your request, Mr. Speaker.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), I very much welcome the fact that Mr. Jackson has called off his action. I accept what the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) said. We all look upon Mr. Jackson as a very reasonable man. I am glad that he must have reflected on the way in which things were moving and the slope down which he had started. I am delighted that he has thought again.
I resent one or two of the comments of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring. Like him, I have been present throughout the debate. I never heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater or any of my other hon. Friends deliberately encouraging the type of behaviour carried on by the firm or encouraging what the hon. Member described as exploitation and victimisation. If half of what he and his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) say about the company is true, it does not lie hi my mouth to try in any way to defend its actions.
The hon. Gentleman went totally wrong, however, when he said that the merits or demerits of the dispute were at the centre of the issue. For the purpose of what I have to say, I shall accept that the company is totally in the wrong. However, I think that the Secretary of State will regret his speech. He left many questions unanswered and he may think that it would have been wiser to leave it to the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State for Industry to deal with matters that were their ministerial concern. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that under the Post Office Act 1969 the Post Office, which is a monopoly, has a requirement to provide a service? It is clear that
1678
under the Act it has a duty to provide a service, and it has a monopoly in providing it. The matter goes further than that, because with only certain exceptions it is a criminal offence for anyone to attempt to deliver post other than through the mail.
Mr. Weitzman: It has been assumed throughout, and the hon. and learned Gentleman is assuming, that the criminal offence here is failing to deliver or deal with the mail. It is not. The relevant word of Section 58 of the 1953 Act is "wilfully". When I raised this point before, an hon. Member sneered, but that does not make it a bad point. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were defending someone charged with the offence, he would surely make the point that "wilfully" might be answered by showing that the defendant had reasonable cause, that he was not doing it spitefully or maliciously. In view of what other hon. Members have said, a case might well be made out in that way.
Mr. Carlisle: I had not reached the point of the criminal law. I do not accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, and I shall explain why later.
It has always been accepted that a necessary corollary of the monopoly privilege which the Post Office holds, and its requirement to deliver the mail, is that it is an offence for an individual officer of the Post Office wilfully—I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says—to detain or delay any postal packet in the course of transmission by post. As the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring fairly said, by refusing to deliver mail to the firm or to allow it to collect mail, Mr. Jackson appears to have been in breach of that section, as he himself has accepted. He said that he realised that his members were deliberately detaining the mail.
The hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do, because he has had many more years in the criminal courts than I have, that in those circumstances "wilful" means "deliberate". There can be no doubt—it has never been disputed—that the people concerned were deliberately, on Mr. Jackson's instructions, withholding the mail. The Minister has left unanswered the following question. Does he condone that action, which is clearly illegal? Rightly or

1679
wrongly, that was the impression the Minister of State gave on Tuesday.
The law is one and indivisible. Ministers, of all people, cannot choose which laws they will encourage people to obey and which to ignore. Any Government depend for their legislative policy and programme on their ability to obtain public acceptance of, and obedience to, the laws they pass. As recently as 1969, it was clearly stated that it is an offence for any individual officer of the Post Office wilfully to detain or delay any postal package.
Therefore, I repeat that the merits or demerits of the issue are irrelevant. What the Post Office workers were doing at the request of the TUC, as Mr. Jackson has said, was to act contrary to the law for the purpose of putting on pressure in a dispute elsewhere. Whatever the merits of that dispute, I ask the Secretary of State to say that as a Minister of the Crown he can do nothing other than condemn a breach of the law.
If this breach of the law is allowed to go by, what will the next one be? My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has referred to the political issue. I deplore the National Front, and I suspect the right hon. Gentleman does. I deplore the Communist Party, and I suspect that he does. But he and I would probably agree that if they choose to put up candidates at an election they have the right to have their election addresses delivered. Would we condone, or would we feel it necessary to condemn, selective action taken contrary to law to prevent the delivery of that mail? That would be the same issue in a non-industrial and perhaps less emotive area.
Would it not be right for the Secretary of State to accept, the Post Office workers themselves having admitted that they were acting contrary to Section 58, that it is no good saying that the means justify the end in that the company has backed down? The right hon. Gentleman should say that he welcomes the calling off of the industrial action and that, whatever the provocation, such action can never be condoned by the Government but must always be condemned.
Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman attributed a certain remark to me. I think I am entitled to ask
1680
him to reflect further on that matter, because I am sure he does not want to misrepresent me. He said that I suggested on Tuesday that we condone the action of the Post Office workers. I ask him to say which words of mine gave that impression. I said:
"I am sure that we all want people in disputes anywhere to observe the law."
Mr. Carlisle: I accept that, but the hon. Gentleman earlier said something which gave the impression to which I referred.
On Tuesday my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford said:
"may I ask the Minister whether he will now advise Post Office workers that it is no part of their job to discriminate in the delivery of mail in response to industrial disputes, political likes and dislikes, or any other factor whatsoever?"
The hon. Gentleman began his answer with the word "No" and continued:
"I think it is perhaps a symptom of the character of this dispute that reasonable and moderate men feel sufficiently outraged to take the action they have taken."—[Official Report, 2nd November 1976; Vol. 918, c. 1201.]
I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman intended to condone the action, but the Secretary of State today appeared to condone it entirely. He seemed to be saying that because it was a bad dispute Mr. Jackson and the Post Office workers were right to act as they did. That is what I hope the right hon. Gentleman will condemn before the debate ends.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. Ifor Davies: I first declare my interest as a sponsored Member of APEX. Many Opposition Members have conveniently ignored the real issues. You said earlier. Mr. Speaker, that other wider matters might properly be considered. The debate would be unreal if the House did not recognise that the dispute at Grunwick Processing Laboratories did not concern only the Union of Post Office Workers.
I am here not to defend the breaking of the law but to defend the right of workpeople to be organised and for the trade union concerned to be recognised.
The real cause of the dispute is much more serious than has been stated. It arises from the unfair dismissal of employees some months ago and the refusal of the management to recognise APEX

1681
as the legitimate trade union concerned. The union has made every possible effort to refer the dispute to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, but the management has refused to co-operate.
Questions have been asked this afternoon about what has been done to approach the management. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) that there has been a reference in the Press this morning to bullying by the union. Many months ago the APEX representative wrote to the company, and the House can judge whether this is bullying. This letter was written in August by Mr. Gristey, the senior area organiser. He wrote that
"it is in everybody's interest to put an end to this unofficial strike as speedily as possible, for the company to be able to demonstrate its willingness to negotiate upon the terms and conditions of employment of their staff, and particularly to show that whatever issues were serious enough to take such action, at least the company are willing to discuss them with an authoritative body. I have suggested to you that my objective would be to persuade the company to recognise APEX as the appropriate union to deal with the affairs of the company staff and it seems to me that if we can reach a speedy agreement concerning that issue and can institute proceedings for the conduct of negotiations, then we will be in an ideal position to bring about an end to the present situation which exists with the workforce."
I suggest to the House that that is a courteous letter and cannot be referred to as bullying. In the light of that letter, it is incredible that a dispute of this nature in these days should have been allowed to lead to such serious consequences due to the failure of management to follow recognised procedure.
In recent times, the Conservative Party has laid much emphasis on its desire, in its industrial relations policy, to cooperate with and fully to recognise the trade union movement. Surely the Conservative Party's efforts would be better spent in encouraging the management of this company to recognise the legitimate trade union involved and to follow proper industrial procedures.
My own industrial experience has taught me that in numerous cases emotional disturbances rather than logical grievances lie at the root of many of our disputes. In this case, however, it must be said that the company's
1682
refusal to recognise a trade union has logically given rise to a very real grievance on the part of APEX. The Post Office workers also had a proper grievance when they saw their fellow workers being unfairly treated and the union refused recognition. It is noteworthy that the Opposition have failed to urge the company to negotiate with APEX or with ACAS in an attempt to ensure that the issues are sensibly resolved around the table. Furthermore, during the whole 10 weeks of the dispute the Opposition have not raised any of the issues involved, either in the House or outside.
That does not suggest that the Conservative Opposition have any real concern about the nature of the dispute, which is about the intolerable conditions of the workers. We have heard mention this afternoon of the disgraceful conditions to which the employees have been subjected by the company.
The decision to raise the matter today in this limited form can do nothing to help bring the dispute to a conclusion. I pay tribute to the action taken by the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers and the way in which he has dealt with the whole issue. Nothing positive has been done by the Opposition in this matter. They seem to have learned nothing from their own disastrous industrial relations record. I suggest that the entire trade union movement should take note of the Conservatives' conduct in this debate today.
6.24 p.m.
Mr. David Penhaligon: I believe that a great deal of the debate has been in many ways unsatisfactory. Many of the speakers seem to be living in an unreal world. I do not really know what the majority of hon. Members on the Opposition side want the Minister to do. Do they really want him to have the Post Office workers arrested and charged with some offence? On the other hand, the Minister was not exactly enthusiastic in his condemnation of the people involved in this action.
This lack of real balance on both sides of the argument disturbs me, not just because of this dispute, which now, fortunately, appears to be over, but in regard to the unevenness of the attitude towards industrial relations which dominates the politics of this country.

1683
It is not a rare thing for an Act of Parliament to be ignored. Last night, for some reason which is completely beyond me, I sat here listening to the debate on the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill. The Lord Advocate argued during that debate that we should vote to include a whole body of legislation to make homosexual acts in Scotland illegal. He asked the House to vote for it on the premise that he would give instructions to the Law Officers in Scotland that in no circumstances should this measure be implemented. On the basis of that argument, the House passed the measure last night. It struck me at the time as appalling that we can have on the statute book an Act which in practice the Government will choose not to implement.
The simple fact is that only reasonable men can produce a society in which the economy and industrial relations are relatively peaceful, and it appears to me that the attitude of the management in this dispute can by no means be described as reasonable. People in my constituency are used to low pay. Most hon. Members do not know what low pay means, relative to constituencies such as mine, but even in my constituency the payment of £28 a week for 46 hours' work would be regarded as appalling beyond belief.
I do not know what the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) may have said in his private conversations with the managing director of the company, but I wish he had tried to persuade him to go through the normal conciliation process. I recognise that what the Post Office workers did was illegal and, frankly, I wish that the Secretary of State had condemned them with rather more enthusiasm, but I do not feel, as Conservative Members appear to do, that the Secretary of State should have sought to bring some sort of charge in a court of law against the people concerned.
Mr. Gorst: I would tell the hon. Gentleman, for the record, that at the time when my constituent came to me I was under the impression that ACAS was already involved, and that the company had conceded this.
Mr. Penhaligon: That is an extremely interesting intervention. No doubt the hon. Gentleman expressed his view later to the managing director, but obviously,
1684
if that was the precise situation on the earlier occasion, the hon. Gentleman was terribly misinformed.
I hope that the Minister in winding up will condemn, with a little more enthusiasm than has been shown so far, the action taken by the Post Office workers. There is no doubt that it was illegal, and such action could lead to situations in which one would by no means have sympathy for the workers concerned. Their action was illegal, and I wish the Minister would condemn it.
Mr. Weitzman Mr. Weitzman rose——
Mr. Speaker: I wish that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not make long interventions, because I am hoping to call as many hon. Members as possible in the debate.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I wanted to say a few words on this matter because it seemed to me that, when the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) raised the issue, the Opposition were trying themselves to erect a very important smokescreen. I realise now, of course, that the hon. Gentleman was not doing that, because he has now admitted that he did not know that the company had not gone to ACAS.
At the beginning of his speech the hon. Member for Hendon, North said that he was not concerned with the rights and wrongs of the issue. However, there would not have been a boycott of this company by the Post Office workers had the issue not been there. That is the essence of the whole situation.
Mr. Gorst: The hon. Gentleman is really misunderstanding the position. I became involved because the law was being broken and no one appeared to be doing anything about it. Had it been purely an industrial dispute I am sure that my constituent would not have come to see me about it.
Mr. Heffer: But the law was being broken precisely because Post Office workers, ordinary working postmen, could see what was going on at that factory.
The hon. Gentleman is talking about people. We have had this discussion many times before over industrial relations. The great leader of the Tory Party, long since dead, Winston Churchill,

1685
made it quite clear, during an intervention in this House in 1906, that the law should be kept out of industrial relations. Some people appear not to have learned since that time that he was right. On industrial relations matters the law should be kept out as much as possible.
I ask the House to consider the situation. Here were workers working for a company with appalling conditions. Incidentally, I heard that a worker had to put up his hand if he wanted to go to the toilet. I remember that, when I was an apprentice working in the shipyards and when I first worked for Cammell Laird, a worker had to clock off to go to the toilet and, if he was there more than three or four minutes, someone knocked on the door. They had doors at Cammell Laird's shipyard. On building sites, to ensure that no one was in there too long, they did not have doors. That is the truth of the type of industrial conditions that we have dispensed with in most of our industries; yet here was a company which continued with conditions of this type.
Let me read to the House from the statement of the company's terms of employment. A number of my hon. Friends have referred to some of these statements, but no one has read any of them to the House. This one is right up to date. It is dated April 1976. Incidentally, the worker concerned was getting paid £28 for 40 hours. It may be that there has been a slight improvement——
Mr. Tebbit: We have had all this already.
Mr. Heffer: Whether or not the hon. Gentleman has had it before, he is about to have it again. It is important that this matter should be clearly on the record and that people should know precisely what this dispute was all about.
It was about conditions of this kind:
"There will be one half-hour meal break at the completion of the normal working day to be taken only in the company's canteen when overtime is necessary providing such overtime does not necessitate leaving work before 8.30 p.m."
Mr. Adley: Has the hon. Gentleman been there?
Mr. Heffer: These are the conditions of employment signed by each worker. They go on:
1686
"You will receive overtime payment for time worked each day in excess of half an hour over and above the basic 40 hours per week at the rate of time and one quarter for the first six hours, and time and one half for time in excess of six hours."
All of my hon. Friends who come from industry know that that would not be tolerated anywhere in industry, yet those are the conditions that the workers were asked to accept.
There has come into my hands a document described as the minutes of the Joint Works Committee special meeting at Cobbold Road on Thursday 9th September. It refers to the Managing Director, Mr. Ward:
"Mr. Ward … stressed the importance of compulsory overtime in order that the Company could remain competitive … Mr. Ward agreed that Managers may sometimes appear rude to staff."
Does anyone imagine that postmen delivering letters when workers were on strike and picketing did not know about these conditions and did not know that those workers were on strike for recognition of a union because they wanted to change those conditions? Of course they did. Postmen are like all other workers. They are not saints. When they talk to their fellow workers and hear about conditions of this kind they say to themselves "What can we do to help these poor workers in their struggle for better working conditions?"
That is what it was all about. There was no question of the postmen breaking the law. They were fighting in solidarity with other sections of workers—and, incidentally, they never considered their colour, either. The company's employees were nearly all from East Africa.
Were not those workers being exploited? Some Opposition Members whom I have heard have talked about these workers as though they are always on the dole and drawing social security, yet we discover that in this company they are working for buttons.
That is what this dispute was about. That is why the Union of Post Office Workers took the attitude and the action that it did. Of course it is what the issue is about, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was perfectly right in what he said today.
I asked the hon. Member for Hendon, North why the company did not go to

1687
ACAS. We wanted and argued for a body like ACAS. There it is, in existence. Until today, the company has refused to have anything to do with ACAS. It may be, of course, that the company was also influenced by the thought of a debate in the House of Commons.
Mr. Adley: That is what I said before.
Mr. Heffer: It may be that the company did not want the publicity that it is now getting. This was not just a question of breaking the law. The company's conditions of employment will now go the length and breadth of the country. It may be that the company decided suddenly, because of that, that it wanted the issue now to go to ACAS in the hope that there would not be a debate in the House of Commons so that the facts would not be widely spread throughout the country.
I want to say one word to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), who, unfortunately, has left the Chamber. He talked about the need for even-handedness. I am all for evenhandedness. We should always see both sides of an argument. I accept that point of view totally, but, when workers' conditions are poor, and they are struggling to improve them, I have to say quite bluntly that I see only one side of the argument. The side of the argument that I see is that of the working people fighting to improve their conditions, to get better wages, and so on. If those workers want more than £28 for a 40-hour week, proper overtime agreements with no compulsory overtime, and proper facilities for going to their meal breaks, I think that they deserve them and that they should be supported. To that extent, in my view, the Union of Post Office Workers was totally justified in the action that it took on this occasion.
I conclude by pointing out that this has happened before. One hon. Gentleman, who arrogantly walked out because he did not want to hear what I had to say—although we have had to listen to him time after time with his miserable remarks—said that as far as was concerned these workers were "good chaps". Of course they are good chaps. They understood what was going on and that was why they took action. They have
1688
taken action like this before. Remember 1971, when they stopped everyone from getting letters? It is only a thin line between a national strike and a strike which applies to one particular company. They took action again in 1973. The matter was not raised then, and it is being raised now only because the Opposition thought that this was one more stick with which to beat the Government.
They thought that this was a chance to prove that we are a bunch of Red raving lunatics who do not believe in the law —[Interruption.] Yes, that is exactly what the Opposition wanted proved to the people of this country, but it is a lot of rubbish, and people know that it is. I am very sorry that this debate was ever brought up in the House of Commons.
6.42 p.m.
Dr. Rhodes Boyson: Some of my constituents work in the factory and some are on strike and some are still working. The issue of this debate is the action of Post Office workers in failing to deliver mail to the Grunwick Laboratories. Whatever the right or wrongs of that particular firm—and we have heard plenty about it this afternoon—the issue here is whether the Post Office can decide selectively which firms should have their mails delivered and which should not. The Labour Party does not like selectivity in education, but it does not seem to mind it in the Post Office.
The point at issue is whether the workers' action is legal or illegal. The rest is smoke from a pantomime dragon. If Post Office workers can decide that they will not deliver mail because there is a case of bad industrial relations in a particular firm, they can move on next time to a firm in which industrial relations are not quite so bad. From there they can move to one in which industrial relations are about average. It is the falling domino theory, and they could use the same method politically. I do not like Communists or the National Front and neither do many postmen, but does this mean that we shall have a situation in which Communist and National Front election addresses will not be delivered during the next election?
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) talked about Post Office workers feeling strongly about this issue, but what happens if a postman knocks

1689
on a door and happens to see a husband beating his wife? Does he decide that that man gets no mail in future because of his shocking behaviour? Will postmen who do not like pornography refuse to deliver mail to porn shops in London in future? Once this sort of thing starts, where does it finish?
Individual groups could bring the smooth running of this country to a full stop. Are the Government strong enough to intervene and say something? They have no control over the sterling crisis, obviously. Is it a fact that they have as little control over the unions, or are they simply prepared to sit back and sign a blank cheque for whatever the unions do?
On Tuesday when this debate first began as a Private Notice Question it was stated that these workers were moderate men. My mother thinks that I am a moderate man, but some hon. Members may not think so.
Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is extremely moderate.
Dr. Boyson: As my hon. and learned Friend says, I am extremely moderate, but if I break the law by speeding, or going over the line, can I say to the policeman "I am all right because I am a moderate man; arrest my wife instead because she is an immoderate woman on these issues." If we act in this manner we shall end with some very strange laws. This is a geiger-counter moral test.
The Post Office is part of a statutory monopoly and the only classical defence economically of this situation is that it provides a total service. Once it ceases to provide that service—and many people feel that it has already ceased to do so, with no Sunday collections and one-third of the telephones out of order on Victoria Station—there is no justification for monopoly. If we find that selective decisions are being made on whether we receive our mail, there is no defence for the continuance of a monopoly. The Union of Post Office Workers must recognise that unless there is a guaranteed continuance of a total service there is no case for continuing the statutory monopoly.
6.48 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: It is not part of our case on the Labour Benches to say that it is in order to break
1690
the law in any instance. All the contributions made so far by Conservatives, however, have failed to show clearly and beyond all doubt that there is here a case of frustration, where people from the Commonwealth have found employment but, unfortunately, with a very bad employer. That employer has created an image of employers in this country which is simply not true. There are far better employers, and it is my firm hope that people who have been exploited in this way will find employment elsewhere.
I hope that the Secretary of State will listen for a moment or two to a contribution from one of his own Back Benchers. The ACAS was set up by the Labour Government to encourage employers and employees to get round the table and avoid disputes of this kind. I hope that the Government will consider machinery whereby either of the parties will not have to be bullied into action and we will not have to have debates of this kind. Surely we should have Government Departments which can step in where a dispute is not justified.
I say to the UPW and to Tom Jackson that, while there is a right to give official backing to this kind of action, there should be some recognition of the suffering which results from mail not being delivered. We all know the kind of suffering, both in private and hi business life, which has to be endured through mail stoppages. We have all experienced this kind of thing from time to time.
I say to the Post Office workers that in a case such as this, while no doubt their action has created a certain amount of progress towards the conciliation table, they, in common with workers in all industries, and especially those in the public sector, should give their support without breaking the law. This applies no matter how sympathetic we may be in wanting to support our friends in other industries and in wanting to show our solidarity with them. There are many ways in which we can help one another, but there is something seriously wrong in government if we have to come to this kind of thing to get the matter settled.
6.51 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I shall be brief, because the debate is coming to a close. I wish to congratulate the hon.

1691
Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) on being the first Labour Member to say in explicit terms that he condemns the action of the Post Office workers. That is the purpose of the debate. I am glad that he said what he did.
I know nothing of the company—I believe that it is Commonwealth from top to bottom—and I do not know who is exploiting whom. I do not think that matters. I do not think that ACAS comes into it. I remember a judge of the American Supreme Court coming to this House and speaking to us upstairs. He said that nearly always important principles had to be fought on very unmeritorious cases because if the case is meritorious the principle is not usually breached. Let us therefore forget about the merits of the background circumstances.
The first point which arises is the legal point. Nothing really can justify a breach of the law, so I leave that and I simply refer to the second point which is the misuse of monopoly. One Labour Member asked what we on this side were fighting for in the debate. I think that the answer is that everyone, whatever his politics or anything else, should have the uninterrupted services of the State monopolies. That applies not only to the Post Office, but to the electricity and water supply industries and to the other State monopolies.
It was said in a rather feeble kind of tu quoque argument that there was a postal strike when we Conservatives were in office and that we did not have the law on the strikers then. There are distinctions and the distinction was made, but I would remind hon. Members that when we had the Post Office strike, the monopoly had to be suspended. One cannot have a monopoly and a strike of the people who are operating the monopoly. We went back 200 years and we allowed private persons to deliver the post. One cannot have a State monopoly misused in that way.
I would hesitate to call the speech of the Secretary of State disgraceful, because he is not a disgraceful person, but he did not do himself justice this afternoon and he failed to appreciate the seriousness of the issue. He and his hon. Friends must appreciate that if there is a postal service which will not cross picket lines and
1692
which will be used in sympathetic action, as Mr. Jackson called it, to enlarge the scope of union representation, the country is sliding into chaos.
I do not join in the congratulations to Mr. Jackson in calling off this action. He called it off because he had succeeded, because the company—and I say nothing about its merits—was driven to take a course of action for which he was exercising pressure. That is a most improper reason for exercising pressure.
That is the issue which is before the House today. I promised to be brief and I have inevitably compressed the points I wish to make. But let there be no doubt about it. If we have established that the Union of Post Office Workers has behaved wrongly, that Mr. Jackson has in no way redeemed his reputation by calling the action off when he has won, that the law has been broken and that a State monopoly has been abused for the purposes of industrial and political action, we have well used the time at our disposal.
6.55 p.m.
Sir Michael Havers: The issue here is very simple, in spite of all the recriminations which have been thrown around the Chamber. The questions are as follows. When a few Post Office employees, who are subject to the Post Office Act, illegally behave in a selective and discriminatory way against one customer, should the provisions of the Act be effective? Secondly, should the Government refuse to support the law and, worse still, give at the very least tacit approval to those breaking the law? That is the issue the House has to decide today.
Mrs. Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Gentleman to claim that citizens have broken the law when that has not been tested in the courts?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for his own remarks.
Sir M. Havers: I was saying that I was absolutely astonished that the Secretary of State should come to the House today and say that he cannot see any difference between withholding labour and withholding mail. It was nothing

1693
more than a red herring to raise the issue of the previous Post Office strike. We are dealing here not with a general withdrawal of labour but with a selective discrimination by Post Office workers, who are in full employment, against one particular customer. I cannot think that the Secretary of State has consulted the Law Officers or, if I am wrong about that, I cannot believe that he has accepted their advice. Perhaps it might be more charitable to suggest that he has misunderstood the advice he was given.
Mr. Weitzman: I raised this point before and I put it again to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The offence charged under the section is not to interfere with the mail, but "wilfully" to interfere with the mail. Attention must be paid to the word "wilfully". I raised the point in several interventions, and in view of what was said I took the trouble to look at the Oxford Dictionary to find the definition of "wilful". I will read it to the hon. and learned Gentleman——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate finishes at nine minutes past seven, and the hon. and learned Gentleman is taking a long time over his intervention.
Mr. Weitzman: It will take me but half a minute, Mr. Speaker. The definition is:
"Wilfully … in a self-willed manner; perversely, obstinately, stubbornly."
It defines 'wilful' as a disposition to assert one's will against reason. Anyone defending an individual on that charge could have put forward, in view of what my hon. Friends have said, a very strong case to show why the action took place.
Sir M. Havers: I am sad that my old friend the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), with all his experience in the law, should seek to advance an argument which is so clearly wrong.
The recent history of the Labour Party over its failure to uphold the law is very much in our minds. Clay Cross and the Shrewsbury pickets are two smears on its record which are not to be quickly forgotten.
It worries me to hear an ex-Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), saying in the House tonight that if the cause is strong enough the
1694
action is justified. I fear that that is what many of his colleagues feel.
What needs to be done is for the Minister of State, when he replies, to do what the Secretary of State so conspicuously failed to do, which is to make clear that the Government do not condone this action but condemn it. If I do not get such a response, I shall certainly feel bound to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to take this matter to the vote.
In the absence of such a response this sort of case will happen again, not only because of what the hon. Member for Walton said, but because the failure to condemn this can only encourage those in the Post Office to believe that the acts they have committed are approved by the Government and will be supported by the Government in the future. They must learn that that is not the case and I hope that that will be made clear tonight.
7.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) said that the situation in 1973 was quite different from what we are debating here because it did not deal with discrimination against a particular customer. I am sure that the subtleties of that will be lost on my right hon. and hon. Friends. Certainly they are lost on me.
One of the great unanswered questions is why the Opposition embarked on such a course as this without having in any way considered it appropriate and fit to do now what they did in 1973. We know what the answer is. They had by then learned the lesson of the Industrial Relations Act. I am astonished that the hon. and learned Gentleman, of all people, should put forward such a meretricious argument to the House, since he was Solicitor-General at that time.
We were lectured and hectored at the outset about the narrowness of this debate. Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman saw fit to bring in, at the end of his speech, such extraneous issues as Clay Cross and the Shrewsbury pickets. We have been told throughout to use words of condemnation in respect of the action of the postal workers' union. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) is nodding his head. We have

1695
been asked to say that in our view the action was illegal. I rest on what I said on Tuesday, namely, that it is not for me and not for this House to usurp the function of the courts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The wisdom of the course on which my right hon. Friend and I have —[Interruption.] The public in the Gallery will judge for themselves when they see the behaviour of Tory Members. The wisdom of our course of action is illustrated by the fact that on the tape today is a statement that court action has been initiated this afternoon. It would be quite wrong for us to be persuaded—induced by Tory Members—to use certain words and to say things from this Bench that might well prejudice the outcome of those proceedings.
Mr. Gorst Mr. Gorst rose——
Mr. Walker: The House will be interested to learn that this court action has been initiated by an organisation called the National Association for Freedom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I believe that some Conservative Members who have participated in this debate are associated with that curiously-named organisation.
Mr. Gorst Mr. Gorst rose——
Mr. Walker: Notwithstanding the attempts of some Tory Members to restrict the nature of this debate and to prevent some matters from coming out, certain things have emerged into the light of day. They have not said a word in condemnation of the company's behaviour. It is right that my right hon. and hon. Friends should have brought out the underlying problem and the fact that this situation stems from an industrial dispute. Surely the Opposition have learned from their experience of recent years that the intricacies of the law have little to do with the realities of industrial relations. If they share with us an anxiety to see sustained improvements in our industrial relations, I would have thought that they would be prepared, with us, to say that the real answer is to seek a speedy termination of this ugly dispute rather than seek to perpetuate it.
Matters have been raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends which deserve wider consideration. It is right that some stones should have been overturned to
1696
show some of the ugly things lurking beneath them. I do not see that it is any part of my duty this afternoon—
Mr. Gorst Mr. Gorst rose—
Mr. Walker: —to deal with these matters now, and I hope that they will be dealt with in another form.
Dealing with the question of the observance of law and order, I sought this afternoon to put right the record of my remarks on Tuesday when I said that we would all, I hope, urge workers and management everywhere to uphold the law. I sometimes wish that Opposition Members would from time to time pass strictures on those thousands of employers who have been identified as being in breach of wages councils orders and all those thousands of employers who fail to observe the requirements of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts.
Mr. Tom King: Who are they?
Mr. Walker: I will tell the hon. Gentleman if he cares to write to me. After his shifty performance this afternoon, he ought to have learned to hold his tongue.
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) curdled our blood with some of the horrible things he saw flowing from this. I leave it to him to tell the House why we did not have these consequences flowing from the 1973 incident.
Mr. Tebbit Mr. Tebbit rose—
Mr. Walker: I ask the House whether the timing of this debate is purely fortuitous or coincidental or whether it has something to do with events outside the House. I think it has a lot to do with such events. The underlying reasons for the debate initiated by the Opposition—[Interruption.] Have the Opposition learned nothing from the lessons of the past four or five years? Have they learned nothing from the Industrial Relations Act? Do they want to replace the "Pentonville Five" with the "Post Office Ten"? Do they not appreciate that the Industrial Relations Act was a disaster? Do they want to return to the disastrous industrial relations record which they set in 1972, when 24 million working days were lost—
Mr. Humphrey Atkins Mr. Humphrey Atkins (Spelthorne) rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly. That this House do now adjourn:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. SILVESTER and Mr. MATHER were appointed Tellers for the Ayes: but no
1698
Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Adjourned at eleven minutes past Seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Spouses (Expenses)
  Members' Spouses (Expenses)
ENVIRONMENT
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Housing (Liverpool and Glasgow)
  Housing (Liverpool and Glasgow)
  Economic Planning Councils
  Economic Planning Councils
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Drought (Subsidence Damage)
  Drought (Subsidence Damage)
  Waste Paper and Board
  Waste Paper and Board
  Office Development Permits
  Office Development Permits
TRANSPORT
  Driving Licence Reminders (Welsh Language)
  Driving Licence Reminders (Welsh Language)
  Railway Fares
  Railway Fares
  Drivers' Behaviour (Research)
  Drivers' Behaviour (Research)
  EDUCATION
  EDUCATION
  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
  HARLOW
  HARLOW
  INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT
  INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT
  SALMON (DRIFT-NET FISHING)
  SALMON (DRIFT-NET FISHING)
  Mr. BORIS PONOMAREV
  Mr. BORIS PONOMAREV
  SLOUGH
  SLOUGH
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
  ST. AUSTELL
  ST. AUSTELL
  COWES
  COWES
  ECONOMIC POLICY
  ECONOMIC POLICY
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD
  SCIENCE (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  SCIENCE (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
  BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
  COAL PROJECTS
  COAL PROJECTS
  PEERS
  PEERS
  MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE
  MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fines Unpaid
  Fines Unpaid
  Remembrance Day
  Remembrance Day
  Prisons (Leather Purchases)
  Prisons (Leather Purchases)
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
  Squatting
  Squatting
  Police (Ancillary Work)
  Police (Ancillary Work)
  Social Security Frauds
  Social Security Frauds
  Police and Departmental Staff
  Police and Departmental Staff
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Hull Prison
  Hull Prison
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Psychological Studies)
  Civil Servants (Psychological Studies)
  Parliamentary Debates (Official Report)
  Parliamentary Debates (Official Report)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Government Advertising
  Government Advertising
ENERGY
  Williams-Mertz Pipeline
  Williams-Mertz Pipeline
  Electricity Pre-payment Meters
  Electricity Pre-payment Meters
SCOTLAND
  Glasgow (Education Expenditure)
  Glasgow (Education Expenditure)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Industrial Absenteeism
  Industrial Absenteeism
EMPLOYMENT
  Building Industry (Northern Region)
  Building Industry (Northern Region)
  Health and Safety (Prosecutions)
  Health and Safety (Prosecutions)
  Health and Safety Executive and Inspectors
  Health and Safety Executive and Inspectors
  Overtime (Walsall)
  Overtime (Walsall)
  Pay Policy
  Pay Policy
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits
  Colorado Beetle
  Colorado Beetle
  Prices
  Prices
  Poultry Meat (Hygiene Regulations)
  Poultry Meat (Hygiene Regulations)
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Grass (Reseeding Grants)
  Grass (Reseeding Grants)
  Monetary Compensation Amounts
  Monetary Compensation Amounts
  Fishing Nets
  Fishing Nets
  Salmon (Drift Netting)
  Salmon (Drift Netting)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Mackerel
  Mackerel
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
  Rating
  Rating
  "Food From Our Own Resources"
  "Food From Our Own Resources"
  Pigs and Pigmeat
  Pigs and Pigmeat
  Consumer Protection
  Consumer Protection
  Potato Marketing Board
  Potato Marketing Board
  Sugar Refining
  Sugar Refining
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Veterinary Surgeons
  Veterinary Surgeons
  Milk Marketing
  Milk Marketing
SOCIAL SERVICES
  London and Provincial Nursing Services Limited
  London and Provincial Nursing Services Limited
  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Republic of Ireland Citizens
  Republic of Ireland Citizens
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Supplementary Benefit Books
  Supplementary Benefit Books
  Polygamy
  Polygamy
  Rent Books (Forgeries)
  Rent Books (Forgeries)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Hospital Closures (London)
  Hospital Closures (London)
  Community Centres
  Community Centres
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Analgesics and Antipyretics (Poisonings)
  Analgesics and Antipyretics (Poisonings)
  Diabetic Patients (Disposable Needles)
  Diabetic Patients (Disposable Needles)
  Bal Jivan Chamcho
  Bal Jivan Chamcho
  Giro Cheques
  Giro Cheques
  Medical Research (Employees)
  Medical Research (Employees)
  Health Resources (Sharing)
  Health Resources (Sharing)
  Medicines
  Medicines
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Overseas Earnings
  Overseas Earnings
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Spouses (Members of Parliament)
  Spouses (Members of Parliament)
  Treasury Guarantees
  Treasury Guarantees
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Government Borrowing
  Government Borrowing
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Travel Expenses
  Travel Expenses
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  COMPUTERS
  COMPUTERS
DEFENCE
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Training (Psychological Studies)
  Training (Psychological Studies)
  Amble Degaussing Dock
  Amble Degaussing Dock
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  Howitzers
  Howitzers
  Security Vetting (Members of Parliament)
  Security Vetting (Members of Parliament)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorists
  Terrorists
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Police Federation Meeting
  Police Federation Meeting
  Planning Appeals Commission
  Planning Appeals Commission
  Social Security Benefits (Christmas)
  Social Security Benefits (Christmas)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Miss Marie Teresa Drumm
  Miss Marie Teresa Drumm
  Illegal Organisations
  Illegal Organisations
  Larne (Flooding)
  Larne (Flooding)
  Economy (Government Paper)
  Economy (Government Paper)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Spain
  Spain
  Diplomatic Service (Review)
  Diplomatic Service (Review)
  Departmental Staff (Psychological Studies)
  Departmental Staff (Psychological Studies)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Economy
  Economy
INDUSTRY
  Courtaulds Ltd.
  Courtaulds Ltd.
  Paper and Board
  Paper and Board
  Printing and Textile Machinery
  Printing and Textile Machinery
  Poultry Meat
  Poultry Meat
  Financial Assistance
  Financial Assistance
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
TRADE
  Index Prices
  Index Prices
  Cheese
  Cheese
  Soya Beans
  Soya Beans
  Weapon Smuggling (London Airport)
  Weapon Smuggling (London Airport)
  Paper and Board
  Paper and Board
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Petrol
  Petrol

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Pravers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

P. C. HINE'S COMPENSATION
Lord MAIS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how the compensation to former P. C. Hine of the City of London Police was calculated at £4,000, and why £2,750 was deducted for social benefits paid while he was incapacitated, leaving a residue of only £1,250.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, in general, compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is assessed on the basis of Common Law damages. In order to prevent double compensation from Government funds, the Scheme requires that compensation assessed on this basis should be reduced by the value of any entitlement to social security benefits or analogous payments which arise as a result of the injury. Individual awards are not subject to Ministerial review. P. C. Hine, whose compensation has been assessed under the provisions of the Scheme by a single member of the Board, may, if he is dissatisfied, apply for a rehearing before three other members of the Board.
Lord MAIS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I do not imagine that it gave him any more pleasure to give it than it has given me to receive it. Is he aware—perhaps he is not—that this is a case in which I have a certain amount of interest because I was alongside P.C. Hine before he was removed from outside the Old Bailey and I saw what had been done to him. I also visited him in St. Bartholomew's Hospital. He was not, in fact, expected to live through that first night but he did, largely due to very skilled surgery. I would ask my noble
1436
friend, whatever the rules and regulations may be, whether he considers it is just and right that a police constable, with a good career in front of him, who is crippled for life with the best part of one leg destroyed, whose future in the police force is limited to being a clerk in a police station, with all promotion gone, should receive £4,000—which in my view is totally inadequate?
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord MAIS: Then he has £2,750 deducted because of social security benefits, which, so far as I can see, anybody can collect whether a member of this country or not—
Several Noble Lords: Speech! Order!
Lord MAIS: I beg your Lordships' pardon. My last question is this. How can my noble friend reconcile that compensation paid to P.C. Hine with compensation amounting to nearly £12,000 paid to an enemy of the State who was really not injured?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, on the latter point, there are clearly a number of differences between the Northern Ireland Scheme and the Great Britain Scheme, which reflect differences in the origin and background and the circumstances in which they operate. Both Schemes are under review and an inter-departmental Working Party is looking at the Great Britain Scheme at the moment. But 1 must emphasise this point. I certainly accept that this is a most distressing case, but if Mr. Hine wishes this matter to be reviewed he can ask for the award to be considered by three members of the Board, rather than the single member who has reviewed it so far.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us why only one member of the Board was sitting on this case?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is the normal way in which hearings of this kind take place under this Scheme. But if Mr. Hine wishes this matter to be reviewed because he is dissatisfied, as he clearly is, it can be reheard by three members of the Board.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, would the member of the Board, who looked at this case and dealt with it, have known that this massive deduction would take place from the £4,000 award?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords, indeed he would, because that is the basis upon which the Scheme is operated. But it is only right to say that some of the criticism to which the single member has been subjected is, in my view, rather unfair. The position is quite clear. If anybody in a case of this kind, which is a most distressing one, is dissatisfied, he can ask for the case to be reheard by three members of the Board; and that course is still open to Mr. Hine.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, does the Minister mean that the Board member's discretion as to the amount was unlimited'? Did he fix the £4,000 himself as a personal assessment?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there is certainly an amount of Case Law so far as awards of this kind are concerned. But it was the decision of the single member to fix the award at this level. If Mr. Hine so wishes, the matter can be reheard by three members of the Board, as I have pointed out, and that is probably the most satisfactory way of taking the matter further.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, without wishing to impute blame to anybody, or to prejudge the result of any appeal, is there not something manifestly "rotten in the State of Denmark" which permits such a disparity between the £1,250 net still left to the man who was permanently injured and the £11,000-plus which is drawn, without tax, by somebody who was, admittedly, ill-treated by our security forces?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords. I am aware of the fact that there is a great deal of public anxiety on this point and, as I have indicated, the Schemes are being reviewed.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, can the noble Lord, with his great powers of prognostication, tell us what would have happened if the social benefits paid to this unfortunate man had amounted to
1438
£4,500? Would he have had to pay back £500?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if a situation of that kind had arisen, it would have been an even clearer case for asking that the matter be reheard and that, as I have indicated, is open to Mr. Hine at the moment.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, is it possible for the noble Lord to let it be known what arc the views of your Lordships' House on the subject?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that they have been made clear this afternoon.

TOLUENE DI-ISOCYANATE
3.13 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper and to correct the figure of 0·002 parts per million to 0·02, an error of transcription for which I am entirely responsible.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the control of 0·002 parts per million of air for the production of toluene di-isocyanate is still regarded as sufficient for safety and whether expert opinion suggesting a reduction by 97 per cent. is under consideration.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the current view is that control of TDI to 0· 02 parts per million in air is an adequate safeguard against sensitisation. However, in view of published evidence suggesting that certain groups of workers have become affected at levels below this threshold limit, the Health and Safety Executive is currently considering with the Medical Research Council the possibility of a study to evaluate any hazard when operating at or below the threshold limit.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the British Rubber Manufacturers' Association, to their eternal credit, published an admirable hard-backed volume in 1941 which was devoted entirely to the safety problems of toluene di-isocyanate? Is the noble Lord also aware that I am intensely grateful to

1439
him for the information he has supplied to me since this Question was put down, as to the more recent researches of the Health and Safety Executive? While nobody wishes to over-exaggerate the matter, the Question is prompted by trade union anxiety which arises from a series of distressing reports concerning toxic hazards which may well be connected with the fact, as the noble Lord stated in his Answer, that this type of process, with a proliferating variety of di-isocyanates, is now taking place in several thousand different factories?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we are aware of these matters and the Health and Safety Executive has given very high priority to this question. There was a meeting on Tuesday of this week when the Employment Medical Advisory Service and the Medical Research Council spent the whole of the meeting discussing this problem. I must, however, point out that there are real difficulties connected with the research which we contemplate. The measurement of TDI in air is quite difficult and the success of the study depends upon our being able to develop better monitoring techniques than are available at the moment.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the meeting held this week of the Medical Research Council bore any relationship to the tabling of this Question?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge and belief there is no connection whatsoever.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this apparently extremely small quantity means that in every cubic inch of air there can be nearly 1 billion—and I mean the English billion—molecules of this material? Would not he agree that this can create a considerable hazard because the material is not immediately destroyed and will therefore accumulate as breathing goes on? Also, would not the Minister agree that my noble friend has raised a very important matter and that it is urgent that it should be looked into carefully? Further, would the noble Lord take up the question of the method of analysis, because there is no difficulty in analysing for this material?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend about the importance of this matter. That is why the meeting was held last Tuesday. May I say that that meeting was arranged long before the Question was put down, so if any noble Lord thinks that it was held as a result of this Question I can say that that is not so. It is currently believed that repeated exposures to levels in excess of the threshold limit are required before people become sensitised, but once people are sensitised then much lower levels are sufficient to produce some kind of response. Therefore, once you get it you have got it for good.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to inform those of us who are lay members in this matter where these very dangerous materials occur, so that we may avoid them?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, they occur where printing ink is used, where paint is manufactured and so on.

MESOTHELIOMA AND FIBRE GLASS TEXTILES
3.19 p.m.
Lord HALE: 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 to what extent recent investigations into the manufacturing use of crushed fibre glass has connected it with mesothelioma.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, no connection has yet been established between the manufacture and use of fibre glass and the development of mesothelioma.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that although I am very glad to have that Answer, the Question has nothing to do with the fibre glass industry but with the use of minutely crushed fibre glass in the process of the making of textiles? Is the noble Lord further aware that when, according to a recent article in the New Scientist, the fire brigades association decided to dispense

1441
with the use of asbestos wholly in connection with protective clothing for firemen they selected the crushed fibre glass textile as the most heat resistant? Also is the noble Lord aware that they were advised that this should not be used until the possible long-term health hazards from inhaled glass fibres, which were now under expert investigation, had been discovered; and has he any knowledge in connection with that?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, research work is being done in a number of ways. The International Association of the man-made fibre industry has established a registered charity in the United Kingdom to fund research into the hazards of man-made mineral fibres. A Joint European Medical Research Board has been established to give overall guidance in this research project which is co-ordinated by the WHO International Agency for research into cancer. Members of the Health and Safety Executive have attended a number of meetings connected with their research into mineral fibres and what I have mentioned is merely a sample from the list I have here. But I think my noble friend will be particularly interested to know that at the present time employers and the trade unions are negotiating interim standards, in which they have the assistance of the Health and Safety Executive.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Central Electricity Generating Board, although not obliged to do so under the Asbestos Regulations 1969, has applied those regulations to the use of fibres other than asbestos which are used in substitution for it for insulation purposes? This is possibly a very wise precaution for them to have taken, pending clarification of the possible hazards of these alternative fibres. Will he therefore agree that it is essential that the Simpson Committee should get on with their task of looking into the safety of these alternative materials and producing authoritative reports as soon as possible for the guidance of both employers and trade unions?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, so far as the Central Electricity Generating Board is concerned, I am aware of the fact mentioned by the noble Lord. Secondly, the standard which has been accepted by
1442
the Board has in fact entered into the negotiations between the employers and the trade unions. As to the Simpson Committee, I will pass on the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in view of the fact that these workers are working with unknown quantities of these materials, are they, as regards health and safety, subject to the same restrictions as those working with asbestos?
Lord JACQUES: No, my Lords, they are not subject to the same restrictions because they are not subject to the 1969 Asbestos Regulations.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
3.23 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House when the subject of House of Lords reform was last under consideration in another place, and whether the general body of Peers were consulted about the details of the proposed reform on that occasion.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, House of Lords reform was last considered in a substantive form by another place in Session 1968–69. The Parliament (No. 2) Bill, which embodied proposals for reform, received a Second Reading on 3rd February 1969 and was considered for 11 days in Committee on the Floor of the House before being abandoned in April. The proposals in the Bill arose out of discussions at an Inter-Party Conference in which the Leaders of the three Parties in your Lordships' House took part. After a debate lasting three days in November 1968, this House gave general approval to the proposals for reform set out in a White Paper.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of the debate on this subject not having been officially submitted to your Lordships' House for consideration, or at any

1443
rate no decision having been reached which could be regarded as satisfactory, will my noble friend arrange that an opportunity be provided officially, either by the Government or by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition who has views on this subject which he has occasionally expressed, so that we may have an adequate debate, having regard to the criticism levelled against your Lordships' House, even to the absurd suggestion that the House should be abolished?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I note the sweet terms employed by my noble friend Lord Shinwell, but in the Question I was only asked to give the date of the last occasion on which this subject was discussed. I do not want to reminisce, but I actually took part in those negotiations. It may well be that on some future occasion we shall come back to that subject.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my noble friend understand that I consider that reply to be somewhat unsatisfactory? We cannot leave this matter in such a nebulous fashion. Can we not have a decision that in the near future an opportunity shall be afforded to Members of your Lordships' House to debate this subject, which raises a great many constitutional issues?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I thought my noble friend was wanting me to be more specific. Certainly I will look into the question of a debate, and I think this would be a suitable subject for discussion through the usual channels.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, in view of the excellent broadcast by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, to which we listened this morning, may I ask Her Majesty's Government, if there is another Conference or Committee appointed to consider this subject, to make quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is a member of that Conference or Committee?
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, given good will on all sides of this House, there is a great deal that we can do ourselves to improve a very unsatisfactory situation? Will he therefore ask, either through the usual channels or in discussion with the
1444
noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, whether there could be agreement to get rid of the farcical situation we have so far as Divisions are concerned?
Lord PEART: I think that is true, my Lords. I am only a new Member, but I recognise that the House behaves with dignity and the debating standards are high here and compare favourably with any other assembly that I know. I will leave it at that.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord arrange for a transcript of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, on the radio this morning to be placed in the Library of the House?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I will ask he noble Lord whether he will do that.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, could the noble Lord ensure that in a reformed House, when Labour supporters did not like legislation which was perhaps inspired by the Marxist wing they would follow the tradition so evident in the last six weeks and stay away?
Lord PEART: My Lords, on the actual issue of reform, when this subject was last debated there were views put forward by Conservative and by Labour members who were against it, and I am sorry to say they wrecked the Bill.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, I have been here two years and I have noted the absence of debate in this Chamber. All we usually have is a series of badly read essays in turgid monotones.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I must say to my noble friend, who is a skilled Parliamentarian. that I do not think that is really true of this House.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House may well be engaged in any discussions that may take place, will he bear in mind the very high quality of the contributions made by the young hereditary Peers on both sides of this House?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in point of fact my noble friend Lord Lee of

1445
Newton has already made some constructive proposals which have been published in the Guardian? I think this matter could quite reasonably be settled by this House among ourselves by an adjustment to Standing Orders and the inclusion of a new Standing Order. Then we need have no recriminations with another place, which we wish to avoid.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think we might look at that.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Lord PEART Lord PEART rose to move, That the Lord Aberdare be appointed Chairman of Committees tomorrow for the remainder of this Session in the place of the Earl of Listowel who has indicated his intention to resign. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise as one of the newest Members of your Lordships' House to express on behalf of the House the debt of gratitude we all owe to one of our longest serving Members, the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees. The noble Earl has been a Member of your Lordships' House for nearly 45 years, most of which time he has spent on the Front Benches, either on this side of the House or opposite. For 11 years now he has been Chairman of Committees and has continued to be in the thick of things.
Those of your Lordships closely concerned with the running of Business will not need reminding how much the work of the House has increased during those II years. Much of the burden of this has fallen on the shoulders of the noble Earl as Chairman of Committees, but he has always carried out the duty of his important office with the utmost devotion. The noble Earl also has shown a scrupulous impartiality which we should not lightly take for granted merely because we have become accustomed to it.
Apart from the public side of the Chairman's work, on the Woolsack or in the Chair at the Table of the House, the noble Earl is Chairman of all the important Sessional Committees of the House, save for the European Communities Committee. Among other achievements, he has been the first Chairman in the long history of the post to have had responsibility for such matters as accommodation and security by virtue of chairing the Administrative
1446
Committee which came into being during his tenure of Office. He also has heavy responsibility for private legislation. Most of us are unaware of the growing load he carries in the Unopposed Bills Committee. In this field he made a major contribution by the meticulous way he presided over the examination of the County of South Glamorgan Bill, the first of what are expected to be many local authority Bills seeking to rationalise local law.
The noble Earl has helped to establish certain principles which will be of lasting value to the House and his successor. In addition to his years as Chairman of Committees, he has given long public service in other ways. He was Secretary of State for India under that great Cabinet of Clement Attlee. He later became Governor-General of Ghana. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate of me, as a former Minister of Agriculture., to mention that the noble Earl also served in my old Department. For a time he was Deputy Leader of the House. I am sure that the whole House would wish me to extend to him our best wishes for the future.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord PEART: My Lords, I welcome the fact that lie will continue to take an active part in the work of the House. I am also glad to be able to propose the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to your Lordships as the new Chairman of Committees.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord PEART: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has been Deputy Leader of the House, which is usually a good precedent for becoming Chairman. He has held ministerial office and served on the Front Bench opposite, an experience which will serve him well. We know of his personal qualities and charm, and of his clarity of mind. I am confident that the noble Lord will discharge the many responsibilities of Chairman of Committees with great ability and tact. Lastly, I hope that the faithful body of Peers, and the Deputy Chairmen, to whom we also owe a great debt of gratitude, will cheerfully serve under him as they have under his predecessor. If they

1447
do not, he is going to find himself sitting here night after night into the small hours. So to the retiring Chairman I give my best wishes for the future, and to his successor a very warm welcome.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Moved, That the Lord Aberdare be appointed Chairman of Committees tomorrow for the remainder of this Session in the place of the Earl of Listowel, who has indicated his intention to resign.—[Lord Peart.]
3.33 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, on behalf of those sitting on these Benches I should like warmly to support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, who, if I may say so, behaves as if he had been in this House and led it for many years—and I can think of no better compliment than that. We wish to associate ourselves with what the noble Lord has said about both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare.
My Lords, the Office of Chairman of Committees is an ancient and honourable one and, as most things in this House, it has grown up by accident rather than design. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has had some distinguished predecessors with familiar names: Clarendon and Delaware, Waldegrave and Cathcart, Sandys, Saye and Sele, Warwick and Drogheda. One of his predecessors, Lord Willoughby of Parham, became the Chairman of Committees on the day he joined your Lordships' House, and received a Secret Service allowance of between £400 and £500 a year for doing the job. I do not know whether the noble Earl has been in receipt of such an allowance. If so, it is probably the origin of the rather curious allegation made by the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, (if he is reported correctly in the newspapers), that it is the CIA which is actively operating this House.
Another of the noble Earl's precedessors, Lord Cathcart, was a very assiduous Lord Chairman at first, but increasingly, it is said, he left his work to the Bishop of Bangor. Why the right reverend Prelate was not more fittingly occupied in Bangor we are not told, but we do know
1448
that Lord Cathcart, on the outbreak of war with France, immediately decided that an active military career was more agreeable than being Chairman of Committees—not, however, that he renounced his allowance, or the job, until he was granted the office of Vice-Admiral of Scotland, with a salary of £1,000 a year. Since he was a brigadier in the army, this was no doubt a very satisfactory solution. I look forward to my noble friend the Deputy Chairman General Lord Cathcart's future career with interest.
My Lords, the post of Chairman of Committees is not an easy one. Certainly those who only know of what he does on the Floor of the House misunderstand and underestimate the influence and the hard work of the Chairman. But we have been particularly fortunate in the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in these past years. In him we have had someone who is a devoted and loyal servant of the House and of your Lordships. Those of us who have known him for very many years, as I certainly have done, underestimate the contribution he has made as Chairman of Committees.
My Lords, in the time that I have been in this House, your Lordships have been outstandingly lucky or outstandingly adroit in appointing the holder of this great Office, and today we pay our tribute and give our grateful thanks to him. I do so in the words of a predecessor of the Leader of the House who was thanking Lord Walsingham, who was retiring in about 1800, in the following terms:
"The Office of Chairman of the Committees was an office that required great ability, great industry, and a perfect knowledge of Parliamentary forms, and the rules of proceeding, and that no noble Lord could be found who possessed a larger share of those qualifications than the noble Lord who now—so highly to his own credit—and so much to the advantage of the House and the public, held that office, the duties of which he discharged with singular diligence, correctness and propriety".
My Lords, we welcome, too, the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—I nearly said my noble friend. But after six months of abstinence from these Benches, he is now in such a state of grace that he is capable even of exchanging the Whip for the Convenor. The noble Lord has moved into the political limbo which exists between Right and Left. He has joined the noble army of Cross-Benchers who, recently, daily

1449
and painfully have to make up their minds between Right and Left, or right and wrong. But I am sure that wherever he sits, we have the greatest confidence in his fairmindedness and his integrity. We wish him well, and many happy years as a distinguished successor to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
3.38 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I rise to support this Motion. I remember the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, as an active member of the Attlee Government of 1945 to 1950, but I shall remember him much more clearly in the service which he has rendered to this House during nearly the whole of my time here.
Since 1965, a great deal of new ground has been broken within the responsibility of the Chairman of Committees, much of it as a result of the greater burden of Parliamentary work and of the increasing breadth of the Membership of this House. There has been a great increase in the amount of work and the length of sitting hours. The numbers of Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen has had to be increased accordingly. I am told that when the late Lord Kilmuir was Lord Chancellor he rarely left the Woolsack, which is hardly feasible in present times with the burden of present legislation. In increasing the number of Deputy Speakers, I know that it must have given great pleasure to the noble Earl to be the Chairman of Committees at the time when a Baroness of this House was first made a Deputy Speaker—the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger.
Over this period we have witnessed a great increase in the number of general Bills committed to Committee rather than being taken on the Floor of the House. Through all this increase in work and responsibility the noble Earl has at all times been a civilising and humanising influence with the interests of the House as a whole very much at heart. We wish him and Lady Listowel a very happy retirement and we welcome the proposal that he should be succeeded by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, whose qualities, and whose modesty, if I may say so, are very much admired by your Lordships.
With full confidence in his ability I support the proposal that he should succeed the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned I hope that I may take the opportunity to add a word on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Deputy Chairmen, of appreciation for the kindness and helpfulness with which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has guided our early steps and instructed us in our duties and the patience with which he has tolerated our incessant mistakes. We could not have been more fortunate, and I can only recall one occasion on which it might have appeared that our loyalty and affection or certainly our loyalty was beginning to be breached. That was many years ago when I think it was the London Government Bill that was being debated and the House proposed at very short notice to sit all night. According to the rota we had already agreed it fell to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to take the final session which would begin at 9 o'clock in the evening to the end. He immediately called a meeting of his Deputies, in despair at the prospect that he would have to sit from 9 o'clock until 8 a.m. His Deputies sat down and initiated a sit-in strike. But I may say that this matter was settled immediately without any reference to an arbitration service, and this was the only occasion on which it looked as if we were going to falter. I recall that I took the Chair at 5 a.m. as a demonstration that our loyalty was still as staunch as ever.
I am sure that all wish the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and Lady Listowel happiness in their retirement and we hope we shall see as much of him as before, and perhaps as a rather more vocal Member of this House than he has been able to be hitherto. I should also like to say how much we welcome the appointment of his distinguished successor. I have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that there will be certain changes, that in our weekly 'meting we shall in future be expected to stand to attention and salute, and I can assure him that we are all diligently practising that.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, this is an exceptional occasion when the Cross-Bench Peers speak with one voice, and on their behalf I should like to express our gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for the guidance,

1451
thoughtfulness and courtesy he has always shown to these Benches and to the House. We would also wish to thank him for bearing in mind the interests of Cross-Bench Peers in matters of the Sessional Committees and, lastly, we can assure him that we shall be very proud to have him sitting on the Cross-Benches.
We should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on his forthcoming appointment as Chairman of Committees and to say how much we have appreciated his sitting on the Cross-Benches before taking up this non-Party political appointment. We thank him for taking on this very arduous job and we wish him well in his new office.
3.44 p.m.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, as Principal Deputy to the Lord Chairman I have the honour to join in the tributes to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I do so personally, and I should like to try to add some more words to the admirable tributes given on behalf of the Deputies who have served the noble Earl for so long. The noble Earl has always tried to avoid the limelight but today he just cannot do it. On behalf of all the Deputies I should like to thank him for his kindliness, for his courtesy, for his humour, and to say to time how very much we all enjoyed working for him. For myself, I have only had the luck to serve closely with the noble Earl for about two years. Therefore, I should like to thank him for initiating me into the mysteries of Private Bills and not least the one mentioned by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and well known to your Lordships; namely, that of the County of South Glamorgan. I would also thank him very much for guiding me through the pitfalls of the procedure of this House and for giving me an insight into the various duties of his office. The noble Earl's quiet, unassuming manner in which he has carried out his duties is the climax of a long an distinguished public career and I am sure that every Deputy is glad to know that, despite the undoubted attractions of his family, he will often be among us. I hope that when he comes here he will do so in the knowledge that your Lordships' House really
1452
appreciates everything that he has done. We wish him every happiness in the future.
Now he is to be followed by—formally, I cannot say "my noble friend"—the noble Lord who has been elevated to the Cross Benches, Lord Aberdare; and as a colleague of his, both in Government and in Opposition, I also know well those qualities of his which have been spoken of by those who have gone before me. I am sure that every Deputy will enjoy working with him too, whether it be by day or by night, and we wish him every success and happiness in a task that is well worth the doing.
Lord HARVINGTON: My Lords, may I, as one who was the opposite number of the noble Earl for nearly four years in another place, be allowed to say one word of appreciation of him. It is probably not very well known by noble Lords, and perhaps even less by Members of another place, how much the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means have to collaborate together if the working of Parliament is to be smooth. In these days when there is so much bitterness between our two Houses it is perhaps well to ponder for a moment that behind the scenes something goes on which is not at all bitter but very friendly and co-operative. When the noble Earl and I had to meet, as we did on a number of occasions, I always found him a wonderful person, to help and to understand and to work with. In saying this I think it is only fair that one should also pay a tribute to his staff and mine who made that co-operation so easy for us.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, may I on behalf of my predecessors on the Woolsack and myself express our gratitude to the noble Earl for the wonderful and constant advice he has given us throughout the years. Frankly, without the assistance of the Lord Chairman and the Deputy Chairmen the contemporary duties of a Lord Chancellor could not be performed. When Winston Churchill was asked what his attitude was towards the Church of England he said, "I regard myself more of a buttress than pillar". For Lord Chancellors the noble Earl has been both a buttress and a pillar. We are immensely grateful to him; we thank him; and wish him every happiness for his future.
3.49 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I am indeed deeply grateful, more grateful than I can possibly say, to all the noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their exceedingly and quite undeservedly kind remarks, and I shall always remember them with pride and pleasure. I was particularly glad to hear some voices from the Back Benches; but of course the Chairman of Committees is a creature who belongs just as much to the Back Benchers as to the Front Benchers. I must also thank your Lordships as a whole for your patience, tolerance, and understanding during my period of office as Chairman of Committees. No one who has occupied this office could possibly carry out his responsibilities without the friendly support of the whole House. The volume of work has of course considerably increased in recent years, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House has iust pointed out, but I have been exceedingly fortunate in being the first Chairman of Committees to have had the help of a whole-time Deputy, and I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, for all she has done as my Principal Deputy, while at lie same time being Chairman of the European Communities Committee. How she has managed to spare sufficient time from the work of that Committee and all its numerous sub-committees is something I have never been able to understand. She has also sat with me until the early hours of the morning during the present spill-over and on several other occasions when we have had late night Sittings, and I am most grateful to her for that also.
I should also like to express my gratitude to the 18 unpaid Deputy Chairmen who have already been referred to by several other speakers, most justly, without whose willing help on the Woolsack or in the Chair particularly late in the evening I would have resigned long ago from sheer fatigue and overwork. I am sure they will continue to serve the House under my successor, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, just as faithfully as they have served it during my term of office. I am also indebted to the many noble Lords who have spared the time to serve on long Private Bill Committees. These Committees usually sit all day, and it is sometimes not realised how much work is done by noble Lords off the Floor of the House.
1454
I must now say thank you to all the staff of the Chairman of Committee's Office and especially to my counsel, Mr. Talbot. He has now been counsel to successive Chairmen of Committees for 23 years, and his determination to ensure that private legislation is of the highest standard and entirely worthy of your Lordships' House is as lively today as it ever was. When he retired in 1965 the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, my predecessor, said Mr. Talbot is one of those people who apparently is never ill. In the subsequent 11 years his stamina has been equally remarkable, though he is long past the age when most people are obliged to take things a little easier.
I should also like to thank Mr. Graham, the Clerk of Private Bills, for his invaluable advice whenever I hake had to pilot Private Bills through your Lordships' House. I think perhaps I realise, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, how much we owe to the three Clerks at the Table for keeping us on the rails about procedure. I could not possibly have discharged my responsibility for giving the House procedural advice without their unfailing help.
My Lords, my immediate predecessor as Chairman of Committees was a Welshman, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and his predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, was an Irishman. So it is obviously now the turn of another Welshman, and I dare say a very long time hence the Scots, or even the English, may have their chance, too. I wish my successor, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the very best possible luck in his appointment, and I hope he will have the same generous support from the House as I have been privileged to receive.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very honoured that this Motion should be before your Lordships, and I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for proposing it in such kind terms so far as I was concerned. He has not known me very long perhaps. I should also like to thank everybody who has been so kind in what they have said about me. I can only say that if your Lordships agree to this Motion I will do my best to follow in the traditions of this ancient office. In fact I find it much easier to say that having heard what the

1455
noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said about some of the traditions. I am absolutely open to any offer to be Vice-Admiral of Scotland, or a General, or to take any sum from the Secret Service which they like to offer me.
In all seriousness, I will do my best to fulfil this office. Certainly, to re-assure the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, I will try to follow much more closely in the footsteps of Chairman Listowel than Chairman Mao, or any other chairman she might have had in mind. Finally, may I express my own great personal gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for the kindness he has shown me over the last few weeks in trying to indoctrinate me into the mysteries of the office. If I make mistakes, they will be my own and nothing to do with the fact that he has not briefed me properly.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
3.56 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Health Services Board and its committees]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("five") and insert ("seven").
The noble Baroness said: We start at the beginning of the Committee stage of this important Bill, and before turning in detail to my first Amendment I should like to make two comments on matters of procedure. The first one is that I assume that we are going to take the Amendments simply in the order as printed on the Marshalled List.
I am bound to say—and I have already raised this point privately with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell—that I find this slightly surprising, but I believe it is now inevitable, as there has not been a Motion to group the Amendments. I would have thought it would have been much to the convenience of the Committee if they had been grouped and that we should take the appropriate Schedules with the clauses. If this is not to be the case, we shall have to be forgiven if we go from one part of the Bill to another; I cannot believe that this will always be the easiest way to follow it. However, this is not my decision and not a matter on which I can make a ruling; but I think it right that the Committee should appreciate this right at the beginning because I think it will make a difference in the way the Committee stage proceeds.
My second comment is a very general point. I am bound to say that I was surprised to find that the Government had not put down any Amendments at all to the Bill. I yield to no one in my admiration for the officials of the Department of Health and Social Services, particularly the draftsmen of the Bill. They are much to be congratulated. They clearly feel that they have produced a perfect Bill; not a word, not a comma, not a full stop needs to be altered. This, surely, must be an achievement. But, quite seriously, I hope that it means that the Government are taking this Bill seriously.
We on this side of the House believe that it is a very important Bill. It is actually about the lives and the health of a lot of people, and it would he most unfortunate if the impression were to be given outside the House, to the many people who are interested in the progress of this matter, that this House was in some way being used as a rubber stamp, and that the whole Bill, simply because of a Parliamentary timetable over which we have no control, has to be in this particular form. I find this a most extraordinary situation. I find it a particularly extraordinary situation as there were 50 tied Amendments in another place, which indicates how very close the Parties have come on various matters.
One would at least have thought that some of these issues would have been raised by the Government. It is ob-

1457
viously not to be so, and I think it is all the more unfortunate because of that. As I say, I do find it very strange that there are no Government Amendments of any sort, not even drafting Amendments; this is the first time, on any Bill with which I have been connected, I have found this to be so. I hope that the noble Lord who will be speaking for the Government will appreciate my genuine concern about this matter.
I turn now to the Amendment which is down in my name. This is the first Amendment that we are moving and, in a sense, it is a probing Amendment. Clearly central to the whole of this Bill is the Board that is to be established, with a chairman and, as matters stand now, four other members. What we on this side of the Committee should like to know is something more about the Government's intentions about the Board. The composition of the Board is clearly crucial to the success that must underline the whole of this Bill which, as I understand, is a piece of legislation designed to put into legislative form the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
If we turn to Schedule 1—and here we have a difficulty about not having grouped Amendments because we must turn to Schedule 1 which sets out the details of the composition of the Board—paragraph 8 makes it clear that two medical practitioners are to be appointed and two other persons appointed in consultation with other people employed in the health services. All sorts of other people are involved in the health services. Clearly, as its name implies, the National Health Service is a service and, as I indicated at Second Reading, the most crucial part of the Service is those who work in it, and that means all those who work in it. I should have thought it not unreasonable for the Government at least to consider for appointment to the Board representatives perhaps of the nursing professions, who seem to be left out of it altogether, or perhaps the nursing professions and others like physiotherapists and medical social workers. It does not appear to me at all unreasonable that their views which are, after all, crucial to the needs of the patients, should be considered, quite apart from the fact that at least it is arguable that the patients ought to be considered. Nowhere are their views, whether they are patients in the National Health
1458
Service or any other patients, going to be considered at all. There will he nobody representing them. At least we should find out from the Government why they have been excluded from membership of the Board, even if they are not positively able to propose why they should be put on it.
That is the first reason for this Amendment. There is another reason. It is not difficult to see a situation arising, under the proposals in the Bill, with a chairman and four members of the Board, of two members of the Board consistently voting one way and two consistently voting the opposite way, and effectively everything being decided by the chairman. Of course it is arguable that this could happen if there were six members, but it is less likely, I should have thought. So we might say there is hardly any point in having four members drawn up like this; we might just as well have a chairman who will decide everything.
Therefore it seems to me that there is a practical consequence to all this, but I do not believe that that is as important as the other point I have made: namely, that there are a great many people upon whom the Health Service completely depends whose views, certainly as the Bill stands at present, are not going to be considered. We on this side of the House should like to know how the Government intend, if indeed they do intend, to take the views of the nursing profession, or of the patients, in order to know what they think about matters which are going to be of immediate and real concern to them. I beg to move.
Lord PLATT: I should like to support this Amendment strongly. I am not, in a general way, in favour of large committees, but I do not think that one could call a committee of seven in such an important matter representing so many different kinds of work in the Health Services as being too big a committee. In fact, had I been drafting the Amendment I might have added two more, because I think we want real representation of many interests. It seems to me that this is a very harmless and proper Amendment, which should be agreed to.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: Before supporting the noble Baroness

1459
may I make one thing clear to your Lordships? I am national chairman of the Leagues of Hospital Friends. We are in no way a political body of any sort. We never discuss politics of any sort. We would never discuss pay beds, remuneration, the trade unions, the nursing profession, or anything except the good of the patients and staff of hospitals. We cover over 2,000 hospitals. I make this statement purely to show, I hope, that anything I say in this House has nothing at all to do with my leadership of the Leagues of Hospital Friends.
Having said that, I should like to go on to support my noble friend Lady Young in this Amendment. I have sat on local hospital committees, as well as others, and I think that five is much too small a number for this very important Board. My reasons are slightly different, in that I also know that people can be ill even in their own hospitals; they can have other engagements; and they can, if they are prominent people, have other things to do in public life and sometimes in home life. I think the number of seven will be far better than the number of five. I completely support what the noble Baroness has said.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I should like to support this Amendment with all the power that I can. For many years now I have been privileged to be a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing. I should like to ask my noble friend who moved this Amendment whether she, representing this side of the House, has been in touch with the Royal College of Nursing to obtain their views on many aspects of this Bill, but in particular whether they feel that it would be advantageous to have more people on the Board.
The other point that I should like to make is that for many years when I was in another place I represented Parliament with a large "P". In those days I did not know anything about the procedure in this House, but for many years I represented Parliament on the committee which looked after physiotherapists. The committee used to make representations on their behalf. Sometimes we won our battles on our recommendations. This is not a Party matter at all; we had to make recommendations when the present
1460
Government were in power and when my own Government were in power. But it seems to me that over this very wide field it is important that we should have representatives of those sections of the community who help to operate the National Health Service, and I am sure do so very successfully. It is an important matter; therefore I think that through my noble friend Lady Young we are moving a very important Amendment.
I always like to put forward what I consider are the good sides of development. Over the years I have been connected with many hospitals and all developments in the part of the world which I have always had the honour to represent, and I was very pleased indeed to know that at last (I say "at last" because this is not a criticism of any Government) a State registered nurse was on the community health council. If that was felt necessary, it seems odd that no arrangement seems to have been made for the various members of the Health Service professions—physiotherapists, chiropodists and the wide range of people who go to make up the Health Service—to be adequately represented on this committee. I am therefore glad to support the Amendment, though I should like to know whether, as soon as the Bill was introduced, approaches were made to the members of the nursing profession and the others who play such a vital part in the Service about this question of representation.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I support the Amendment, not necessarily because it would not be possible for five people objectively to take the decisions that might have to be taken by this committee—I think that could be done by five or seven—and not even because I think the nursing profession has been left out, because under Schedule 1, paragraph 1(2)(b), it would be possible for the nursing profession to be represented. I support it basically because there are more interests in the Health Service than can be represented by four people, apart from the chairman. I support it above all because we tend these days to administer and talk about the NHS forgetting about whom it is there to serve. There must be a place on this board to represent not necessarily the patient but the ordinary person in this

1461
country who might one day become a patient. I appreciate that it is difficult to work out how this representation could be included, but we must in everything we do in the Health Service remember the patient and potential patient. That is why I should like to see the membership increased to seven.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I should not like it to be thought that there is any dissent on these Benches about the Amendment. Like my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington, I will wait with interest to hear the reply of the Minister on this subject. My inclination at present is to support the Amendment, but at the same time perhaps I should voice a disquiet that I have. The effectiveness of the committee will in the end depend not entirely on its numerical strength but on the quality, rather than the number, of people who serve on it. Probably we should be better served by seven than five, but I must sound a word of warning about any plea for representation.
I should regard it as regrettable if we allowed the committee to become so swollen that it consisted merely of delegates representing vested interests, physiotherapists, nurses, or anybody else. We want on this committee independent people who are aware of the problems in the various spheres of the Service—the difficulties and views of the physiotherapists, nurses, ancillary workers, doctors and patients—and to have that I think we need seven rather than five. But if we were to go above seven and say that we need one to represent nurses, one to represent the patients' association and so on, we should be on a dangerous course. I shall therefore preserve an open mind while waiting to hear what the Minister says on this issue.
Lord PEDDIE: There is an old adage that the most satisfactory committee would number two with one absentee. I support the view that this committee should not seek to be representative because in endeavouring to be so it would become too numerous and unwieldy. We should aim at a committee that is few in number, but I believe from experience that with five we would suffer the disability, probably serious in this case, of absenteeism making it too few in number and probably placing too much dependence on the decision
1462
and activity of the chairman. I do not know what all the fuss is about. It would seem better to concede seven, provided there is a clear understanding that it is not indicative of an attempt to be representative but rather, from the administrative standpoint, of advantage because it would avoid difficulties arising out of absenteeism.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I will, first, deal with some of the points made by the noble Baroness before she spoke to the Amendment. I will try to be as friendly as possible, though I did not feel very friendly about one of her observations. As for the arrangement of these Amendments, I take full responsibility. It is not always the custom to group Amendments. The noble Baroness, when she was at the Department of the Environment, found that to be the practice there and she did so, but there have been many Bills before your Lordships with schedules where Amendments have not been grouped. It is a matter of opinion as to whether one method is better than another. I prefer this, but had I been approached early enough I should certainly have considered whether there was some advantage in grouping the Amendments.
The noble Baroness referred to the fact that there are no Government Amendments. There are none simply because we did not think any were necessary, and it is as simple as that. We have been through the Bill, like certain people in another place, not only paragraph by paragraph but word by word and line by line, and we are satisfied with it as it is. If in the course of the Committee stage it should become apparent or necessary for the Government to consider tabling Amendments, the Government will do so, but we do not think it necessary at this juncture.
I tend to take exception to the remark made by the noble Baroness about whether the Government were taking the Bill seriously. We have never taken a Bill more seriously than this one. As I said on Second Reading, this is a matter of principle with us, as it is a matter of principle with noble Lords opposite. I said on that occasion that the divide between us was a very deep one. But make no mistake about it we take the Bill very seriously; and I acknowledge, as I

1463
did on a former occasion, that we recognise that noble Lords opposite, and for all I know noble Lords on the Cross Benches, also have very real and deepseated convictions about this matter.
It would, on the face of it, seem perfectly reasonable to have seven people on the Board, but it would only be reasonable to do so if one could be certain that one was going to achieve the purpose that so many people feel a seven member Board will achieve. Let us face it, seven people will not achieve the representation of all the interests in both the private sector and the public sector. Two members of the Board are to be from the medical profession. They have to be acceptable to the medical profession, so there will be two members over whom, if you like, the Government will have no control at all. The remaining two will be appointed after consultation with National Health Service staff and other interested parties.
I feel that I must point out to those of your Lordships who may not be familiar with the intricacies of the trade union movement that the bodies concerned with the interests of patients in National Health hospitals and consulted about membership of the Board are the Patients Association and the Trades Union Council. There is a very strong Patients Association in this country. Representatives of the interests of the two groups mentioned in the Amendment will be present on the Board. Nurses working in the National Health hospitals are represented by the staff side of the General Whitley Council, which has already been consulted about the appointment of the other members, as have bodies representative of the interests of patients. In addition, the medical members will, we imagine, be able to bring to the Board experience of the problems and methods of working in the private sector and will also bring to the Board experience of the treatment of private patients within the private sector.
If we are going to say that the nurses must have a special place, we must remember that there are a large number of different groups serving in our hospitals. There are a very large number of medical laboratory technicians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists; there are the domestics—and, let us face it, the success or failure of a hospital will very often depend
1464
on the contribution of the domestic staff. Stop the food and see what happens! There are engineers and porters, there are ancillaries, there is a large administrative staff and, as I said, there are midwives, biochemists, and one could go on. How do we bring together representatives of all those groups? The staff side of the General Whitley Council includes representatives of all the major National Health Service unions and of the Royal Colleges of Nursing and of Midwives.
We feel that there is some merit in this and I admit that this is open to the point of view that seven members might be better than five. However, we believe that there is no point in increasing a number simply for the sake of increasing it unless by increasing it one is going to be able to rope in a substantial number of interests that are not likely to be represented. Our view is that there is no particular merit in specifying seven members.
Lord PEDDIE: I fail to see how one could possibly accept that argument because one could increase it by two and yet at the same time reject—as I certainly do—the concept of extending it so as to get full representation from the various parties. I am supporting seven members purely from the standpoint of mechanics. If there are seven members, that will be far better as a number because the Board will be free from the difficulties that can be created by absenteeism. It has nothing to do with representation.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: With very great respect and unless I have misread the Bill, the question of absenteeism cannot possibly arise because there is a section in the Bill under which deputies are to be appointed so that in point of fact—the noble Baroness looks surprised, but I believe there is a clause in the Bill which provides for deputies to be appointed, a deputy for the chairman and deputies for the members of the Board—so that if a member of the Board cannot attend for any length of time, the deputy who has been appointed will take his place. So there is no question, as I see it, of people being absent—
Viscount LONG: I am not quite with the noble Lord on this. I wonder if he means to say that in addition to these five members we shall have deputies

1465
behind the scenes who can be brought in. I do not think that we should be quite happy with that make-up of the group. I wonder whether the noble Lord could explain. It sounds as if people would be co-opted at a moment's notice and I do not think that would work very well.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is not a question of co-opting people. I am trying to find out whether the Bill contains such a provision and where it is. t cannot remember every word of every clause, but my understanding of the situation is that the Board will have appointed a deputy for the members of the Board and for the chairman so that, if for any reason a member of the Board c mild not attend for three or four weeks or perhaps a month or two—for instance, he might be in hospital—the deputy who had been appointed would take his place so that there would always be a full membership of the Board. I believe that the time limit is that if the person in question will be away for three or four weeks and this is known, the appointed deputy will take his place. If, on the other hand, the Board was likely to meet several times during that period so that the member was likely to miss three or four meetings, a person would be appointed to deputise for him from the same discipline: that is, if it was a doctor, the deputy would be a doctor; if it was a member of the staff side, the deputy would be from the staff side. So the question of absenteeism does not arise. My train of thought was rather spoilt, but I do not think I had any other point that I wanted to make.
Lord HILL of LUTON: Can the noble Lord tell us where this substitute arrangement is to be found?
Lord O'HAGAN: I am not sure whether I have understood the position correctly, but I hope that it is in order for me to refer to a schedule even though we are discussing Clause 1. As 1 understand it, paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 which appears on page 21 refers to deputies. Those deputies are only for Scotland and Wales so that the question does not arise for the parent Board. In the preceding paragraph, the provision for absenteeism refers to six months, but perhaps I have got it wrong as well.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The noble Lord is perfectly right. In paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 there is provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations appointing deputies, and my understanding and reading of it is that it applies not only to the Scottish and Welsh Committees but to the Board, covering circumstances in which they may act for members. I mention this only because the point was raised that there might be fewer than five people attending a committee. All I want to say in reply is that we do not think there is any particular merit at all in having seven as against five. We feel that there is some merit in keeping the Board as small as possible. I think it has been the experience of a good many of us that a commtitee can be too unwieldy, and it can be too unwieldy if there are seven members. We feel, perhaps wrongly, that the right number is five and that on this basis having two from the medical profession and two from the staff side, this will be the ideal number.
My only other comment is that I understand that five was the agreed figure in the Goodman proposals, and, as the Committee knows, the Goodman proposals were examined very carefully, not only by the Government but also by the British Medical Association, and, so far as I know, no question was raised about five being an insufficient number. Therefore this leads me to say that we do not feel that we can accept the Amendment of the noble Baroness.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question in connection with the discussion of whether the figure should be five or seven. Perhaps I should have mentioned this when making previous comments. For years one has been aware of the satisfactory arrangement regarding the Whitley Council. Apart from the members representing the medical profession, are the other members, two of them at any rate, to be appointed through the Whitley Council, as has been the arrangement in the past in so many matters connected with the Health Service? It is extremely important to know this and I apologise that I did not raise this matter earlier. Of course I should have mentioned it.
Lord WELL-PESTELL: I should like to point out to the noble Baroness that she does not have to ask the Committee for leave to speak. During the Committee stage Members are—I should say unfortunately—allowed to speak as often as they like. But I hope that that will not be an encouragement. In reply to the noble Baroness, I should say that all the members of the Board have to be appointed by the Secretary of State; hut, as I said earlier two of them must represent the medical profession. Of course there have been consultations with the British Medical Association regarding the two people that it wants as representatives. Two have to be appointed from the staff side and consultations are taking place with the staff side, the Whitley Council, the trade union movement and so on. The Chairman is to be an independent person. The Secretary of State is endeavouring—I cannot say more than this at present—to get somebody who is really independent in the strict sense of the word. I hope that it may be possible, even before we complete the Committee stage of the Bill, for me to say something more about that.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: Before the noble Lord sits down I should like to press him a little further on this matter of the figure of five members. As he has just reminded the Committee, they are all appointed by the Secretary of State. I am the chairman of a board—a consumer council, as a matter of fact—of which all the members are appointed by the Secretary of State. In this council we have a backlog of 18 months to two years of people who have to be reappointed to fill vacancies. I am worried in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, about the number of five, when perhaps one, two, or even three members might well have to resign for other reasons. They might even decease, and nobody could do anything about that. It takes a considerable length of time for Secretaries of State to appoint people to replace others. This I have found over many years, and I hope that the noble Lord will take some notice of this point when he is insisting, as I gather he is, on a figure of only five members.
Lord PLATT: I do not want to rise too often and I shall heed the words of the Minister on that subject, but the
1468
occasion has been taken at this very early stage to make some general comments, and I should like to make a remark on two of the comments. I think it is a pity if we feel that this is a matter that is already dividing the Government from the Opposition and that it is an argument between the Socialists on the one hand and the Conservatives on the other. I hope that the whole Committee, not only the Minister, will bear in mind that there are 18 medically qualified Members of your Lordships' House, only one of whom sits on the Conservative Benches. Therefore I do not think that this should become a wrangle between two Parties. My second comment is that it is easier to replace a member of the domestic staff than it is to replace a consulting physician or surgeon.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Platt. I will try to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to appoint members of the Board and of the Scottish and Welsh Committees. The consultations to which I have referred have been going on, and one advantage of having deputy members who will subsequently be appointed is that in the event of absenteeism—for whatever reason a member may be prevented from attending—the deputy will be available. Therefore if a member of the Board dies there will be a deputy who can take his place. I realise the difficulty of getting good people, but perhaps it is easier to get five good people than seven; I just do not know. But if there are seven members appointed then seven deputies have to be found; so in one sense the problem is reduced if the figure remains at five. We do not envisage the kind of problem which the noble Baroness has mentioned, for the simple reason that, as I say, we have foreseen these difficulties and we shall overcome them by having a deputy appointed in each case.
Viscount MONCK: I should like to raise a point before the noble Lord sits down. As your Lordships know, I am getting old, senile and deaf and I may have missed something, but I should like to clear up this deputy business. I understood that my noble friend Lord O'Hagan referred to page 27 of the Bill

1469
where according to Schedule 1, paragraph 10(1)
"The Secretary of State shall be"—
I think that that should read "by"—
"regulations provide for the appointment … of … a deputy chairman or deputy member of the Board, to act in place of the chairman or a member …"
That presumably means a deputy chairman and one deputy member.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I should like to put to the noble Lord the simple issue in the form in which the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, put it. There are many noble Lords who have an all too long and intimate experience of committee life. We know from experience that five is too few a number and we know from experience that the system of deputies popping up occasionally when the person for whom they are deputising is ill just does not work. Is there some fundamental reason why five should be the figure rather than seven? I should have thought that on the simple basis of the experience of most of us a good small committee is one of seven, about five of whom are likely to be present on any one occasion. Do not let us make a doctrine of this. Simple common sense ought to lead the noble Lord to accept this Amendment and to allow us to get on with something much more important.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The noble Lord is making the mistake of thinking that there will be absentees. I am saying that that contingency has been covered by the fact that a deputy will be appointed, so that at any meeting of the Board the full number will be present.
Lord FULL of LUTON: I hope the noble Lord will not depart so frequently from ordinary experience. People do not come at the last minute. They do not give notice to deputies; they just do not come. They perhaps send a telephone message an hour before the meeting. This system of appointed deputies who are called on in the known and advertised absence of full members of a committee just does not work in practice. Surely we can rely on our common sense and accept the number of seven as likely to be the number that will provide a respectable proportion of members present on any one occasion.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has made a particularly important point which follows up what my noble friend Lady Macleod has said. Of course, we have had this afternoon—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will correct himself later—what I take to be a Freudian slip in his argument, because he said in regard to the composition of the Board that there will be two members over whom the Government will have no control at all. As we understood it, the object of having a Board in the first place was to establish an independent Board, and its independence was the subject of considerable discussion in Standing Committee in another place. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will look at Hansard tomorrow. It may be that I have taken him out of context, but I detect a sort of dirigisme in the Government's attitude towards the Board which is perhaps a little unhealthy at this stage. I do not know whether the noble Lord might like to comment on that in a moment.
However, the noble Lord said that the composition of the Board is open to different points of view, and it is our view that seven is much better than five. I think that, if it were possible to find the perfect number, that number would have been suggested in the Goodman proposals, but no number was further recommended as a result of their discussions. So we are left with the Goodman recommendation of five and the suggestion by my noble friend Lady Young of seven, which appears to be far more practical.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I certainly have no recollection of saying that there would be two members over whom the Secretary of State would have no control. The Amendment seeks to provide for the appointment of two further members of the Board, which I understand, but so far as I can see it does not require that there should be consultation about the appointments. Nor does it say who shall decide whether the members represent the interests of two groups. In that sense I think the Amendment is rather weak; and I would come back to the point that I made earlier. When there was obviously very serious and real difficulties between the Government and the medical profession, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman,

1471
was invited to intervene in this matter, and he had long, protracted, detailed and complicated discussions with the medical profession on this Bill and on certain aspects of it, and in particular on the establishment of the Board. The agreement was—and it seemed to be acceptable, because I have no information that it was unacceptable to anybody—that the Board should consist of five members. If that is acceptable to the medical profession, with whom the noble Lord, Lord Good-man, had discussions, I would have thought, with the greatest respect, that that was good enough.
Lord WINSTANLEY: Since the noble Lord has invited us (indeed, encouraged us) to speak twice, or even more, perhaps I could add one other word and perhaps almost faintly come to his aid. I still adhere to my view that seven would be better than five, for the reasons given by many noble Lords and, particularly, recently by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, but I see a difficulty. If we increase the Board from five to seven without at the same time increasing the number of members acceptable to the medical profession, the number of doctors, from two to three, then I think one might indeed be in grave difficulties. So I still support those who would like seven, but if it is going to be seven we shall then have to increase the number of medical representatives, in my view, if we are to get acceptance of this, from two to three.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very grateful for the support that this Amendment has received from all parts of the Committee. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that in my opening observations I was not wishing in any sense to score Party political points, because I take this Bill as not being that kind of Bill at all. It is not a Party political Bill, and the mere fact that we have spoken on this matter in the way which we have illustrates that. I am very conscious of the fact that we have 18 medically qualified Lords in your Lordships' House, and I hope very much that we shall hear from all of them. One of the great advantages of the House of Lords is that it is to a very large extent a House of experts, and if ever there was a time for the Lords who are doctors to speak it is now.
1472
In answer to my noble friend who asked be about the Royal College of Nursing, perhaps I could say that I have taken advice from a number of members of the nursing profession, although I must be quite frank and say that I have not consulted the Royal College of Nursing itself. But I have had talks with a great many people in the nursing and other ancillary professions involved in the National Health Service.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: May I ask my noble friend whether she would be kind enough to let us know who? Because it is tremendously important to know who has had discussions. We want discussions with everybody concerned; and, personally, I always like to know who have had the discussions.
Baroness YOUNG: I cannot possibly tell my noble friend Lady Ward what discussions the Government have had, but I can and I will let her know, not during the Committee proceedings, the entire list of people with whom I have discussed this Bill, because it is really quite extensive. I can assure her that in a very short period of time I seem to have talked to a lot of people, but I shall certainly let her know who they are if she would like me to. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, how grateful I am for his support. I quite see that he does not like the principle of representation at all. I do not like it, particularly; but, of course, that is what we have in the Bill. Therefore, once it is written into the Bill it usually seems more logical to continue from it. I take absolutely his point that if the number was increased from five to seven it would be desirable that three of them should be representatives of the medical profession. I think that is a very important point.
I was very grateful for the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, and the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. It seems to me that they are both absolutely right on this point of a quorum. I shall be coming to this point later on in my Amendments. Indeed, Amendments Nos.123 and 124 are consequential to Amendment No. 1, because they deal with the question of a quorum, which, again, is not written into the Bill at all. But the practical point when there are only five, as the noble Lords, Lord Peddie and Lord

1473
Hill, have quite rightly pointed out, is that if somebody cannot come—somebody is ill on the day or is caught in a snow-storm, or something happens or does not happen which means that for some reason or other two of them cannot come—you could have three people deciding everything. You could even have one person deciding everything under the Bill as its stands at the moment. This surely cannot be the intention of the Government or, I should have thought, the intention of Lord Goodman. So there really is a very real point about numbers and attendance.
As I say, I and my colleagues are very grateful for the support we have received over this Amendment. I think that at this stage we should like now to consider again what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said; and perhaps he, too, will take the opportunity, when he receives Hansard tomorrow, to read what noble Lords have said. I think this particular Amendment is not a matter on which I should like to start these Committee proceedings by dividing the Committee, but we shall be returning to the point when we get to Schedule 1, and I hope that between now and then the noble Lord will take the opportunity, with his advisers, to look at the very difficult points which remain unanswered as the Bill stands.
There are not substitutes for everybody ready and waiting at every committee meeting. There is nothing about a quorum and a great many people are not represented at all. I am not very happy about the reason that has been given for the way the particular representatives come in. I am much more impressed by the argument that this is the agreement reached by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. It may be that this is one that we shall have to consider as well. As I said we shall not press this Amendment but shall be returning to the issues involved. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.51 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("appointed by") and insert ("whom").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 3 are, in a
1474
sense, paving Amendments which we shall need to consider before considering Schedule 1. If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will look at Clause 1(2) he will see that it says:
"The Board shall consist of five members appointed by the Secretary of State in accordance with Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act."
But the fact is that the rest of the Bill says very little about filling vacancies and very little about a quorum; therefore this Amendment is very much on the same point that we have already been discussing. We on this side think that the wording ought to be strengthened so that when we come to look at Schedule I we can be assured that when the Board meets it shall have five members present and voting—because this is the key to the whole Bill—and should anything happen to one of the members, that someone can replace him or her in a short period of time: in other words, that we shall not be left with a Board operating on some occasions with perhaps one or two members. I am speaking to both Amendment No. 2 and No. 3 which, as I have already indicated, are paving Amendments to Amendment No. 134 later in Schedule 1, that Amendment indicating that the Secretary of State must fill occasional vacancies on the Board. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am completely mystified by these Amendments. I can only say that I must have spent two hours looking at them, as well as taking advice, to see what they achieve. If your Lordships have a copy of the Bill before you I should like you to look at the subsection. It reads:
"The Board shall consist of five members appointed by the Secretary of State …"
The Amendments make it read:
"The Board shall consist of five members whom the Secretary of State shall appoint…"
For the life of me, I cannot see that the Amendments improve it, add to it, or really do anything at all. They do only one thing: they increase that sentence from 24 words to 25 words. Really I do not think they are necessary. Nothing could be clearer than the wording in the Bill at the moment. There cannot be a single valid reason for changing it. It may be said that if it makes no difference, then why not accept the Amendments? I am saying that the Amendment is quite pointless and one only accepts an Amendment if it adds something of substance or

1475
value. This does neither. The noble Baroness quite rightly says that this will refer to Amendment No. 134, I want to suggest to her that leaving it precisely as it is will not invalidate or affect in any way any reference she cares to make when we come to that Amendment.
There must be some experts in the English language present in the Committee. With the greatest possible respect, can they truly say that "The Board shall consist of five members appointed by the Secretary of State" is in any way improved by changing it to: "The Board shall consist of five members whom the Secretary of State shall appoint". I do not think there is any substance in this matter—certainly no substance that justifies altering the present wording.
Lord SANDYS: I think that my noble friend explained this point perfectly. It is a paving Amendment and leads straight into Amendment No. 124. I think she referred to Amendment No. 134; that was a slip of the tongue. if you look at Amendment No. 124 you will see exactly why this Amendment is proposed. It is entirely grammatical and I think it follows logically.
Baroness YOUNG: We can debate points of language for a very long time, but it is necessary to get things correct in law. I am advised that this is the correct way to do this. I apologise for not referring to Amendment No. 124. This would be the correct way of leading into the further Amendment. Obviously, these are not Amendments on which I am going to divide, but I suggest to the noble Lord that we have not put down these Amendments just because we want to alter the wording in a meaningless way; we have done so because they are, as I have indicated, paving Amendments to a later Amendment.
While I have been looking at this Amendment and at Schedule 1 again, my eyes were caught by a printing error in Schedule 1 to which I can perhaps draw the noble Lord's attention. On page 27, line 24, at the beginning of paragraph 10(1), my copy reads:
"The Secretary of State shall be regulations …"
It is, of course, meant to be "by regulations."
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: That point has been raised already. It is acknowledged that that is a mistake. It should be "by".
Baroness YOUNG: May I suggest to the noble Lord that it will require a Government Amendment? I am delighted to feel that the Department of Health and Social Security has made a mistake and therefore has not produced a perfect Bill. It is a comfort that there should be something slightly wrong. I shall be feeling a little better myself as we proceed to think that this might happen. We shall have a further debate on the one which follows from these two paving Amendments when we get to that Part of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If I may say so, I know that the Opposition want to beat the Government with as many sticks as possible, but there is such a thing as a printer's error and not a Departmental error.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I ask the noble Lord a question which I could have posed when we were discussing the composition of the Boards? Two Boards have been put into the Bill, one for Wales and one for Scotland. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has put forward a very sensitive plan in order to meet the views of people living in Scotland and Wales. The number of pay beds which might be involved in this connection in Scotland and Wales is so small that I do not think that that alone would justify having separate committees for Scotland and Wales; but if the Committee is going to have the opportunity to, as it were, look after all the affairs in the Bill which apply to Scotland and to Wales in addition to the phasing out of the pay beds, then the situation is different because obviously there will be a continuing purpose behind these Boards which will go beyond the years in which the Goodman proposals are operating.
In, say, five years there may be no pay beds in Scotland or Wales at all. Will the Board be in charge of all the Welsh

1477
and the Scottish health services and therefore have a continuing use? If not, the Government should put in some clause to bring these Boards to an end—that is, if they are only to be in charge of the phasing out of pay beds. If they are to he in charge of all the other things in the Bill as well then perhaps they have a further use. I was thinking of this in order to save the Government money because they will be fairly expensive, and will perhaps cost a quarter of a million. It is worth spending a quarter of a million if that amount is needed and wanted. Could the noble Lord say whether he feels that these two Boards will have a continuing use after the phasing out of the pay beds has taken place?
Lord O'HAGAN: I should like to follow that question and amplify it a little. I understand from what the Government said in another place and from the notes on clauses, that the introduction of Committees for Wales and Scotland was not something suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and that the idea of having these separate Committees for Scotland and Wales is something that the Government themselves have introduced in order to improve—as the Government see it—the Goodman proposals and make them more workable. I want to check with the noble Lord that that is in fact so.
Could the noble Lord explain when he is answering the question asked by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, how the Government envisage these Scottish and Welsh Committees working if and when devolution takes place? Of course, I am not asking him to prejudge anything that may or may not happen in the next Parliamentary Session, but in the Government's White Paper, Cmnd.6348, Our Changing Democracy, the Government said that the Scottish Administration would be responsible for health matters in Scotland, including the National Health Service. The Administration would be able to decide policy on a whole number of matters that were listed, among which were private practice and the control of nursing homes. That statement was not altered in the supplementary statement on devolution which came out subsequently. How do the Government envisage these Boards working and how do the Government envisage pay beds continuing in
1478
circumstances when the Assembly in Scotland under whom the National Health Service in Scotland will be put, was against pay beds? What would happen if the Assembly in Scotland decided to abolish them unilaterally?—because we know that it is the declared policy of the Scottish National Party to eliminate pay beds totally. Could the noble Lord give us any light on that?
The other two questions I want to ask are, first, how does Northern Ireland fit into this? We are talking about Scotland, Wales and England. Are the Government going to come forward with a Statutory Instrument at some later date to deal with pay beds in Northern Ireland, or is some wholly separate procedure to be followed? Finally—and I am being as quick as I can as I had hoped to raise these matters on the Schedule hut as we have not got that I want to raise them now—Clause 1(3) of the Bill says:
"Without prejudice to the power of the Board to set up any other committees …."
What other committees have the Government in mind to set up? We understand from this that it is envisaged that there may be other committees apart from the Scottish and Welsh Committees. Could it possibly be that the English are going to have a committee of their own?
5.5 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Perhaps I can deal with the questions from the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, first. What one hears last is always freshest in one's mind—at least it is in mine. The Bill at the present moment applies, as the noble Lord knows, to England, Scotland and Wales. At the moment there are no plans for dealing with the situation in Northern Ireland.
I cannot answer his question satisfactorily as to what ultimately happen in Scotland. We shall have to await the outcome of the devolution Bill. One has to bear in mind that that may take some considerable time and we want to proceed in the matter of this Bill as soon as we possibly can. We are committed to take certain steps, as the noble Lord knows, immediately upon the Bill getting Royal Assent. I do not think, therefore, that we can really wait to see what happens in Scotland. We shall have to decide what the future of the Scottish Committee will

1479
be in the light of any changes arising out of the devolution Bill. I think I have answered all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.
Lord O'HAGAN: Clause 1(3), the "other committees"?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is not an unusual practice when one is setting up a board or a committee—we did it, if I remember rightly, in the Race Relation Bill—to make provision for a situation which may arise. It may well be that the Scottish Committee, the Welsh Committee and the English Board may well find that it is necessary to set up a sub-committee to investigate a certain situation and we are taking powers in this Bill to do that.
I return now to the noble Baroness Lady Elliot of Harwood: the Scottish Committee has precisely the same power as has what has been called the English "Board", and so has the Welsh Committee. We felt that in the present climate, if we were going to do this, there was some merit in treating Scotland separately and treating Wales separately. We know that there was quite a body of opinion that felt that one Board could deal with England, Scotland and Wales. There are a number of private beds, as the noble Baroness knows. You will find them on page 34 of the Bill where they are set out under the heading of Scotland. I have not totalled them up.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: For Scotland, 234, and 60 for Wales.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It was felt that it was rather important to have a Committee on the spot. The Board itself has to operate from somewhere and one presumes that it will operate from London. It is much easier to have its counterparts in Edinburgh—as I imagine it will be there for Scotland—and in Cardiff where I imagine it will be situated for Wales, charged with precisely the same responsibilities.
The only thing is that before the Health Services Board itself can make and take decisions in relation to Scotland it must have the opinions, the views, the observations, and, what is much more important, the recommendations of the Scottish
1480
Committee and precisely the same thing applies to the Welsh Committee. We feel that it is simpler and wiser for each of the two countries to have its own committee. But they are responsible to the Health Services Board, which must take them into account before making any decision, after the first 1,000 hospital beds, on the future phasing out of hospital beds and the question of new building notifications and authorisations. Looking at the matter dispassionately, I believe that that is a simpler way of working.
Baroness YOUNG: I thank the noble Lord for that reply to my noble friend Lady Elliot. But does he not think, in view of what he said—and one entirely accepts the reasons he has given for the Scottish and Welsh Committees, because I quite see that, politically, not to have them at this time might lead to rather unfortunate interpretations of the situation—and in view of the very few beds that are to be phased out anywhere, that it lends point to one of our later Amendments? That Amendment is to the effect that the Board should have power to increase the number of beds, as well as to phase them out, because, clearly, it will give the Scottish and Welsh Committees much more freedom to act, as it will give the main Board more freedom to act, and, when their work seems to be confined to relatively few beds, this seems a relevant point.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Am I to understand that all the pay beds in Scotland are fully occupied, and that it is therefore necessary to increase them? The duty on the Scottish Committee, as on the Health Services Board and the Welsh Committee, is to deal with those beds which are not in use, or not in full use, and the question of adding to them does not arise just because 1,000 of the 4,444 pay beds in Great Britain are not necessary.
Baroness YOUNG: We could have a very long debate on bed occupancy, because the noble Lord knows as well as I do that if every single hospital bed was permanently occupied there could be great difficulty in any kind of emergency. For a whole variety of reasons, not least the fact that you need to keep some beds empty in case there is a bad motor accident and a lot of casualties come into a hospital, there are always a number of beds empty.

1481
There are always a number of private beds empty and, as we both know, there are always a number of National Health beds empty. This is not a criticism of the service. Indeed, it merely shows that those who are running it are acting responsibly, and we should want a better argument than that about the numbers.
Lord MESTON: How much does a private bed cost each week?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It would depend entirely on where the hospital happened to be. I am speaking off the cuff, but a bed in a teaching hospital could cost as much as almost £300 a week. But I believe that not very far from your Lordships' House there is a private hospital where the cost of a bed per week varies between £504 and £904.
Lord HARVINGTON: Speaking as someone who has been chairman of a hospital board at a disclaimed hospital for about eight years, I know something about bed occupancy. From what the noble Lord said I take it that there is only about 75 per cent. bed occupancy in the pay bed sphere. If that is so, it is not so bad as all that, because my experience was that if you had anything like 81 or 82 per cent. bed occupancy you were doing very well indeed. For the various reasons which the noble Baroness has touched upon, it is very difficult to get a bed occupancy beyond that. So I do not think that the noble Lord's argument about 1,000 empty pay beds will stand up very firmly on examination.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not want to be unkind to the noble Lord, but the question of pay beds does not come in Part I of the Bill. We have not yet reached the question of pay beds. It was only because the subject had been raised, that I felt it incumbent upon me to give some answer. I would remind the noble Lord that this is a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, went into very fully with the British Medical Association, the consultants, the medical profession generally and the Government. The figure of 75 per cent. occupancy of all pay beds is way out, and I will endeavour to find what the percentage is. But it is not a matter which we are discussing in this Part of the Bill.
Lord MESTON: So a pay bed is more expensive than a weekend in Paris?
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Purpose of ss. 3 to 5]:
5.16 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, and I think it will be to the convenience of the Committee if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. Amendment No. 4 is a paving Amendment for Nos.5 and 6 which, in a sense, are alternatives. It has been suggested to me that these are designed to be wrecking Amendments to ruin the Bill, but let me assure the Committee that that is not my intention and I do not believe that that is their effect. If we look at Clause 2, it will he seen that it is a declaratory clause setting out the intention of the Bill. Indeed, I looked again at the note on the clause which I was very glad to receive, and it begins:
"Subsection (1) declares the purpose of Sections 3 to 5."
It is therefore a declaratory clause setting out what the Government believe to be the purposes of the Bill.
In many ways, it seems to me that Clause 2 is not at all necessary to the Bill and could be taken out. If it is felt necessary that the Bill should declare what it is trying to achieve, I should have thought a better way of doing it would be to state in the Bill what are the functions and objectives of the Board, because if the Bill is to confer a real benefit on the community and is not merely stating some kind of principle, the main object can only be to achieve a better service for all the patients in NHS hospitals and in private nursing homes. I should have thought that that was something on which the entire Committee could agree, because that is surely what we all want. Therefore, Amendment No. 5, unlike the passage in the Bill which it would replace, suggests guidance to the Health Services Board and places certain duties upon it. Paragraph (b) makes it clear that, apart from the role of the Board in controlling the rate

1483
of phasing out accommodation and services from National Health hospitals, it has a positive function and can therefore propose to the Secretary of State the redistribution of facilities and accommodation for private patients; or, indeed, adding to the amount of accommodation for private patients.
After all, who is to say in an area of population growth that this might not be desirable? As I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will know much better than I, there are great problems when there is a shift in population. I think I am right in saying that this is already being experienced in London hospitals where there has been a great drop in the population. On the other hand, you have only to go to a new town to find a great growth in the population, and in such areas there are usually no private facilities. It is not, therefore, unreasonable for the Board to have as its objective the improvement of services for both National Health Service patients and private patients and for the Board to be able not only to phase out private beds but, if it so wishes or if it is thought desirable, to increase them. That is what Amendment No. 5 is designed to achieve.
If I may now turn to Amendment No. 6, this, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, is an alternative proposal to Amendment No. 5. Again it assumes that we leave out the first subsection of Clause 2 and insert in its place the two proposals contained in paragraphs (a) and (b). These paragraphs are designed to give to the Board the object of achieving freedom of choice for everybody, whether within National Health Service hospitals or anywhere else.
In preparation for the debate on these Amendments I read again our Second Reading debate. Indeed, I read again the words of the noble Lord's honourable friend in another place when the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, were first debated last December. On each occasion we have been assured from all parts of the House—not least, I am very pleased to note, from the Government side—that it is not the intention of the Government to abolish private practice or private medicine. On the contrary, one of the objectives of the Bill is to allow it to continue. If you ask yourself why you are allowing it to continue and why
1484
it ought to be allowed to continue, the answer is that it is to give freedom to the doctor to practise and freedom to the patient to choose his own doctor or consultant.
Therefore, far from being in any way intended to wreck the Bill this Amendment is, we believe, very important. It seeks to secure that one of the objects of the Bill shall be to allow freedom to resident and non-resident hospital patients to have the services of their choice, whether they are provided in a National Health Service hospital or elsewhere. I should have thought that this was something on which we were all agreed and it is in that spirit that I move these Amendments.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I should like to support my noble friend. There is a suggestion in the Bill that National Health Service and private practice facilities should be separated and I should like to inquire of the noble Lord what is to happen to the many millions of pounds which have been poured into hospitals by the great medical charities. Those charities have provided extensive facilities to National Health Service hospitals, and those units are often maintained by the voluntary contributions of large charities. I am thinking of Cancer Research, the Heart Foundation and one charity in which I have a particular interest; namely, the Arthritis and Rheumatism Council for Research. There is cross-fertilisation of staff. The Kennedy Institute is maintained by voluntary effort but there is cross-fertilisation in terms of the help that that research unit gives to the West London Hospital and other hospitals and, not unnaturally, private patients as well as National Health Service patients are seen by consultants there. At this moment the same organisation is financing a bone research unit which is attached to the London Hospital. That voluntary organisation is building it and paying every penny for it. As this clause would debar consultants who are doing research there from using those facilities for their private patients, I support firmly the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young.
5.26 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: I rise to support the Amendment of my noble friend. In the

1485
first place, the Government owe us a little further explanation of Clause 2. Your Lordships have already heard that it is a declaratory clause. Declaratory clauses are fairly notorious because they can add everything or nothing to a Bill. So far as the force of law is concerned, most of your Lordships will agree that if Clause 2 were struck from the Bill it would be entirely the same afterwards so far as its examination before the courts is concerned. Therefore we have a statement before us in Clause 2 which follows very closely upon the Goodman proposals. It is my belief that the Government could have made a very much better exposition of their intentions in Clause 2. As I say, it follows upon the Goodman proposals but, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, he said earlier that one adds an Amendment only if it adds something of substance and value. With that I agree entirely and I believe that the three Amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Young, two of which we seek to import into the Bill, will do exactly that.
First, we have some drafting suggestions to make to the Government. In this connection I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (2) because there is a degree of obscure drafting about it which is wholly unnecessary. Whenever one reads:
"Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the operation of paragraph …"
one knows straight away that this is either a matter of padding or of strict declaration which, so far as the force of law is concerned, one can omit from one's reading. However, Clause 2(2) says something very important and it could say it much more clearly and substantially. It draws our attention to Schedule 1 to the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973.
I have had a look at this Schedule and it seems to me that it would be very easy to import into this subsection one sentence to which that schedule refers. As it is not provided for us by the Government, I will read paragraph 10(5) of Schedule 1:
"Regulations made in pursuance of this paragraph shall not require that all consultants employed by an authority are to be so employed whole-time."
It seems to me that in the words of the Amendment we have a very much better exposition of intention. I will go a little
1486
further. What is this declaration for? I think my noble friend has already declared this: it is a restatement of an existing statutorily protected right of the part-time consultant to engage in private practice. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No.
Lord SANDYS: Here, if in drafting that sub-paragraph greater emphasis had been laid on this point and greater clarity had been used, we should have something of value. Nevertheless, it is drafted as written in the Bill. I turn to what my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith said—and I think this is the really important point—as to whether private medical practice may use, to the extent that it wishes, facilities within National Health Service hospitals. It seems to me that the freedom is emphasised in Amendment No. 6 to a much greater extent under the wording of the second of the two alternatives. Under Amendment No. 5 a very positive suggestion is made and the phrase used is "the best possible facilities".
If a declaratory clause is to be of value in our view it should be relatively brief and, if possible, clear. I have in mind what I believe to be one of the better declaratory clauses known to your Lordships very well; that is, in the Countryside Act 1968. That is exceedingly brief and straightforward. So far as this Amendment is concerned, my noble friend will be deciding upon which alternative she will choose and your Lordships will no doubt make that decision very shortly unless my noble friend chooses to withdraw the Amendment. Nevertheless, it appears to me that a decision should be made by your Lordships to make a much clearer point of Clause 2.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have said, the effect of this Amendment would be to remove from the Bill what we consider to be a vital declaration of the intentions of Clauses 3 to 5 relating to the withdrawal of pay beds and facilities for private patients and to the restrictions of the Secretary of State's powers under Sections 1 and 2 of the 1968 Act. I think one must understand—and every member of this

1487
Committee does understand—what this Bill is about. This Health Services Bill is designed to provide a vehicle for separating private practice from the National Health Service and, if I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, to provide that in certain circumstances consultants will be given the opportunity of using the National Health facilities for certain types of acute illness where they are not available in the areas in which the consultants happen to be. Is it unreasonable in a Bill that one should state the purpose of the Bill? I accept that this is declaratory; it may well be that perhaps it does not do a great deal for the Bill but one tends to put in a Bill what its purpose is.
Lord WINSTANLEY: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting so early? I have been attempting to follow his argument clearly but he says that this subsection contains a vital declaration of the intentions of the Bill, and I agree with him, but if it does that, can he say why the same things are not contained in the Long Title of the Bill? If the separation of the two forms of practice and the gradual withdrawal are so crucial to the Bill why was that not incorporated in the wording of the Long Title of the Bill, which makes no reference to either of them?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Presumably it was because the Government considered that a better place for it was in the Bill itself and not on the cover, and I should have thought that was a very good reason. The effect of inserting in place of sub-section (1) the words proposed in the Amendment—and I think the Committee ought to consider this carefully—would be to give the Board additional powers and duties which would overturn the declared intention of the Bill and would in some respects put it into reverse.
The duties and responsibilities of the Health Services Board are clearly laid down. They have certain functions: one in respect of the phasing out of pay beds over a longish period, after the first 1,000 have been phased out by Schedule 2 within the first six months. It then has certain responsibilities and duties for new buildings, hospitals and nursing homes in London and outside London, to give
1488
authorisation and in other cases to receive notification. Also it has a tribunal responsibility. Their responsibilities are clearly defined. This particular Amendment and, if I may say so, the alternative Amendment No. 6, completely changes the responsibilities and duties of the Board and is to a very large extent in conflict with the purpose of the Bill.
The purpose of Clause 2 is to fulfil the commitment in the proposals of 15th December last which my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State in the Department of Health and Social Security made available and which subsequently became known as "the Goodman proposals". Perhaps I may just quote a short passage from them.
"The legislation would contain, first, a broad declaration that private beds and facilities should be separated from the National Health Service. Secondly, an expression of the Government's commitment to the maintenance of private medical and dental practice in this country through the renewal of the provisions of the 1949 Act, which maintains the right to private practice by entitling doctors and dentists to work both privately and in the National Health service establishments, and thirdly the establishment of an independent board to relate these two commitments."
So there is a limited responsibility on the Board, and of course in some respects these Amendments would reverse it and in other respects they would impose new and different duties on the Board.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I wonder whether he can explain to me how my Amendment No. 5, which is simply designed to enable the Board to secure the best possible facilities within the National Health Service, could possibly be in contradistinction to the proposed separation? Is he really saying that the proposed separation will make things worse?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the Board has a limited responsibility. It has not got the responsibility under this Bill to inquire into and reorganise the whole of the medical services of this country. It has a limited responsibility. The Amendment tabled by the noble Baroness goes far beyond the responsibilities which we think the Board ought to have and which we certainly never envisaged and never intended that it should have. The statement in Clause

1489
2(1) represents the first leg of the commitment; namely, a broad declaration that private beds and facilities should he separated from the National Health Service hospital.
I will not mention the statement in Clause 2(2) which is to fulfil the two commitments of Goodman, because the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to them when he said that the power to make regulations governing the terms of employment shall not contain a requirement that all consultants should be employed whole-time. In another place, as your Lordships will know, there was a very full discussion on Clause 2 and its purpose, which covered something like 89 columns of Hansard.
In the discussions which led to the Goodman proposals of 15th December, those representing the medical profession thought it right to work for a renewal of the 1949–73 provisions enabling the consultants employed in the National Health Service to conduct a private practice. For their part, the Government rightly held to the need to state in the Bill its purpose, and that is why it is in the Bill. My right honourable friend the former Minister of State referred in Committee in another place to two directives or broad declarations of principle under which the National Health Service will operate. Later, my right honourable friend made the point again. He said:
"There is no point in anyone being under any illusions. The purpose of this legislation is to separate private practice and not to extend its life within the National Health Service indefinitely".
The Government therefore maintain that Clause 2(1) is vital. This is why we feel unable to accept Amendment No. 4. As to Amendment No. 5, it would not only completely alter the sense of direction of the Bill, but in our view would make nonsense of the mechanism of the independent Board which I have already said on more than one occasion is very clearly defined.
The Amendment would give the Board the duty of exercising its function with the object of making available at National Health Service hospitals the best possible facilities for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illnesses, a duty, if I may say so, which already falls on the Secretary of State in Section 1(1) of the National
1490
Health Service Act 1946. This is an obligation which has been on the Secretary of State since 1946. If I may say so with the greatest respect, the Secretary of State needs no help from the Board in carrying that out, because he is obligated by Act of Parliament to provide the very things which the noble Baroness seeks in her Amendment
The Board will also be given the duty of exercising its functions with the object of making available the best possible facilities for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illnesses under private arrangements. This responsibility is out-side the intended scope of the Board. It is contrary to the purpose of the Bill, inasmuch as the facilities might be provided in National Health Service hospitals, and could not be achieved through the limited function given to the Board by Parts I and III of the Bill. The responsibility of providing the best possible facilities at private sector hospitals rests with the owners and managers of those hospitals, and not with the National Health Service, subject to the statutory control over standards which the Government have under the Nursing Homes Act 1975. The Board would be given the duty of exercising its functions with the object of securing the availability of sufficient accommodation and services of a satisfactory standard at National Health Service hospitals for the treatment of patients. But the functions of the Board under the Bill are not concerned with the treatment of National Health Service patients. The Board has no means at all of achieving that end. If I may say so, it would be quite wrong and quite inappropriate that it should. That is the function of the Secretary of State for Health, and of the Department.
The Board would also be given the duty of exercising its functions with the object of securing the availability of sufficient accommodation and services of a satisfactory standard in private nursing homes for the treatment of patients. The Board would have no means at its disposal for achieving this end, and therefore, we should not find it possible to accept Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
In dealing with Amendment No. 6, to a very large extent I should be repeating myself, and that is the last thing I want to do in view of the magnitude of the

1491
task before your Lordships in dealing with the Amendments on this Bill. But I must say that the effect of inserting in place of subsection (1) the words proposed in Amendment No. 6 would be to give the Board a quite different responsibility, as I have already said. The Amendment proposes that the Board should have the responsibility for securing that hospital patients have a freedom of choice of doctor, either privately or within the National Health Service. This responsibility again is outside the scope of the Board. Although in theory responsibility for the choice of doctor rests with the patient, in practice the choice of the patient is normally that of his general practitioner. In the private sector, normally a patient would be seen and treated personally by the consultant to whom he had been referred by his general practitioner. In the National Health Service, though, he would not necessarily be assured of the same degree of personal treatment. Normally he would be under the supervision and care of the consultant to whom he was referred by his general practitioner, and the consultant would accept responsibility for his treatment. In these circumstances the Board is just not equipped to take, nor would it be practical for it to have, the responsibility for securing the purposes of sub-section (1)(a). It is one thing to guarantee the continuance of private practice in this country and quite another to seek to convert this into a right for individual practitioners to choose where they will exercise that right, whether it is in the National Health Service or outside it.
The effect of subsection (1)(b) of the Amendment would be to transfer from the Secretary of State and the health authorities to the Board part of their statutory responsibility for the day-to-day management of the National Health Service. Indeed, I do not think I should be putting it too high, but it might even include strategic planning. This cannot be left to a Board. It must be left to the Secretary of State who has the responsibility under the appropriate Act. No one is seeking to dictate to doctors where they should do their private practice. Under the proposals in the Bill the only restriction on their freedom of choice is that eventually, the facilities which they currently enjoy in National Health Service hospitals for
1492
treating private patients will be withdrawn, except for the occasional admissions to which I referred a moment ago in trying to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys—all patients needing highly specialised facilities not available in private hospitals and nursing homes. We shall come to that in due course.
I do not think I want to say anything more about the purpose of the Bill, which is the progressive withdrawal of private facilities in National Health Service hospitals, and not the position to which I think the Amendment of the noble Baroness would give rise. In this Bill we are seeking to do a very simple thing, even if noble Lords do not like it. It is very simple. It is to separate private practice from the National Health Service, not to stop private practice. I have been at some pains to say that the Government recognise the need for private practice. We have not and never have had any plans for abolishing private practice. We think that if people want to choose a private doctor, if they want to choose a consultant, if they want a pay bed in a private hospital, they should have the right to so choose. We think it will be beneficial for private practice and beneficial for the Health Service for the two to be separated.
5.51 p.m.
Lord STONE: Speaking as a general practitioner who is in practice now, I must confirm the attitude and the reasons which my noble friend has just given. This is how it works, how it has worked and how it should continue to work. The general practitioner has a choice and it depends on the consultant whom he chooses. This consultant may be a part-time or a full-time servant in the National Health Service. If he is in full-time service there is no room for him to do private practice outside. On the other hand in the teaching hospitals in particular, he will find that most consultants are on a part-time basis. The part-time is for the National Health Service to which they give a complete and satisfactory and adequate service; but on the other hand in the sessions in which they are contracted out of the National Health Service they have the full opportunity of working where they will in conjunction with general practice. They are under contract, and if they live by their contract

1493
those consultants who are not fully committed to the National Health Service are perfectly at liberty to use private nursing homes, private hospitals or any private facilities. They are there because—and I say it against my profession—the financial rewards of this have been going up enormously since my day of starting in general practice. These facilities are there for people who want to be patients in private nursing homes or private hospitals.
What is more, one finds that the largest number of consultants in the National Health Service are full-time salaried servants and in some of the lesser hospitals and non-teaching hospitals there is no opportunity for private practice. So we can only feel that those consultants who are in partial contract only get the benefit of all the finance that there is in and around the patients' ailments. I should like to point out too that when it comes to facilities there is nothing to stop a patient of any sort from going into any hospital. Even if there were private patients in that hospital, when it comes, for example, to intensive care, there is only one intensive care ward for the hospital and these people are looked after better in the public ward than in the private ward.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: May I ask the noble Lord one question? Twice when he was speaking he referred to satisfactory standards. I should like to know whether it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to see that the standards are satisfactory, or whether it is the responsibility of the Board. From things I have heard all over the country, it seems to me that the standards in some hospitals are not satisfactory. There is insufficient staff and some of the wards are shut. I am wondering whose job it will be in future to see that standards are satisfactory.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: There is a general responsibility on the Secretary of State to see that the standards in our hospitals are satisfactory. I think he would be the first to say that in many places they are not satisfactory. We know this and we try to do something about it. Many of our hospitals are housed in buildings that ought to have been pulled down long ago. I have been in some of them. It is because of these
1494
conditions—shortage of staff, because the place is antiquated and so on—that we do not get satisfactory standards. We try to do something about it within the limit of the financial resources. A good deal has been done but there is a responsibility on the Secretary of State to see that the services supplied are satisfactory.
Lord PLATT: In discussing the clause which contains some definition of the Government's intention we are surely getting back to a Second Reading debate. We have had all that before. If anybody wants to know my views will they kindly read them. I am totally opposed to this separation of private from NHS practice. It is bad for the NHS patients and it is bad for the private patients. The noble Lord speaks about the inspection of nursing homes and seeing that conditions are all right. As I said in my Second Reading speech, who is to inspect the doctors who are going to work in those places? Who is going to say who can and who cannot operate? In the NHS hospitals all that is done. I also think that the separation is bad for the reputation of British medicine at home and abroad. I said that in my Second Reading speech and I hold that opinion very strongly indeed. As one who has had experience of private practice as a consultant and also as a full-time professor with no private practice, I would say that if the clause moved by the noble Baroness is going to make this Bill more difficult to pass I shall be with her.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I am not certain what the intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, are but I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has put up a powerful technical case against this Amendment in two respects. First, it would transfer to the Board functions that are statutorily imposed upon the Secretary of State, and, second, the present wording tells the truth about the intention; the Amendment does net. It is not the purpose to make available the best possible facilities for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease and to secure the availability of the best accommodation. It does neither of these things. It seeks to do something which I think is narrow, trivial and contrary to the public interest. That is more a general story for a Second Reading debate,

1495
but at least it has the merit of honesty in describing what the narrow but well defined purposes are, and does not introduce words which, however comforting they may be, would not accurately or truthfully describe the real purposes of the Bill.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, with growing amazement. It seems to me incredible that the Board should be set up to make a fairly fundamental change in our health system without regard to the best possible facilities for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness. My noble friend has expressed this very well. This is a most narrowly phrased Bill, but seeing that the Secretary of State has, by common admission, the duty of seeing to these things, is it not incredible that he should set up a Board to reorganise the Health Service without specific regard to the responsibilities which he has? Once Lord Wells-Pestell had admitted that, I find myself totally unable to follow the rest of his speech. I think, therefore, the wording suggested by the noble Baroness really ought to go into the Bill, which otherwise is so negative as to mislead, no doubt, as to the real intentions of the Secretary of State. I cannot believe that he wishes to act or wishes the Board to act without regard to the best possible facilities for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: While quite appreciating what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said about not wanting to abolish private practice—and I am sure that he does think that—I would like to mention something which does worry many doctors. Many members of the Government do not feel like that, nor do many members of trade unions. Here is a resolution put forward at the Labour Party Conference this year by the Confederation of Health Service Employees. It reads:
"This Conference calls for the speedy passage of the Health Services Bill to phase out private practice from the National Health Service, while viewing these as interim measures only, and calls upon the Government to take urgent steps to abolish totally private medicine in this country."
So often a resolution at a Labour Party Conference gets into a manifesto in a year or two, and this is what does indeed
1496
concern doctors—that this Bill is regarded by many people in the Government and elsewhere as just an interim measure.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I only want to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Every political Party has conferences, and each of them comes to all sorts of conclusions. If you look at the Conservative Party annual conferences, they have had people on their left wing and people on their right wing; all sorts of things have been passed, but they have not found their way even into a Bill let alone on to the Statute Book. What I am saying is this—and it was put very admirably by my noble friend Lady Lee the other day when she was speaking on Second Reading—that we believe in a mixed economy.
This Government do not believe in total nationalisation any more than they believe in no nationalisation. The same view is taken in education. We are not opposed to private education. What we are saying is that if people want it they will have to pay for it. We are not opposed to private medicine. I do not think we shall ever be opposed to private medicine, but what we say is that if people want it they must pay for it. It really is as simple as that. I honestly say this; I can see no cause for concern on the part of members of the medical profession, least of all the consultants; there is no reason for them to harbour that idea.
The only other thing I want to say is this. My attention has been called to the fact that I said a little while ago that the responsibility of the Board was to phase out 1,000 beds. What I should have said is that it is the responsibility of the Board, the Health Services Board, to advise the Secretary of State on the withdrawal of pay beds after the first 1,000 listed in Schedule 2 have been removed.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: We have had a very useful debate on these three Amendments, and I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has, of course, described absolutely accurately the intention of this Bill. It is a very narrow interpretation. We read the Goodman proposals, and there, my good-

1497
ness me, every comma and every full stop has been paid attention to. It is not a happy augury, because it means that everybody is going to refer to this rather like studying the Bible, to interpret every single verse without actually understanding the sense of what lies behind it. I think in fact it will prove, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has said, to mean that everybody will have worse care, and that is the tragedy of the situation.
We may accept what the noble Lord says, that on this very narrow interpretation that is what is wanted. But I wonder whether it is going to achieve what he has just said once again is the Government's intention, that there shall be freedom for the doctors to practise privately if they so wish. If, for example, we look at subsection (1)(b), it is of course an ultimate duty on the Board to secure the
"progressive withdrawal of accommodation and services at National Health Service Hospitals from use in connection with the treatment of persons at such hospitals as private patients."
So the ultimate objective is to remove all private beds from the National Health Service hospitals. If this is to be so, it has to be read in conjunction with sub-section (2), where, of course, the Government are also giving the assurance that consultants will be able to practise, both full-time and part-time, for the National Health Service if they so wish.
It is no use saying consultants can practise part-time. The noble Lord will know much better than I do the complicated financial arrangements which are agreed with consultants who work part-time, whereby they are paid, I think I am right in saying, nine-elevenths of their salary. They do as much work for the National Health Service as a full-time consultant does, but they are free to have private practice as well. Lots of consultants have entered the Service on this understanding, and I am sure the Government do not in any way wish to mislead those who are in it now, and who cannot be held as party to these arrangements individually. If they suddenly find themselves in circumstances in which there are not alternative facilities in which they may practice, where those facilities have been phased out, there will be a dilemma; it was the dilemma to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, drew our attention at Second Reading. Unless there are the alternative facilities ready when beds
1498
have been phased out of National Health Service hospitals, part-time consultants will not be able to practise part-time unless they are prepared to accept a reduced salary for doing the same amount of work; they will be obliged to become full-time consultants.
There are all sorts of arguments and reasons why people prefer to remain part-time consultants rather than full-time, which I do not think it is right to debate under Clause 2. But I would draw the noble Lord's attenticn to what seems to me to be a contradiction in this clause. If the Government are saying that subsection (1)(b) stands and sub-section (2) stands, it is difficult to see how subsection (2) can apply if subsection (1)(b) is carried out. This is what creates the doubt in the minds of doctors, because they look at this narrow interpretation and see it as doing that. The Government make statements, but it is no use making a statement unless it can be translated into things that are going to happen. It looks very much as if these things will not be attainable, that once the great machine has started to work the bees will be phased out, that it will take a very long time in many places to have private alternative facilities, that the two are not possible.
I was delighted to know that Lord Stone is going to take part in the Committee proceedings, but he was, of course, talking about London, and, with all respects to Londoners, most people do not live in London. A great many people in other parts of the country are going to be very concerned about this; there simply are not alternative facilities once the private beds are phased out of hospitals. This is a serious matter, so I think we should be thinking about what will happen. I think he said that it was not a free choice, that a consultant was in fact chosen by the general practitioner and the patient did not choose.
I think I would be right in saying to him that the patient would choose a consultant on the advice of the general practitioner, but he does not have to take the general practitioner's advice and is perfectly entitled, if he so wishes, to ask for a second opinion on something. Therefore, it is very important when we are talking about freedom of choice for everybody that we know what we mean.

1499
It is worth while to have aired this subject. We now know that we have a very narrowly defined Bill in which the Government are not prepared to say, or to repeat, in this declaratory statement that it is their intention that the facilities for patients in both National Health and private nursing homes should be improved, or should be maintained at the highest possible standard. I find that a very sad feature, but that is the conclusion to draw at the end of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
Nor are we prepared to write into it that there should be a freedom of choice. This is outside the Goodman agreement. And because in fact it is going to be extremely difficult to implement this, it is perhaps as well not to put it in because I suspect it is not going to work. However, we can debate that again. I shall go back and consider once again this lengthy debate, because I am not satisfied with the answer that I have got, and I think that I should tell the noble Lord that if this Bill is going to work, and if the future of the National Health Service is to be assured, we must have a basis of trust; it will not be good enough to go back to that one document and say, "That is what it said, and that is what we are going to stand by because it is not a static situation, and we have to move on from it. I believe that a great deal more thought will have to be given to this. I shall at this point withdraw the Amendment, but I shall seriously consider coming hack to them on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 24, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to section 8 below").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments No. 7 and speak to No. 8, because Amendment No. 7 is in effect a piece of drafting machinery for Amendment No. 8. This is an Amendment which we believe to be very desirable because it places a qualification, and follows very closely upon the proposals which Lord Goodman laid before the Government after consultation. May I he allowed to refer to the Goodman proposals, and I shall
1500
do so in chapter and verse. My quotation lies in Section 3a of the Goodman proposals. I hope that your Lordships will permit me to read a portion and also quote from Lord Goodman's speech, because I believe it is strictly relevant to this Amendment. In the proposals it reads as follows:
"The criterion for phasing out shall be the reasonable availability of reasonable alternative facilities (including accommodation, services and equipment) within a reasonable geographical distance and to which reasonable access is available to those patients and practitioners desiring to avail themselves of it."
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, at Second Reading referred to the word "reasonable" and its importance in law, and he said at column 1500 of the Official Report in our debate on 21st October:
"My own interpretation of 'reasonable', which I think would be supported by better lawyers than I am, is that the word must mean `reasonable in every sense '. In my view it is not necessary to underline it but at the same time it would cost nothing to underline it. If the restoration of a little confidence can be achieved by adding a couple of words at the expense of the common printer, I would say let us add those words and make quite sure that everything the doctors want that is reasonably required by them should be provided and this Bill should be set off under the very best possible auspices."
The noble Lord in his proposals made the suggestion. Our Amendment, and the wording of our Amendment, follows closely upon it. We believe that it would be desirable to have a qualification on an important section of the Bill. Under the paving Amendment—that is, Amendment No. 7—I referred to "Section 8 below" of the Bill, and Clause 8 refers to a particularly important situation which will arise on restrictions on power under Section 31 of the 1968 Act to allow the use of National Health Service facilities by private patients. I should perhaps refer to the Act of 1968 because the Bill does not refer to the Act until Clause 8, and it is a very important section.
In his speech a little earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred to enactments since 1946 which allowed private practice to use National Health facilities. Of course Section 31 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 does just that. I think it would be tedious if I recited the whole of the section. It is one sentence, but it gives a Minister power to make such use, and on such terms as he thinks desirable, of any services to private practice. I think that

1501
the situation which we shall come on to in our later Amendments under Clause 8 of the Bill will elucidate the position further. Nevertheless, it is particularly important at this stage to include in the Bill, as we see it, a qualifying clause as set out in the Amendment. I beg to move.
6.18 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I deal with Amendment No. 7 first. Again I am bound to say that if the noble Lord—and I have no doubt that he has done so—has read his Amendment in relation to page 2, line 24, which he wants to begin, "Without prejudice to section 8 below" and then reads on, as I am sure he has done because he is a very thorough person as I know from past experience, he will see that Clause 8 lays down certain facilities and certain undertakings. Because of the very fact that it is already in Clause 8, I cannot see why in this particular part of Clause 2 it is necessary to say, "Without prejudice to section 8 below because it is so clearly set out in Clause 8 and there is no intention whatsoever of changing Clause 8 because it is so clearly set out. The clause declares the effect of Clauses 3 to 5, which provide for the phasing out of facilities of private practice in National Health Service hospitals.
This progressive phasing out is not inconsistent with the occasional use of facilities for individual patients in special circumstances. This will be provided by Clause 8. The words of the clause, by referring to the effects of Clauses 3 to 5 only, sufficiently allow for the effective operation of Clause 8 for the limited purposes spelled out in Clause 8. It is clear that Clause 2 is so drafted as to allow the special occasional use of the facilities in Clause 8 to continue unaffected by the phasing out. If that is so, and if the noble Lord accepts that that is so under Clause 8, then I cannot see the need to add in Clause 2 the words he proposes, and if he examines the matter I am sure he will come to the conclusion that they are not necessary.
Coming to Amendment No. 8, I do not want to quote because I suppose we shall all get tired of the Goodman proposals by the end of the Committee stage. While, therefore, I will not quote from them again, the statement in Clause 2(1) represents, as I said earlier, the first leg
1502
of the commitment; namely, a broad declaration that private beds and facilities—and we are concerned here with facilities—should be separated from the NHS. The Amendment seeks to water down and confuse this declaration by adding to it a proviso which is inappropriate. The proviso appears to be intended to reflect other parts of the proposals of 15th December, which appear elsewhere in the Bill; namely, the criteria for the selection of the 1,000 beds and the principles to which the Board is to have regard in Clause 4(7). But the proviso is not a full and faithfull reflection, no doubt because it attempts to do in a few words what requires 40 lines or more elsewhere in the Bill.
The words in the Amendment are also unnecessary since the operation of phasing out 1,000 beds is fully covered by the details of Clause 3, and the activities of the Board are fully covered by the details of Clause 4. The provisions in those clauses are the effective provisions which will govern the progress of separation. It seems that the words of the proviso have been designed to hold back the process of separation by casting doubt on the way the principles in Clause 4(7) are to be applied by the Board. For instance, there is the reference to
"… patients or practitioners desirous of obtaining or providing …"
private treatment. The words in the 15th December proposals refer to "reasonable demand". It would be inconsistent with the 15th December proposals, and lead to inordinate delay, if regard had to be had to any patient's or any practitioner's desire; there must be a reasonable demand. Moreover, there is no recognition in the proviso of the provisions in Clause 4(7)(c) and 4(7)(d) about the phasing out of pay beds where steps that could be taken to provide alternative facilities are not being taken.
In addition, by importing into the proviso the reference to availability of facilities to patients or practitioners for obtaining or providing private treatment, the Amendment substantially elaborates the principles of the 15th December proposals as these have been embodied in Clause 4(7), where the phrase used is "facilities for private medicine". This could mean that even if there was a negligible demand from patients, nonetheless

1503
the consultants could maintain the case for pay beds because they desired to practise privately. This is not part of the 15th December proposals which were agreed.
6.24 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to reconsider his attitude on this matter? My noble friend Lord Sandys, when moving his previous Amendment explained that he was asking for the noble Lord's views on whether the wording of subsection (2) could be improved. He wanted to make the second part of the declaratory clause, Clause 2, more explicit and he gave some examples from the Countryside Act and others of ways by which this could be done. Lord Wells-Pestell did not answer that point and I hope he will take the opportunity to do so now or later, because this Amendment is very much in line with the previous constructive one which my noble friend moved. It raises a matter which will, I think, recur throughout the Committee stage and I will refer to it now rather than having to repeat myself inordinately.
It is easy for the Government to pick and choose and select those parts of the Goodman proposals which they feel are essential, crucial and vital, and say, "These are part of the Goodman commitment", yet at the same time not pay attention to parts to which the Government do not attach such importance or refuse to alter the emphasis in other ways. To give an example, what Lord Wells-Pestell has been saying in replying to this Amendment has been "the Goodman, the whole Goodman and nothing but the Goodman". However, when we were examining Clause 1, I asked him whether the Scottish and Welsh committees were in the Goodman proposals. They are not. Despite that, the Government have seen fit in that case to add to the Goodman proposals because they feel that this addition will make the Bill work better.
It is not fair for the noble Lord to criticise those of us who have moved Amendments by saying, "You are attempting to undermine or undercut the Goodman proposals", when a few minutes later—when it suits the Government—they are quite happy to alter the Goodman proposals. The question then is this:
1504
is the alteration a major or a minor one? Who has the judgment of Solomon as to what is a major or minor amendment to the Goodman proposals?
Lord Wells-Pestell said that the last Amendment would water down and confuse the issue. I suggest that it is a matter of judgment. In my judgment it would have done the reverse; it would have clarified the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, spoke of his desire to remove the corroded atmosphere in the Service, and that we all wish to see removed. But I would ask Lord Wells-Pestell to bear in mind this when he is using the proposals made on 15th December as an argument and when he is talking about the commitment to Goodman: please have an open mind, please be prepared to consider and please do not insist that the Government's interpretation of an agreement between various parties is the only interpretation.
There may be ways in which the implementation of the Goodman proposals, if they are to be implemented, could be improved. I believe that my noble friend's suggestion is constructive and I hope that the noble Lord will not repeat, every time an Amendment is moved from these Benches, that in the view of the Government it would represent a substantial alteration to the Goodman proposals, when the Government are themselves prepared to alter those proposals when it suits them.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The Government have embodied all the Goodman proposals in the Bill and, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, quite rightly pointed out, they have added to them. The reason for this is that a long time ago the Government formulated the type of Bill that they wanted to separate private practice from the National Health Service. I do not have to tell the noble Lord, or any noble Lord present tonight, the kind of difficulties that arose when the Government made it clear some time ago that they wanted to separate private practice from the National Health Service. In order to get some agreement between the Government and the medical profession, we got the Goodman proposals which we understood were acceptable and accepted by the medical profession. Therefore, we embodied them in a Bill and we think that we have faithfully embodied them in

1505
this Bill. We have added other things, as the noble Lord mentioned, in order to seek to do what we want to do.
The noble Lord has asked, "Why not take it back and have a look at it?". I do not want to mislead the House. I want to be perfectly frank, as I hope I always am in your Lordships' House. We have studied very carefully what has taken place in another place. We know that there were 29 Sittings of the Committee. We know that it considered word by word and line by line something like 500 Amendments. The result is that when the Bill came to us we again looked at it very carefully and quite independently. We came to the conclusion that the Bill spelt out exactly what the Government want. We have carefully considered all the 143 Amendments that face your Lordships' House at the present moment and when I say that we have carefully considered them I mean that we have carefully considered them, since we received them in, I admit, reasonably good time. We have spent long hours going into them and we have come to the conclusion that, by and large, we prefer the Bill as it is and do not think that it will be improved by the Amendments.
Lord O'HAGAN: T hesitate to rise again, but the noble Lord referred to the Committee stage in another place. What about the Second Reading in your Lordships' House when the author of the Goodman proposals, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, came here and made certain suggestions about the way in which his own proposals could be carried into effect? My noble friend Lord Sandys referred to this specifically and those words are reflected in the Amendment. He talked about the use of the words "reasonable in every sense" which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, referred to in his speech on Second Reading. Are we to take it from the Government that they are not prepared to look at Amendments even when they are in the spirit not only of Goodman the first time round but of Goodman speaking in your Lordships' House? Surely, the speech that was made by the noble Lord in this House as well as the proceedings of the Committee in another place will be taken into account by the Government when answering the debates here.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I have said that we have studied not only the Good-man proposals—that is clear because they are embodied in the Bill—but also the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on Second Reading, and that we have not seen fit as a result of that to put down any Amendments ourselves or, for that matter, if they are reflected in any Amendments before your Lordships' House, to feel that they would in any way improve the Bill.
Lord SANDYS: Of course the Government think that the Bill is perfect, but there is a certain note of selfsatisfaction which is not to my liking or that of my noble friends. In examining the position, of course we went into the clauses that relate to this particular Amendment very carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was good enough to say that we normally do so and of course we have done so in this particular case. However, we detect in Clauses 4, 7 and 8 a loosening of nuts and bolts in the Goodman proposals and I believe that this is especially important. I shall not go into detail now, because I shall shortly be withdrawing the Amendment, but I should just like to say this. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, quoted from a letter that is particularly relevant to the two Amendments to which we are speaking. The letter was sent by the British Medical Association to its members before the ballot. It said:
"Clearly, it is difficult to assess the validity on the one hand of the assurances given by the Goodman proposals and on the other the anxieties expressed in debate that so much remains a matter of individual interpretation and, so far as implementation is concerned, a matter of good faith."
My noble friend Lord O'Hagan referred to this as the judgment of Solomon and I am certain that he is right. The letter went on to say:
"If the proposals were to be implemented as intended by Lord Goodman, then a significant measure of protection for the future of the independent practice of medicine would be achieved. If, however, the proposals were to be distorted by the Government and Lord Goodman's aims were not to be preserved, then there is no doubt that both private practice and the independence of the profession would suffer."
We believe that to be a very fair statement by the British Medical Association and I would not add one word to it. However, I feel that, at this stage, it would be better to withdraw the Amendment and return

1507
to the point at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
("(3) Nothing shall be done under or by virtue of this Act, and nothing in this Act shall be construed, so as to operate to the detriment of any person (whether or not a consultant), who was on 12th April 1976 employed whole-time or part-time in one or other of the national health services or concerned with the interests of patients at NIIS hospitals, whether or not such detriment occurs under, by reason or in consequence of the terms of his employment.").
The noble Baroness said: I must say that, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, reply to Amendments Nos.7 and 8, I am embarking on this debate with a heavy heart. It looks to me as if the Government have made up their mind that they will not accept any of the Amendments, and of course we now understand why they have put down no Amendments. I made my remarks about a perfect Bill as a joke because we all know that nothing in this life is perfect, but I must say that I am now distressed to think that the Government have decided that they themselves could not put down any Amendments to meet the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on Second Reading and that they look as if they will not meet any of the points that we are raising.
I shall of course try with the present Amendment because I should have thought that it was one that would have appealed to the Government. We came to consider what is to happen to all those individuals who will be affected by the phasing out of 1,000 beds. On the last two Amendments that I moved I have already spoken about the difficulties that part-time consultants will face if there are no private facilities available where they can practice. As the noble Lord knows, they receive only part of the salary of a full-time consultant and if they cannot make up the difference in private practice they will clearly be worse off. Therefore, they are likely to suffer financially. The Amendment is intended to apply not only to them but to the other employees who may be affected. We are concerned here with what I understand is an accepted trade union formula of no detriment.
Not only would the consultants easily suffer; what about all the other individuals, the nurses, the physiotherapists, and all those who have to serve and cook the meals in relation to 1,000 beds that are to be phased out, if these beds are not to be filled with National Health Service patients? When I asked this question at Second Reading I never got a categorical assurance that every single bed phased out will be used by a National Health Service patient, and ill one instance of which we know the accommodation has already been used as offices. Nobody has to be very clever to see that it could mean that many people will be affected. It is possible to argue that they will all be found other jobs in the hospital, and of course we hope that they will, but nobody can he sure. One of the objects of legislation must surely be to make quite sure that all the eventualities arc covered, and it is for this reason that we have put down the Amendment.
It might have been possible to put down an Amendment which went into the whole question of compensation, but that is not a method which I particularly care for, and i did not wish it in any sense to be looked at as a kind of special pleading by a special group. I take the view about the National Health Service, and indeed medical service generally, that everybody involved in it is giving a service. They are obviously being paid, but they are giving a service, and that is surely the spirit in which it should all be looked at. At the same time anybody who is likely to suffer financially for it ought to have some kind of recompense. I purposely used this particular form of words because I believe it to be a leading trade union principle that no renegotiation of collective agreements may ever operate to the detriment of existing employees. That is, in effect what the Amendment says, and it means employees in the widest sense: everybody employed in this massive transfer of beds. Therefore I hope that, because the purpose of the Amendment is constructive and helpful, the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I believe that in dealing with an Amendment of this kind it is essential to look at Schedule 2 to see where the beds are located. The greatest number of beds that are to be withdrawn happen to number 46 and they

1509
cover all the hospitals in Kensington, Chelsea, and Westminster. So the number of private beds likely to be closed in any one hospital will be infinitesimal. Let us look, for example, at the position in Sunderland, where five beds will be closed, while in the whole of Suffolk there will be only three, and Suffolk has a good many hospitals. It is not as if one is to close 1,000 beds in one place and get rid of a tremendous amount of labour. The fact is that the 1,000 beds are to be drawn from England, Scotland and Wales, from hundreds of hospitals, and I should think that the question of displacement of staff will hardly arise unless for any reason a member of a hospital staff wants to leave.
We can take this question of detriment to an absurd length. Who are the people who are to be affected? The Amendment is very wide ranging. Let me give your Lordships a case in point. A cleaner who has been working in a private section of a hospital might complain that by the closure of two or three beds she will loose a certain amount in tips every week. A junior hospital doctor whose consultant was more often away from the hospital for private practice, or a part-time consultant who, if he is to increase his income, has to travel a little farther, could, I suppose, say that he had a claim for detriment because he had to travel a little farther. One would assume that he would put that on to the fee of the other private patient. So I suppose that any staff who had a greater load of work as a result of treating National Health Service patients rather than private patients could complain. I suppose that hospital porters who had been serving the private wing of a hospital could complain that because that part of the hospital, or a few beds had been closed, they had suffered as a result of loss of tips.
But where is this detriment? If we are to have in the Bill a clause which deals with detriment let us be realistic about it. Let us satisfy ourselves that there is going to he detriment. When one talks about detriment in the trade union world that means loss of jobs, and very often the loss of a large number of jobs. But these thousand beds are to be phased out in England, Scotland and Wales. They are to cover the whole of the area, and the number of beds to be phased out in
1510
any one hospital can, in the majority of instances, be counted on one hand. I do not really see that the question of detriment arises or that there is any need, just for that reason, for this Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: I cannot accept the noble Lord's answer because it must be manifestly clear to your Lordships that Clause 2 applies not only during, phasing out of the first 1,000 beds but throughout the period that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, is on the Statute Book, and in the course of action during which the Board intend to phase out all private beds. So it must follow automatically, as certainly as night follows day, that there will be a loss of jobs. There is bound to be a loss of jobs. The Amendment seeks to ensure that the minimum amount of detriment is suffered by those involved. The noble Lord referred to Schedule 2. He quoted Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea and mentioned 46 beds, which is perfectly accurate, according to the Schedule. But that confuses the issue, because it suggests that that is the maximum number. It is the maximum number in Phase 1, but of course this clause covers a very much longer period.
The second point which the noble Lord raised was the loss of minor income, and he referred to tips. It is not tips, it is jobs which we are seeking to preserve by promoting the Amendment. I suggest to your Lordships that the Amendment goes very much wider and is far more beneficial in its aims than possibly the Government have grasped. At present the attitude of the noble Lord is one of resistance, but if he will look at the matter a little more carefully and perhaps consult the trade unions concerned he will be of a different mind about it.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: The noble Lord referred, I think, only to hospitals around London, and this is quite typical. I am looking up those which are to be closed down in my part of the world; that is to say, in Cleveland, Cumbria, Durham, Northumberland, Gateshead, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, and Sunderland. I am becoming rather tired of the fact that in this place we are

1511
always having to discuss Bills all of which relate to London. I do not want anything to happen to London hospitals any more than I want anything to happen to hospitals in my part of the world. I should like to remind the noble Lord that in this area we have King George's and King Edward's Hospital Fund, so quite a number of problems can be faced by using money from King Edward's Hospital Fund. When I go into some of the hospitals around here I find that in the general wards there are curtains all around the place and they are almost private wards, but that does not apply in my part of the world, and we are very worried about this situation.
I am all in favour of passing the Amendment which we are now discussing, but I want to say this. If this Bill ever becomes law (which heaven forbid!), and if the Government ever get reelected (which I hope they will not), then when they come back we shall have another Bill. This is the point, is it not? The noble Lord has talked about all sorts of things relating to Lord Goodman. I have a great admiration for Lord Goodman, but I should have preferred to see him sitting here. Then we could have had a go at him. I do not like discussions on a noble Lord's arrangements and then that noble Lord not coming to listen to those discussions. I do not approve of that. The noble Lord said that this was going to close down only 1,000 beds all over, so far as I can make out, but if the Bill becomes law then, before you can say "Jack Robinson", the Government will be coming along with another Bill and we shall have exactly the same arguments. I think that my Party, and I hope the Liberal Party, should get at the Government and tell them that we are not going to have this sort of thing going on. As I say, it does not suit my part of the world.
I will quote just one thing. We had a very fine hospital provided by private money, endowed by private money, which housed, and was arranged especially for, crippled children. Not so very long ago—and this is in the area in which I live, so I know that I am telling the truth—the local authority and all the people who lived in the area subscribed money and built a wonderful swimming pool; because in recent years it has been discovered that it helps cripples if they can get into a very good swimming pool. We spent a lot
1512
of money on it; it is a beautiful pool. The hospital was endowed. The whole of the hospital was given; but, of course, it has been taken over by the National Health Service. We have argued and argued about this, without any result from the Government. Of course, many of the crippled children got better through new treatment over the years from when the hospital was originally established, and it is true enough that there were some empty beds. They were occupied by adults.
The National Health Service took the hospital over just after this beautiful pool was built. We had lovely grounds for the children, lovely gardens—everything. So far as I can make out, some of the children have now got to be moved to the new Freeman Hospital, which we do not find at all satisfactory. It is quite a long way away from this beautiful swimming pool, and we do not find that at all suitable. When the noble Lord quite rightly says that there is a shortage of beds all over the country, that there are lots of people wanting to get into hospital and that they cannot because there are not enough beds, why get rid of the beds in this hospital? Why fill up beds in the new Freeman Hospital, which we are all waiting for and which we have had to wait for for years and years and are just about to get? Here is this other hospital which they say, of course, will have some beds empty. Why? We could fill those as well, and use the Freeman Hospital and all the new beds very satisfactorily.
I am absolutely in favour of this Amendment. I hate to have to say this, because I sometimes trust members of the Government—not very often, but sometimes I do—but I certainly think that this Amendment is absolutely necessary unless the noble Lord can say that this will be the last Bill to phase out pay beds. I suppose he cannot say that, can he? Because I think that if the Government stay in much longer we shall have another Bill and there will be a whole lot more beds phased out, and there will be more losses. As for looking after my part of the world, we have the greatest contempt for what is done in my part of the world. I am sorry if the noble Lord wants to get up—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that this is

1513
the last Bill on this matter because the Government will phase out, eventually, all pay beds.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: That is what I thought.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think the noble Baroness was under the impression that it was going to be only 1,000. May I say to the noble Baroness that I will look at this. We feel, as to the displacement of staff—because, as I said earlier on, only a few beds will be affected in some hospitals, and some hospitals will not be affected at all—that they will he absorbed, or could be absorbed (not necessarily will; it depends on them, but they could) into the National Health Service. But I will look at this, and I think that perhaps the best thing to do is to write to her and send a copy of the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, so that they will have an opportunity to consider it before Report stage.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I thank the noble Lord, but I do not like letters. I like the thing in public, and I want the letter in Hansard. I do not want the letter sent to me. The bother of having to get a letter in Hansard is quite an operation, and I do not like private letters. I like letters that are public.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I was not proposing to write to the noble Baroness, as much as I should like to do so. I was proposing to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on an entirely different matter from the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Ward, was speaking about.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I was not talking about her.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Before we go any further, I think the noble Baroness who has just spoken has in many ways been a great deal more honest than many of the other noble Lords who have spoken. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for whom I have the greatest respect—I think she is extraordinarily able, and I would much rather have her on my side than against me—that I feel there is a certain element of hypocrisy about the way we are being told that they are sad that the Government will not accept any of the Amendments. When I sat on the
1514
Opposition Front Bench, the Conservative Government of that time, in the case of a major health Bill and of a major social security Bill, did not accept one small Amendment from our side of the Committee. We differ philosophically, and I think that the other Party does not like this Bill. I think that if they were honestly to admit that they do not like this Bill, instead of pretending that they are now the champions of the workers—that is very interesting, but it is certainly a change of heart—it would be a much more honest approach. Those who do not like the philosophy behind the Bill—we respect this, and we understand it—should use that approach rather than bringing in some of these things, which seem to some of us merely delaying tactics.
Lady RUTHVEN of FREELAND: I must ask permission to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that I think his calculation of only 46 pay beds being done away with in London is a little incorrect. I have made a rough calculation, and I think it is well over 200.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I must interrupt the noble Baroness. I said 46 in Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster, not in London.
Baroness RUTHVEN of FREELAND: What I was going to say was that that affects all the teaching hospitals in London, and, to me, they are the most important, because they are the ones where instruction is given both to the medical students and to the nurses. My calculation is that well over 200 beds will be phased out.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has undertaken to look again at this Amendment and certain of the matters underlying it, in particular the calculations about possible lost jobs, and so on. I am very glad, too, that he has finally acknowledged that this Amendment does not look only at the first phase of 1,000) beds; it looks at the ultimate situation—the situation which the noble Lord has now made totally clear: the Government's intention ultimately to eliminate all private beds in National Health Service hospitals. When that has happened, there is no doubt at all that there will be many people

1515
who will be detrimentally affected in a number of different ways. It is not only the lost jobs.
So I merely rise to ask him whether, while he is looking at the number of jobs, and things of that kind, he will also look at another point. There are consultants, many of whom I could name and who he will discover, I am sure—who are at the moment part-time consultants. Many of them would honestly prefer to be whole-time National Health Service consultants but they cannot get whole-time contracts because the hospital boards are not in a position to offer them. When private practice has been phased out altogether—I am not saying that they necessarily want it phased out altogether; I am saying that some of these people are doing private practice because they are obliged to do so, they are compulsorily part-time—when private practice has gone from within the hospitals, one would like to feel that they will have opportunities to opt for full-time contracts. I am mentioning this to make it clear that there are a number of aspects so far as detriment is concerned and not only loss of jobs. If the noble Lord is to look at part of it, then he might as well look at it all.
Baroness YOUNG: It had been my intention to press this Amendment because we on this side feel strongly about it. I think that the support that it has received on all sides showed that everybody was concerned about the placing of staff. I was pleased to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, because it applies to those consultants who will not be able to get full-time jobs as well as to other staff. We have just debated at length subsection (1) and the noble Lord drew my attention to the fact that it is the Government's intention that all private beds should be phased out; so that we must talk about the 4,000 beds.
I should like to reassure the Committee that we on this side think that the conditions of the staff are important. I may not have had much to do with hospitals, but I have had a considerable amount to do with schools and re-organisation, and one of the things that always comes up is, "What is to happen to the staff?" I can say categorically that none of them is financially worse off at the end of the arrangements than
1516
at the beginning. They may not have the same status; but they have not lost any money. I think this is important. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said. If he does not like our Amendment, I hope he will be able to bring back an Amendment himself which meets this point. If there is not an Amendment produced, then we shall return to this again on Report and press it to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: This may be a good moment to halt the Committee as agreed. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
7.3 p.m.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Willis.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CHAMPION in the chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Restrictions on evidence at trials for rape, etc.]:
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("at").
The noble and learned Lord said: When I put down this Amendment I did not know that my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, was going to put one down. I have looked at his Amendment and I have looked at mine. I think his is the better and achieves the

1517
same purpose that I had intended to achieve by mine. I therefore do not intend to move my Amendment.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new clause:
Restrictions on evidence at trials for rape etc.
.—(1)At a trial at which any person continues to he charged with a rape offence to which he pleads not guilty no evidence shall be adduced by or on behalf of any defendant at the trial and no question shall he asked in cross-examination by or on behalf of any defendant, in relation to any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than a defendant unless, after an application made to the Judge in the absence of the jury, the Judge, being satisfied that such evidence or such question is relevant to an issue arising in the trial, gives leave.
(2) In this section complainant means woman upon whom, in a charge for a rape offence to which the trial in question relates, it is alleged that rape was committed, attempted or proposed.
The noble and learned Lord said: I put down this Amendment solely in the hope of being both helpful and constructive. On the Second Reading I made some observations in the course of which I endeavoured to say how much I admired the report of the advisory group under the chairmanship of Mrs. Justice Heilbron. I expressed the view that the general tenor and underlying philosophy of the report were wholly admirable. I, therefore, for my part, expressed a general welcome for the Bill. In particular, I thought that Clause 1, if it is enacted, will prove of great value in the administration of the law, of value as a definition and of added value because of the declaratory provision in subsection (2) of Clause 1. However, I expressed some reservations and those reservations really relate to Clause 2.
On Second Reading I put forward the view that Clause 2 seems to be unnecessarily complex and that it may lead to doubts, delays and debates with all the expense that may as a consequence result. I think that the report pointed out very forcefully that there has been much public concern in regard to the position of women who have been complainants in these cases. Before a woman ever reaches the witness box she will have had experiences of great torment. I am sure that we ought to do as much as we possibly can to see that she is not unnecessarily—and I stress the word "unnecessarily"—exposed to
1518
questioning which may be painful, humiliating and distressing. Of course we must remember that it is for the prosecution to prove their case. The prosecution must prove a lack of consent and an accused person must not be denied any proper means of repelling charges brought against him.
The Amendment that I have put down, I have put down in the hope that it meets the case forcibly presented in the report of the advisory group, the case that women who are complainants are often in need of protection. I have not myself taken the view that members of the Bar have needlessly indulged in what has sometimes been called "character assassinnation"; but defence counsel has material, he wants to use his material, and it does not soon or at once become evident to counsel for the prosecution—or, indeed, to the judge—whether what is being put forward has relevance or. if it has any relevance, has real relevance. The Amendment I have put forward therefore, if it was thought to be helpful and acceptable, while avoiding all the complexities of Clause 2 as at present drafted, would provide that no questions could he put to a woman complainant in regard to her sexual experiences with any man other than the defendant unless and until the court gives leave. Application would have to be made in the absence of the jury. The judge would have to consider whether there was relevance in the questions proposed to be put.
It seems to me that in these cases the range of situations is so varied that it is difficult to lay down in any precise terms how a judge would rule in regard to relevance. There must be some real relevance and the judge, I suggest, must be fair to the prosecution, he must be fair to the defence, he must hold the scales evenly and he must do his utmost to protect any witness. I have therefore drafted this Amendment which would provide that the judge would have to have an application before any of these questions were put; he would have to decide whether there was relevance—and I think a judge would consider, "Is there real relevance?" Probably the matters would relate to consent in almost all cases and the situations would be so infinitely various that the judge would have to decide whether there was relevance and whether he should give leave.
It seems to me that that is essentially the function of the judge and that we ought to trust Her Majesty's judges, with their experience, to he able to decide each case on its merits, having regard to its own particular facts. I have not thought that it was necessary to make any fresh enactment in regard to the question whether, by questions put, an accused person may bring in his own character so that questions could be put to him under the provisions of the 1898 Act. I should have thought that the law had been considered in regard to that matter. The prosecution must prove lack of consent, and if the defence is merely challenging that there was lack of consent I think it has been held that the defence to that extent is not attacking the character of the complainant. Therefore I would submit that this can be left to the judges, that that would be fair to women complainants, fair to prosecution and to defence. I put this Amendment forward merely in the hope that it is helpful. I generally favour this Bill. Perhaps my attitude might be expressed if I say, "I come not to bury Caesar but to praise him".
7.13 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I rise to support the Amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend—if he will allow me to to so call him. The Committee owes a great debt to him for having raised this debate. As I said, I prefer, in the main, his version to mine of Amendments Nos.1 and 2 which I did not move, but I thought that the last words of my own Amendment might be incorporated with his at a later stage as being perhaps an improvement. The real point is that we have to do something to reduce the immense verbosity of modern Parliamentary drafts-manship. The noble and learned Lord's Amendment and my Amendment are about a tenth, I should suppose, in numbers of words to that of the Bill as it now stands. Just look at it. You start at the bottom of page 1, you have the whole of page 2, the whole of page 3 and right down to about seven lines on page 4 in order to achieve the same result. That cannot be right. We aim at the same result and it must be that it is capable of being achieved in fewer words. I see the noble Lord,
1520
Lord Cudlipp, here and he knows the necessity of economy of words in another capacity.
If you pass the Bill in its present form it is my serious opinion that there will be hundreds of trials within a trial, there will be scores of appeals to the Court of Appeal and probably a round dozen or so appeals to the House of Lords. I sometimes hear complaints from the other side of the House that Bills produced are a lawyer's paradise. People exaggerate the form of beatific vision enjoyed by lawyers when they argue cases in court, but none the less this clause will cause a lot of expense, a lot of delay, a lot of uncertainty and a lot of litigation. I would ask the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill to look at it again with a little bit of expert and elegant draftsmanship to see whether he cannot incorporate the best of Lord Morris and the best of Lord Hailsham.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: That indeed would be very difficult. will speak, if I may, fairly briefly on this particular point. I am aware of the fact that the noble and learned Lord who has just resumed his seat and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, have both made it clear that they are supporters of the Bill and wish it well. That being so and given the character of the argument which they have deployed this afternoon I certainly undertake between now and probably the Third Reading of the Bill to cause this matter to be discussed by officials in my Department and the Promoters of the Bill, to see what we can do about this particular problem in Clause 2. Certainly to achieve a greater economy of words is an admirable objective and we will set our minds to it. Certainly I will give that undertaking and I hope that we shall be able to produce something which will meet the general convenience of the House. I cannot give any total assurance at this stage but we will certainly do our best to meet the noble and learned Lord's point.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: May I reinforce what my noble and learned friend said, possibly from a slightly lower plane because that is from where I come. After I left the lush but rather souldestroying pastures of the Probate Division I found myself both prosecuting and

1521
defending rape cases with extreme frequency. Indeed, the first case I ever defended in the Central Criminal Court was a case of rape, and the last that T prosecuted in that forum was a case of rape. The first case I ever witnessed in an English court when as an undergraduate at Oxford at the Assizes was a case of rape, and the judge who tried it was, as he was then, Mr. Justice Morris on his first circuit. The case was prosecuted by, as he later became, Lord Justice Sachs. So that case, too, was on a higher plane than I was as an undergraduate.
I do not want to be flippant about this matter. The case of rape causes practitioners the greatest of difficulty and the greatest of embarrassment and it is fair to say it also causes juries a great deal of difficulty. Perhaps over the years juries have become rather wider in their sympathies than they used to be. Certainly, when I practised I do not think I ever lost a case of rape, so to speak, if I was defending, because with juries, which were more predominantly male in those days, if one got on the right note one could always in effect invite the jury to come to the conclusion on the basis that either they got up to this sort of thing when they were Servicemen or they wished that they had had the courage to do so. I know that that is a terrible way in which to put "courage but one has to confess that certainly as it stands at the moment the law on rape favours the defendant too much.
I found it extremely difficult when conducting cases on behalf of the Crown to obtain a conviction, and I was very surprised when I came to read the Official Report of the Second Reading to see the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quoted in respect of the years 1973–74–75 when the conviction ratio, if I may so call it, was about 3: 1. Figures can, of course, say anything, but I assume that the figures were simply as he gave them and that is a very high conviction ratio.
What worries me is that if Clause 2 is passed in its present form, the freedom of manoeuvre of the defence will be severely fettered, and what is perhaps more important is that the freedom of the judge to conduct the trial—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, said—fairly to the woman complainant, to the Crown
1522
and to the accused will also be fettered, particularly by subsection (3) of Clause 2. It seems to me that there are many cases where the jury have to take into account matters which are indeed peripheral to the acts complained of, but which, nevertheless, are extremely important.
For instance, there are many cases of ladies on their way home from dances who accept lifts, and then there are unfortunate consequences. In my experience, the defence is inevitably one of consent, it being said on behalf of the defendant that the girl had gone to the dance, she was out for a good time, she was probably provocatively dressed, she drank too much, she got the good time which she had sought and then, when she got back home and her parents asked her what had happened, she said that she had been raped. This is a story which will be over-familiar to anybody who has had anything to do with this kind of case.
Is it to be said that the defence cannot go into these matters, because that is to me one of the fetters which will be imposed by subsection (3), if by no other. If the behaviour of the complainant prior to the incident is allowed, when does the shutter come down? As my noble and learned friend said, at best this will make for a great deal of time, but at worst what it means is that for every trial there will have to be a trial within a trial, and some form of application made before the defence gets very far under way and the complainant is cross-examined. It does not stop there, because, very often, counsel for the defence has certain instructions which he is very reluctant to put to a complainant; because, contrary to what some Members of the other place believe, on the whole counsel behave in a responsible manner. But as the trial develops, and as the evidence comes out, it may then be his duty to go the whole hog, as it were. That will be a situation of extreme difficulty, if in the middle of the trial he has to go back and seek leave for something which has only just arisen.
I should have thought that what this comes to—and this is something which the Government must face—is either that the judges of this country are to be given discretion to decide when matters have gone too far, when the pendulum has swung too far away from the true, so that matters are becoming unjust either as

1523
against the complainant or as against the defendant; or alternatively, a legislative framework will be introduced which will, as I have said, place a fetter on the judge's discretion and he will not, as I read the clause, be able to do what he will frequently feel ought to be done.
If I may end by saying this, we have always left these matters of procedure to the judges, on the basis that if they go wrong the Court of Appeal can put matters right and that, I suggest, is certainly the principle which should be adopted in future. Of course, when it comes to the feelings of a lady who may have been over-roughly cross-examined, that cannot be put right by the Court of Appeal or anybody else, but that is not really the point. The point is whether a trial is to be fair and not whether a trial is of man or of a woman.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The most sensible thing I can say is that I take note of what the noble Earl has said, and I have already made it clear that we will look at this matter before the Third Reading of the Bill.
Lord WILLIS: I should just like to thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hailsham and Lord Morris, for their helpful attitude on this clause. As everybody readily admits, it is a little cumbersome, but if you write a medical prescription that, too, is sometimes a little cumbersome, and it is very dangerous to leave out one part simply in order to make it brief. Brevity may sometimes be the soul of wit. It is not always the soul of justice.
We have tried in this clause to encompass the suggestions made by the Heilbron Committee which deliberated on this matter for some time. I absolutely support what my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has said, and we will meet and discuss to see whether something can be done to abbreviate the clause. But I would certainly resist leaving out of that clause one or two of the points which have been made by noble Lords, which are important and which Heilbron thought are important.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for the way in which he has dealt with
1524
this matter, and also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion. I detect a general feeling that we are seeking the same objective, and it is merely that we are trying to decide what is the best path to tread so as to reach the objective which we all have in mind. I am most grateful to the Minister for what he has said, and in view of that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases]:
7.27 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert—
(", or
(d) a bill of indictment charging him with a rape offence is preferred before a court in which he may lawfully be indicted for the offence,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6 and, if I may, will speak at the same time to Nos.7 and 8. The object of these minor Amendments is to include, in the definition in Clause 4 of the time at which a person is to be regarded as accused of a rape offence, a reference to voluntary bills of indictment. This meets an assurance which was given in another place. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Provisions supplementary to s. 4]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 30, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(d)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Anonymity of defendants in rape etc. cases]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 8:

1525
Page 10, line 23, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(d)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do not want to take a great deal of time on this, because I realise that one could talk almost interminably about it and 1 do not propose to take that course. I raised the issue on Second Reading. I personally do not see that it follows, from the fact that you give the complainant anonymity, that you should give the defendant anonymity. I cannot see that the defendant is in the same position as the complainant in a rape charge. The fact is that we give the complainant anonymity—we have already decided to do so, because we passed the clause—on two grounds. One is that she is unusually placed in the position of having to prove her innocence before she can bring the charge home to the allegedly guilty party; and the other is that, as a rule, she has to face a series of unpleasant suggestions about her compliance with or consent to what has been done; sometimes, one must say, of the most disgusting kind.
As I said on Second Reading, there are arguments both ways but on balance I think that anonymity has it. As a rule, I am against anonymity. I think that publication is for the good of justice and, as the noble and learned Lord knows, I came to this conclusion reluctantly but quite definitely. The argument which is presented in support of the anonymity of a defendant is that sometimes in the course of his defence he has to admit conduct which a certain number of people would consider to be slightly indecorous.
I am left absolutely unmoved by the argument. Not to put too plain a point upon it, it seems to me to be silly. A man who is charged with murder often has to admit rather indecorous conduct in the course of his defence. Nobody suggests that he should remain anonymous throughout until the result is known. Only the other day magistrates refused to commit for murder in a case where a man had to admit to keeping a mistress within a mile or two of his allegedly murdered wife and to calling her in the same night to look after the children. No
1526
doubt that was very indecorous but nobody suggested that he should be anonymous. My own belief is that it is sheer sentimentality that because you allow the anonymity of the complainant you have to be even-handed and so you allow the anonymity of the defendant, too. Some people believe that this is obvious. I do not. I regard it as silly and I have said so.
Lord MONSON: I rise with considerable trepidation, as a layman, to oppose the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. I understand and fully sympathise with the objects of the Bill, but I fear that by making things a lot less traumatic and less unpleasant for the unfortunate victim of rape, by virtue of the anonymity clause—anonymity for the complainant, that is—and by virtue of the clause that makes inadmissible evidence of previous sexual experience, there is a danger that the chances of an innocent person being convicted will be increased, even if only slightly. This is a very serious matter, because the sentences for such offences are severe, and rightly so. One thinks of a dramatic coincidence the other day that was cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wigoder., in his Second Reading speech. About half an hour before he rose to speak a message had come through on the Press Associaion tape to the effect that an innocent man had been released after serving two and a half years of a 12 year sentence, because the woman in question had admitted that her story was a complete fabrication. There is also a danger that the incidence of frivolous and, indeed, malicious complaints which do not result in a conviction will rise, even if only slightly. Perhaps this is the lesser of two evils. In a sense, all legislation involves a choice between the lesser of two evils. This being so, I feel that Clause 6 strikes a fair balance, and I hope that it will remain in the Bill.
7.33 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I will speak fairly briefly because, as the noble and learned Lord rightly said when he spoke to the Committee a few moments ago, this is a narrow but not unimportant question. This clause did not appear in the Bill when it was first published and a new clause was inserted during the Report stage in another place to replace

1527
a defective Amendment which had been successfully moved in the Standing Committee in another place. As the noble and learned Lord points out, the clause provides for anonymity for defendants in rape cases, with suitable exceptions where it would be appropriate for the restriction on publication of the defendant's identity not to operate.
As explained during the debate on Second Reading, the Heilbron Advisory Group's views on anonymity for defendants before conviction were viewed by the Government with the greatest respect, but we came to the conclusion eventually that it would be wrong to persist with our attitude, given the decision which had been taken in the Standing Committee. The arguments advanced during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in this House have been considered by the Government and, indeed, by the sponsors of the Bill. Most of those who are opposed to the clause have taken the line that there is fundamentally no difference between a defendant in a rape offence case and in any other criminal case.
However, there is one fundamental difference: that in rape cases the complainant will be anonymous which, except in blackmail cases and cases involving juvenile victims, is not so with other offences. It is a certain disadvantage to a defendant in a rape case if he can be named while the person making the accusation, except in the rare circumstances for which the Bill provides, cannot. This was the purport of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, during the Second Reading debate on the Bill. He said that after fairly careful reflection he had come to the conclusion that Clause 6 was right. That is also the Government's view. Therefore I hope that the Committee will support the retention of Clause 6 in the Bill.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Nothing has been said which has altered my opinion in the slightest, but if anybody thinks that I am going to divide the Committee I am not. I am afraid that it would cause a great deal of unnecessary discussion in another place, although we have dealt with this subject with admirable compendiousness, as we always do. However, having regard
1528
to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, although I have made my point and stick to it I am not going to ask the Committee to vote upon it.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I hope that I am not impertinent in rising at this stage. I should have done so before the noble and learned Lord got to his feet, but he was very quick about it and I could not do so. I will not detain the Committee for long. I do not believe that this is entirely a matter of tit for tat. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said, it is not a question that because one side is anonymous the other should be also, even though that was the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. In so many cases of accusation of rape the defence is not just indecorum. It is adultery. This is a matter upon which we all know that the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has held strong views in the past, and I suspect that he takes the view, "Serve the person right if they have to be known to have committed adultery".
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I really must complain. I never said anything of the kind and what the noble Lord has just said seems to me to be totally irrelevant to anything that I did say.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: The noble Lord may not have said that, and if it is not the noble Lord's opinion I withdraw unreservedly what I have said.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I thank the noble Lord.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: However, I still think that this is a particular kind of crime and I do not believe that there is anything analogous to it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, quoted the case of a murderer or a person accused of murder—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I said, "acquitted".
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY:—a person acquitted of murder who was able to produce an alibi. Some people

1529
choose to do it that way. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Duke, the Duke of Denver, chose before your Lordships' House to risk being hanged rather than to give away the identity of his mistress. The fact is, however, that in these cases you have to admit something which is in the twilit area between sin and not approved of by public policy in this country but which is not actually a crime. My noble friend Lord Wigoder suggested to me that there were other analogous cases, such as a solicitor accused of a peculation who had to say in his defence, "It wasn't peculation; I was merely very inefficient".
It seems to me that there is a difference in a lot of these cases that the inefficiency is something which is of public interest and in the public interest it should be known, and that the adultery is nobody's business except those who actually commit it. I should have thought this was the only class of case in which such an enormous proportion of people have to conduct their defence by admitting something which is seen by the world to be reprehensible and which is yet not a crime. In addition to the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I think there is a very good case for the retention of this clause.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Citation, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.41 p.m.
Lord MONSON: Before we leave the final clause, I should like to refer to a matter which arose on the Third Reading of this Bill in another place, where Mr. George Cunningham, at col.886 of the Official Report on 15th October—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: With respect to the noble Lord, I am afraid that the Rules of the House do not permit him to quote any Member of another place other than a Minister.
Lord MONSON: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is in order for me to paraphrase?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes.
Lord MONSON: Referring to a case which received much publicity, involving some young Moroccans who had assaulted a woman in Earl's Court, an honourable Member made the point that it was a curious presumption which suggested that a boy under 14 years of age was incapable of this act, and he went on to express the hope that the House of Lords would see fit to look at the particularly silly presumption in English law, which has no parallel in Scottish law, and would make an Amendment to improve the legislation.
I assumed that one of the honourable Member's noble friends in this House would have tabled such an Amendment but saw nothing in the Marshalled List today; and in an attempt to understand why I read further in the report of the Third Reading proceedings in another place and I saw that the Minister of State—and I believe I am allowed to quote from his remarks—said:
"This is being considered by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, assisted by the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences. I think that is the best way of dealing with the matter."—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/76; col. 890.]
With respect, the man in the street—indeed every person with any common sense—knows full well that a boy of 13 is perfectly capable of committing this offence, and that this has always been the case. It does not seem to me that it requires the deliberations of a Committee, however distinguished, to establish that fact. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, whether it would not serve the interests of justice if an Amendment were tabled for the next stage of this Bill in order to rectify the matter.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I think the most sensible thing would be for me to say that I take note of what the noble Lord has just said. He quoted some words spoken by my honourable friend the Joint Minister of State in another place, pointing out that this matter was being looked at by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and if the noble Lord tables an Amendment we shall of course look at it; but I would not wish to hold out any hope that we would be in a position to accept it.
On Question, Clause 7 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
7.44 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, before we actually start on the next Amendment I wonder whether I may take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord. Lord Jacques, for the very full and comprehensive letter which he has sent to me and to my two noble friends, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Lyell. in which he clarified further for us the purpose and the content of Clause 7 which we were not able to get very clear on Tuesday. On reading that letter, which I did with great profit, I felt that it ought to be in the Official Report so that the many people who are in touch with us and have anxieties about this Bill might read it. I have therefore tabled a Question for Written Answer, to which I understand his letter can be the Answer and it will appear in Hansard tomorrow. I hope the noble Lord and other noble Lords will agree that it is helpful. I certainly confirm that the letter has been very helpful.
Nevertheless we shall need to study it and I may well need to return to parts of it on Third Reading. If tomorrow, when I am able to turn back to it, I decide, or my noble friends decide, that it will be so, we will endeavour to table appropriate Amendments in good time tomorrow. So may I thank the noble Lord and once again protest, in a general way, that we have to conduct our business in this rather extraordinary fashion.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I acknowledge the thanks expressed by the noble Lord and would say that we are happy to be of some help.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 8 [Cargo-handling operations in general]:
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 12, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) The Board shall not make a recommendation under this section if in their opinion the classification of the work would adversely affect the efficiency with which the operations constituting the work are carried out, or would materially increase the cost").
The noble Lord said, My Lords, this is the last of the series of Amendments that we were moving the other evening when we came to a halt against the clock, but I remember what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said then, both in reply to my moving some previous Amendments, Nos.47 and 48, and also earlier in Committee. When we were discussing this series of Amendments on Tuesday evening the hour was indeed late and I wonder whether we made the most rational use of all the time available at that late hour.
This Amendment must be linked to the previous series of Amendments to which I spoke together with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. Once again I would ask the Government whether they do not consider that this Amendment, with its particular reference to costs, contributes to the Bill. At earlier stages of the proceedings on this Bill in this House noble Lords opposite objected to the ability of the Board to discuss and decide its policy, since noble Lords did not believe that there would be sufficient expertise in this particular area of cost accounting among the membership of the Board. I submit that this is an unworthy remark on the overall competence of the Board. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will appreciate that costing, and indeed extracting information from costing records, is as free as it is possible for it to be from the mystique and mumbo-jumbo that appears to be the case to any layman. However the Board will not consist solely of laymen, and thus I consider that the criticism that has been raised on this point and on others in connection with costs is not entirely accurate.
I should like to refer to one other point that was raised at a later stage in our last deliberations on this Bill when there was a comment on labour costs and overheads. One thing which seemed odd to me was

1533
the reference to the level of profits. I am sure the House would agree that only in economies which have a total monopoly of power. where complete monopolies are permitted and, indeed, tolerated, can an employer or port authority decree or aim at a level of profits in the costs which, lest we forget, are costs to the port users and consumers. This matter also affects the public interest which we were discussing earlier. We believe that this particular Amendment is sound. We believe it contributes to the Bill. We await the reply of the noble Lord, particularly in view of what has been said on this series of Amendments and on ones similar to it in the past. I beg to move.
7.51 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we believe that costs ought to be taken into account, but not in the manner proposed by the Amendment. I would point out that we are dealing at the moment with Clause 8. Under Clause 8 there are two procedures before the Board can propose classification. In the first place they have to circulate, obtain information, give an opportunity for representations to be made, and then decide whether there is a prima facie case. If they decide there is a prima facie case, they have to start all over again and give opportunities for representations to be made. Finally, they have to decide whether it would be sensible in all the circumstances to classify the work. So there are two opportunities for submitting representations on costs to the Board.
In addition, after the Board have made their recommendations there is an opportunity of making representations to the Secretary of State. We attach great importance to that because we believe that employers might be reluctant to make representations on costs to the Dock Labour Board, which consists substantially of employers and employees, whereas representations could be made with complete confidence to the Secretary of State. We attach great importance to that and believe that that is the point when representations on costs, certainly overall costs, should be made. We think it is fit and proper that they should be made in that way.
The question of costs has never really been a matter for the National Dock Labour Board under the present Scheme.
1534
The cost before and after classification depends on many things which are solely within the province of the employer, or the employer and the trade unions with whom he negotiates. For example, costs depend on what mechanical aids there are before or after classification, and the question of whether or not there are mechanical aids is a matter entirely for the employer, or the employer and the trade unions, according to what the normal arrangement is. Secondly, the use of manpower is important in relation to costs, whether one man should be allocated to a job or not. This is a matter entirely for the employer in his collective agreement with the trade union. It has nothing to do with the Dock Labour Board. It has never had anything to do with the Dock Labour Board. Therefore, we think the Board should not be called in to deal with this matter under the new Scheme.
Finally, I would point out that at the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, and I quote:
"I hope no noble Lord will claim against us that we are seeking to maintain low standards of employment or pay because that really would not be true, let alone fair."—[Official Report, 15/10/76; col. 669.]
I suggest to the House that if this Amendment were carried it would be entirely fair—
Lord LYELL: Oh, no.
Lord JACQUES: Would the noble Lord let me finish? It would be entirely fair if this Amendment were carried, for this reason. Take the case of an employer who has casual labour and who offers poor conditions—and there are some employers like that in this industry. This Amendment would seek to protect those employers who are giving the poorest conditions, because the poorer are the conditions, the greater would be the increase in cost. If this were carried out, it would be entirely fair to come to the conclusion that the Amendment was protecting the employer who, with casual labour, was giving poor conditions of employment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, one or two questions on this matter? First

1535
of all, I have no doubt that it will be perfectly legitimate for employers to make representations, or for anyone to make representations, to the Secretary of State at any time. But if the Secretary of State is going to be the source of decisions on efficiency and cost and so on, ought there not to be a provision in the Bill specifically providing for representations to he made under this clause to the Secretary of State? It seems to leave it very loose just to say, "Oh well, the Board will look at everything else, but it will not consider costs and efficiency. If that is what you want, you will have to write to the Secretary of State". I should have thought that in that case there would be a possibility for all concerned to make representations to the Secretary of State on these matters. I know it appears in other clauses, but I cannot find it in this particular clause.
The second point I wanted to ask about was this. When we are talking about costs in a straight comparison of costs between what is going on at present and what would go on if the work were classified, the only thing that matters is productivity—nothing else. Productivity is the difference between the two, given the existing basis of mechanical aids. There can he no question of bringing mechanical aids into a straight comparison of that kind.
My third point is that there must be some ports in the country where casual labour, in the ordinary consideration of what it means (and we have been into this subject before) is the appropriate way for dealing with the port. If there is only one shipment a fortnight, or something like that, it is rather absurd to have a complete and regular team of employees as registered dock workers. In that case I should have thought it was perfectly legitimate to say that casual labour can continue to be used, casual labour being the people who are used when there is cargo to handle. That may be very fine. As I have said before, the same people may be doing several other jobs when there is no cargo to handle. Therefore I think the criticism of my noble friend's speech mentioned by the noble Lord might be fair in certain circumstances where casual labour was being employed and where it could be replaced on a sensible basis by regular employment—
1536
I do not think any of us would object in such cases to the work being classified—but not otherwise.
These are the sort of consideration one has to have in mind here. I myself would not have thought that the Amendment proposed really poses the kind of difficulties that the noble Lord has been creating; because I think they are difficulties which he has been creating. They are not really difficulties.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I could not phrase my reply better than did my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who put it very fairly that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is creating difficulties. For the noble Lord to suggest that the incorporation of this clause would give employers the freedom to persist in practices which are totally outside the provisions of the Bill, and to assist in the continuation of casual labour, is totally wrong. I cannot see that the Amendment has any bearing on that at all. This is far into the realms of supposition.
Regarding the comment which the noble Lord made tonight—and indeed has made in previous replies to this type of Amendment—that the Secretary of State would be more discreet than other employers and employees, I wonder whether that is the case. By the time any representations go to the Secretary of State, I believe that it is far too late. In this Amendment we are discussing what the Board shall do. At the bottom of page 11 it reads:
"… in particular, as well as all other matters appearing to them to be relevant …"
the Board shall carry out various tests, which are set out in (a), (b) and (c) in this subsection. For the noble Lord to bring casualisation and decasualisation into this subsection is irrelevant.
The noble Lord also pointed out that costs are the province of the employer and the employees, but the prices charged by the employers and employees for the operation of loading and unloading cargo at the docks is the cost to the consumer. If the cost to the consumer is allowed to escalate, I believe that the growth of containerisation and other more cost-efficient methods of handling freight will inevitably be adopted. This has happened in certain cases, and I hope that this Amendment would go some way to alleviate the

1537
problems in larger ports where cost efficiency has been allowed to decline.
We are very unhappy with the reply of the noble Lord and I think that we ought to insist on this Amendment; but the noble Lord has pointed out that there is an appeal to the Secretary of State so I suppose we must grasp at that straw of hope. In no way are we satisfied with the noble Lord's reply and indeed his continual reference to the possibility, and, as he puts it, probability that employers are going to use this Amendment to keep down pay and conditions of employment at the ports.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I hope he will support my request to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, as to where in this clause we can find the provision for appeal to the Secretary of State. It is not in the clause but I find that Schedule 4 does provide for representations to be made to the Secretary of State. I understand it appears in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 9 [Reference by Secretary of State to the Board]:
8.3 p.m.
Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 12, line 39, leave out "take into consideration") and insert ("consider").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Airedale who could not be here this evening. As noble Lords know, my noble friend is very particular about the use of good English and he wants to know why, on page 12, line 39, the words "take into consideration" should be used, whereas at the end of paragraph 3 the reference is to matters which the Board were, "directed … to consider". A little earlier this afternoon noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite were complaining about a Conservative Amendment which had one unnecessary word. This time I think we might complain that the Amendment which the Government have drafted has two unnecessary words—" direct the Board to take into consideration", rather than, "to consider". I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was kind enough to submit three drafting Amendments, all of which were what I would call stylistic. We accepted two of them. In regard to this one, on balance we would prefer to keep the words that are in the Bill on the grounds that we have consulted counsel and are advised that there is a subtle difference between "consider" and "take into consideration". The draftsman wishes to keep this in and we see no reason why we should not meet his wishes. I therefore hope that on this occasion the noble Lord might withdraw the Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, might I also put in a plea. I agree that there is a difference; that is why the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has suggested the Amendment. The noble Lord said that it is a subtle difference but I think it is a fairly normal one. You ask somebody to consider something and when considering it to take into consideration other things. You do not ask them to take into consideration the thing you are directing them to consider. There is a real difference here.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to say that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made it quite clear that he had taken it for granted that they both meant the same thing and he was saving words.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, I am a little worried about the question of a subtle distinction. I can see that there might be a distinction between "taking into consideration" and "considering", though I do not know what it is. I can see that there certainly would be a distinction in taking something into account and accounting for it. I can think of many things in which my conduct might be taken into account by a judge without his having to account for it. This is a real point of difference if it is not a matter of verbiage only. If it is a matter of verbiage only, I can see no reason for not accepting the Amendment.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am quite sure that my noble friend would not wish to divide the House on this issue. It would appear that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had better briefing than

1539
I had about this. He seemed to know what was in my noble friend's mind. I will of course, accept what the Government say. We will leave "take into consideration", but will the Government then consider themselves putting down an Amendment to subsection (3) so that the end of that subsection would read:
"to report to him our opinion on the matter they were directed by him to take into consideration".?
That is, if there is a difference. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.9 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 13, line 10, after ("the") insert ("matter or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the point here is small but I think it may be an important one. Subsection (1) reads:
"The Secretary of State may … direct the Board to take into consideration any work, done or to be done at premises in a dock labour scheme area …"
The work done or to be done plainly might be one matter or it might be more. If it is only one matter, the Board cannot and should not be directed to report upon other matters. If the word, "matters" alone remains as it is, then I think there is a danger that the Board might be expected to report on other matters than the ones which they have been asked to take into consideration. Of course, there might be more than one matter, in which case the word, "matters" would be appropriate. For that reason I have put down this Amendment, so that subsection (3) should read:
"The Board shall, within such time or extended time as the Secretary of State may allow them, report to him their opinion on the matter or matters they were directed by him to consider."
I think it would be very difficult not to accept this, and if it is not acceptable I shall be glad to know the reason why.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when I saw this Amendment I linked it with subsection (1), but I really reached the opposite conclusion as a result of looking at these words. It seems to me that almost certainly directing the Board "to take
1540
into consideration any work" et cetera must involve a complex of issues, a complex of matters. Almost certainly, therefore, "matters" is the right and complete word to cover the situation. I do not think that the Amendment is a necessary one; it does not seem to me in any way to affect the meaning of the Bill as drafted, because surely the plural includes the singular.
In relation to the noble Lord's last point, that the Board might report on matters which were not referred to it, surely that is covered if one reads on, the rest of line 10,
"… on the matters they were directed by him to consider".
I listened with interest to what the noble Lord said, but I am afraid he did not convince me that this Amendment would in any way change the sense of the sub-section. Therefore, I am afraid I am not in a position to recommend the House to accept the Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are really on a very narrow point here, because the noble Lord has said almost all cases. I was merely dealing with the case where one matter is referred to the Board. He says that is covered in the word "matters", but not in that particular case. I cannot say that I agree with him, but 1 do not think it is a sufficiently important matter to divide on. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.4 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 13, line 15, after ("making") insert (", and their estimate of any additional cost likely to be incurred or saving likely to be made as a result of implementing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment does not call for any great expertise or accountancy. What it does is to call for an estimate of the additional cost, or the saving, likely to be the result of implementing a recommendation of the Board to classify or to declassify work in premises in a Dock Labour Scheme area. The work in question might be work of a particular type in particular premises or it might be work of a specific type in several premises throughout the particular Dock Labour Scheme area. The calcu-

1541
lation in either case should not he difficult. We are on very much the same point as we were on before. It will depend wholly or mainly on changes in manning that would be involved, changes in rates of remuneration, contribution to levy, and so on. It might he necessary also to take into account records of absenteeism, industrial action in the area and at the premises, the cost of training and retraining, and similar factors. They are all manpower issues. The main point is that productivity should always be a consideration present in the mind of the Board when making recommendations in cases of this sort. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think it would be helpful in considering this Amendment to take a brief look at the purpose of the clause as a whole, as a background to consideration of the wording the noble Lord has moved. Clause 9, of course, enables the Secretary of State to refer classification questions to the Board. While the Board will have the major responsibility for deciding whether the current classifications of dock work are satisfactory (that is under Clause 2) and whether to recommend (under Clauses 7 and 8) classification for particular work, questions of Government policy may arise which would warrant an initiative from the Secretary of State. In these circumstances the Board has an important advisory role.
The effect of this clause and of Clause 11 is that the Secretary of State cannot proceed to make an order classifying or declassifying work without the Board having first considered the question. The procedures which the Secretary of State must follow are that he must first consult with the TUC and CBI before deciding to give the Board a direction. Then the procedures, when he has given the Board a direction, are broadly similar to the procedures required under Clause 4(1) for the preparation of a draft scheme; that is, he must publish notice of the fact that he has given a direction, inform persons interested where they can obtain a copy of it and give at least 60 days in which representations can be made to the Board.
The point in relation to this Amendment is that the procedure is deliberately much simpler and more direct than that which the Board is required to follow under Clause 8 and Schedule 4 when it is determining
1542
whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that specified classifiable work at premises in the cargo handling zone should be classified. Therefore, we do not think it appropriateunder this clause to require the Board specifically to examine any of the prima facie and other grounds which the Board is required to take into account under Clause 8(4) and (5) or indeed any other specific matter. We do not think it is right to single out costs, as the noble Lord would propose, any more than, for example, industrial relations questions or any other considerations.
Moreover, I would ask the noble Lord to consider that the Board is required to give reasons for not making or for making any recommendation, and the Secretary of State has to publish the report and the action he proposes to take on it. Therefore, I would suggest that there will be full public scrutiny of both the report and the action that the Secretary of State proposes. For these reasons, particularly that the procedure has been deliberately kept simpler and we want to keep it that way, I hope the noble Lord will not wish to press his Amendment.
8.20 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, it seems as though the Government are particularly keen to keep out this question of costs and efficiency. We ended on that note on Tuesday. I should have thought it rather necessary that this particular facet of the workings of the results of any recommendation should be something that the Government would be the first to encourage. It does not seem quite right to say that the Board will make a report and the Secretary of State will make it public, because the question of the effect of costs and savings will not be obvious to the public. The public is not in a position to judge whether this is a fact or not. They will have views. They may make protests. They may do all sorts of things, but the Board, if it performs its functions properly, is in a particularly strong position to do that.
There are other factors like industrial relations, and indeed they have a bearing on costs and savings, and it might be that it would improve this particular subsection to include those, too. At least this is taking us some of the way down the line. In this day and age, when costs and

1543
savings are so important, when the National Economic Development Organisation is setting up special groups of people to study how there can be savings, how investment can be better directed, it is the theme of the day, it is reasonable for an Amendment such as that of my noble friend to be treated as of paramount importance. It is something that I should have thought the Government, rather than saying, "No, we don't like your Amendment because we think it is taken care of in other ways", would have said to themselves, "Let us have this direction to the Board; and if we think that we also want them to take into account possible industrial relations consequences of a recommendation", which indeed I think would be a very important added thing, "we will take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has had to say, and at the next stage we will add industrial relations to it, because these are things that the Board must consider".
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his full explanation on this particular matter. He pointed out that this is rather a different kind of case altogether. The whole clause deals with something that the Secretary of State himself has been brooding on, and wondering what to do about, and he then refers this to the Board and says, "What do you think about it?" That is the essence of it. In the course of thinking about it, I would have thought that it would be natural for the Board to consider the question of cost. The noble Lord will have certainly appreciated by now that something which is worrying us very much indeed is that the Board is in danger of making its recommendations without reference to cost. Therefore, every possible indication that it should be cost conscious should be put into the Bill. This is our view.
I do not think I can say more about that, except to say that, as the noble Lord said, it is not a question of recommendations being appealed against and representations being made by other parties to the Secretary of State; so that even the Secretary of State may not be adequately considering the cost factor in this case. I should have thought he would have looked to the Board to give him advice on this aspect. I need not
1544
say any more about this. The noble Lord, I am sure, will consider this. If he agrees with us, he might put down an Amendment in an appropriate form; as my noble friend Lord Mottistone says, possibly with the addition of other matters that they ought especially to consider. I shall not say any more. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.25 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Appeals concerning 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 should be classified as dock work which falls within Part I of Schedule 3 and not within Part II of the Schedule or claims that any work should not be classified or should cease to be classified on the grounds that it falls within Part II of Schedule 3 and not within Part I of that Schedule.
(2) Any such 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 details 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) If the dispute or claim is not resolved, withdrawn or otherwise settled the Secretary of State may refer the dispute for decision to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service or to an Industrial Tribunal.
(4) No report or recommendation by the Board and no order made by the Secretary of State relating to such a dispute or claim shall be made while the dispute or claim stand referred to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service or to an Industrial Tribunal.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54, and to apologise to the House that I did not realise that the two manuscript Amendments that I had to move on Tuesday would not by now have been incorporated in the main Amendment. As they have not been, I think what we have to do next is to get those two Amendments to the

1545
Amendment into Amendment No. 54, and then I will speak to the amended Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments Nos. 54A and 54B as Amendments to Amendment No. 54:
Line 6, after ("dock") insert ("work")
Line 9, at end insert (", he may give notice to the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54A, and think it would be for the convenience of the House if I also moved Amendment No. 54B, as I do not think there will be anything to be said about that, and then we can get on with the amended Amendment. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 54A and 54B.
On Question, Amendments to Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54, as amended. I should like to start by outlining this Amendment because it appears in a different form from that which we discussed at Committee in column 1141 of Hansard. I have modified it in a number of respects in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said then. The first point where it differs is that in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, the fourth line of the Amendment reads:
"… whether any work should be classified as dock work",
and that is the important distinction. Subsection (1) then goes on to include not only disputes and issues as to whether work should be classified but also as to whether work should cease to be classified.
The other change is in subsection (3) where, apart from a slight alteration in the general wording of the first line, we are not laying an obligation on the Secretary of State to refer the dispute but just giving him the power to do so at his discretion if he wishes. The further change in subsection (3) is that we are offering as an alternative a reference to the Industrial Tribunal as an alternative to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Subsection (4) has been modified so that the delay in the processes of implementing Clauses 7, 8 and 9 do not have to be held up until the matter is resolved but only while the matter stands referred. That is
1546
to say, it can be withdrawn. The reference can be withdrawn, though not resolved, in order that the process can go forward. I hope that those explanations are sufficient to show the extent to which we have tried to respond to the points made by the noble Lord opposite. Before going into the precise way in which we think this will be helpful, I should like to make a rather broader point.
Many of us are now getting calls and are being approached by groups of workers, union officials, shop stewards and members of unions about the Bill because they are now coming to realise more clearly than they did when the Bill was in another place in May just how serious and real are the threats to their jobs and livelihoods. Another reason why this is happening is that some of them also realise that unless somebody in your Lordships' House—it is curious that they have chosen some Peers on this side as well as some noble Lords opposite—tables an Amendment on their behalf there will be nothing more that the other House can do to defend their interests.
We are now at the stage in the progress of the Bill when the Commons, however vigorously they are approached on either side, cannot themselves make any more Amendments; all that is left for them is to consider Amendments made by your Lordships. My main reason for wanting to see this and a number of other Amendments to Schedule 3 in the Bill by the time we finish tonight is in order that the Commons will thereby be enabled to reconsider what we have done and take account of representations which I am sure will be made to them as they are now being made to us. That is by way of a preliminary to the Amendment and some of the others that follow.
When we discussed this Amendment in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wigoder, properly asked us to distinguish between issues which had to be decided by the courts, among which were questions of interpretation as to the meaning of the words in Schedule 3(1) and (2) where it is set out what work is classifiable and what work is excluded from classification. That, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—he made the point strongly and his remarks are to be found at column 1135—is a matter for the courts. There is

1547
another matter for the courts, and that is whether at any point the Secretary of State or the Board exceed their powers, and Lord Jacques was right in stresssing that that is a matter for the courts, too.
Having said that, I want to make it clear that there are various stages which will arise or be anticipated in the course of implementing Clauses 7, 8 and 9 where action is taken by the local board, the National Board and the Secretary of State who, in various ways, will have to come to a judgment about what work included in Schedule 3(1) as being classifiable will in fact be classified. That is a matter of policy under the processes provided by the Bill, and as those decisions become known—and of course they can become known at all sorts of preliminary points—the parties involved will find themselves getting into dispute and argument over what the implications will be for them. The first thing we need to provide for is that they can at some point, and the earlier the better, appeal to the Secretary of State in the matter and give him the opportunity to draw in whatever conciliation machinery seems to him to be appropriate.
There are all sorts of ways in which the disputes and issues will be anticipated as details about the proposed scheme or operation of Clauses 7, 8 and 9 become known, and several of these were mentioned in Committee. Some noble Lords opposite rightly made the point that disputes between workers may be resolved by a single union, and the T&GWU is a case in point, where dockers and lorry drivers may find themselves in dispute when it is known that work is to be handled in a particular way. I accept that, and that union will be well placed to do that. Other noble Lords made the point that the TUC would be able to solve interunion disputes, and so they would and one would want to see that happening. But I think noble Lords will agree that there will be other disputes which will involve not only unions but also employers, and when that happens it is not appropriate for the TUC to be the arbitrating and conciliating agent because employers are not members of the TUC. That is a case where it would be useful for the Secretary of State to be able, though not obliged, to refer a dispute or claim to either of the two bodies set out in subsection (3).
1548
In addition to all this, we have provided at various specific stages the opportunity for a public inquiry if a representation is made and the matter cannot be resolved. That will play its part as well. I hope noble Lords will agree that it is desirable to make available in the most serviceable manner all the machinery that can play a part in the operation of the Bill in an area of work which is, alas, notable for the strife and contention that goes on. I am particularly anxious to hear what noble Lords have to say about sub-section (3), because we have incorporated in it a reference to two bodies each of which was mentioned as being suitable to play a part in the original Consultation Document.
At paragraph 14 of that Document we read:
"The interpretation by the courts of some of the provisions in the present legislation which are concerned with defining the scope of statutory control has had the effect of limiting what was generally understood to be the Scheme's application and thus has narrowed the employment opportunities for registered dock workers. This has proved harmful for industrial relations. The courts have inevitably become involved in these questions because of the present arrangements for determining disputes about the application of the Scheme. Industrial tribunals are required in the first instance to settle whether the work carried out by a particular employer is or is not dock work against statutory definitions."
We entirely agree with that, but for that to be implemented the industrial tribunals need in our view to be mentioned on the face of the Bill, and that is why we have put it in.
Further on in the Document we read:
"in the event of any question arising about 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 the ACAS".
There it is in the Consultation Document and we think it should be in the Bill, and that is why we have put that in. We have done our best to stick to our original intention but at the same time incorporate all the points that noble Lords made in Committee, and we have been greatly helped by the observations of Lord Wigoder.
Viscount SIMON: We should like from these Benches to support the proposed new clause, but before we come to a decision I am wondering whether the Committee would permit me to ask two

1549
questions, one of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the other of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I regret that I was not able to be present in Committee when this matter was discussed. The question I wanted to put to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was this. We know, as I am sure noble Lords opposite know, that some complaints have been made and fears expressed by employees who do not quite see whether they are going to have their jobs safely secured if certain work is classified—employees who are themselves members of the same trade union as embraces the great majority of the registered dock workers.
If the only body that can serve a notice on the Secretary of State is a trade union recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining I am not sure that these people will be quite happy, because I suppose that, strictly speaking, what a trade union does is done by the executive committee or by the general secretary in the name of the executive committee. If these members of the union themselves feel that they are being hard done by—they may be right or may be wrong and I am not arguing that point—it will not do them much good to say, "Your trade union can make representations". They could say, "We asked our trade union to make representations when the Bill was first being discussed and they refused to do so". I wonder, therefore, whether the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, could tell us whether consideration has been given to widening slightly that particular phrase.
The question that I wanted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is a different one and is perhaps rather wider. I believe that it arises on the present clause, and certainly it arises on some of the clauses in this part of the Bill. It is a matter that was raised very briefly on some other Amendment and it is this. I am not clear whether a port employer is entitled to employ a registered dock worker on work that is not classified. We divide the work into classified and unclassified and we know that non-registered workers can be employed on unclassified work and, equally, that they cannot be employed on classified work. I think that this point was raised in the discussions that we had about driving a motor car or a van, and the question I want to ask is, is there anything in the Bill or in the Scheme in embryo that does not allow an employer to employ a registered
1550
dock worker on work that is not classified? Subject to those two questions—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would answer me when he is replying to the Amendment, and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has to say—I would support the Amendment.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is an important question and I think I should go very slowly so that I may be easily followed. The intention of the Amendment as it stands is not absolutely clear, but it suggests a right of appeal on the question of whether work falls within Part I of Schedule 3 and outside Part IT. I shall therefore deal with that first, since that is clear. As was said in Committee, the Government's view is that questions as to whether or not work is properly classifiable are questions that are rarely likely to arise in practice. If work is a border line case where there is doubt whether it is properly classifiable, it is unlikely that the Board would consider it for classification, and it is still less likely that the Secretary of State would wish to classify it. Quite clearly, the vires of his order would be the subject of attack.
It seems likely that any such cases would arise not in relation to the facts (it will normally be clear enough what the work is) but in relation to the interpretation to be placed on the words of Schedule 3, and this is a question of law. ACAS is not a suitable body to determine such a question, any more than is the central arbitration committee as was proposed at the Committee stage. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to the proceedings in Committee where I explained fully how the Government under the Consultative Document had had consultations and, as a result of those consultations, had had no hesitation in saying that the central arbitration committee was not a suitable body to which to refer a question of law.
The work of industrial tribunals involves them in determining cases in which there is dispute both as to the facts and as to the law. On balance, it is not considered that they would be appropriate bodies for determining pure questions of statutory interpretation. Industrial tribunals at present have jurisdiction to determine disputes as to what

1551
is dock work for the purposes of the 1967 Scheme, but they are operating in a situation in which the procedures that will be provided by the Bill for establishing the facts are not available to them. Decisions of industrial tribunals about dock work have also ended up in the courts on a number of occasions. Since 1967, six of the 20 cases heard by the industrial tribunals have subsequently gone to the courts.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He said that this was a matter of fact and not of law, but it is not either. The clause makes it clear that the work is classifiable but the dispute is about whether it should be classified. That is a matter of judgment, not of law or fact.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I made it very clear that the intention of the Amendment was not absolutely clear, though I said that it was absolutely clear that it intended a right of appeal as to whether to work came within Part I but was outside Part II. I said that I would deal with that point first. In due course I shall deal with the question of judgment to which the noble Baroness has referred.
On balance, therefore, the Government are convinced that it is better to leave any person wishing to challenge the views of the Board or the Secretary of State on the question of whether work is classifiable to take the matter to the courts in the ordinary way. The Amendment as drafted says in subsection (3) that if a dispute or claim is not resolved, withdrawn or otherwise settled, the Secretary of State may refer the dispute. I emphasise that the word is "may". This means that if the Secretary of State decides to take no action, he and the Board may proceed. If it is the intention of the Amendment to enable the Secretary of State to seek such advice when he feels he needs it, noble Lords can be assured that no Secretary of State of whichever Party happened to be in office would seek to get an interpretation of a matter of pure law from ACAS or an industrial tribunal.
I come now to what I consider is a doubtful intention of the Amendment. It is not so clear as the point of law. The first part of the revised wording could be interpreted as meaning that disputes
1552
on matters of judgment or policy as to whether or not work which falls within the classifiable categories should in all the circumstances be classified ought to be subject to this procedure. The Bill already provides elaborate procedures, including under Clause 8 two opportunities for representations to the Board and a further opportunity for representations to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may, if he thinks appropriate, in consequence of representations made to him or otherwise, refer questions to ACAS for its opinion and advice. Thus the Bill already provides for ACAS to be consulted about industrial relations questions about which they are competent to give advice. Neither they nor an industrial tribunal are proper bodies to decide questions of policy such as whether the scheme should be applied to particular kinds of work. In the last analysis, that is the burden of the Secretary of State.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I think we have narrowed very considerably such divergences as there were between us. First, I wish to respond to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. We considered whether it would be possible to put in any safeguard here for individual members or groups of members within a single trade union. There is a controversy, and there has been for a long time, between the lorry drivers who have business in the docks and the dockers who work there, both groups being members of the Transport and General Workers Union. On balance I felt that, not myself being a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, I did not want to attempt to assess, let alone criticise, the ability of that union to resolve disputes between the many groups that make up its membership. My feeling was that by putting this Amendment into the Bill and inviting the other place to look at it, several people there who are much more closely associated with the union could brine their much wider experience to bear upon the issue. But our job to enable them to do that is to get the Amendment into the Bill, and this is what in a moment I will be asking the House to do, and especially for that reason. If they choose to modify it in order to give groups within unions, or even individual members of unions, the right to trigger off this appeal mechanism,

1553
I should be happy, and it would certainly meet some of the points that are being made to us by such groups at the moment.
As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, I am absolutely in agreement with him that on a very large number of points there are issues here which only the courts can decide, particularly the interpretation of what is classifiable within the terms of the Bill and what is excluded from classification; likewise with the vires of the Secretary of State. But I do not agree that the procedures set out in Clauses 7, 8 and 9 provide all that ought to be provided for those whose interests are affected by the implementation of Clauses 7, 8 and 9. It would be up to the Secretary of State to decide whether the dispute or the issue to which his attention is drawn by that notice is appropriate for one or other of those bodies, and if, as may well be the case, it is not appropriate, he will not refer it.
I am sure that there will be cases where disputes arise as a result of knowledge of what is to be proposed, or reported or recommended, and it would be a very good thing if the parties to those disputes could draw the attention of the Secretary of State to them at an early stage, and he could have the opportunity to decide whether to refer them to ACAS or to the industrial tribunal. This has been a useful debate, and the important thing now is that, having taken account of everything the noble Lord has said, I should move the Amendment into the Bill so that it can be among those proposals to be considered by another place.
8.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 54), as amended, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Hacking, L.

Rochdale, V.

Ampthill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Auckland, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Just, L.

Balerno, L.

Hereford, V.

Sandford, L.

Barrington, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Seear, B.

Berkeley, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Simon, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Swansea, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Vickers, B.

Elles, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B

Faithfull, B.

Pender, L.

Westbury, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gray, L.

Redesdale, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslary, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Parry, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

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

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peddie, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment, as amended, agreed to accordingly.

Clause 10 [Registration after work is classified]:
9.3 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 13, line 43, after ("work") insert ("(whether or not they were actually doing it) immediately").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a discussion on this at Committee stage, and the noble Lord replied to me that merely to put in the word, "immediately" would not cover workers who, as he said,
"… for some reason or other could not he said to have been employed to do it—"
"it "being the work in question—
"immediately prior to classification.".—[Official Report, 19/10/76; col. 1144.]
He went on to say:
"There might be workers who have been taken off their work to do some other work for a few days, or even for a few hours";
and he went on to say—and I do not quote him now—or who were sick immediately prior to classification.
This Amendment is designed to take into account precisely those considerations, so that the subsection would read: The Board:
… shall include in their recommendation or report proposals, for the event that any work which they have recommended for classification or (as the case may be) they have considered on the reference, should be classified, as to the safeguards which should be provided for the existing workforce, that is to say those persons who will have been employed to do that work (whether or not they were actually doing it) immediately prior to its classification".
This, I think, would entirely meet the point that the noble Lord was making but would not leave any scope for safeguards in the case of people who had already left the service, or something of that kind. In other words, it tightens up the drafting. The noble Lord may still feel that he wants more latitude, but in that case I think he will have to say why. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there are two issues on which I want to comment: first of all, the technicalities of the Amendment; and, secondly, why we resist the Amendment. The addition of the words "(whether or not they were actually doing it)"does not, in our opinion, alter the position at all. Since orders normally
1556
come into force at midnight, it is likely that in many cases no one would actually be doing the work at the point of classification. The words do not resolve the problem at issue, because the doubt would not be whether the workers in question were actually engaged on the work at the point when the order came into force but whether they could properly he said to be employed to do it at that time. To gain the objective of the noble Lord, he would have to have those words instead of those that he has.
However, we are opposed to the Amendment on grounds more substantial than mere technicalities. The difficulty would be most obvious in a situation where some of the labour force were engaged on work which was not covered by the order, but where there was no difference between their terms of employment and those of others engaged on work which was covered. Notwithstanding the general intention to avoid so far as possible classifying part of the work of an integrated labour force; this may be desirable in some cases; particularly, for example, where the great majority were engaged on classifiable work. In such cases it might be hard to say whether some workers were employed specifically to do the work being classified, or were employed to do work of a kind which included the work to be classified. This sort of problem suggests that flexibility is needed to deal sensibly with particular situations, and that is what the present wording provides.
Furthermore, a check on whether or not the Board has taken all the circumstances of a particular case into account is provided by Clause 11(5) which allows the Secretary of State, when putting the Board's proposals under Clause 10 into effect, to do so with such modifications as he may think fit. We hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I hope he recognises that what one is concerned about—and I certainly am—in this case is to get the conditions as crystal clear as possible: otherwise there is a great danger of industrial dispute on that point. I should have thought that his claim for latitude is a claim for lack of clarity; and this can give rise to industrial disputes. This was

1557
the point of my Amendment. If the noble Lord is satisfied on that, then I must say he has to take the responsibility for it and I shall not press this further; but 1 think that in cases like this there is a need for the utmost clarity and the least possible latitude. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.10 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 14, line 10, leave out ("(not to be more than 2 years)") and insert ("(which shall be a minumum of 2 years)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 56. This is no more than consequential upon Amendments Nos.21 and 21B which we made yesterday following a debate and a Division. I think it needs to be made here in order to make it conform with Amendment No. 21B.
Lord JACQUES: I think I must remind the noble Lord that Amendment No. 21 was amended by Amendment No. 21B. In consequence, this Amendment is ill conflict with that revised Amendment. Under the new clause as it now stands, workers will be entitled to a transfer (if they satisfy the conditions specified) from the extension to the main register after two years' service on the work which was classified. In many cases, this could be as soon as their names are entered on the extension register.
Lord SANDFORD: I do not think I agree with the noble Lord but I shall read carefully what he has said. Amendment No. 21B which we made to Amendment No. 21 was not addressed to this business of a minimum of two years. That was already there. It was to make it clear that the period of time in which the worker had been engaged on this particular piece of work would count towards his time on the extension register before being transferred to the main register. In so far as the whole intention of Amendment No. 56 is to bring sub-section (4) into line with what we have done on Amendment No. 21, I should prefer to have it in the Bill now. If, after reading the noble Lord's words, I find we have not done what we intended to do (which was merely to secure conformity)
1558
I shall certainly undertake to put down another Amendment—as this is our Amendment now—at the Third Reading to do what the noble Lord thinks should be done. I hope that we have got it right. I should like to recommend that the House should accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Classification orders]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 56A:
Page 14, line 13, after ("section") insert ("and of Schedule 3 to this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 56A. Its purpose, again quite a modest one, is to ensure that the Secretary of State when he is preparing orders under Clause 11 should have regard to Schedule 3 in just the same way as everybody else involved in the operation of Clauses 7, 8 and 9 also has to have regard to Schedule 3 as to which work can be classified and which work is to be excluded from classification.
The Secretary of State is not obliged to conform precisely to the recommendations in the reports that are made to him and which have taken Schedule 3 into account. We think he should therefore have regard to it when he makes the classification orders which are based on the processes in those preceding clauses. It may be that we have done more than we intended to do, in which case no doubt the noble Lord will tell us, but in the hope that we have made only this modest safeguard, I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I must advise the House that this Amendment is not nearly so modest as the noble Lord thinks. I accept that he put it forward in good faith intending only a modest change, but I should explain why, in the Government's view, it goes much too far.
This Amendment can only have the effect of making Schedule 3 apply to orders resulting from the procedures laid down in Clause 6; that is, to orders which preserve as dock work under the new Scheme work which was dock work under the 1967 Scheme or was so treated under that Scheme by custom and practice.

1559
That must be the case because recommendations under Clauses 7, 8 and 9 can be made only in respect of work that is within Part I of Schedule 3 and not within Part 11. In other words, the Amendment is completely redundant in respect of recommendations under Clauses 7, 8 and 9 for they are already linked with Schedule 3.
That being the case, we must look at the effect of the Amendment on Clause 6 orders. If the Amendment was passed then it would mean that at a stroke of the legislative pen some work which has been subject to the Scheme and performed by registered dock workers since 1947 will be excluded. The Government think that that is quite wrong. If there is a case for excluding work from the Scheme, the particular local circumstances should be carefully examined. That can he done under the declassification procedures in Clause 9. To do otherwise would be very serious indeed for industrial relations in the industry.
In our view, it is important that all work which is at present dock work or is so treated by custom and practice, should be classifiable under the new Scheme even if it is of a kind which would not he classifiable under Clauses 7, 8 or 9. At earlier stages the Government made it clear that we believe that work which is covered by the present Scheme will continue to be covered by the new Scheme. I believe that noble Lords opposite accept that proposition. I advise the House, therefore, that this Amendment would do severe damage to that proposition which unites the two sides of the House.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, accepting that, as the noble Lord says, there is work which is at present being done by dock workers which is not classify able as dock work, will he say that that sort of work which is, as I say, being done by dock workers at the moment and is not classifiable as dock work under Schedule 3, will not be a precedent for extending and classifying as dock work other work which comes outside Schedule 3? I think I am right in saying that it will not be a precedent, but I should like to know for certain that that is so.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, certainly, as I understand the noble Lord's point, that is the position. If in any way I am inaccurate
1560
in that I will let the noble Lord know so that at a later stage we can consider it again, but I think he has a valid point.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would, with the leave of the House, do one more thing before I withdraw this Amendment; that is, to confirm that if we do not have any reference to Schedule 3 in Clause 11, the Secretary of State nevertheless will be bound by it in giving effect to recommendations from the Board under Clauses 7, 8 and 9. The Board are bound by it in formulating their proposals under Clauses 7, 8 and 9. The Secretary of State does not seem to be bound by it. But if the noble Lord can assure me that he is bound as much as the Board, the purpose of my Amendment is safeguarded.
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords: I think I can give the noble Lord that assurance specifically in relation to Clause 9(6). The noble Lord will see that it states:
"… the Secretary of State may at any time refer to the Board for their advice any question",
and so on. That gives the Secretary of State considerable flexibility in relation to Clause 9; and I believe I am right in saying that he would not be bound under the two earlier clauses.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that is not really what I wanted. The Board and everybody else involved in the operation of Clauses 7, 8 and 9 are obliged to have regard to Schedule 3 in the proposals that they are making. The Secretary of State does not have to do so. He makes up his mind about classification orders on the basis of the reports that he receives, but he is not obliged precisely to reflect the recommendations that are made to him. He can issue orders based upon those reports, but differing in some respects from them. What 1 want to know—and I think the House ought to have this clear before we move on—is whether, in any of those departures or variations which the Secretary of State makes from the variations that are put to him he is bound by Schedule 3 when he is dealing with matters that come to him under Clauses 7, 8 and 9.
I fully accept what the noble Lord said, and if we have inadvertently embraced matter to which Clause 6 relates—

1561
that is to say, work that is already dock work in 1967 Scheme ports—then we are going too far. I had not intended to do that. But I still want to be reassured about the extent to which the Secretary of State is bound in finally coming to his decisions on the classification orders.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I hope that I have taken the noble Lord's point correctly. He will find the answer in Clause 5(4) which states:
"… the work that may be classified is any which (b) is within Part I of Schedule 3 to this Act and not within Part II of that Schedule."
I wonder whether that comes nearer to the answer which the noble Lord wants.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, it goes some way, because that is the clause under which the Secretary of State has to act when he is preparing a scheme. But what we are all interested in is to what extent the Secretary of State is bound by Schedule 3 when he prepares his classification orders. But I am aware that we are not in Committee and are on Report, and perhaps we ought not to bob up and down any more. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment, but I am not absolutely satisfied and we may have to return to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.24 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 14, line 34, at end insert ("after the provisions of Schedule 5 to this Act have been complied with").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 57, and will at the same time speak to No. 57E. These are no more than consequential Amendments to the main Amendment which we moved into the Bill relating to inquiries, the main substance of which is now included in Schedule 5. But if we have Schedule 5, these two subsections must be linked in the way that is achieved by these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 57E:
Page 14, line 41, after ("State") insert ("after the provisions of Schedule 5 to this Act have been complied with.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Effect of introducing the new Scheme]:
9.25 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 57F:
Page 15, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if noble Lords cast their minds back to the Committee stage, they will remember that we on this side of the House were not happy with what the Government had to say about why they are proposing to abandon the licensing scheme—the licensing of port employers and the registration of port employers respectively—and to remove it from the 1966 Act. As drafted, the present Bill will have the effect of scrapping the present system of licensing port employers as the new Scheme is applied to areas at present covered by the licensing system. Both the port employers, who are subject to the present licensing scheme, and the port authorities, who are themselves the licensing bodies, wish the system, a system which was introduced by a Labour Government in a 1966 Act, to be retained.
As an aide memoire, may I run very quickly over what this licensing aimed to achieve. The licensing system was introduced by the Docks and Harbours Act 1966 and is administered by the statutory port authorities. The Act lays down the criteria which must be satisfied by a port employer who wishes to obtain a licence. In particular, he must satisfy the licensing authority of two things: first, that he efficiently manages his business, or is likely to do so, and in particular that he makes efficient use of the services of his dock workers—for instance, by providing the necessary and proper equipment—or that he is likely so to do; and, secondly, that he is willing and able to provide permanent employment to dock workers employed by him and to do so at rates of pay and on conditions of service which are applicable under the national or local agreements in the port transport industry.
In addition to these two criteria, the licensing authority has the power to limit the number of employers of dock workers in a port to that maximum number which it considers to be compatible with the efficient and profitable working of the port. By comparison, there are non-qualifying criteria applicable to registration. If a

1563
business wants to carry out dock work it must obtain registration and employ registered dockers, not casual labour. But registration in these circumstances is granted automatically. A consequence of this before September, 1967, when the licensing system was introduced, was that there were many intermittent or casual employers. The number fell from 1,500 to 500 as a result of the introduction of permanent employment and, as noble Lords opposite and their honourable and right honourable friends intended, this went all the way towards preventing casual labour. At the Committee stage the Government, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that because we on this side accept that the licensing of employers need not be extended to companies outside the proposed Dock Labour Scheme it should not be necessary within the Scheme—in short, that it should not be necessary at all—and that this is why they are leaving it out of the Bill.
We argue that the present Bill ensures that although we are going to have a new Scheme we do not know what it is to contain. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, made that point at an earlier stage. We want dock employers to know exactly where they stand, particularly in regard to any statutory responsibilities they may have to dock workers who lose their jobs through circumstances quite outside the control of any individual employer or group of employers. I am thinking of the kind of situation that might arise as a result of the aim of this Bill to create permanent employment. We know that the 1966 Act was concerned with decasualisation of dock labour. It was also made in the climate of the Devlin Report; it tried to increase the efficient performance of management functions as well as protect the rights of service functions of workers themselves.
So it seems to us it is no good the Government's saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said in Committee, that licensing of employers served a useful purpose but is now no longer needed. It may no longer be needed in respect of provisions designed to prevent casual labour from being employed, but we contend that it certainly is needed in respect of permanent labour being taken on by an employer who then, let us say, ceases
1564
trading and other employers find that they are then statutorily required to employ a work force surplus to their ability to trade efficiently. We contend that the retention of the licensing scheme would make this much less likely to happen and we feel strongly that it should so be retained. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the licensing provisions in the 1966 Act served a useful purpose in the context of decasualisation, but the Government believe that they are no longer necessary. The number of registered dock employers has fallen from 1,300 in 1966 to 289 in 1976. Their number is likely to continue to fall. There is no reason to think that with permanent employment the problems which arose in the Scheme ports before 1967 are likely to recur or that any problems that might arise could not be dealt with by means of the protection under the Scheme. It is no part of the purpose of legislation relating to the employment of dock workers to seek to assess the ability of employers to carry out the task they purport to undertake.
It has been accepted by the Opposition in the other place that there was no need to introduce licensing, either at ports not covered by the 1967 Scheme or for employers doing cargo handling outside the dock area. It is the contention of the Government that if licensing is not required in non-Scheme ports which may become part of the Scheme then evidence must be produced to show why it is necessary only in the Scheme ports. No such evidence has been produced to us.
In point of fact it could be argued that licensing should be discontinued in the Scheme ports, having served its purpose; but since there is some decasualisation in the non-Scheme ports licensing is necessary there until we have got over the problem of decasualisation. In other words, there is a case for doing absolutely the opposite to what the Opposition are now seeking. We contend, and we have said, that licensing is no longer needed for its original purpose and it should not be retained for a purpose which is foreign to this legislation.
In Committee concern was expressed by the Opposition and was also expressed to the Government by the National

1565
Association of Port Employers that without licensing it would be possible for employers to set up for a short time as stevedores with a minimum of equipment when trade was brisk, make a quick profit and then go out of business, leaving their registered dock workers to be absorbed by the major employers in the ports. It seems most unlikely that given the highly mechanised handling now in use and the much higher labour cost of employing a permanent labour force, employers with limited resources would seriously consider the sort of "in and out" operation that appears to be feared. In the very unlikely event of this happening, the local dock labour board would be able to control the situation to a large extent by not engaging any additional men, and only allocating to that employer existing registered workers who could be spared by their present employers.
If the amount of trade for what was thought likely to be a short period was such that more workers were needed than were currently available from the register, supplementary workers might be employed. But similar arrangements would have to be made, in any case, if one of the major employers undertook the extra work instead of the man coming in with a view to going out shortly. In conclusion, without going into great detail, I would point out that even if this Amendment were carried, licensing of Scheme ports would still come to an end because no Amendments have been submitted to Clause 12(1)(b) or Clause 17(3)(a).
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, one of the difficulties we have had all through this Bill is that Mr. Jack Jones has not been ennobled, because had he been so, we could ask him why he is so against licensing. I still find the attitude of the Government on this entirely incomprehensible. Here is a perfectly good working set of arrangements—
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I find the reference to Mr. Jack Jones somewhat objectionable. This decision was not made by Mr. Jones, but by Her Majesty's Government. There are no good reasons for the assumptions the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has made.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I do not know what the Parliamentary
1566
language is for "Pull the other one but that is certainly what I feel about it. What I am trying to get at is this: here is a set of sensible provisions which employers feel gives them some protection in, I acknowledge, a hypothetical situation, but one which could perfectly well arise. The aim of our proceedings, I would have thought, is to try to look at hew an Act may work out in practice.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said at an earlier stage, the difficulty here is that we do not know what the Scheme is going to be, or how it will work out in practice. This is one of the difficulties we have had in this whole salad of a Bill, which is why I made my little reference. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, started off by providing the arguments that he provided on Committee, about the fact that we no longer need protections about casual labour. I acknowledged that in my speech, so he did not really need to answer that point. However, he has acknowledged as he did not acknowledge, I think, on Committee, that the port employers have expressed worries to the Government on this. The noble Lord said he has tried to allay their worries, but I have not heard that their worries are so allayed. However, if the noble Lord says in good faith that the Government have been in discussions with the employers, I am quite prepared to try to find out what the discussions were, and whether they feel the situation is more satisfactory now. In view of that, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.39 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 57B:
Page 15, line 18, at end insert—
("Provided that, where a harbour authority continues after the coming into operation of the order to maintain welfare amenities which in pursuance of a welfare amenity scheme it had provided or was maintaining immediately before the coming into operation thereof, the harbour authority shall be deemed for the purposes of section 28 of the 1966 Act to be maintaining the amenities in pursuance of a welfare amenity scheme.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to move Amendment No. 57B and speak to Amendment No. 57D at the same time. I hope that

1567
will meet with the approval of the Government. These two Amendments were raised in Committee by myself and my noble friends. We understood then that the Government believed some provision should indeed be made to assist the port authorities when they need to collect levies from the port employers where the employees of these port employers use various welfare amenities in or around the port.
My Lords, it may have been that the Government misinterpreted the purpose of my Amendment, but the reply which was given by them in retrospect seemed curiously inappropriate. Is it relevant to consider the Health and Safety at Work Regulations? These may be provisions which apply, but in essence they are protective, or I might call them defensive, seeing that certain rules have to be, and indeed are, obeyed. We are still of the opinion that the port authorities need the ability to raise funds from the port employers, and above all to manage these welfare amenities. I wonder whether noble Lords opposite would agree that the management and raising of funds is indeed the duty of the inspectors and the Health and Safety at Work regulations. We hope that the Government will recognise the difference between the replies which we were given in Committee. We feel that these replies did not give the full details that we were seeking. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in the debate which took place at the Committee stage, it was pointed out that the Government had only recently been made aware of the problems to which the Amendment was directed. It was also said that the Government were considering the matter. In the meantime, the Government are convinced that in principle it is more appropriate that the Health and Safety Commission should be responsible for welfare in the docks as in other industries. There is provision under the Health and Safety at Work Act to make regulations dealing with welfare amenities. Therefore, it would not be right to perpetuate, as the Amendment proposes, these provisions in the Docks and Harbour Act of 1966. However, it is accepted that there could possibly be a transitional problem with regard to the power of harbour authorities to
1568
continue to charge to cover the cost of providing and maintaining welfare amenities introduced under the existing welfare amenity schemes.
In the light of the discussions which we have subsequently held with those concerned, the best course for any transitional period would appear to he to continue the duties and powers of harbour authorities under Section 28 of the 1966 Act. We therefore propose to use for this purpose the transitional and saving provisions under Clause 12(1)(b) and Clause 17(3)(b) until suitable arrangements are made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we are particularly grateful for that reply from the noble Lord. At first I wondered whether we were going to he considering the same point as we were discussing in Committee, but the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has pointed out to us that the Government have considered these problems. They have had a little more time to deliberate and to consult the port employers and it would seem that the measures outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on behalf of the Government are going to achieve what we hoped the Amendment would achieve. We are very grateful for the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and with that I would seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 22, line 45, at end insert—
("10A.—(1) A person is not qualified to act as auditor of the Board unless he is a member of one of the following bodies—

(a) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales:

(b) the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;

(c) the Association of Certified Accountants;

(d) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;

(e) any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1948,

or is a person for the time being authorised under section 161(1)(b) of that Act as having similar qualifications obtained outside the United Kingdom.

1569
(2) A Scottish firm may act as auditor of the Board only if every partner of the firm is qualified so to act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall that on this subject noble Lords opposite pressed for an Amendment along these lines. We had a very vigorous debate which we have considered subsequently, and I have pleasure now in moving this Amendment.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am indeed most grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has proposed this Amendment. I am gratified that he thinks we had a vigorous discussion. I thought that it was very much on a technicality; I had hoped that it would be fairly non-contentious. We are most grateful that the noble Lord has seen fit to include this paragraph in the Schedule; it achieves exactly what we had hoped to achieve.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendments Nos 58E, 58F, 58B and 58G:
Page 24, line 25, leave out from ("of") to ("the") in line 26 and insert ("registers of dock workers and of employers of persons carrying out registered dock work").
Page 24, line 28, leave out ("dock employers") and insert ("employers of persons carrying out registered dock work").
Page 25, line 1, leave out ("dock employers") and insert ("employers of persons carrying out registered dock work").
Page 25, line 5, leave out ("dock employers") and insert ("employers of persons carrying out registered dock work").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are a series of Manuscript Amendments together with Amendment No. 58B on the Marshalled List. We believe these are drafting Amendments and hope that they will improve the wording of the Bill. With the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendment No. 58B and Manuscript Amendments Nos.58E, 58F and 58G.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we are still not convinced that these changes are essential to Schedule 2. Subsection (3) of Clause 5 defines what is meant by "dock work" for the purposes of the new Scheme, and the term "dock employers" must mean the employers of dock workers performing dock work. Therefore, we do not think there is any question of employers of workers performing work which is not
1570
classified being affected in any way by the provisions of the Scheme.
These Amendments are technically deficient because they refer to "registered" rather than "classified" work. But if the Opposition still feel that there is doubt, then if they will withdraw these Amendments, we will undertake to consider it further and to make it 200 per cent. beyond doubt by tabling any necessary Amendments to cover these drafting points at Third Reading.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, once again we are 200 per cent. grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that these doubts that we had in our minds will indeed be removed by swift Governmental action. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
9.49 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 58C:
Page 25, line 25, at end insert ("except for qualitative checking and recording where inspecting and/or measuring and/or weighing and/or sampling is involved.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 58C, we hope, is broadly similar to the one which I moved at Committee stage. I seem to remember that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, was then concerned, and indeed expressed at considerable length his worries about the use of the word "skilled". I hope he will see from my modified Amendment that this bone of contention has been surgically removed. The point that I raised on Committee, I believe, is still valid, in that these tests that I described are indeed carried out at the dockside or the quayside.
The noble Lord on Committee mentioned the Association of Commodity Cargo Superintendents, and, of course, we believe that this organisation is relevant in this particular case. However, there is a major difficulty in that much of the work indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, concerning oils and chemicals, is carried out by other employees belonging to different unions from the one mentioned by the noble Lord. My main purpose in moving this Amendment is to ensure that the work which is carried out by workers other than registered dock workers

1571
can continue to be so. We understand that the position in the existing Scheme ports is covered under, first of all, Clause 5(4)(a) and (b), then under Clause 6(2)(a), and thirdly under Clause 6(5)(a) and (b). We believe that the combination of all these special and particular safeguards as to what work should, or should not, be classified would seem to protect the work which is at present carried out, and agreed to be so, by registered dock workers. It seems that the problems of Clauses 7 and 8 are not relevant, in that the type of work described by the Amendment would not be covered by handling cargo, nor necessarily by loading and unloading. I hope that this revised Amendment meets the problems raised, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Oram. I beg to move.
9.52 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has explained, he is bringing this Amendment forward hoping to meet the point which I made about the difficulty over the word "skilled". I did indeed say that the main difficulty that I saw in accepting the Amendment which was then moved was over the interpretation of the word "skilled", and I recall that the discussion centred largely on that point. As the noble Lord explained, the present wording of his Amendment is designed to avoid the use of the word "skilled". I can see that the noble Lord has made still further efforts to get the right wording, but I am sorry to have to advise him that in our view this word "qualitative" gives rise to much the same sort of difficulty as the word "skilled". It could be very much a matter of judgment as to whether a particular task of inspecting, measuring, weighing or sampling could be said to be "qualitative" checking or recording.
But there is a further difficulty. It could well be argued that simply checking that goods had not been damaged or spoiled in unloading from a ship involved qualitative checking. Similarly in a warehouse, checking that cases or sacks had not been damaged might be considered as qualitative checking. It seems reasonable that work of this kind—which would certainly not be "skilled" work on any interpretation of the work—should be capable of being classified.
In general the Government remain convinced that to try to find a satisfactory
1572
dividing line to write into the Bill on work in the categories covered by this Amendment is a hopeless quest. I commend the noble Lord for his efforts in this quest, but I am sorry to have to say that in the Government's opinion, as I am advised, he has not succeeded. But I think I made the points in Committee that if such work is of a genuinely specialised character requiring special skills not possessed by registered dock workers, then it would not satisfy the prima fade grounds in Clause 8(5).
I referred to such work in our earlier debate. If it was of a kind as to require the same or similar skills as those of registered dock workers, then surely it is reasonable that it should be capable of classification. In practice, I suggest that work which is clearly in the first category is very unlikely ever to be given even preliminary consideration for classification. Therefore, although I see the objective of the noble Lord, I do not think there is the kind of difficulty he is seeking to meet.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to indicate the kind of jobs he has in mind. I have been unable to grasp what it is he is trying to protect from classification.
9.56 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, in answering thenoble Viscount's question I may be able to define what we see as "qualitative" and the meaning we ascribe to the word. At an earlier stage I spoke about the timber importing trade, which is particularly relevant in that registered docker checkers, tally clerks or other persons who would be involved in such work, as is described in the provision, would be able to carry out and are indeed carrying out certain aspects of the work to which I referred. However, there is an element of this work—I will give a simple example—where the length, size or similar set of planks or amount of timber must be sorted and graded for onward dispatch to different warehouses. For instance, ash or oak might have to be sent to different warehouses and put on different lorries. I do not know whether each registered docker checker or tally clerk would be able to do that. He might have a handbook on the subject, I suppose, and of course I have given only a simple example of the type of work we have in mind.

1573
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that I had tried again and failed yet again. Perhaps he does not appreciate that I come from north of the Border where we remember the story of Robert the Bruce. Unfortunately on this Bill we do not have that number of opportunities left to try and try again as the memorable spider tried until he climbed right up into the timber roof. I regarded the noble Lord's answer as unsatisfactory because he appeared to go into needless detail. The type of work he was describing—looking for damage to cargo or damage externally to containers, crates, or pallates or to the cargo itself is, I think, already covered in the provision. We do not dispute that. The type of work we have in mind is where it is of considerable assistance to the onward dispatch of goods and where it adds to the efficiency of the cargo handling to have somebody doing the work who has specialised knowledge. Noble Lords will see that I deliberately did not use the word "skill" in that reference; I referred to "specialised knowledge", and he may have acquired that knowledge over many years.
Indeed, we do not think that dockers would aspire to have these particular skills. We were also not convinced when the noble Lord pointed out that these special skills would be covered under Clause 8(4) because we believe that that provision would match up to paragraph 4 of this Schedule. In fact, I wonder whether the noble Lord would confirm that he was referring to Clause 8(5) because I think it is there that the question of training, aptitudes and experience similar to those of dockers appears. I think that both on Report and at an earlier stage of our proceedings the noble Lord referred to subsection (4). I believe that it is subsection (5) that he means.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I thought had said subsection (5).
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I understood subsection (4) and, certainly, in the Official Report, when T was moving this Amendment at an earlier stage, it was printed as (4). However, we can let this pass and agree that it is subsection (5). We do not believe that the safeguards in subsection (5) give sufficient protection to these specialised techniques and the special knowledged required. I am afraid we have not been convinced by the noble Lord's reply. It seemed curiously defensive and did not meet my rather detailed question satisfactorily.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again. I should like to say that I found what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said not entirely convincing. If dock workers are engaged, let us say, in discharging and delivering timber, they will of course deliver the packages of timber according to mark. The documents will perhaps say so many packages of oak or ash or, more likely, deal, but it is not for the dock worker to know whether they have been incorrectly described. He will deliver them according to the mark on the package and I do not believe that he has to know the difference between oak and ash at all, though, if he has been working regularly with timber, he will know a great deal more than one might think.
10.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 58C) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Hereford, V.

Rochdale, V.

Atholl, D.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Balerno, L.

Kinnoull, E.

St. Just, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandys, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swansea, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Teviot, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elles, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Westbury, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pender, L.

Young, B.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Gowrie, E.

Redesdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Barrington, V.

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Simon, V.

Brimelow, L.

Kaldor, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Oram, L.

Thurso, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Parry, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winstanley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L Chancellor.)

Peddie, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, B.

Wise, L.

Hacking, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 58D:
10.10 p.m.
Page 25, line 26, leave out from ("repairs") to end of line 27 and insert ("to crates, boxes, pallets and other articles into which cargo is packed for loading and unloading operations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again we have an Amendment which is similar to one which I moved in Committee, but, as noble Lords will see, this time the Amendment would permit minor repairs to various boxes, crates and pallets where this is already done by dock workers or where it would be appropriate. The relevant word which the Amendment seeks to remove is "container". I referred to these items at the end of my remarks in Committee, and noble Lords will remember my pointing out that containers are made at present from steel, aluminium, GRP (which I understand is glass-reinforced polyester) or a combination of all these materials. From the inquiries I have made since Committee stage, it appears that there is no such thing as a minor repair should any damage to a container occur, because in all cases where a container is bent or buckled, or where one of the metal parts gets chipped, broken or damaged in any way, a specialist is needed, either to weld or to patch, or to realign the metal, or to repair in a major way the glass-reinforced polyester.
Such work, I think noble Lords will admit, really is beyond the range of even the most skilled docker who might have experience of such a thing on the dockside at present. Anyhow, such a docker would not require training in techniques utterly irrelevant to his main employment. But, of course, any major damage to a container would necessitate that container being removed, if necessary with its contents as well, to a specialised container repair depot. I consider, and I hope that noble Lords will agree, that any repairs, major or minor, to a container are in no way the province of registered dock workers, and I just wonder whether registered dock workers would wish to take the responsibility for such highly organised and very difficult work. But if the Government believe that this is the case, and taking into account
1578
Clause 8(5)(b), why do we need to have containers in this part of the Schedule at all? With that, my Lords, I beg to move.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on this Amendment. I must confess that when I first read it I had assumed that the Bill was using the word "container" in a rather general sense, as anything which contained something else. But, of course, in the shipping business for many years now the word "containers" has had this specialised meaning, and I think it would be rather unfortunate to leave that word in because it certainly would be mis-interpreted; and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that there could not be any intention of registered dock workers making repairs to containers.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said, this is a some-what similar exercise to the last one. He will not be surprised, therefore, if I respond in a vein somewhat similar to my last response. As he has said, in Committee he moved an Amendment to restrict the minor repair work which may be classified to work (the words then were)—
"involving unskilled general work in the dry coopering, needlemen and 'box knocking' categories".
He has not this time gone into those sophistications. I said during that debate that the Amendment was too restrictive; it would prevent the classification of minor repairs to various articles, such as pallets used in the packing of cargo, and containers. As the noble Lord has this evening indicated, he indicated then that he was generally satisfied with what I said but criticised the inclusion of the word "containers" on the grounds that the repair of these would involve skilled work with metal and other materials. He has made a similar point this evening.
This Amendment varies the present wording of the Bill in two respects: by excluding the word "containers" and, secondly, by altering the final words from:
"used for packing or loading and unloading cargo",
to:
"into which cargo is packed for loading and unloading operations".

1579
I must advise the House that the essential point that the noble Lord has put forward—that is, omitting the word "containers"—really achieves nothing because lie has included in his Amendment the words "and other articles". All containers would be covered by the term "other articles". There would be great difficulty in excluding special minor repairs to standard through-transport containers. That is clearly the intention because of this problem of definition.
The word containers", by itself, would presumably include bags, boxes and crates; but in any case the Government do not think that minor repairs to through-transport containers should be excluded. Registered dock workers at present undertake the restoration of damaged paintwork on such containers in some cases. The noble Lord has in mind, as he indicated, such jobs as metalwork, skilled welding or the treatment of aluminium. I do not think that these could possibly be considered to be minor repairs, because if a metal through-transport container needs such treatment its whole structure is affected and the subsequent repair is anything but minor. So I think that there are difficulties of this kind in relation to the noble Lord's Amendment.
Another difficulty that I would indicate is that there are international standards applying to the construction of containers so that the metalwork to which he refers is, indeed, a major operation. But there is the difficulty of definition in relation to minor work which prevents me from accepting this Amendment, even though once again the noble Lord, quite understandably, has tried to meet the criticisms that I made of his earlier Amendment.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, would it not be fair for the noble Lord to provide a suitable Amendment to establish what really was meant by "minor repairs". The trouble with this kind of description is that "minor repairs" can be almost anything or nothing. I know that when we are talking about containers we mean the big steel boxes and we are not talking about bags, boxes or sacks. These are dealt with by separate words. In the Bill the
1580
word "container" is followed by a comma. Surely that means that what we are talking about are these through-transported containers—not a box, not a bag, not a pallet or a crate that is used for moving goods in and around. This is, surely, a whole piece of equipment.
Certainly, in Southampton I know that registered dock workers carry out what they call minor repairs to containers. It is not only a question of international standards applying; because if a container is damaged on being brought off a boat for onward transmission into the United Kingdom, the international standards do not apply. Suppose it had a gash in its side. It is quite common practice for something to be stuck over the gash and that is called a minor repair. It is an ineffective repair but nevertheless that is carried out and that is the kind of repair, minor or otherwise, that gives rise to a potential claim or an extension of the activity into further work for repair. Once we have that, we are virtually going to encourage a new job to be created within the Dock Scheme area in substitution. We have had a lot of argument about that kind of thing.
We have always regarded the minor repair as being the knocking in of a few nails to secure a board in a wooden packing case, or something of that nature. If we move from steel containers—steel including aluminium of course—into some other material in the next few years then this sub-paragraph will not apply because of the technology involved, so my noble friend is quite right in seeking to secure the exclusion of a particular and important piece of machinery. If this wording is not exactly what the Government would like to agree is the intention behind the Amendment—and I am presuming of course that the Government agree with the intention—surely it is up to them to make suitable suggestions so that the intention can be clarified.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support and above all the clarification that I have had from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and indeed the support from my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oram,

1581
that containers, as we understand them for this purpose—I had better call them a through-transport container—might require painting, I would submit fairly strongly that painting is hardly relevant to the safety or indeed the condition of the cargo. On the other hand, a dent in the metal or a gash or damage to the metal-work is indeed relevant to the cargo, its condition and its safety. That is why I might have made an error in thinking of minor repairs of any kind because I would submit that the noble Lord's example of painting is certainly not relevant to the condition of the cargo and certainly any metalwork, as he has agreed, would require to be carried out in a specialised workshop.
The noble Lord mentioned European regulations for metalwork and for containers going across the Channel to continental Europe and indeed across the oceans. I believe also for the rollon roll-off section there are the TIR regulations, and indeed I am interested to hear my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth say that patching is allowed because I had understood that the TIR regulations were very strict about such practices.
The noble Lord pointed out as the very last thing in his reply that "articles might cover through transport containers. I might take that, but I would counter, if that is the word, that containers, as we understand them and as they would be interpreted in this Bill, would mean through-transport containers as indeed has been pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. We have moved towards the Government's objections. I am only sad that there has been no more than—as I described it at Committee stage—a millimetric advance towards our position, if as much as that. But there is one point on which the Amendment is not perfect, and we could not be satisfied with the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Oram. However, it is fruitless to continue to argue about glass reinforced polyester, or new techniques that may come. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.26 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 61A:
1582
Page 26, line 10, at end insert ("and not including any normally operating in sheltered estuarial waters.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for having agreed in Committee to look into this matter, and indeed for having written me a very full letter explaining the Government's attitude to the Amendment that I had down then. That gave me the opportunity to change my Amendment to the one that we have before us, I hope taking my lead from the noble Lord's letter and, indeed, from what he said in Committee. It seems to me that the kind of definition and the kind of change in the balance of the Amendment—I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that I put in Committee—would meet both my aspirations to safeguard the position of ships whose normal work is in enclosed waters, and which are not going to be used for long distance passages and carrying great cargoes for import and export from consideration under this Bill, and the very understandable objections which the Government had to my earlier Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said, we entered into correspondence arising from the debate in Committee. The Amendment which the noble Lord put forward then would have limited the application of paragraph 8(d) to,
"sea-going ships normally used for carrying cargo on the open sea."
As the noble Lord acknowledged, I have written to him explaining that under Section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964, which is referred to in the Bill, both in Clause 15 and now in Clause 4, as amended, "harbour" means,
"… any harbour, whether natural or artificial, and any port, haven estuary, tidal or other river or inland waterway navigated by sea-going ships.".
Therefore, the term "sea-going ship" is used in other legislation and has a well-understood meaning. Very strong arguments would be needed before changing a term which is already used in the definition of a "harbour"—a definition which was important in other legislation

1583
before the Bill was amended, and crucial after its amendment.
I went on to say in the letter that in the Dock Work (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946, under which the present Dock Labour Scheme is made, the term "cargo" is defined as including "anything which is carried in a ship or other vessel". That could technically be held to apply to, for example, goods carried in a rowing boat used as a ferry across a river. A sea-going ship "is one which is permitted to go to sea and is not restricted to sheltered estuarial waters, or to inland waterways. This gives a proper, clear distinction between goods which are moved by a non-sea-going ship or vessel, and thus could not be considered as cargo, and those which are moved by a ship which is permitted to go to sea and thus can be considered for classification. The number of occasions when sea-going ships do not put to sea is, we understand, quite small.
The Amendment moved by the noble Lord seeks to exclude that category of sea-going ships which do not normally put to sea. The number of such ships is small, so this minor change would not be a significant diminution of the work which may be considered for classification. However, there are serious difficulties about the drafting. If the ship is normally used only in sheltered estuarial waters, then it could, from time to time, put to sea. When it does put to sea, we see every reason why the goods which it carries should be considered as cargo. If the ship was, say, to put in at a wharf in the Port of London for a voyage to Rotterdam, the owners could insist that non-registered men were used to load and unload the goods because the goods would not be cargo. That would provoke the most serious industrial relations consequences and we do not think that that should even be a possibility under the Bill. Moreover, some sea-going ships of quite considerable size are being used to a greater or lesser extent in estuarial waters in order to trans-ship goods to a smaller port. A commodity such as grain, for example, is commonly carried in very large ships which can use only a very limited number of ports. We think that work associated with trans-shipment should be capable of classification.
1584
I have gone into the matter in some detail, as I think the noble Lord will acknowledge, because he raised the matter on the earlier occasion and has sought to meet the points that were then made. However, I think that it raises difficulties which I have explained and I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
10.32 p.m.
Lord MOTTESTONE: My Lords, the mind boggles at the prospect of the kind of ships I am thinking of going into the Port of London and causing a major dock strike by misusing the terms which we are seeking to write into the Bill. I should have thought that this was highly unlikely and that the people concerned would he most unwise even to risk being in that position, whatever the wording of this Bill.
Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that there has not been sufficient time for the Government to consider these Amendments. I apologise for the fact that as I put down my Amendment only yesterday there has not been time for the noble Lord and his advisers to consider the implications. I hope that the noble Lord will not take it amiss when I say that I feel he has given me a Let's think up an excuse" kind of reply rather than one of his usual courteous and carefully thought out replies, such as that contained in his letter, a good deal of which he read and which I very much appreciated.
It is getting late. Also we are nearing the end of the Bill. The sole purpose of the Amendment is to introduce a small safeguard to protect a very few people from having their jobs disrupted by the Bill, whatever form it ultimately takes. I think it is rather tragic that it has not been possible for the Government to give more consideration to the Amendment and show more understanding of the purpose behind it. However, in view of the time I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.35 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 26, line 29, at end insert—
("10A. The work of persons employed in a business on premises occupied for the purposes

1585
of business where the terms and conditions of employment are mainly or exclusively the subject of a collective agreement unless the parties to the collective agreement further agree that the work in question may be classified.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, would it be in order for me to move Amendment No. 62A to amend Amendment No. 62 before I speak to that Amendment? If so, I seek leave to move Amendment No. 62A, the manuscript Amendment.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I think the noble Lord should move Amendment No. 62 first.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Earl. the Lord Chairman. In speaking to Amendment No. 62, I take into account the comments made by noble Lords opposite at the Committee stage. The House will remember that the Government then expressed concern that where both employers and employees, having a recognised agreement, wished to have work at a port or a dock classified, this should be so. We hope that our Amendment as re-drafted will do what the Government wish the provision in the Bill to make it do. What we seek to do by inserting this Amendment is to ensure that a satisfactory collective agreement is not, and will not be, affected by the Board classifying some work covered by the agreement. The other main object of the Amendment is to remove the possible causes of inter-union dispute, and even intra-union strife within the same union.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether the Government have been able to confirm all that was said at an earlier stage about some tally clerks at Liverpool. All of us have recognised that such a group at such an important port is a very reasonable example in seeking to show the defects in our Amendment as it was then drafted. But the Amendment has been re-written, I would say mutatis inutandis, and we are of the opinion that should the tally clerks wish to have their work classified they could have their wishes fulfilled. But, secondly, are the Government quite sure that the tally clerks in Liverpool are in fact performing the work which is defined in Schedule 3? As we understand it, that is checking and recording and sorting
1586
cargo, or recording the handling or loading or unloading of cargo, because from inquiries that we have made it seems that most of this work in that particular port is performed by dockercheckers, whereas the 500 or so members of the clerical section of the Transport and General Workers' Union in the port of Liverpool are working mostly in offices around, the dock area, not in the warehouses, in the sheds or on the quaysides.
But the other main port where we find tally clerks is in London, and representations have been made to us that there are inter-union difficulties in and around the Port of London. For example, can the Government say that registered clerks in the Port of London are permitted to work in or around the warehouses and the cargo sheds? We are not sure that this is permitted, and in fact we understand that the work in these particular areas is performed by docker-checkers.
The Amendment seeks to allow dock workers the right to have their work classified, if they so wish, but not to upset an existing collective agreement. We hope the Amendment contains a reasonable safeguard for those who wish to have the work classified. We think that the Amendment meets the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, at the Committee stage and thus we commend the Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved manuscript Amendment No. 62A as an Amendment to Amendment No. 62:
Line 3, after ("of") insert ("that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 62A.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, while we would not seek to oppose the Amendment to the Amendment, I would point out that in our view it is of doubtful value. The use of the word "that" usually implies reference to something which is earlier in the sentence. There is no indication as to what the word "that" is supposed to refer.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I understood it, and I think if the noble Lord might grant it, it would be reasonable to assume that "that" refers to "in a business" in the first line. I hope we need not

1587
deal in what his noble friend called semantics at an earlier stage, but that is my understanding. We have not been to a court of law about it, but we understand the word "that" refers to "a business" in line 1.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment 62A, after ("of") to insert ("that") be agreed to. As many of that opinion say "Content". To the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
My Lords, Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 53. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Contents" have it.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we have not had a chance of putting a point of view on Amendment No. 62. The broad effect of this Amendment is similar to that of Amendment No. 67 which seeks to give the right of veto to trade unions recognised in respect of work since 10th February 1976. This Amendment No. 62 goes even further in that the positive agreement of both the unions and employer is required before work can be classified, and there is no limit of time in respect of which the union must have been recognised. The same objections apply with even greater force.
The Amendment, if accepted, would frustrate one of the principal objectives of the Bill which is to make possible the classification of work which registered dock workers were performing under the 1967 Scheme but which was transferred outside the port areas and undertaken by registered workers. It would clearly be unrealistic and wholly incompatible with the intention of the Bill, that any employer or trade union recognised by him in respect of classifiable work should in effect unilaterally be able automatically to preclude such work being considered for classification. The Bill provides adequate opportunity for the views of all concerned to be taken into account before any new work is classified, and the views of trade unions and employers concerned would clearly carry considerable weight. But the Government are convinced it would be wrong that the Board's ability to examine classifiable work should be subject
1588
to the concurrence in all cases of both the employer and trade union recognised in respect of any such work as the Amendment proposes. We hope that with this explanation the Amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, once again the Government are conceding to the big boys with the muscles, and I should like to remind your Lordships that many of the highly skilled small businesses are very valuable exporters. Many of them may rent sections of ware-houses which they do not exclusively own, but nevertheless the handling of their goods, sometimes delicate machinery which may be only a small part but the most vital part of a great chunk of iron and steel.
Again, we find that the Government have given way to the massive companies. Because they can say that they own their own warehouses, their employees will be allowed to continue, within the half-mile limit or whatever it may be, possibly outside the dock area, to handle those goods. When it comes to the smaller firms then, however loyal and skilled the staff, whether they are handling antique furniture for export or highly technical pieces of equipment, they could well lose their jobs. I cannot accept the continual reiteration of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that it is the docker's right to take so many types of jobs from their fellow workers who have been working in their own skilled niche in their particular union.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there is nothing in this Bill which enables a docker to take over the work of somebody else. Workers doing the work at present are fully covered and protected by the Bill.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, we have had representations from many members in different trade unions who are working in what would be either the half-mile or the five-mile zone indicating that they have very real apprehensions: if the goods are imports they will have been handled by dockers to that zone warehouse within the half mile, which may be beyond the gates of what is physically the dock. They have very real apprehensions. If the noble Lord

1589
is now telling us that no one in the Municipal and General or USDAW or the warehousemen who have hitherto under union agreements been employed in these establishments will lose their jobs—that there will not be the possibility of their jobs being taken over within this zonal limit—that will allay a lot of fears. But many highly-skilled lawyers in the various unions have read this Bill, and that is not what they believe.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us—I am sure he is much more experienced in this field than I am—if the existing workforce in particular premises was subject to a closed shop agreement, what would be the effect of classifying the work as dock work when it was not classified as dock work before?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, It would have no effect whatever on the collective agreement.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what effect would it have on filling vacancies? Supposing someone had to fill a subsequent vacancy in what was then classified as dock work, would it not mean that a registered dock worker would have to be admitted, and he, of course, could not be admitted because of the closed shop agreement? Where do we go from there?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it would, of course, mean that the registered dock worker after classification would get the vacancy.
Lord DRUMALBYN: But he could not; it is a closed shop.
Lord JACQUES: Yes, my Lords, but there is no reason why a closed shop agreement could not be modified as an agreement between the unions. It would make no difference to the collective agreement. As we have said many times, if there is a dispute between two unions, the TUC has a committee for dealing with such disputes and it is one of the most successful committees in the TUC.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, could the noble Lord clarify it a little further? If, as he says, the Bill without this Amendment is not going to lead to the upsetting
1590
of collective agreements, why is he objecting to this Amendment? Does it make things any different? It seems to me a little odd. If the Bill without the Amendment is going to protect the jobs of people who are not dock workers, the Amendment cannot make things worse for the chaps who are not dock workers. I do not see what he is objecting to.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will reply. I am objecting to the Amendment because it frustrates one of the principal purposes of the Bill. In the past few years the movement of work from the dockside a short distance away, within, if you like, the five-mile limit, has caused a good deal of bad industrial relations. We are saying that that work should be classifiable; that is to say, it should be considered for classification. We have provided complete safeguards for the people who are at present doing the work. But it would mean that a docker could take a vacancy, and we contend that it is better that a docker should take the vacancy rather than that the existing dock employers should have to pay excessive severance pay, which is the present position.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, does this Amendment prevent dockers from taking a vacancy?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, by this Amendment the trade unions and the employers could cause the work not to be classifiable, and, therefore, because the work was not classifiable, even though it came from the dockside, the work would not be available to registered dockers. We say it should be available, but that the existing workers should be fully protected.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said that the workers should be protected. I think the example he gave of premises where there is a closed shop and should a vacancy occur a registered docker would be the first to obtain such a vacancy is one of the most terrifying replies certainly to this Amendment. I believe that although that particular reply may not frustrate the Bill it frustrates the good intentions of this particular Amendment. In the

1591
replies that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has given us—and he has been kind enough to give replies not just to me but to my noble friends behind me—I am afraid that he has gone less than half-way to satisfying not 200, not 20, and not 2 per cent.
11.4 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 26, line 30, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
("11. Driving any vehicle whose use is mainly on public roads, whether inside or outside any dock labour scheme area; supervision of loading and unloading such a vehicle; seeing to the security of its load.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that in moving this Amendment we can move from the rather troubled waters of the last discussion into calmer seas. The Amendment is substantially the same as that moved by my noble friend Lord Lyell in Committee. It is different only in the
10.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 62), as amended, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Atholl, D.

Hereford, V.

Redesdale, L.

Balerno, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochdale, V.

Belstead, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Berkeley, B.

Kinnoull, E.

St. Just, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Sandford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lyell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Scmpill, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

de Clifford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L. Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

Westbury, L.

Faithfull, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Young, B.

Gowrie, E.

Pender, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Barrington, V.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Birk, B.

Kaldor, L.

Simon, V.

Brimelow, L.

Kennet, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stone, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Parry, L.

White, B.

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

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wigoder, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peddie, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gregson, L.

Phillips, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Plurenden, L.

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

deletion of the word "normal from the phrase "normal use". It seeks to protect the work of some 200,000 people engaged in the road haulage industry and most particularly of about 40,000 of them who are directly engaged in haulage to and from the docks. I am hopeful that, when the noble Lord, Lord Jaques, comes to respond, he will be able to shed some light on our obligations with our friends in the EEC, particularly with regard to the movement of Ro/Ro vehicles. We withdrew this Amendment at Committee stage in order to have a further look at the question in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, had said. We have set it down again at this stage because we could not find any good reason why this particular work should not be excluded.
So far as we can see, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, suggested only that the driving of vehicles would only be carried out by registered dock workers in the most exceptional cases. He gave two instances. We feel that, once one starts making exceptional cases that are not defined, the provisions rather fall. The two examples that the noble Lord gave were, we thought, somewhat negatived by the answer that he gave to my noble friend the Duke of Atholl who had asked whether, if registered dock workers were moving import and export vehicles round the dock area, they could not continue to do so. The answer was, yes, they could continue to do so. Therefore, the exclusion, by virtue of this Amendment, of this work would not upset any particular arrangement.
I do not wish to repeat the arguments that we put forward at the Committee stage with, if I may say so, some vehemence and with what we believe to have been the support of the Committee, because understand that the Government are inclined to accept the Amendment, presumably because of the arguments which we then put forward. I hope that that is so because the Amendment takes care of the points that my noble friend Lord Mottistone might well have raised on his Amendments Nos.59 and 60. It was in the belief that the present Amendment would be acceptable to the Government that he did not move those two Amendments. I hope that that will prove to be the case when the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, comes to respond. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is a matter on which little divides the Government and the Opposition. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and others explained the concern of the road haulage industry that the paragraph meant that registered dock workers would evict lorry drivers from their cabs and seek to drive roll-on/roll-off vehicles on to the ship. I explained that the Government would never propose anything so foolish. Part I of Schedule 3 is enabling. It does not require classification of all work which is potentially capable of being classified. The Secretary of State had made it clear in another place that it was certainly not envisaged that the driving of lorries within dock estates should in general however he classified as dock work.
1594
In the Committee debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the question of our EEC obligations to foreign drivers and whether the Bill was incompatible with them. The Bill itself cannot be incompatible because it is only an enabling Bill. If ever a recommendation was made by the Board to the Secretary of State which appeared likely to have an effect on EEC obligations, then he would of course ensure that there was no breach of EEC regulations before making a statutory order under Clause 11(1). It is, of course, only when the statutory order is made that the law is changed.
It is fair to put the question: but what if a statutory order were proposed? Would it be a breach of EEC regulations? Although it may seem unsatisfactory, our answer to that is that it might or it might not be. But it is certainly not a matter which could he decided without putting all the details of any particular proposals to Brussels, so that they could be considered against the First Council Directive of 23rd July 1962, and subsequent amending Directives.
But, as has been emphasised, it is certainly not the intention to interfere with driving of roll-on/roll-off vehicles. The tests in the Bill, and its general intention, would never lead to such a situation arising. But there are situations in which as a matter of practice, convenience or practice, or convenience, where vehicles are left in dock parks by drivers and driven on board by dockers. Dockers are also used to drive import and export cars and lorries to and from the ship. A further difficulty is that if a prime mover or lorry cab is linked to a detachable trailer, then the cab and the trailer, or trailers, have to be regarded as the vehicle. This means that a lorry cab which is normally used on public roads could, under the terms of the Amendment, come into the dock estate, attach itself to a trailer, move the trailer around the dock estate, and then leave the dock estate without the trailer. Such work is usually done by the docker, using a prime mover not normally used on public roads. If such a situation occurred, it would of course have serious industrial relations consequences.
So we still have objections to the Amendment and so far have not been able to conceive of words which would

1595
overcome the difficulties outlined. But in view of this and earlier debates, and the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in an earlier debate on paragraph 8 of Schedule 3, we would not seek to oppose the Amendment at this stage. However, we will re-examine the drafting and may return with further proposals at a later stage.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he clarify one position? It has been said so frequently that this Amendment, and previous ones suggested, would make it difficult in relation to loading or unloading cars for imports and exports. It is not comparing like with like. The purpose of those who have supported these Amendments is in relation to the vehicles which have cargo within them.
A car for export is not licensed to be driven on a public road until it gets into the hands of the owner and gets licensed, and cars of that nature, for import and export, are truly cargo. They are not vehicles containing cargo. We are concerned in the Amendment with the vehicles, the very specialised and very expensive vehicles, the handling of which calls for very great skill and familiarity with the vehicle. We are not concerned with cars for import and export which are in themselves the actual cargo and not the transporting vehicles.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it is a question of getting words which would meet what the noble Baroness has said. We have not got those words at the moment, but we believe that we will get them.
11.14 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his very full answer, particularly in relation to our EEC obligations. I was not terribly happy with his qualified acceptance of the Amendment, because in truth the Government have had ample time to consider the Amendment and the exact wording. It has been in this state ever since the Committee stage. I feel obliged to say that if they are proposing to make any drastic alteration—which, I understand, would have to be made by tomorrow afternoon—it may
1596
well be that we would have to be very strenuous in our opposition.
Let us look at what the noble Lord might wish to do. He might wish to amend this Amendment, or the Bill as it then will be, to provide for the movement of unaccompanied trailers by a prime mover to be driven only by a registered dock worker. They do that already in a number of docks. I will give the example which, of course, comes near to me at home, at Southampton. My understanding is that the Dock Board have given some restricted training to 26 out of their workforce of 2,500 to drive heavy goods vehicles, the tractor unit. There are four of them in the dock which are used for this purpose, and there is no argument about it, there is no difficulty. In the event of a whole vehicle—that is, a tractortrailer unit or a road train vehicle—that is left unaccompanied, it would then be consigned to somebody to ship on their behalf, and my understanding is that this then becomes goods and is moved by the docker. In the last instance, where another prime mover is used, the complication of the machinery is such that very few dockers have the necessary aptitude, and I believe that they usually sit in the cab, so ensuring that they do the work although somebody else actually does the driving.
These are the sort of things that we may very well get into on Monday, when we have the Third Reading, and I would be most reluctant, at that very late stage of the Bill, to have to take an aggressive attitude. So far as this section of the Bill is concerned, we have gone along with a reasonable amount of agreeability. I therefore urge the Government to accept the spirit of this Amendment, rather than to accept it while they look at it over the weekend and then introduce something else into the whole area of the road transport industry in so far as the Dock Work Regulation Bill is concerned, which may cause us on this side to take a kind of stance we would be most reluctant to take at a stage as late as Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.18 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 63A:
Page 26, line 30, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
("11A. Repair of any such vehicles, as referred to in paragraph 11 above, and their equipment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg leave to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandford. We discussed this briefly at Committee stage, particularly in regard to those matters which we have discussed again tonight in relation to Part I of Schedule 3. I do not think there is anything very controversial in this. In fact, one might almost consider it to be something of a consequence of the Amendment just accepted by your Lordships. The position really arises in the event of a vehicle or part of its equipment—and the part of the equipment which comes most easily to mind is the hydraulic or air coupling between a prime mover and a trailer unit—becoming damaged during the course of loading. If one of these cables (it is known as a "Suzie") is damaged, the vehicle cannot move, and it may be that this work might be claimed at some time as being a minor repair to an article used for the loading or unloading of cargo.
That is what that is about. We do not feel that any repairs of any kind should be carried out to a complicated piece of machinery other than by those people sufficiently trained and practised in the art; so that the Amendment is something of a consequential one upon Amendment No. 63 and would ensure that nobody at some later stage will feel that because damage is occasioned to some vehicle or part of a vehicle concerned with loading or unloading the repair should become dockwork.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there is something wrong with this Amendment. It says, first, "leave out paragraph 11". To leave out paragraph 11 is to leave out the paragraph relating to driving. I am sure that that is not intended by anybody. So the Amendment is certainly defective. I do not think that the repair of any vehicle, whether or not used on the public roads, could be covered by Part I of Schedule 3. Part I of Schedule 3 deals with work which is classifiable.
Lord BROUGHAM and VAUX: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Amendment is defective. We have just
1598
amended paragraph 11 by Amendment No. 63. We are now inserting paragraph 11A.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as I understand it, paragraph 11 has been amended by Amendment No. 63. Now we have a consequential Amendment No. 63A which is seeking to delete paragraph 11. I am sure that that is not intended.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think it is intended to mean to leave out the new paragraph 11A.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, this is one of the difficulties that arises by our trying to do all this too quickly. if the noble Lord will deal with the substance of the proposed Amendment which my noble friend has just moved, I think that that would meet the case.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I do not think that repairs to any vehicle, whether or not used on the public roads, would be covered by Part I of Schedule 3. Part I of Schedule 3 lays down work which is classifiable. We do not think there is anything in Part I of Schedule 3 which covers the kind of repairs mentioned by the noble Lord. The only paragraph likely to be applicable is paragraph 5, but vehicles are not of the same genus or class as containers, crates, boxes, pallets or other articles used for packing, loading or unloading cargo. We have no doubt that repairs to vehicles are not classifiable.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that categorical answer. I do not think that there is any point in my reviewing the exact terminology of the Amendment. I think that my noble friend Lord Sandford has suggested how this came to be. With that categorical assurance at the back of my mind, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 26, line 34, at beginning insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 64 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 65. There is no need for me to speak at any

1599
length because the main issue was dealt with, I think thoroughly, at the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, then made a number of points which I think I have taken fully into account so that the new Amendment differs in three respects from the original. All I need to do is to mention those differences.
The phrase "and others to which he took exception has been omitted to comply with his argument that some perfectly legitimate classified dock work such as lashing, hatch opening and so on, is carried out by registered men. I have also omitted the provision that the work of riggers and shipwrights be limited to that which is carried on on board ship because, as he rightly said, some of it is carried on ashore. I have dealt with his criticism about the term" agreed by all the parties concerned "and modified that so that it reads—
"which is agreed by a majority of the employers and unions …".
With those changes all the original arguments that I made for this Amendment stand and I beg to move Amendment No. 64.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we at once acknowledge the change in the wording which is, of course, from our point of view, an improvement in the Amendment, but the new wording gives rise to other problems. As it stands, the wording
"majority of the employers and unions"
could mean the majority of both taken together, thus enabling several employers to agree a change against the wishes of the single union. If the wording were amended to the
"majority of both employers and unions"
it could still enable two small employers of 5 per cent. of the workforce preventing a change agreed by the one large employer with 95 per cent. Wording such as
"the employers of the majority of the workforce and the unions representing together the majority of workers"
would be better, but it could still be unsatisfactory if a large minority of either were against a change agreed by a small majority.
However, the objections to the Amendment on other grounds are stronger. The following points were made in Committee and still apply.
1600
First, the work of riggers on board ship is in some places already done by riggers who are registered dock workers; it might well therefore he appropriate for classification as dock work elsewhere. This incidentally need involve no change in "local custom and usage"—the existing riggers could simply become registered dock workers—on the extension register.
Secondly, this is not a new problem; paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 3, which are the ones which make the work of riggers classifiable, reflect the wording of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946. In other words, this problem has been with us for a long time and has not given rise to any particular difficulties. The Government nevertheless have paid careful attention to the views expressed by some riggers that their work should not be classifiable. This would represent a narrowing of the potential scope of dock work from the present position. The Government do not believe this would be sensible. It will be better to leave the matter to the procedures under the Bill, which mean that all the circumstances—including in particular objections raised by employers and/or unions and industrial relations implications—will be carefully considered before work is recommended for classification. In addition, unions will be able to veto classification in circumstances provided for in paragraph 8 of Schedule 4.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think we have done as much as we can do now to get this Amendment into shape. The noble Lord still has some misgivings, some of which are perhaps justified and some of which are rather unjustified, but the right thing for us to do now is to move this modified Amendment into the Bill and the noble Lord and his Department can look at it and make those adjustments that he thinks might be necessary for Third Reading, if they wish. The main consideration is that this particular topic should be returned to another place for them to give some reconsideration to it and in that context I would commend this Amendment to the House.
11.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 64) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rochdale, V.

Atholl, D.

Hereford, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Balerno, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Just, L.

Barrington, V.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Sandford, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Sandys, L.

Berkeley, B.

Long, V.

Seear, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

de Clifford, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Westbury, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Pender, L.

Wigoder, L.

Elles, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Winstanley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Redesdale, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peddie, L.

Brimelow, L.

Jacques, L.

Phillips, B.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L,

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Shepherd, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Kennet, L.

Snow, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stone, L.

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

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Parry, L.

White, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom. L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.38 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 26, line 35, at end insert—
("(b) such work as by local custom or usage is left to riggers and shipwrights.
Provided that nothing in (a) or (b) above shall operate to prevent a change in the local custom or usage which is agreed by a majority of the employers and unions concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 27, line 22, at end insert—
("17. The work of persons wholly or mainly engaged in the storage of perishable foodstuffs under controlled temperature conditions, except—

(a) where such goods are discharged directly from a ship into a cold store or on to the quayside adjacent to a cold store, and where by custom and practice the handling of such goods has been dock work; or

(b) where a cold store or other premises for the storage of foodstuffs under temperature controlled conditions is or is to be established within a dock labour scheme area as an integral part of the cargo handling operation.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 66. I do not propose to review all the ground that was gone over at Committee stage. We have sought to take account of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and to modify the Amendment, we hope to his satisfaction. However, it is perhaps worth pointing out one or two matters which, reading his Committee stage speech, made me think that he was suffering from certain misapprehensions which were not strictly correct.
In the first place, it was suggested that the changes which have taken place in cold storage siting over the last few years were in some way caused by a deliberate unwillingness to accommodate the wishes of the dockers. That is not the case. The changes in the pattern of cold storage have been due to the changes in the trading practices of the country. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, quoted figures at col.382 relating to the Port of London which, until 1968, was the principal port of entry for imports of meat, butter and other commodities. For example, it then handled 97 per cent. of South American wheat, 86 per cent. of Australian meat and 67 per cent. of New Zealand lamb. By custom and practice, registered dock labour was employed in cold stores in

1603
London, as indeed it was in Southampton and Cardiff: in fact where ships were able to discharge direct to store or on to the quay alongside.
Since 1968 the trade with our earlier traditional suppliers has changed dramatically and now the bulk of it comes from Europe through the most convenient ports. It also comes to a greater extent through home production, and it is this that has caused the decline in the Port of London, not a deliberate moving away from the area to escape dockers. Coupled with the reasons that I have given are modern means of transport and an improved road system in the country, and this has led to appropriate siting of the new cold stores to meet the new pattern of distribution. Another factor is the marked growth in the last few years of the quick-frozen food industry to meet the modern demand for convenience foods, leading to the construction of many new cold stores, some in inland locations to serve food distribution requirements. Having said all that, which is the main reason for the moves, and not perhaps the one that the noble Lord was rather giving emphasis to in his earlier speech, it must also be said that the experience of employers in the cold storage industry is that dock workers do not like working in cold stores and only do so when they have to because of a lack of jobs in the docks. When they do work in cold stores they tend to introduce alien working practices which are not only more costly but are disruptive of labour relations. So on the whole there is a reluctance to accept dock workers because of their past practices.
If one could be sure that this legislation was going to create a pattern in which they are not going to cause potential difficulties with other workers in cold storage areas and cold stores, perhaps one might be rather happier about the general picture of things and not seek to put forward an Amendment of this kind. But as it is. all the factors add together that the work in the cold stores in the main is not dock work, either by custom and practice or by the basis from which the development of the new cold store siting has come. Therefore, it seems to us that if we protect the existing position of dock workers, as the alterations to our Amendment seek to do, this should satisfy the
1604
Government, and I trust that they will happily accept this Amendment—certainly, perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, would accept it happily—and incorporate it in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord in this Amendment. I do so because I have not spoken since I made my speech on Second Reading, having been prohibited from doing so by another Committee, and therefore I was unable to support him when he spoke on the previous occasion. I should like to refer to Hansard of another place of 10th February of this year, at column 267, where it was stated by the Minister of State, when he was replying about dockers taking over warehousing, cold storage, drivers' jobs and all the other jobs around the dock:
"We have agreed … that long-established warehousing, storage packaging and cold storage 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".
I am not doubting for a moment that that is a correct statement, but it would be convenient if the noble Lord would tell us that he agrees with it, and that it is what the Government intend in the future. When the noble Lord comes to reply, will he tell us what is meant by the phrase, "long established"? From what period does it date? It would make a great deal of difference to our views in regard to this Amendment if we knew these answers. Would he also tell us what is meant by, "unrelated to work transferred from the dock"? It would be very helpful if he could confirm that this is exactly what the statement means. This is one of the most important Amendments, because it deals with the feeding of the nation, with exports, and with the handling of home-grown food.
My Lords, as I understand it, at present there exists 450 million cubic feet of warehousing. That is present capacity. About 70 per cent. of the total warehousing of Great Britain is run by private companies, and the remainder goes to road haulage and the public sector. Unless the Bill is changed as was agreed on a previous Amendment, 67 per cent. of the total cold storage capacity lies within the cargo-handling zone. I understand that at the moment three unions are affected by the

1605
proposals, the Transport and General Workers Union, USDAW and the Union of General and Municipal Workers. Have these three unions been consulted? Have they agreed to the proposals in the future?—because it is a great change for them. As I understand it, the Bill creates uncertainty because 69 per cent. of all the warehouses are in the present cargo-handling zone and, as I have already mentioned, 67 per cent. of the total cold storage.
It is very difficult in the circumstances, when we need further cold storage, for any employer to commit himself at present to further expenditure until he knows where he is. In view of the fact that, I gather, the Secretary of State can also make an order extending the cargo-handling zone, or specifying additional areas, what worries me is the fact that the EEC may increase the amount of goods arriving by lorry on roll-on/roll-off ferries. The employees are worried about their position compared with the registered dock workers because they consider they may become second-class citizens in regard to the registered dock workers. I realise that in the future there may be a chance for them to register as clock workers if they so desire.
My Lords, I should like to refer to the question of cold storage undertakings with regard to employees. This matter was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who touched on the question of a closed shop agreement and the municipal workers union. If that part of the work, say, about 20 per cent., is deemed to be dock work, will all the employees be required to be placed on the extension register, or only 16 per cent. of such employees? If by then there is natural wastage and one or two of these employees leave, they can be expected to be replaced by registered dock workers of the Transport and General Workers Union. What is rather difficult is that there might be small premises in which there can be at least three different categories of employees with different expectations of job security, where previously there had been only one. Indeed, I gather there might he possibilities of conflict and uncertainty inherent in the new proposals, which I hope the noble Lord will be able to satisfy me is not correct.
1606
My Lords, in identifying those for inclusion in the extension register, it is conceivable that some may not wish to become dockers. Are they going to be coerced or dismissed? If the redundancy situation arises in which the three categories of employees are the first to be selected, then there will be conflicting claims, which I am sure we all wish to avoid. There is also the need for persons working in cold storage and other ware-houses to be flexible, and I gather that for quick frozen produce there is a considerable increase in importation at the present time and they now fill about 130 million cubic feet. This is the figure I got in 1974. I gather that the Federation has members with cold stores in the dock labour scheme and outside it, and valid comparisons can be made.
Another point that worries me is that increased costs arise in many ways quite apart from theeffect of differing wage scales and the imposition of the dock labour hoard levy. Registered dock workers have a tradition of rigid manning levels and restrictive practices. They tend to be inflexible and reluctant to do work other than the basic movement of cargo. As I have mentioned, the position in cold stores is very different.
Calculations made by a number of cold stores show that very substantial increases in cost can be expected, which, of course, will put up the cost of food, which is one of the reasons why I am interested in the Amendment. Comparison of two stores doing comparable work in comparable buildings reveals that the labour cost per ton of the store in the scheme is 80 per cent. greater than that of the store outside. Other undertakings have made calculations in the light of what is known about the expectations of registered dock workers and conservative estimates show an increase in labour costs of at least 100 per cent.; in many cases the increase will be greater. For those reasons, I would support the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, because I think it is causing worry to employers, employees and the self-employed, as well as to our overseas customers. I think it is quite unnecessary to spoil the system which we have at present, because it is working well.
11.53 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I shall first try to assure the noble Baroness. In

1607
the first place, I have no hesitation in confirming what. I said in my statement at column 399 at the Committee stage, which was the quotation given by the noble Baroness. I was asked what was meant by, "long established". A reading of that column will show that I gave a fairly clear indication of what was meant by "long established". I quote what I said:
"I will emphasise that 'long established' are the operative words in that sentence. This date"—
18th September, 1967—
"marks the completion of decasualisation with the introduction of the 1967 Dock Workers' Employment Scheme. Broadly speaking, it was also about this time that the far-reaching changes in cargo handling techniques, which have revolutionised the industry, were beginning to take place, with consequential changes in the nature and location of dock work."—[Official Report 26/10/76; col. 399.]
I think that gives a fair indication of what is meant—warehouses which were established before those changes took place, which, as I said, was on or about 1967, roughly some ten years ago. So far as the attitude of the unions is concerned, there is no difficulty here. I made that quite clear in columns 400 and 401 at the Committee stage, and I can confirm that.
The question of a closed shop has been raised. May I refer the House to Clause 5(7):
"The Scheme shall not include any provision on the following matters—

(a) the membership or non-membership on the part of a worker of a trade union or of any particular trade union;

(b) the recognition of trade unions by employers or employers' associations, or any other matter connected with machinery for collective bargaining …"

I think the principal questions raised by the noble Baroness are answered by what I have already said.
I should like to go to the Amendment itself, particularly having regard to the time. The first part of this Amendment repeats what was moved at the Committee stage. Two exceptions, (a) and (b), have been put in to meet criticisms which I made in Committee. It is doubtful whether the wording of the suggested exceptions would be satisfactory to achieve their intention; for example, under (a) where exactly has the handling of such
1608
goods to have been dock work by "custom and practice"—on that quay or in the port generally?
Now I come to (b). Under the Bill, "cargo handling" means any work with goods coming from or destined for sea-going ships. Thus any such work in the cargo handling zone or within a Dock Labour Scheme area, as the case may be, is classifiable. Thus if the work in the cold store involves such goods and would therefore be classifiable were it not for this Amendment it would still be classifiable even with this Amendment, because the work of the cold store is itself automatically a cargo handling operation. However, wording could perhaps be devised to achieve the purpose if it were desirable to achieve it. The Government's view is, however, that cold storage work away from the immediate dock area and not now integrated with the loading and unloading of ships needs to be classifiable. As I said in Committee, the movement of certain cold storage facilities away from the docks, and the refusal to employ registered dock workers at the new location—particularly in London—has given rise to serious industrial relations difficulties, including, for example, the 1972 dock strike.
A major purpose of this Bill is to prevent any such difficulties recurring in the future. Part of the work on the quayside has been eliminated by using an integral transport system to move cargo. For this reason it is particularly necessary to ensure that work in cold stores handling cargo within the zone or area is capable of being considered for classification as dock work. The Government say that they are seeking peaceful means of settling such disputes with the dockers. They are doing it in this Bill. If this House adopted this Amendment, it would in effect be saying to the dockers, "We decline to approve the peaceful methods laid down by the Government. You will have to get on with it as you have in the past, by your picketing or any other means you have within the law".
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, could the noble Lord clarify one point. Twenty years ago cold stores were in the main for imported goods. Does he differentiate between cold store capacity which is exclusively for imported goods? Is this quite distinct from large cold store

1609
space which, in the present day and age with entirely new processes, may be mixed with very considerable frozen produce which is the result of United Kingdom production and not imported production?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I confirm that that is a very important matter for consideration before there is any classification, and indeed the Bill as it stood before amendment laid it down clearly that the Board had to take into consideration the proportions.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am a little at a loss, because I thought at one stage in his speech the noble Lord was going to accept the Amendment, but he then switched quickly and said that, though the modification we had made had certain satisfactory features, or words to that affect, the Government did not like it anyhow, which was, I thought, very discouraging. It seems to me that this is an important point which is worth pursuing a little further, and I do not accept all that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said.
I should like to have a chance to read what he said. It seems to me that the Government, because cold stores have become a part of the mythical bogy world of the dock workers, singled them out to be a part of that area in which dock work jobs must be put, even if the cold stores have absolutely nothing to do with the docks. It seems to me that we need to study this more closely and to try to work out whether there could be an improvement to the wording. There were points in the noble Lord's speech at the beginning when he indicated that perhaps the wording may be acceptable to him if it was modified still further.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is mistaken. I said that the Amendment was technically defective, and I gave examples of the defectiveness. I said that perhaps this could be put right, but nevertheless we substantially object to this Amendment for the reasons I gave.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord is not prepared to help us put right what he thinks are the technical failings because
1610
he does not like the Amendment as a whole?
Lord JACQUES: We oppose the Amendment in substance.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, in that event we will have to do it ourselves, and I shall have to look forward to the Third Reading to see whether we can find an Amendment which we believe will meet the points the noble Lord made in his speech. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Procedure for recommendation under s. 8]:
12.3 a.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 29, line 13, leave out ("18th September 1967") and insert ("10th February 1976").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have skirted round this Amendment to some considerable degree already, and some might think that in view of the fact that we have already carried Amendment No. 62 that it was not worth while moving this Amendment at all. I do not propose to go in any depth into this Amendment. We take totally different views on the two sides of the House about it. We consider that an agreement is an agreement, whether it was made yesterday or 100 years ago, and it should not be overriden except for the strongest possible reasons. Recognition agreements are a kind of foundation. They are different from collective agreements; they are the sort of agreements which give the framework for collective agreements to be made. Collective agreements are altered, modified, revised, replaced, but all under the recognition agreement. This is about cases where there are recognition agreements in existence.
We believe that these should not be overriden, except if that recognition agreement was made in anticipation of legislation and very shortly before it, once the intentions of the Government were made known. Those would be the only possible reasons for overriding the agreement. This is our view. I do not know whether we have got the right date here. It might be, given the fact that this House has already shown the

1611
way it thinks on this, that the noble Lord might like to suggest another date instead of the 10th February; a date after which any agreement made would be an agreement made in order to anticipate the legislation and evade it. That seems to me the only possible reason—I do not say it is a very good reason—for overriding the agreement in this legislation. I think the real issue between us, an issue we have had between us before, is the necessity for agreements to be honoured.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we support this Amendment. It seems to us that there can be no justification either in logic or in justice in choosing a date as long ago as 1967 for the recognition of an agreement of this kind. Therefore, we consider that the date proposed in the Amendment, or some other very recent date, should be adopted.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Government are entirely opposed to this Amendment. I gave the reasons extremely fully in Committee—they appear at columns 399 to 401, Vol.376, of the Official Report—and I have confirmed them several times in discussing similar Amendments tonight. Briefly, the Government position is that we do not intend that long-established warehouses and cold stores should be subject to classification. I was asked what I meant by long-established, and I said those established before the changes in transport, which was about 10 years ago. However, we intend that where cold stores and warehouses have been moved away from the docks but are within the zone—the cargo handling zone or the labour scheme area, as the case may be—the work should be classifiable so that, so far as is possible without injuring the rights of the workers already doing the job, any additional job should go to the dockers who have been thrown out of work at the dockside because of the movement of that work. That could happen if the Amendment were accepted because it would give any trade union a veto immediately to prevent it. We are opposed to that. We think that some care must be exercised in using a veto and we believe that the veto should apply only to the long-established, and that is why the
1612
date 1967 is given. We would not agree that 1976 gives the same result by way of substitution. In our view it gives an entirely different result.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke of "any trade union" Under the Bill it would be only a qualified independent trade union. Surely that makes a considerable difference?
Lord JACQUES: I accept that qualification, my Lords, but our position does not change.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord has not given this the sort of consideration that we wanted from him. He may find that the Bill goes back to the Commons with a date which is not the most suitable date from his point of view, given that some change must be made. The hour is too late for me to deploy the arguments on this matter, but I assure the noble Lord that there are counter arguments to those he gave and which appear at column 400 of the Official Report. They should be deployed, but this is not the time to deploy them; we need the view of a much fuller House. I will, therefore, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Public Inquiries (Notices and Procedures)]:
12.9 a.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 30, line 38, leave out from ("subsection") to ("the") and insert ((1) of section 4, sub-section (10) of section 5 or subsection (4) of section 11 above apply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the last Amendment of this Report stage. This is what earlier we were referring to as some remedial surgery to an Amendment which we discussed in Committee and it provides a better way, we think, of relating Schedule 5 to the main body of the Bill. We have been into it all before and I do not think there is any need to explain it now. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL: CLAUSE 7
  DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL: CLAUSE 7
  COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOLS
  COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOLS